Planning/Brainstorm for Next Mod Contest

Alright, so, this is not an organisation thread. For the time being I have no real intention to run a contest myself, especially when it comes to actual prizes and the like. I'd rather post this now though, to get it in before anything might start happening. Maybe coming up with something together wouldn't be such a bad idea in the first place.

The last mod content stirred up several sticking points which could do with some addressing prior to the next attempt being made. I'll pick out a few to start:

Submission etiquette/rulings. There was a lot of concealment and stress regarding entries being posted last year and I didn't like it one bit. Granted, it was the first time we've had a contest where there was enough involvement to hope for more than being thankful for getting any at all, but this should really not be a topic of any controversy. It would also be preferable to try something more flexible than a simple flat deadline. One idea I had was to set a submission deadline (e.g. after three weeks) and then follow that up with a further feedback and playtesting period of a week or two where everyone got to polish up what they have. This would allow for fairly equal treatment of everybody, without the sort of pressure and demand that having dedicated playtesters could create.

Thematic vagueness and setting limitations. Creative freedom is great and all, but having a proper theme or setting helps give focus and set everyone at the same starting point. This could be extended to include certain setpieces, characters, effects, items or weapons, or almost anything. Specific limitations are not without use either, e.g. something like "four maps no greater than __ x __ in size" would promote tight & efficient level design and make it easier to set deadline targets. Going even further, a complete-the-map style setup could almost be the basis for an entire contest on its own, where everyone is provided with a starting map and a scenario to begin from.

I know there's some ongoing interest for my idea of a teams-of-two contest, but as I said I most likely won't be running that this year and the whole process could still do with some ironing out first. Keeping it to the middle or end of the year is probably a good plan since that's when school's out, aside from that I guess when to hold the next one will depend when everyone's up for it again.

 

Yeah, this is a really good idea, to discuss this kinda stuff before the actual contest inevitably happens. I have some things to say myself.

Submission etiquette/rulings. There was a lot of concealment and stress regarding entries being posted last year and I didn't like it one bit. Granted, it was the first time we've had a contest where there was enough involvement to hope for more than being thankful for getting any at all, but this should really not be a topic of any controversy. It would also be preferable to try something more flexible than a simple flat deadline. One idea I had was to set a submission deadline (e.g. after three weeks) and then follow that up with a further feedback and playtesting period of a week or two where everyone got to polish up what they have. This would allow for fairly equal treatment of everybody, without the sort of pressure and demand that having dedicated playtesters could create.

Mind elaborating a bit on this "concealment and stress" point? The only concealment I can think of was the allowing of anonymous submissions, which is entirely fair given the potential bias in the community IMO. The only harm it does is making it more difficult to direct feedback to the mod creator, which may or may not be important depending on how the contest is set up this time around. If, for example, the contest is set up with your "flexible" submission idea, I could indeed see anonymous submissions being more of a problem since it hinges on feedback. As for stress, the previous contest submission deadline was extended... what, two times? There was even a submission that came after the deadline and it was still permitted. With that said, there is obviously still room for improvement in terms of creating a more flexible schedule to begin with. I don't think the flat deadline idea is bad, but expanding upon it to allow for polishing, like you said, is definitely an idea worth exploring for the upcoming contest.

Thematic vagueness and setting limitations. Creative freedom is great and all, but having a proper theme or setting helps give focus and set everyone at the same starting point. This could be extended to include certain setpieces, characters, effects, items or weapons, or almost anything. Specific limitations are not without use either, e.g. something like "four maps no greater than __ x __ in size" would promote tight & efficient level design and make it easier to set deadline targets. Going even further, a complete-the-map style setup could almost be the basis for an entire contest on its own, where everyone is provided with a starting map and a scenario to begin from.

Agreed. I specifically like the idea of limitations that still allow for creativity, such as the "four maps x size" one. It even reminds me of the whole single room event showcase where you had to make a single room using only TSC. There is lots of potential here, so I hope the next contest really boils it down to a good theme, assuming it isn't another open-ended contest like the last one.

I know there's some ongoing interest for my idea of a teams-of-two contest, but as I said I most likely won't be running that this year and the whole process could still do with some ironing out first. Keeping it to the middle or end of the year is probably a good plan since that's when school's out, aside from that I guess when to hold the next one will depend when everyone's up for it again.

I'm gonna reiterate my support for the teams-of-two idea (much to the dismay of @SeasonsOfDestiny), but clarify again that it will definitely need to be thought out in its entirety before something like it is actually implemented. The question "How will the teams be decided?" is the most prominent, but there are other concerns, like how a contest with teams of two will effectively split the amount of resulting mods in half, which wouldn't work if we get less participants than last contest.

Finally, I want to discuss the issue of voting from the last mod contest. This will definitely be worth discussing if @DoubleThink is the organizer of the next contest, since this is where the idea for it originated. The whole tl;dr is that there apparently need to be "guidelines" for voting, and that if someone's vote isn't considered good enough or well thought out, it should be discarded. Most of us are on record saying this is a bad idea, but it may be an area at least worth discussing if we want to overhaul the idea to make it more fair and practical.

 

If we do a theme for this year's modcon, maybe we can finally do one where major ASM hacks aren't allowed? (This includes NPC hacks, TSC hacks, physics hacks, and weapon hacks. Visual hacks like 60fps, large facepic, and title screen could be permitted, since they're more for graphics and not clever tricks to show off.)
You know, something to put our root skills in modding to the test.

 

I'm interested into seeing how this will go, glad to know my original idea of Mod of the week/Month turned into something better. And I'm totally with the idea of more specific kinds of contests like having a limited room and set pieces to work with and making scenarios out of it, it allows less-experienced creators to either grasp the ropes or work on a smaller scale project and giving veterans a chance to practice and exercise their skill sets and knowledge to make the most out of what they're given.

 

Mind elaborating a bit on this "concealment and stress" point?

I remember complaints about entries being publicly posted too early, or sentiment that this was in bad taste (since when?) and the resulting atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding who was going to blink first, as though there were some kind of risk involved. The extensions weren't really an issue in and of themselves.

If, for example, the contest is set up with your "flexible" submission idea, I could indeed see anonymous submissions being more of a problem since it hinges on feedback.

If everyone is posting feedback publicly, they can see it the same as anyone else and can continue submitting anonymous updates. I wasn't meaning to imply that testing in private would be ruled against in any way, either.

 

Regarding teams, I figure the easiest way to manage it is schoolyard rules; people pair up on their own, stragglers get assigned by the cruel hand of chance. Networking matters.

I like the idea of a no-asm challenge but the line is fuzzy nowadays. What is or isn't allowed? Can you use the patches included in Booster's Lab (since they're available to anyone regardless of technical skill)? Changing weapon data like bullet damage etc (that information is internal so it requires changing the EXE)? convenience TSC hacks? what's the process for verifying if someone cheated?

Overall I think limitations are a good thing both to wring out some creativity and to help keep people's scopes in check.

 

You'd be forced to use the original vanilla exe, and if even 1 bit of it is different your mod is disqualified.

I'm going to assume that's an attempt at humour, because then you wouldn't even be able to change map names

 

Like I said in my previous, some minor hacks involving graphics and such that I couldn't really think of could be allowed. But I'm not the one making the rules for the next contest, so I wouldn't know. And as for the Hackinator hacks, there are some pretty major hacks in that listing, no?

 

I would think any hacking outside of given rules would mostly be obvious by design, unless someone wants to go out of their way to add ones that barely affect anything