With so many entries, maybe they should be divided into two (or 4) groups. We could vote on and critique the first group and the top three move on. Then repeat for the second group. Then vote on the six finalists. Since this is taking place of the march gds we have more time to do this.
Im thinking how daunting its going to be reading through, critiquing, and then voting on 37 games at one time!
Anyway, just a suggestion.
Oops, I just noticed the 11th is the deadline for the voting and not for the submission. Otherwies it would have been 38 gemes.
Good luck to all who were able to read the contest rules correctly!
While the potential to get published is a nice motivator, it was just as much the extended time which brought me back to the GDS. While I appreciate the spirit of the rapid turnover GDS, my life just doesn't allow me to participate in the normal showdown. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
I appreciated having more time and I would like to think that I would have entered regardless of Tasty Minstrel's involvement.
What is the likelihood that we'll be playing a lot of dice games at Spring Spielbany? ;-)
peace,
Tom
Kind of a noob at this showdown thing. Where can I review the entries to cast my vote?
I personaly think I would encounter some difficulties giving enough time to properly "evaluate" what I think about one game or the other if we don't proceed this way...
Honestly, the only reason I entered this GDS is that I was instantly hooked by MM's original request for dice games, and didn't see another appropriate way to reply to it once it was made the subject of the contest. While I'll admit the extra constraints spurred me into completing a (much simplified) version of my game earlier than I otherwise might, I can't help but wonder how much farther some of the designs might go if all this energy were channeled into cooperation rather than competition...I really miss the old GDW (workshop).
I tend to think that, besides the competition, some games will continue to develop and I'm pretty sure there can be some cooperation between members here after the results and everything.
I think some of the contestants must have had ideas that could nicely blend together or something in that spirit...
I agree with the idea of several rounds of voting to break up the (unprecedented) 37 entries. I'm not sure how Seth would go about dividing them, although I'd trust him to do it fairly, and in any case I think that each game will receive more attention this way.
Seems like a good idea. Let people take time to read the entries.
Don't anybody over work themselves on my account :)
This is s'posed to be FUN!! Plus the idea of advancing "brackets" makes it feel like a real competition anyway.
Where do I go to see the entries in the Challange?
The entries are not published yet...
Just wanna say a quick Thank You to sedjtroll for handling a cool, fun competition that got way more entries than normal. You put a lot of work into this, Seth, and we appreciate it.
Seems like it might be easier on me, too, as I can post a subset and then post the rest later (without holding things up)
So once voting starts are we casting six votes amongst all entries like normal Or are we casting six votes in each of the four groupings?
Just finish reading all 38 games. Yep, same here, thank you sedjtroll for your fun competition!
Seems like it might be easier on me, too, as I can post a subset and then post the rest later (without holding things up)
So once voting starts are we casting six votes amongst all entries like normal Or are we casting six votes in each of the four groupings?
Cool. How long is the voting window?
Can someone post a list of all the game titles for us to use to take notes and submit our votes? Thanks!
peace,
Tom
You're definitely lazy Tom !! :-)
May I bring my knowledge of political science into this and make a suggestion?
30 votes is very likely to produce a winner that most people dislike and is highly susceptible to vote manipulation. Mostly because each person is not sure how to value his vote, you will make the inherent problem of the six votes distributed disproportionately system we have been using even worse with 30.
You should make this a two-tiered vote. Allow people to pick the six games that they like and perform a two day run off between the top six vote getters.
Although it is possible to demonstrate theoretically an alignment of preferences where this run off mechanism produces a pareto sub-optimal outcome, it is highly unlikely to do so in practice with a run off between the top six. At least, it is more unlikely to do so than through 30 votes a piece.
May I bring my knowledge of political science into this and make a suggestion?
30 votes is very likely to produce a winner that most people dislike and is highly susceptible to vote manipulation. Mostly because each person is not sure how to value his vote, you will make the inherent problem of the six votes distributed disproportionately system we have been using even worse with 30.
You should make this a two-tiered vote. Allow people to pick the six games that they like and perform a two day run off between the top six vote getters.
Although it is possible to demonstrate theoretically an alignment of preferences where this run off mechanism produces a pareto sub-optimal outcome, it is highly unlikely to do so in practice with a run off between the top six. At least, it is more unlikely to do so than through 30 votes a piece.
I'll post that change in the main thread!
Thanks Richard.
If Seth can arrange all the entries, then I suppose I can manage to cut and paste 38 strings of text. Here's the list...
Entry #1 - BOOM
Entry #2 - Trials of Sun Tzu
Entry #3 - Dice Cube
Entry #4 - Dice Challange
Entry #5 - Auctions and Alms
Entry #6 - Sky-Fi
Entry #7 - Shipwrecked!
Entry #8 - Nightshade vs. Milkweed
Entry #9 - Dice Bowling
Entry #10 - Pocket Wars
Entry #11 - Rainbow
Entry #12 - SMOKEY THE DUCK
Entry #13 - DiceFu
Entry #14 - GEOMANCER
Entry #15 - Mythic Dice
Entry #16 - Dicestorm
Entry #17 - Dice Fighting Warriors
Entry #18 - Arabian Knights
Entry #19 - Atelier Alea
Entry #20 - Naruil Airfoil Race Championship
Entry #21 - Gobble
Entry #22 - Shooting Gallery
Entry #23 - Head to head
Entry #24 - Dice Defense
Entry #25 - World War Dice
Entry #26 - Buy Low, Roll High
Entry #27 - King of the Nets
Entry #28 - Died in the Wool
Entry #29 - Zombie Blitz
Entry #30 - Plunder on the Horizon
Entry #31 - Dicey Dilemma
Entry #32 - Mutinous Dogs!
Entry #33 - Rolling Plunder
Entry #34 - Brew
Entry #35 - D'ice Cubes: the Battle of Frostflake Pond
Entry #36 - Instant Skirmish
Entry #37 - Sabredance
Entry #38 - THE DICE GODS MUST BE CRAZY
While we're tweaking the voting rules, this might be a good opportunity to get rid of the conflict of interest that comes with (quite reasonably) not being allowed to vote for one's own entries. At least in this case, with votes binary anyway, why not count a self-vote for each voting entrant?
Wouldn't that be the same as no vote? I mean if everyone gets one vote for themselves it’s all equal.
Wouldn't that be the same as no vote? I mean if everyone gets one vote for themselves it’s all equal.
It would encourage voting in this first round (no votes for those who don't send in their top 10). It may not mean a big deal to the result, but a good deal to the feeling of voting...
I think what people are getting at is that the way the voting system is now it is to ones advantage not to vote at all. If I vote for ten other entries it is like a -1 vote for myself (I advance everyone but myself). Now if everyone votes the inherent disadvantage evens out and the system works. However if I abstain from voting im better off (I don't advance the other entries in relation to my own).
Personally I think this is not in the spirit if the contest so im going to vote anyway and I encourage everyone to do the same.
Personally I think this is not in the spirit if the contest so im going to vote anyway and I encourage everyone to do the same.
Or worse, if people enter and don't vote, I could quit running GDS at all, and see how they like that (if they don't want to participate anyway). The other option is probably better though...
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"[GDS] February 2011 Game Design Showdown - "The Dice Gods Must Be Crazy" - Comments and Questions\""){kind=small}
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (0) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
This IS a pretty good idea, and I'd probably divide them 'randomly' (or alphabetically) - having not read them myself should make that a pretty fair division.
Seems like it might be easier on me, too, as I can post a subset and then post the rest later (without holding things up)