Page 3 of 5

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 20:24
by Willhart
I think the short time limit worked pretty well last time, though you should still try to give at least couple of days so the quality won't be too rushed.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 20:45
by pholtos
Putting into my perspective, I enjoyed the small time limit.

Although if there was more time, I probably would have made my boss longer. (although given my mindset I mighta not added anything else anyway)
Congrats on winning MAFAB2 Frozey. :3c

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 20:57
by Dragon Fogel
I thought it was a nice challenge, it felt more like a test of what I'd learned in making my level for the main contest.

You could also hold off on settling details until you know how many entries the main contest gets - if it winds up on the small side, a longer and more visible boss contest wouldn't be that much of a problem. Though it probably shouldn't be longer than a week at most.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 21:46
by sedron
I like the shorter time limit in theory but it happened to coincide with some harsh stuff at work for me last contest which meant I had even less time to work on it so I dunno. I'm not sure if a lot of other people could be put in similar situations? It basically meant I had to rush my submission really badly and I don't want others to have to do that.

Maybe just announce the contest start date ahead of time? And when it starts you can actually talk about the gimmick and such? At least with a heads up people can plan around that short time frame.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 22:29
by Willhart
I pretty much did not sleep before my level was done/close to complete.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 22:32
by pholtos
sedron wrote: I like the shorter time limit in theory but it happened to coincide with some harsh stuff at work for me last contest which meant I had even less time to work on it so I dunno. I'm not sure if a lot of other people could be put in similar situations? It basically meant I had to rush my submission really badly and I don't want others to have to do that.
Here's an idea:
People who wish to participate find n days in a row they have free, out of a larger time frame for mafab2. When you find time to work on it during the overall time frame, send a pm and then you'll receive the rules for mafab2 plus your randomly selected whatever. That way it can be a balance between allowing people time to work on it while also keeping the short time frame.

For instance say you get 3 days to make a boss, and overall there's 2 weeks to send a pm to make a boss (in other words, a total of 2 weeks and 3 days to submit a boss).
So in other words:
Jim wants to join after seeing the mafab2 announcement post the day it goes up, waits 2 weeks and sends a pm to ask to join on the last day you can send a pm, 3 days go by and he submits.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 30 Apr 2017, 07:08
by Zha Hong Lang
raocow wrote: 7 years ago QUESTION

so we know that mafab2 is gonna be happening. Do people like the 'very little amount of time' thing from the first (and technically 0) or would people be interested in having a decent amount of time to work on that too?
I didn't like the short time, because during MaGLX2 I only found out the boss contest was even happening on the day of the deadline. I might've participated, but the fact I didn't check the talkhaus every day, and the fact that there was such short notice meant I was locked out of participation since I couldn't make time to create my entry.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 30 Apr 2017, 07:18
by Dragon Fogel
Well, it's worth noting that keeping participation down was one of the goals, due to the overwhelming size of the main contest; the boss contest was deliberately designed to be less visible and on a shorter timeframe so it would get a less ridiculous number of entries. I know that's not great for you, but it was kind of the point at the time.

Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be changed this time around. I like the idea of keeping it short but announcing the dates in advance, so people can try to clear their schedules.

I'm not sure about having individualized timers; it would be convenient, but also a fair amount of work. I guess that's mainly a question of if Sturg's willing to put in the work on that.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 30 Apr 2017, 11:31
by Zha Hong Lang
Dragon Fogel wrote: 7 years ago Well, it's worth noting that keeping participation down was one of the goals, due to the overwhelming size of the main contest; the boss contest was deliberately designed to be less visible and on a shorter timeframe so it would get a less ridiculous number of entries. I know that's not great for you, but it was kind of the point at the time.

Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be changed this time around. I like the idea of keeping it short but announcing the dates in advance, so people can try to clear their schedules.
I understand, although I believe that not announcing it in advance and not creating extensions would already have been good enough cop-outs. Three days to do a boss might have been a little too much pressure, especially quality-wise. But I guess that it's less of an issue I have with the particular execution and more with the spirit of the contest itself, like I have with MaGL X.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 30 Apr 2017, 17:10
by Rixithechao
Seconding having mafab2's dates be announced further in advance. I was actually interested in participating the first time around and it was a major letdown to find out I'd just barely missed it.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 02 May 2017, 14:21
by Willhart
It'd help people to make sure they have time and rest before it.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 02:55
by Sturg
Howdy, just got finished with finals.
Image
So let's get this ball sort of rolling.

ContentID
I'd prefer to restrict musical choice as little as possible here. I mean personally, music is a huge part of a level's personality that I feel it would discourage creativity. Although, many including raocow have mentioned concern towards this issue, as such there will be methods to prevent this. Obvious songs from pop culture/Nintendo/Capcom/Konami and the like will definitely be discouraged, but it'd probably be better if there weren't a repository or pool of music sources, as I feel that's too restricting. A warning within the rules of the contest will state that "a level's music may be asked to be changed by the creator if it conflicts with ContentID," which will hopefully reduce a good amount of issues.

Secondly, can Youtube ContentID a private video? I'm asking for the sake that if test videos are used to check for music matches, it can be done privately (If not, I have another method avoid spoiling songs, if people are actually concerned about that). Do note, however, that if this form of a process is done, it will very much likely delay the results/playable episode. Creators would need to change music and the tests themselves might take a bit.


2nd Gimmick Draft
A few have addressed some concerns regarding the gimmick, such as the NPC usage/difficulty. Having put some thought into it, I made a couple tweaks to the current gimmick. To help explain the gimmick again, here is another example:
Image

You pick one item from each list and try to implement it into your level. Depending on how well you do will change the amount of points you get from that list, with each list being 4 points.

Changes:
  • Diffiulties were taken out as it was troublesome deciding which words were harder than others, also since I've come to realize the difficulties were unnecessary.
  • The category "Object" has been replaced with the category "Verb," as I feel the term "object" is overly vague and too chaotic to manage fair judging. Plus, I just feel that this category would suit much better. Note that the Verbs should not be ending in "ing," that's just a little error in the image on my part.
Please note that for the NPC category, no one will be penalized for using other NPCs. This category only grades what you do with that specific NPC.

Also, note that if you make any graphical changes, .txt edits, or Lua alterations, there should still be some resemblance of the initial NPC in order to get points.

Lastly, it's been said already, but I'll mention it again: we'll have contestants, in a txt file or otherwise, say what they have used from the lists. They should not, however, have to explain why their implementation makes sense. I firmly believe that if an element is used well, it should not have to be mentioned and can be identified just from playing it.

Judge Selection Times/Method
Judges will be selected sometime during this Summer, depending on when the sample levels are finished. Again, it's been mentioned, but judges will be selected through a process of "application and audition." They will fill out a form, and then will be asked to judge a couple sample levels that will let me see your judging process. I thought a little about having a formal public vote, but I haven't eased in on the idea to be perfectly honest.

Discourage Levels?
Ignoritus wrote: 7 years ago No. It's not for any one person to decide what qualifies a 'proper level'. I quite enjoyed Fawriel's entry. If the judges don't approve, then that's their own prerogative. Nothing good can come from trying to externally control what entries attempt to do.
This is pretty much my opinion. With exception to the gimmick (and some musical choice), I'd like to keep the limiting an entrant's creativity as little as possible.

One issue I feel amplified this problem in MaGLX2 was ordering each level by rank. For a 200+ level contest, it made many people believe that (as an example) 64th place was 10X better than 43rd, wherein actuality it was only ahead by 5 points. Situations like "A Nice Level" can be diminished if all levels were arranged differently so that the rank aspect of entries has less of an impact.

Other Stuff
  • I agree to announce the MaFaB dates prior to when it actually begins.
  • I'd like to release the Full Playable episode on the LP date. Doing this, however, would require additional testing and overall longer quality control.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 04:01
by Ivy
Lol the "electrifying" threw me off; at first I thought there were two adjective columns.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 04:04
by Dragon Fogel
Sturg wrote: 7 years ago Lastly, it's been said already, but I'll mention it again: we'll have contestants, in a txt file or otherwise, say what they have used from the lists. They should not, however, have to explain why their implementation makes sense. I firmly believe that if an element is used well, it should not have to be mentioned and can be identified just from playing it.
The problem with this is that not everyone is going to be able to identify it.

The level maker might use a definition of a word, or a phrase involving it, that one of the judges isn't familiar with. For example, suppose someone gets the verb "fish", and then makes a level where Mario goes around trying to get people to compliment him - "fishing for compliments".

But if the word "fish" is never used in the level, one of the judges might overlook that - either because they're not familiar with the phrase, or they're just distracted by whatever else is happening in the level. Or maybe they've been doing a bunch of judging that day and they're a little worn out. Whatever the reason, they miss the implication.

And then the contest gets released and a bunch of people pile on the judge for not catching that. All the judge can really say in response is "whoops".

But, as I said before, I don't want judges reading those explanations until after they've played the level and put down their scores without the explanations. It's just about preventing a judge from completely overlooking something. I agree that what the level conveys on its own is important; I just think that, realistically, judges are going to miss things a few times here and there, and it would be better to prevent that.

Additional benefit: it means there's a record, in case people forget their choices by the time the LP rolls around.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 05:23
by Ignoritus
I agree that it's probably best for people to explain their applications of their attributes. I know at least one level in MaGLX1 got docked points from me simply because I didn't understand the application of the name.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 08:19
by ztarwuff
Sturg wrote: ContentID
I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but I thought I'd suggest perhaps discouraging copyrighted music through score penalties? Don't make it a huge score penalty, though. Something along the lines of negative one or two points.
One issue I feel amplified this problem in MaGLX2 was ordering each level by rank. For a 200+ level contest, it made many people believe that (as an example) 64th place was 10X better than 43rd, wherein actuality it was only ahead by 5 points. Situations like "A Nice Level" can be diminished if all levels were arranged differently so that the rank aspect of entries has less of an impact.
How's about arranging them in a similar fashion to the VLDC contest by world? You can then sub-arrange them by difficulty. The Final World would be the top ten. You could also have a Disqualified World for levels that ignored the spirit of the contest.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 09:33
by Mabel
Sturg wrote: 7 years ago Secondly, can Youtube ContentID a private video?
yep. so be careful about that.

if youre checking music marking it as unlisted is a good idea or just uploading the song itself.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 09:41
by Sturg
Dragon Fogel wrote: 7 years ago But, as I said before, I don't want judges reading those explanations until after they've played the level and put down their scores without the explanations. It's just about preventing a judge from completely overlooking something. I agree that what the level conveys on its own is important; I just think that, realistically, judges are going to miss things a few times here and there, and it would be better to prevent that.

Additional benefit: it means there's a record, in case people forget their choices by the time the LP rolls around.
Sure. I'd suggest though that explanations should be limited via word count so that they don't turn into "why I deserve full points" responses, as it really shouldn't take that much wording for that sort of thing. Plus, it'd take way longer to judge if each explanation was 100+ words.
ztarwuff wrote: I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but I thought I'd suggest perhaps discouraging copyrighted music through score penalties? Don't make it a huge score penalty, though. Something along the lines of negative one or two points.
I'm actively against this. We've seen examples of A2XT/ASMBXT of songs taken that weren't obvious they'd get ID'd from the get-go, and I believe a guy shouldn't be penalized for something they can't completely predict even if the penalty is minute.
Mabel wrote: yep. so be careful about that.

if youre checking music marking it as unlisted is a good idea or just uploading the song itself.
Noted.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 12:13
by SAJewers
Sturg wrote: 7 years ago Secondly, can Youtube ContentID a private video?

[..]
Situations like "A Nice Level" can be diminished if all levels were arranged differently so that the rank aspect of entries has less of an impact.

[..]
I'd like to release the Full Playable episode on the LP date. Doing this, however, would require additional testing and overall longer quality control.
for the first point, apparently yes. Points 2 and 3 I fully agree with.

Also, just thought of this, but what about levels like that No Smoking levelSmoking Kills from MaGL2 that eschews the prompt/gimmick altogether? I take it those are fine?

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 03 May 2017, 13:48
by Zha Hong Lang
SAJewers wrote: 7 years agoAlso, just thought of this, but what about levels like that No Smoking levelSmoking Kills from MaGL2 that eschews the prompt/gimmick altogether? I take it those are fine?
I'd assume that would be fine, since Fawriel's level was an outlier for that reason as well as its obvious other things.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 04 May 2017, 14:05
by Lespna01
So is this one for SMW like the one last year? What are the dates for it?

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 04 May 2017, 15:31
by Zha Hong Lang
Lespna01 wrote: 6 years ago So is this one for SMW like the one last year? What are the dates for it?
You're correct, sorta. MaGL X is more or less a MaGL for SMBX, although it has different expectations due to the way it's been specifically done, and will be done in the case of MaGL X3.

MaGL X3 won't be happening for a little while, so you won't have to be worrying about dates yet. That'll be something to think about in Q3 or Q4, perhaps, but not now.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 06 May 2017, 03:41
by ohmato
i'm gettin that gold this time and ain't none of you clowns stoppin me

also i didn't know there was voting going on but i'm glad out of all the clowns sturg won top clownarooni

good job

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 12 May 2017, 23:51
by Sturg
Heyo, just a couple of quick questions for y'all, as I am curious about the general opinion of the current gimmick:

  1. Does the current gimmick feel a little too restricting or complicated with having to utilize five lists?
  2. Is there any list you feel needs tweaking and/or clarification?
  3. If you could get rid of any list, which one would it be?
I was generating the full lists today and became suspicious that the gimmick might be a bit overwhelming. Although it is only 1/6 of the total score, is being encouraged to use five different elements a little too much? Just fine?

I already have some alternative solutions in place to remedy the gimmick if the general opinion does sway heavily one way, so feel free to answer these openly.

Re: MAGLX3 - Pre-Discussion/Feedback Thread

Posted: 13 May 2017, 03:09
by Dragon Fogel
I feel like the most questionable list is the second Location. I'm not saying there aren't good ideas that involve combining two locations, just that a single location might work better for some peoples' ideas. Enough that it does seem worth asking the question "should using two locations be an automatic four point bonus".

To be clear, I don't strongly object, and combining locations is a cool idea. This is just the main doubt I have regarding it.

Since people will get more than one word per category, perhaps the last category could be "Your Choice", and participants who use it can pick a second option from any of the other categories? (They can also use more of the options if they want, but they have to specify which ones they want to be scored on.) Just an idea to toss out there.