Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 29 Oct 2007 10:54:34 -0700
> From: "Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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 never said that all of that list conforms to Andy's "one set plus
common stuff." I just used it as an example of how many games one can
play with one set and, thus, why a 1HOUSE restriction is sort of moot
(i.e. many of us have been designing under that restriction, anyway, for
demoing purposes).

(And, as Avri points out, the "1HOUSE booklet" could have as many at 20
games: Pocket Pyramids, whenever I remember to send my working DOC file
to Avri. ;) Sorry, Avri--holiday blew it from memory; will try to
remember tomorrow.)

> 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).

A better solution would be to make another footnote symbol for the
Legend for that section (+) and then go through all games, marking those
which require something uncommon. I think, however, that such a process
it is of limited value--remember, we WANT people to see all the cool
games they can play with MCs and thereby want to buy MCs. Calling out
games that require another Looney product gives the use of MCs the
character of a "limitation" and (I believe) the wiki should be

> I think 2HOUSE would be my favourite suggestion too.

4++ votes (would you note on wiki, as I know you can do so easily?).

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

Again, could you note that on the wiki? For the record? Thanks. (I'll
edit wiki for the very busy Andy and Kristin, but c'mon... it's a wiki
for a reason.)

> 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

That's not how it's written on the wiki poll; that's me summarizing the
options as briefly as possible.

If you read the debate on the IGDC Talk page, you'll see that someone
thought our CRP method "hurts" the designers; we've since explained that
it's "neutral" if one leaves one's own game off.

However, there's another case: one *wants* ones game to do well, and one
deserves to rank it high, if one believe it's good. Those designers are
sort of screwed out of precious points, being *forced* to abstain on
their own game. But (as you say) those who are given free reign might
hamstring themselves (or might be tempted to rank themselves higher,
same diff). Thus, the middle ground of "Designers automatically rank
their own games first," the actual 2nd option.

> 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)

Well, as I say above, there's a middle ground of forcing a designer to
rank themselves first.

> 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.

Demoing Treehouse all day is also seriously lacking; any laser focus on
available products hurts IH promotion, I have found.

Martian Coasters is tough to sell if one allows the punter to perceive
it as only one game; so showing potentially "lacking" games that are in
design--few, if any, MCs games are out of playtest ATM--at least shows
that the IH system and MCs "expansion" is much larger than it appears
sitting on the store shelf.

Sure, sure, I tend to stick with PWP and other heavy-hitters... but
recall I also said something about "promoting community". The IGDC shows
that we have an active, passionate community more so than the games
available as products, I believe. And frankly, it was the community that
made me fall for IH, not just the mids.

> So, I'm inclined to think that scheduling the contests to not be
> during those times seems better.

During Spring/Fall? Winter/Summer? I'm confused.

> 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.

Well, frankly, then Winter/Summer is ideal: the Winter games are all
judged, refined, and out of playtest before con season even starts. And
any punters at the cons who ask about how to get involved can be
directed to the Summer one, in progress!

How could a Spring and Fall timing be any better, for promotion of IGDC
at cons? One's just done before con-season begins in March, another is
underway, as we promote both the new, finished IGDC games and drive
folks to the on-going current IGDC by June 21st (days before Origins)?
Summer IGDC would be finished LONG before GenCon, so then you'd have two
recent IGDCs' games PLUS could maybe encourage folks to get involved in
time for the Winter one (as con season wraps up: a whole summer and fall
of encouragement for the Winter one).

Yep, the more I think about it, the LESS I think cons timing is in any
way a problem, except for a handful of folks whose annual business cycle
makes them very busy with cons.

> From: "Avri Klemer" <avri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> product.  Seems clear, then, that 2HOUSE is the way to go.  Martian Coasters 
> will no doubt get more love a little further down the line . . .

No one said you *can't* design a game using MCs, just that they won't be
the contest focus for *all* games (if votes stays as they are now).

In fact... if it's gonna be 2HOUSE... I might already done with my game,
which uses MCs.