Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Time's Running Out on IGDC Winter 2008 Polls

  • From"Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 29 Oct 2007 11:31:37 -0500
> > The restriction I'm most interested in seeing is games for a
> > single-Treehouse set. From a biz standpoint, we're very keen on being able
> > to rattle off a list of other games the new purchaser can play with a
> > Treehouse set and nothing else (except commonly-owned materials).
> FWIW, this is a breakdown of (most of the) one-set games:
> http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=What_Can_I_Play%3F#One_Set
> ...I think we've sort of been hammering on them for some time, now,
> outside of the competition. There's a total of 36; in fact, there's
> more: I don't list games on that page until I am out of playtesting,
> some others also comply with that general request (see Games Under
> Development page), and so there's bound to be a handful more to come
> once their rules are nailed down.

One thing I did notice is that that single-set category includes
Martian Coasters.  That's not a "commonly owned item" like a chess
board would be.  I think, perhaps, that single-set should not simply
refer to the number of TH sets needed, but also that only common items
are needed.  MC ought to come under something like "single-set-plus"
(and all single-set games would be included in single-set-plus).

> > My second choice would be games that use 2 Treehouse sets (or parts
> > thereof). As we pitch people on the system, we look forward to being able
> > to say "here are some games you can play when you get your second set,"
> ...Unless there's a strong, last-minute quorum and consensus
> otherwise--and given that "xHOUSE" is the current leader, with three
> votes (counting yours) out of 6/7 votes so far--2HOUSE will probably be
> the restriction for Winter 2008.

I think 2HOUSE would be my favourite suggestion too.

> > > Designer Ballots - Never rank your own game, assumed to be ranked first,
> > > or free to self-rank however.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion here. I guess I'd say never rank your own
> > game.
> So-noted, breaking the 3-3 tie. If anyone else has an opinion, now's the
> time to get it voiced! Mere days remain to build consensus.

I think never rank your own game is the easiest way.  With the
modified condorcet ranking, leaving it off doesn't harm it.

My concern with the "let's assume the designer will rank their own
first" is it's a faulty assumption.  I'm often willing to admit that
other people's ideas are better tan my own, in appropriate context.
The problem, after that, if we allow ranking is that it gives those
designers who are willing to admit theirs is not the best a
disadvantage compared to those who choose to rank their own in first
place whether they believe it to be the case or not.

So, not making the faulty assumption, and not leaving it open to abuse
seem to be obvious to me.  Therefore, any designer's ballot that ranks
their own game should have their own game removed and the ballot
adjusted accordingly (no need to reject their ballot if that's the
only deficiency)

Regarding having play testing at conventions, I can see both sides.
On the one hand, we have a bunch of people who can dedicatedly test a
ton of games.  On the other, a large part of conventions is to
introduce new people to a great product.  Introducing new people to
games that may be "lacking" could be detrimental.  Also, taking Rabbit
time from helping new people to playing and ranking games in the
contest is also likely to be detrimental.

So, I'm inclined to think that scheduling the contests to not be
during those times seems better.  What might be a good idea, if the
timings fit, would be to have the judging end shortly[1] before the
two big events (for Looney Labs), so that these new games can be
either announced, or at least promoted at those events.  That, in
turn, would promote the contest itself, and possibly increase the
number of people entering, and ultimately, improve the quality of
winning entries.