Future contests: types, rules & recommendations (looong)

General discussions pertaining to the Armadillo Run Forum Contests should go here. Also contains the classic contest threads.

Moderator: Moderators

Future contests: types, rules & recommendations (looong)

Postby PeterT » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:10 am

As the contests are the most eminent feature of this forum by far (the contests subforum has about as many posts as all others combined) it's in my (and hopefully your as well) interest to keep them as running as smoothly as possible, and also keeping them interesting. To this end I've recieved various suggestions and also have some own thoughts. Now, with the experience of 10 more-or-less successful contests under our collective belts I think it's time to formulate the rules in an unambigious way and also determine the form the contests should take in the future.

Following is a list of topics and my current opinion of them - as well as a try at summarizing the current state of affairs where I think it's necessary. Note that this is all up for discussion - that's what this thread is for, so if you think that some decision/rule is wrong or could be better, speak up now or remain silent forever. The rules and results from this thread will be organized in a better way and moved to a locked announcement thread after they're finalized.


1) Multiple contest types/leagues
This idea was first brought up by BFC in response to some discussion due to the complexity of a level he designed for the original contest. It recieved some support from other long-timers and prospective rules and differentiating factors for the leagues were also discussed. I put this point as the first one because this decision will obviously influence a lot of the later ones.
I would like to adapt the proposed system of A and B type contests, with details as follows. I could not find any argument against this except that it splits the user base, which may lead to fewer submissions per contest. However, based on the recent past and the steady, if slow, growth of the forum I believe that is acceptable.


2) Contest Level Design
Tradition dictates that the main winner of the previous contest gets to design the level for the next one. Up until contest 5 or even later, there were no additional rules. However, since then, some bugs/features in the physics engine were discovered that made certain constructions very unpredictable and a pain to tweak. Also, some people showed discontent with levels of high complexity and non-standard rulesets, while others enjoyed them. The first concern can be remedied by following simple guidelines during level design. The latter problem should be nicely addressed by the 2 leagues system.

The guidelines in detail -
General, applicable to both A and B:
- Only use rubber when it is unavoidable. If you just want to build something indestructible, iron between only anchor points works nicely.
- Keep small gaps between longer runs of iron. This will detach them and prevent most problems with strangely interacting solutions.
- Related to the above: If there are multiple areas where the players will need to build independent structures in your level, try your utmost to keep them disconnected.
- Provide an ample budget for the level (it doesn't really matter for the contest if there are a few thousand remaining - but you needn't go totally overboard either!) and test the solvability of your level with it.
- Try to design the level in such a way that there is no immediately obvious cheapest method. Ideally, design it such that multiple different paths arrive at nearly the same score. We understand that this is very hard.
- Please follow this naming scheme:
ARFC_[type: A or B]_[RomanNumeral]_[YourNameForTheLevel].lvl
Numbers start from I again and are counted individually for each type, roman numerals are used to prevent the game from thinking the level is part of a set. The level name should now be at the end of the string, that just makes a LOT more sense from a grouping perspective I think. The final string should contain no spaces.
- Remember the highest goal: the contest should be fun!

Additional guidelines for type A:
- No special per-level rules regarding scoring or non-destruction of components. The cheapest (legal, see contest rules) solution wins.
- Only levels that were created using the ingame editor exclusively. (No multiple armadillos, portals, overlong metal bars etc.)
- Levels should be solveable (not cheaply, just solvable!) in no more than 1.5 hours by an average player that has finished the main game and extra levels.

Additional guidelines for type B:
- You may add additional rules, but try to keep them simple enough to be described in, say, 3 sentences. And not run-on ones like I'm prone to writing ;)
- You may meddle with the level file in any way you wish, as long as you test it well
- One contest may consist of more than one level. This fits into the naming scheme by just varying the [YourNameForTheLevel] part.
- Levels should be solvable in 3 hours by regular contestants (higher level of experience compared to the normal players above).


3) Contest Duration and Administration
This is also a point that has been discussed quite a bit. I initially wanted to do 48 hour contests, but it was soon apparent that many people had various real-life obligations that made such a set-up unworkable. So the duration gradually lengthened to about 4 to 5 days. With the new dual system, I propose the following:
- 2 A type contests per week, from sunday to wednesday and from wednesday to sunday
- 1 B type contest per week, from sunday to saturday (to balance the excitement a bit :D)

How to keep the contests running
For the classic contest (cc) most administrative issues were handled by me, mostly because I wanted to make sure that all the files would stay accessible indefinitely (or at least as long as the forum) by putting them on this server. I also wanted to keep the threads formatted in a uniform way to increase usability. But as I probably won't be able to keep up with all this stuff in the future I would like to handle it like this:
- The winner of the previous contest creates a new thread with this headline: ARF Contest [A/B] #[num] (yyyy-mm-dd to mm-dd hh:mm Forum Time)
- Inside the post, they link to the rules, their email address and attach (yes, attach, I'll finally try to install the mod tomorrow) the lvl file (or a zip archive with the lvl + extras)
- Some moderator stickies the thread (and edits it if some crucial information is missing)
- After the deadline is over, the contest host creates a thread with this title: ARF Contest [A/B] #[num] Results
- There he (or she? I fear we have not a single female member :?) announces the winner and attaches a zip containing all solutions.
- If possible, he should also post a short description of the various methods used and post screenshots of a few interesting solutions
- This thread will again be stickied, until the next arrives.

One remaining administrative question I have is this: Should I create 2 seperate subforums for the A and B contests? I believe it could increase the clarity, is there any reason why I should not?


4) Contest Rules
The rules for participation will be the same for A and B contests (except for additional per-contest rules introduced in B). They are closely related to the ones used up to now in the cc. However, there are 2 points that came up recently and not-so-recently that warrant attention:
One is the matter welding: What is welding, what is the force? Answering this question is not trivial, and it is probably the most complicated part of the current ruleset. Thus my question: should welding - and indeed, any form of object interpenetration - be relegated to the "dark side" of solutions? It would certainly make formulating the rules easier.
The other open question that was brought up recently is the posting of scores during contests. There are good arguments on either side here, and I see 4 ways to go: Either a) allow posting and bluffing like up to now, b) allow posting but no bluffing, c) allow only vague posting, for example in steps of 100 or d) allow no posting at all. Personally I would prefer a) or c), as it would be awfully quiet around here otherwise ;)

So, here is my draft:
ARF Contest rules:
- To participate, you must submit your solution(s) (*.lvl file) to the email address provided in the contest thread before the cutoff time.
- You can (and are encouraged to) create multiple solutions. The best one will count, but all that are sufficiently different from one another will be included in the .zip
- However, please don't send in many successive iterative improvements to the same general idea. Rather, wait until you believe you have fully explored and tweaked one path before submitting. (However, a few updates are OK)
- Name your solutions like this: [YourForumName]-[DollarsRemaining]-[SolutionName,optional], for example: PeterT-5866-OverTheTop
- During the contest, you may not talk about the level or your solution in any way, except making very general remarks (i.e. "Nice level!") or posting your current score. [DRAFT - CAN CHANGE]
- However, it is also allowed to bluff - that is, post scores you have not yet reached. [DRAFT - CAN CHANGE]
- To be eligible to win the contest, your solution may not use any bugs in the physics engine. This includes any form of overlapping materials and "the force" that is generated by them in specific configurations. It also includes having the armadillo go outside the level boundaries to fall through solid obstructions. [DRAFT - CAN CHANGE]
- Designs that make use of the above elements can still win the "Dark force" prize, if they score higher than the best "clean" solution.


5) Miscellaneous Issues
Here are a few things that came up that don't fit in with the above.

Collecting medals
Currently, medals are displayed below the username. I plan to keep this up and make no distinction between A and B medals in this case. Also, as soon as any individual reaches 3 or more medals, he turns into a "Contest Legend" and cannot advance further (see BFC for reference). This is both because it would look ridiculous after a while, and because it would be even more of a nightmare for me to administrate.
However, to keep track of the individual medal counts and overall standings, I'll make a scoreboard thread that keeps track of each members exact medal count and ranking. For the purpose of ranking I would like to make a "force" win count 2/3 of a full win. I hope the moderators will help with keeping the first post in this thread up to date.

Equalisers
One idea I had recently was to add a small amount of "cost" to solutions based on the amount of medals owned by the submitter. This would allow newer players to have a better chance at winning, and increase the challenge for the "Legends". However, there are many problems with this:
- To be meaningful, the $ amount would have to vary with the complexity of the level, which is very hard to do in practise.
- It would complicate the scoring.
- Some people may feel offended or treated unfairly because of this.
All in all, I'd reject this motion for now.

Design Contests
Kingofthespill brought this idea up quite a while ago. Many voiced their interest, and I'd think it would be quite a nice change of pace as well. As I understand it there would be a theme proposed and then people would design levels according to that. Of course, the "scoring" would be much harder to do than in normal contests. (Polls? Specialists? Whoever came up with the theme? None at all?) If there is still interest in this, I'll be happy to create a new subforum for this unique type of contest.

Whew, that's it for now. Please don't hurt me for any errors or confusion, it's nearly 5:00 here now :o
Before anyone asks: It took me about as long to research, compose, write down and check the above as it takes to listen to Nightwish's "Oceanborn" and "Wishmaster" albums, and then "Recipe for Hate" by Bad Religion as well. Finally, I had time to listen to the first 3 songs on the "Best of Slayers" OST while reading, correcting and reformatting/formulating based on the preview.
Last edited by PeterT on Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Postby BFC » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:04 am

First off, I want to thank you for your efforts Peter. Without you we'd have no home :)

Now, on to the meat....

I agree with the current state of the draft you have proposed in all areas with the following exceptions and/or my choice for the way it should be handled.

1) Posting of scores in current contest thread: My first preference is (D) but I would be ok with (C). I'm not sure $100 is enough, but it's better than our current system I think. Perhaps limit the score post restriction to only the Type A contests? That is, keep the rule as it is now for the more complex type B contests and restrict score posting to none allowed at all for type A. Perhaps even reverse that, allow score posting for (A) and not (B). Something to think about perhaps. Or even leave that as an extra "rule" that the level author can "enable" on (B) levels? Just some suggestions here, we never fleshed this out like we did on the other stuff.

2) All contest submissions should include the persons forum name and the score for that level. Example: ARCX.BFC-(1000). Or something along those lines. This REALLY helps the person that is hosting the level as I'm sure you probably noticed :)

I'll say that nothing precludes anyone from participating in any/all contests held here. Be it (A) or (B) contest levels. This, in my mind, would not split our player base at all. People will just participate in what they enjoy playing and we'll cater to most of our players this way.

Also, perhaps give an example of how to name the contest files? I am not clear on how to name them from your post.

So we'd have:
(B) contest starting on Sunday and finishing on Saturday.
(A) contest starting on Sunday and finishing on Wednesday.
(A) contest starting on Wednesday and finishing on Sunday.

This will mean people should have a couple of levels ready to go if possible in case they win so we don't have a lull in the action :)

All in all, I like everything quite a bit. It's not as complicated as it may sound at first either. Just a couple extra do's and dont's is all really.

Thanks again,

-BFC
BFC
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:23 pm

Postby PeterT » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:15 am

BFC wrote:1) Posting of scores in current contest thread: [..snip..] Just some suggestions here, we never fleshed this out like we did on the other stuff.
Agreed, I'd like to gather some more opinions on this before we decide anything.

BFC wrote:2) All contest submissions should include the persons forum name and the score for that level. Example: ARCX.BFC-(1000). Or something along those lines. This REALLY helps the person that is hosting the level as I'm sure you probably noticed :)
Very good point. I'll be sure to add that to the rule draft.

BFC wrote:Also, perhaps give an example of how to name the contest files? I am not clear on how to name them from your post.
I feared I'd been going too "programmer" on that part. Here's an example for an A level:
ARFC_A_IV_HeidiHo.lvl
and a B contest containing 2 levels could look like this:
ARFC_B_II_NorwayQuest1.lvl
ARFC_B_II_NorwayQuest2.lvl
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Future contests: types, rules & recommendations (loo

Postby dudiobugtron » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:16 am

PeterT wrote:How to keep the contests running

...

One remaining administrative question I have is this: Should I create 2 seperate subforums for the A and B contests? I believe it could increase the clarity, is there any reason why I should not?


It is a very good idea to split the A and B competitions into different sub-forums.


PeterT wrote:4) Contest Rules
...
Thus my question: should welding - and indeed, any form of object interpenetration - be relegated to the "dark side" of solutions? It would certainly make formulating the rules easier.

The other open question that was brought up recently is the posting of scores during contests. There are good arguments on either side here, and I see 4 ways to go: Either a) allow posting and bluffing like up to now, b) allow posting but no bluffing, c) allow only vague posting, for example in steps of 100 or d) allow no posting at all. Personally I would prefer a) or c), as it would be awfully quiet around here otherwise ;)


I think that as the game stands it is impossible to rule out all instances of using a 'physics bug' - It will lead to a lot of arguments over what is and isn't allowed. For example, BFC posted a solution to ARFC 9 which had the metal bars acting as a weight to hold the armadillo in the right place. however the metal bars were on a rope that at the end lowered them beyond the boundaries of the level, so they overlapped. This is technically 'using' the no-collision-detection bug outside the level boundaries, because it probably wouldn't have worked if they had not overlapped (due to the precise nature of the 'balancing act').

I think rather than globally ruling out all physics-bug use, we should only rule out well-defined instances of it. We should make a decision about each instance, eg: welding, the force, having the armadillo go outside the level boundaries to fall through solid obstructions, pushing the armadillo through unbreakable boundaries, creating unbreakable boundaires by placing a metal or rubber section between two fixed points etc etc...
But it would be silly (and unen'force'able) to rule out all physics bug (ab?)uses in general.

PeterT wrote:Equalisers
One idea I had recently was to add a small amount of "cost" to solutions based on the amount of medals owned by the submitter. This would allow newer players to have a better chance at winning, and increase the challenge for the "Legends". However, there are many problems with this:
- To be meaningful, the $ amount would have to vary with the complexity of the level, which is very hard to do in practise.
- It would complicate the scoring.
- Some people may feel offended or treated unfairly because of this.
All in all, I'd reject this motion for now.


I think this could work well in the B contest - perhaps you could have 'handicaps' as an option for the contest level designer to include if they want, if we didn't want it enforced in each level.

PeterT wrote:Design Contests
Kingofthespill brought this idea up quite a while ago. Many voiced their interest, and I'd think it would be quite a nice change of pace as well. As I understand it there would be a theme proposed and then people would design levels according to that. Of course, the "scoring" would be much harder to do than in normal contests. (Polls? Specialists? Whoever came up with the theme? None at all?) If there is still interest in this, I'll be happy to create a new subforum for this unique type of contest.

I'm all for it!
One problem with this sort of competition is that the scoring system is often based on 'adhereance to the theme' or 'how well they did given the theme' which is much harder to judge than 'how good it is'.
So I propose that for all entries, the contest runner gets to veto any entry which they feel doesn't fit the theme, but after that we just have a poll based on how good the level is.

eg:

Which level do you think is the best?

a) Level 1
b) Level 2
etc...
Last edited by dudiobugtron on Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dudiobugtron
Contest Veteran
Contest Veteran
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby BFC » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:25 am

Dudio,

I think the out of bounds rule only applies to the 'Dillo and not any components that may go out of bounds and still provide a weight or other force.

That is, use of the out of bounds "drop" that folks like to use with rockets. Or, when the 'Dillo interacts with something that's going out of bounds and gets some force added to the system because of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but letting things fall out of bounds or what have you is fine as long as those parts aren't directly touching the 'Dillo or allowing the 'Dillo to fall through structure strictly because it went out of bounds.

As a note, I could live with the OOB drop. It's not abused or even useful most of the time. Only the extra force that occasionally gets added as the 'Dillo goes OOB do I see as a "force" type bug.

-BFC
BFC
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:23 pm

Postby kingofthespill » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:27 am

There is only 1 hot topic for me: welding. I think you mean you want to call anything that puts an endnode directly on some other existing material as using the force. Normal welding without force is part of the game in my opinion, and probably needs to be clarified as such. As for force which leads into a welding position, I understand what people are getting at who want to make that part of the :twisted: force prize. If that can be done simply then it's fine with me, but there are many situations where I can't avoid some welding with force. The thing that specifically comes to mind is trying to use a rubber cannon through existing materials; sometimes the perfect adjustment for power and angle leaves a endnode partially on another material. :roll:

Not so hot topic comments follow... :)

First I think 1-3 seem great. I don't see A as minimalist/void, but you have set up A as a medium challenge v. B is a difficult challenge. That's close enough for me :).

About 4.: I could go any way on the posting.

"- However, please don't send in many successive iterative improvements to the same general idea. Rather, wait until you believe you have fully explored and tweaked one path before submitting. (However, a few updates are OK) "


Apologies as I am one of the culprits here :oops: ! I will work on resisting my email propensity more in the future...

About 5.:
Collecting medals: I don't know how the forum software works, but might it be easier to keep dark and light medals separate? Perhaps 3 of either would make a "contest legend", or separate 3x ones. And 2 ranking lists seems easier to update as well. Bah - I vote for whatever is simplest.

Equalisers: I think you are getting to some ideas like the system they have for chess rating. This is difficult to do in this situation. Separating everyone into only A or only B based on rating would help, but it does not sound like fun for people who want to try both. Perhaps the first "A" of the month would be a "no contest legends contest", and run it that way until the participation drops to something like 4 participants. :idea: :?:

Design Contests: Here are some rough ideas:
    Winner of last design contest picks a theme.

    Edit: People work for 1-4 weeks and upload levels to the forum.

    All participants vote for the level they liked the best other than their own, and the one with the most votes is declared the winner (of a design medal?).


Nice work, Peter
Last edited by kingofthespill on Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
kingofthespill
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:25 pm

Postby dudiobugtron » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:45 am

BFC wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but letting things fall out of bounds or what have you is fine as long as those parts aren't directly touching the 'Dillo or allowing the 'Dillo to fall through structure strictly because it went out of bounds.

Not according to Peter's draft rules - which is what my comment was about. I am saying that there are some physics bugs which it should be OK to have present in your solution.

To show that it is an abuseable bug; if you have a look at the .end file for ARFC 9 you will see a perfect example of how the non-collision bug for objects drastically affects the outcome of the level.

Edit: Also the king is right, very nice work Peter!
User avatar
dudiobugtron
Contest Veteran
Contest Veteran
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby kingofthespill » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:09 am

I just thought of something... restricted materials. I like those, especially to spice up void levels. Is this ok, and how would people define the level for contest #2,A or B?

My expensive test solution for it seems like it points to a "A" labeling.
User avatar
kingofthespill
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:25 pm

Postby PeterT » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:34 pm

As I thought, the welding part is the most complicated ;)
I'm actually happy about the responses, as I personally also like welding and wouldn't want to make it part of the "dirtyness" criteria.

What do you think of this (This is basically equivalent to the curent rules, but more explicit):
- To be eligible to win the contest, your solution may not use any bugs in the physics engine. This includes using the "force" (that is generated when an endpoint of some material intersects with another material) to either provide continuous power (i.e. for rotating mecahnisms) or aid in the destruction of parts of the predefined level.
- However, overlapping materials are OK, as long as none of the above criteria are met. This means that "welding" is allowed, even if the points intersect at the start of the level. [WIP we need a thread in building tips or somewhere that explains the force and welding, with pictures. It can then be linked in the rules]

Now what about having the armadillo leave the level and fall out of some holding mechanism? Should that be in or out?

RE restricted materials:
I see no reason why using or not using those should change the A / B type of a level, unless they make the level too difficult to solve to fit the A restrictions. (Ie. the 2 hours normal player)
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Postby Ogre » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:59 pm

I'm for allowing welding, just not The Force or anything that breaks pieces. Just like your latest comment says. I am also for allowing off-the-edge effects. It hasn't been a problem in any past contest, I'm not worried about it becoming one.

And thanks Peter for putting so much effort into this!
Ogre
Contest Winner
Contest Winner
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:51 am

Postby BioDroid » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:11 pm

The more rules the more messy this will be
BioDroid
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Norway

Postby Malco » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:00 pm

Just to Clarify Peter... is a weld when a link of a piece is not attached to another link but is supported still like the image included or does it have to go through a material like metal or cloth?

Also with the level building competions would they be spectator levels or would they be normal competion levels.

Thanks
Attachments
weld.jpg
(18.24 KiB) Downloaded 3820 times
Malco
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Bristol, England

Postby PeterT » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:03 pm

That is a fine example of welding (that would also be legal under the currently proposed rules)
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Postby Malco » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:23 pm

Thanks,Im all for it then, I wasnt a fan of the tactic when I first started playing the game but its been growing on me ever since. I think the rules set down here sound really good keeping type A open for free thinking and lots of differnet soloutions and limiting people via extra rules/restrictions in Type B to add to the challenge. I look forward to all the extra levels!
Malco
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Bristol, England

Postby PeterT » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:38 pm

From the first "A" contest thread:
kingofthespill wrote:Perhaps your right. I am thinking it matches the "2 hours" by an average player, maybe that is too long?

Funny that you mention that: during the time when I made the initial post I once had 1 hour, then 1 and a half hour and then 2 hours. I increased it as I didn't want people to make the A contests too trivial. Let's see how the first one is recieved and perhaps reduce the guideline to 1 or 1 1/2 hours.
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Next

Return to General Contest Discussion / Classic contest archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron