Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Design Competition?

  • FromBrian Campbell <lambda@xxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 12 Jul 2007 12:22:49 -0400
On Jul 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, David Artman wrote:

Apparently 2006 didn't have a single "quarterly" competition; we shouldn't let 2007 go by without at least one contest!

Should I take charge, if no one else is doing so at the moment?

Yeah, the last time we discussed this was a back in April, and I offered to run it. However, both life, and setting up the Rabbit Wiki intervened, and I haven't had a chance to get around to it since. I keep on meaning to work on it, and was really hoping to get it running before Origins so people could do playtesting then, but missed that deadline.

If you would like, I can run it, as we discussed back in April. It might be nice for me to do that, since I don't have any game designs I would want to enter. If I do run it, my hard deadline for actually getting everything organized is July 27th, since I'm going away on vacation for 2 weeks, which would be a good submission period, and then I could start the testing and voting period afterwards. This would also put GenCon right in the middle of the voting period, which I think would be good for getting people to playtest the games (usually the hardest part of an IGDC is getting enough people to submit votes).

Your proposed rules seem pretty good, though I would do things a little differently. I would just let people post their entries on a wiki page for submissions, not do things through email; the only part that really needs to done through email is voting.

Also, for voting, Zarf had some python scripts for doing Condorcet/ ranked-pairs voting that he sent me, and I was in the middle of trying to get up and running again (they're based on some outdated python libraries, and need to be worked on). Ranked pairs voting is, I believe, a better system than instant runoff voting, since it gives you the game that would win in any pairwise vote between two games (if you chose any two of games, it gives you the game that would win in a vote between those two, unless there is a cycle of games that would each beat each other in such a situation). Instant runnoff doesn't have this property, and there are some cases in instant runoff where the strategic thing to do is vote something lower than you actually believe it should be in order to get a better outcome in the final vote. Zarfs scripts handle partial ballots just fine, so if I can get them working they'd probably be the best thing to use.