It's about time to start talking about what we're doing this year.
First of all, this year's events will be taking place in August. I'd like for it to run from August 1st to August 24th. A bit shorter than in previous years, but the old Pyolympics tended to be a mess of missed deadlines anyway. Let's see about keeping this one a little tighter.
Secondly, a change that I'm enforcing with a taser: No nations. None. This means that your points are yours and yours alone, and if you want to participate in an event, you can. A few events may feature a bit of teaming up with competitors, but for the most part, you're responsible for your own participation and your own victory.
That change will also make judging a little easier: anyone who isn't participating in a Contest will be eligible to judge it, because the lack of teams will alleviate bias.
(also, it makes Werewolf possible, but we can discuss that some other time)
In light of that, I'd like to weight Contents more heavily than Games this year. Contests are far easier to participate in, because many people do not own or do not care for many of the Games that others do. Here's my initial thoughts on the medal chart, piss on it if you want to:
Contests (n = number of participants)
MedalsGold: 5 points + n (max 15)
Silver: 2 points + n (max 12)
Bronze: n (max 10)
AwardsHonorable Mention (4th): n / 2 (minimum 1)
Judge's Favor: +1
Participant: 1
So, in a Contest with 6 participants, Gold gets 11 points, Silver gets 8 points, Bronze gets 6 points, and an Honorable Mention gets 3 points.
(edit: In line with the below examples, here's one for 8 participants: Gold gets 13, Silver gets 10, Bronze gets 8, Hon. Mention gets 4)
A Judge may hand out a single one-point Judge's Favor award to an entry in the contest. If the entry doesn't win a Medal, the participant receives a point for each Judge's Favor award. If the entry does get a Medal, the participant gets half a point for each Judge's Favor award, rounding down.
Judges must award a score of
integers 1 through 10 to every entry in the contest. Minimum of three, maximum of five judges per contest.
If a judge is being an ass, then the Arbiter's Panel (members TBD) reserves the right to shit up his nose, nullifying his scorecard and rendering him ineligible to judge further contests. Examples of assitude: giving 10 to one entry and 1 to all others (unless they really deserve it), giving good scores to retarded scribbles and bad scores to legitimate attempts, rolling dice to come up with scores. (Judge's Favor points are not subject to these rules.)
All participants get at least 1 point.
GamesThere are going to be two scoring categories for Games: Free Games and Commercial Games. Free Games will be worth more.
This scoring system applies equally to high-score challenges and tournaments, though I'd appreciate feedback on the subject.
Game challenges without at least three participants do not award points.
Free Game Scoring (n = number of participants)
1st Place: n + 1
2nd Place: (n + 1) / 2
3rd Place: (n + 1) / 3
So, in a Free Game tournament where 8 players participated, the winner gets 9 points, the runner-up gets 5 points, and the 3rd place guy gets 3 points.
Commercial Game Scoring1st Place: n - 2
2nd Place: (n - 2) / 2
3rd Place: (n - 2) / 3
In a Commercial Game tourney with 8 players, the winner gets 6 points, the runner up gets 3 points, and the 3rd placer gets 1 point.
Commercial games are weighted against because it is unfair to require people to pay money to receive points. Why does it matter in a silly online competition?
Because there's something new that I want to do this year. This may be controversial, but here goes.
PrizesIn an effort to encourage strong participation, and to maintain interest throughout the event, I'd like for us to offer prizes to the winners.
The prizes themselves will come from us, Dirty Santa style. Participants may, but
are not required to, pledge to add something to the Prize Pool. If a Participant places something in the Prize Pool, he receives a Pyolympic point award of 5 points for a small contribution, or 10 points for a large contribution. The difference between a "small" and "large" contribution is something I'd like to debate, but I would like to set a hard maximum of 10 points on the bonus.
(Just so I don't get into trouble, I'm going to forfeit my own point reward for my future contribution to the Prize Pool.)
One's pledge can be anything they are willing to give up. I'm going to go ahead and say that
money is not allowed; we can discuss that later if you want. You can purchase gifts, if you really want to, but it is by no means a requirement.
All pledges to the Prize Pool must be awarded. That means that even if the 1st place winner made a large pledge, it must still be sent to the 2nd and 3rd place winners.
I suggest distributing the Prize Pool in the form of a draft. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners will get into a chatroom together, and proceed in the following order:
1st: Pick 1
2nd: Pick 2
3rd: Pick 3
1st: Pick 4, 5
2nd: Pick 6
3rd: Pick 7
1st: Pick 8, 9, 10
2nd: Pick 11, 12
3rd: Pick 13
1st: Pick 14, 15, 16
2nd: Pick 17, 18
3rd: Pick 19
So, in the first 19 prize picks, 1st place gets 9 of them (47%), 2nd place gets 6 (31%), and 3rd gets 4 (21%). The three can swap prizes or picks as they see fit, it doesn't really matter, as long as each of them has the right to keep each prize they pick. (The distribution gets a little bit better for 1st place as it goes on, but I doubt picks beyond 19 are going to progress normally anyway.)
Part of the hurdle here is how to itemize Prize Pool contributions, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
So, before I exhaust myself, I'll just bullet-point the things I want to discuss
in this thread:* Scheduling
* Point distribution
* Contest judgment
* Prizes
Game and Contest ideas should go in
this thread.
Author
Topic: WOE Planning Board (Read 6191 times)