Future of the ABC

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Two main reasons I can think of off-hand:

 

1, using CC can be a trap for less experienced builders who wind up going down the rabbit hole and spend half the time picking out CC and implementing it rather than actually building.

 

2, most people probably don't want to download 500 MB of CC for a 30-60 minute module (which most ABC modules have been so far).

Re 1: yes this is absolutely true and the reason why ABS established this. However, most builders know this and those who dont will find that the first time they went this route. Learning curve I say. As long as ABC gives reasonable CC to work with this is no issue. If some builder is able to make his module + combine an extra CC in a given time, why punish him?

 

Re 2: of course, which is again something the builder should think of himself - he should realize that the more content players have to download the less players will actuall play it. Again, a learning curve. (Though I think ABC currently disapproves CEP2 which is a holy grail to most builders, is that true?)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Re 1: yes this is absolutely true and the reason why ABS established this. However, most builders know this and those who dont will find that the first time they went this route. Learning curve I say. As long as ABC gives reasonable CC to work with this is no issue. If some builder is able to make his module + combine an extra CC in a given time, why punish him?

 

Technically speaking, ABC does allow a bunch of extra CC that doesn't count against the limit.  The original challenge allowed this and this challenge allowed the same.

 

Part of my main point lately is that if a builder wants to use a bit more non-sponsored CC than the 10 MB limit (like even 15 or 20), I don't think it should be an issue -- a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.  That said, we definitely don't want to encourage people to use 500 MB of CC.

 

On the flip side, I'm unsure if we'd actually need to "punish" someone for severely violating it, aside from the problems regarding #2.  Could probably be swayed either way.

 

Re 2: of course, which is again something the builder should think of himself - he should realize that the more content players have to download the less players will actuall play it. Again, a learning curve. (Though I think ABC currently disapproves CEP2 which is a holy grail to most builders, is that true?)

 

ABC doesn't allow CEP at all at the moment, no, it looks like it's 4.5 GB in size, roughly (selected all files starting with cep2 in my hak folder).  Some of those might not part of the default CEP2, but still...hell of a download for someone who doesn't have it.

 

And while the builder ideally SHOULD realize that, do we really want to give people rope to hang themselves with for an event like ABC?

 

Honestly, if we simply made the ABC "rules" only a time limit and some suggested themes I certainly wouldn't be heartbroken, but I do worry it might not provide enough structure for people wanting to get into building.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Despite of how good or bad CEP2 is for builder, which player doesnt have it?

 

And by disallowing it, you discourage builders who are used to build with CEP to join ABC challenge.

 

(And im saying this as a big critic of the CEP2 '> . ProjectQ is nice alternative but those who dont know it gets lost in its content. Imo let everyone work with what they knows.)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CaveGnome]

               

Despite of how good or bad CEP2 is for builder, which player doesnt have it?

 

And by disallowing it, you discourage builders who are used to build with CEP to join ABC challenge.

 

(And im saying this as a big critic of the CEP2 '> . ProjectQ is nice alternative but those who dont know it gets lost in its content. Imo let everyone work with what they knows.)

 

Not using CEP2 here. Always have considered it a bloated thing, stuffed with loads of things i don't need (and a few that i like) and balked 3 or 4 times at the enormous size, skipping download. There is some hope for me with the TAD modular CEP3 coming, but CEP2 is a clear "no no". There are a lot of modules i am interested in, i never played because they needed CEP2.

 

I am for the "everyone works with what they know", but i will probably not play something using CEP2 (trying to sound not too harsh as there are great things done with CEP2, but well... not my cup'o'tea ;-).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

Do you realize that your system was in fact still "one award if a module is completed in accord with all the rules that are being applied, a lesser award if it is not?"

 

Either you get full points or you don't.  Getting a 399 compared to 400 (if we assume, say, 400 points for full credit) is a massive difference, getting 398 compared to 399 is irrelevant, you've already broken out of the full points award.

 

 

So getting a 99% on a test is just the same as failing? That is absurd. Furthermore, by this logic no conceivable award or evaluation system could be more lenient, or even truly different, than any other as all of them would ultimately boil down to only two awards: perfect and not perfect.

 

The only way to make it flexible and forgiving would be something like if anything over 380 got the best award, anything over 360 got the next best award, etc...

 

And if someone ends up with 379 (or whatever defines the cut-off) we are right back where we started, only worse, because instead of being down by a few rather arbitrary numbers, he is down a whole award tier. Getting a 91% rather than a 92% (let us say) is a lot less likely to be upsetting than getting a B rather than an A.

 

Now if you are arguing that something like the points system devolves into a de facto award system due to the psychological effect of big round numbers (e.g., someone getting 200 rather than 199 points might seem like a bigger deal than getting 198 rather than 197) you might have some sort of point, but this would amount to criticizing it for being too much like your own alternative, which seems unlikely to be what you mean.

 

Before I continue, do you agree that this is a fair representation of your position?  That A feels he should get something more than B in this situation?

 

No, this is not at all a fair representation of my position. My position is that one should not declare something to be a requirement and then not actually treat it as a requirement. If it is not required in any way, shape or form to begin with that would be a completely different matter.

 

In your example Student A knew that only 3 things were required, so if he chooses to do an unnecessary fourth as well, that is his business. If instead he had been told that all four elements were required, only to discover that other students who had only met three of the requirements were being given the same scholarship due to some sort of favoritism on the part of the school administrators, he would then have good reason to be upset.

 

I will also note that this is practically the only definite position I have ever taken on anything relating to this whole discussion. I in fact modified the points system used in the previous cycle considerably in response to various suggestions, and have repeatedly indicated that I am completely open to, or might even prefer, scrapping it entirely in favor of a variety of alternatives. Almost everything I have said on this subject has been in response to you, in an attempt to derive some sort of meaningful critique, or even some sort of sense, from your often weird and contradictory statements.

 

You claim to want a more lenient system, yet criticize what is by far the most lenient system yet proposed (mine) and express a preference for less lenient ones.

 

You deny that system's leniency while at the same time actually taking advantage of it to submit a module ridiculously late with trivial consequences - more late than would have been allowed at all under your proposed alternative.

 

You claim that we do not need to be too concerned about the incentives built into any award system because people will be more motivated by their own pride (or something) anyway, yet, by your own account, you yourself reacted to the incentives in place in the latest cycle in an extreme way, and criticize proposed systems on the assumption that no one will be able to tolerate being evaluated as less than completely perfect by a system they are not supposed to be that worried about in the first place. 

 

You claim that there is no good reason to be afraid of anyone trying to exploit the rules after you yourself approached them in a highly exploitative manner, showing far more concern with getting every possible point, until that endeavor failed, than just focusing on your module as an end in itself.

 

You claim that making modules in a limited time frame is all that really matters, while focusing obsessively on everything but that.

 

I say the following:

 

Ideally people would participate because they enjoy trying to make modules under the ABC's limitations or find this a convenient opportunity to make something fun or interesting. Any awards, points, etc. would just be gravy, ideally not something to get too worried about.

 

And you later say what is essentially a paraphrase of that...

 

All in all, the ABC is about producing a module with reasonable quality in a short building cycle for people to enjoy.  Anything else is just icing on the cake.

 

...except that you apparently intend this as disagreement rather than agreement. Does this not seem rather weird?

 

I am at something of a loss as to just what I am to make of all this. At any rate, given that almost everything I have said is a response to you, your notion that I am somehow the problem here, and that not only you but everyone else intended their remarks as criticism of me in particular, seems rather fanciful

 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

Remove the CC limits and keep just time...

 

Though I think ABC currently disapproves CEP2...

 

The current CC limitations are hardly set in stone, and it is true that they are not strictly necessary. As for CEP, as far as I know, the only reason why it was disallowed in the first place was because no one associated with CEP stepped forward to sponsor it. That said, I do think there are some advantages to the current system of relying on particular sponsored hakpaks (in addition to/amplification of those Magical Master already gave):

 

1) It helps to keep the focus limited. This way a builder will not be thinking "I want to do this grand project and need to collect such-and-such CC to do it" but "I can only use these haks. What can I do with them?"

 

2) Along with the themes, it can suggest ideas to those who are looking for a particular inspiration to get their creativity going.

 

3) Again along with the themes, it helps to actually enforce the time limit. If there were no restrictions on theme or CC, one could theoretically start working on an ABC module long before the cycle was officially begun. However, if one does not know until the cycle is about to start what themes are in play and what CC is allowed, one will have to wait until that point to know what sort of project will be feasible.

 

4) I do not know if it was intended, but one helpful consequence of the sponsorship system was that it meant using only CC made by people still active in the NWN community, giving them an "advertisement for their wares" and thus a reward of sorts for sticking around all this time. A lot of CC is still being made for this game, but a lot of the newer (and often better) stuff tends to be ignored (relatively speaking) by module builders in favor of old standbys like CEP. I suppose one could argue that this is not the ABC's problem, but it always seemed to me that using it as a means to help promote some of this CC was a nice side benefit.

 

Incidentally, barring the complete replacement of the current system, I intend at some point to invite new CC sponsors to step forward for the next cycle. I would have already done so except that the recent issues with the vault will make linking to a lot of potential content somewhat problematic at this time, so this seemed a less than propitious moment to announce such a thing.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Sorry on the delay -- NWVault crisis, engine bug crisis, helping Bort with his module, and some other stuff took higher priority than this since you're not even considering another ABC for at least a month anyway.

 

1) It helps to keep the focus limited. This way a builder will not be thinking "I want to do this grand project and need to collect such-and-such CC to do it" but "I can only use these haks. What can I do with them?"

 

4) I do not know if it was intended, but one helpful consequence of the sponsorship system was that it meant using only CC made by people still active in the NWN community, giving them an "advertisement for their wares" and thus a reward of sorts for sticking around all this time. A lot of CC is still being made for this game, but a lot of the newer (and often better) stuff tends to be ignored (relatively speaking) by module builders in favor of old standbys like CEP. I suppose one could argue that this is not the ABC's problem, but it always seemed to me that using it as a means to help promote some of this CC was a nice side benefit.

 

Incidentally, barring the complete replacement of the current system, I intend at some point to invite new CC sponsors to step forward for the next cycle. I would have already done so except that the recent issues with the vault will make linking to a lot of potential content somewhat problematic at this time, so this seemed a less than propitious moment to announce such a thing.

 

Definitely like the idea behind #4 and agree with #1.  New CC sponsors would be nice -- and I'll admit I'm "guilty" of not any using CC in both my ABC modules.  Might be a good idea to change that to showcase some of this stuff.

 

So getting a 99% on a test is just the same as failing? That is absurd. Furthermore, by this logic no conceivable award or evaluation system could be more lenient, or even truly different, than any other as all of them would ultimately boil down to only two awards: perfect and not perfect.

 

No, 99% on a test is the same as getting a 100% on the test -- both get A's.  Technically that's not strictly accurate if multiple tests/HW/etc account for the final grade...but if we transfer your metaophor to the final grade (which is more apt) then a 99%, 100%, and 89.5% all receive A's.

 

In other words, 89.5% and 99% are not perfect but they still receive the highest award.  That's the point I'm driving at -- a lenient system has to allow a non-perfect score to get the highest award.  We don't have a special category for people who get 100% in a class compared to people who get a 99%.  We only reduce their award once they drop below 89.5%.

 

And if someone ends up with 379 (or whatever defines the cut-off) we are right back where we started, only worse, because instead of being down by a few rather arbitrary numbers, he is down a whole award tier. Getting a 91% rather than a 92% (let us say) is a lot less likely to be upsetting than getting a B rather than an A.

 

Now if you are arguing that something like the points system devolves into a de facto award system due to the psychological effect of big round numbers (e.g., someone getting 200 rather than 199 points might seem like a bigger deal than getting 198 rather than 197) you might have some sort of point, but this would amount to criticizing it for being too much like your own alternative, which seems unlikely to be what you mean.

 

The first half is somewhat true, sure.  But there's at least two counterpoints:

 

1. Even if getting a 91% rather than a 92% is less upsetting than slipping from an A to a B, both 91% and 92% are still absolutely terrible compared to a 100% which is considered the norm.  So they're likely to feel a little better about being told they're terrible, I suppose?  Not exactly heartwarming either way.

 

2. The odds of someone being caught in that situation are rather slim, you'd have to mess up considerably to drop below the best award and completely screw up to get the third best award.  Your system may make people feel better 1% of the time but my system would make people feel better 40% of the time, if that makes sense.

 

Also, as I mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with scrapping both the original point system and the medal idea I proposed.

 

And no, I wasn't referencing round numbers whatsoever.

 

No, this is not at all a fair representation of my position. My position is that one should not declare something to be a requirement and then not actually treat it as a requirement. If it is not required in any way, shape or form to begin with that would be a completely different matter.

 

In your example Student A knew that only 3 things were required, so if he chooses to do an unnecessary fourth as well, that is his business. If instead he had been told that all four elements were required, only to discover that other students who had only met three of the requirements were being given the same scholarship due to some sort of favoritism on the part of the school administrators, he would then have good reason to be upset.

 

I will also note that this is practically the only definite position I have ever taken on anything relating to this whole discussion. I in fact modified the points system used in the previous cycle considerably in response to various suggestions, and have repeatedly indicated that I am completely open to, or might even prefer, scrapping it entirely in favor of a variety of alternatives. Almost everything I have said on this subject has been in response to you, in an attempt to derive some sort of meaningful critique, or even some sort of sense, from your often weird and contradictory statements.

 

How is this any different than

 

1. 2+ themes

2. Meet CC limit

3. No bugs

4. On time

 

Must meet three of the four to qualify for (best) award?  That's what I've been saying the whole time!  I have *never* claimed we should change something AFTER the fact to show favoritism.

 

One could argue that in the scholarship example you're encouraged to only do three of the four things as well (which makes it easier to obtain the needed GPA, for example), so you can't exactly argue that the above system encourages people to submit late and therefore that's bad since you're fine with the scholarship thing.  Both "encourage" people to do less than the max but you're perfectly fine with that by your own statement.

 

You claim to want a more lenient system, yet criticize what is by far the most lenient system yet proposed (mine) and express a preference for less lenient ones.

 

Let's phrase this in school terms because we're on a theme.

 

You're claiming that it's lenient because you're giving partial credit, in effect.  "Your answer to this essay question has a few minor mistakes, so I'll give you a B.  I'm being lenient by not giving you an F for the mistakes."

 

I'm saying it's not lenient because if it was lenient you'd say "Your answer to this essay question has a few minor mistakes, but it's still good enough to be an A."

 

See the difference?

 

You deny that system's leniency while at the same time actually taking advantage of it to submit a module ridiculously late with trivial consequences - more late than would have been allowed at all under your proposed alternative.

 

Let's be absolutely clear about something: the one and only reason I am still even associating my module with the ABC is because there was a total of *one* actual submission.  I'm not even putting it in for a "score" at this point and I don't even want one -- I'm submitting it so that there's at least a second module people can see and play.

 

If we had several other submissions I'd have either just completely scrapped the module or expanded it and released it completely outside of the ABC in a few months.  I am under no illusions that it's anything resembling a "worthy" ABC submission.

 

And if me submitting it bothers you I'd be perfectly content with scrapping the project entirely right now rather than submitting it tonight/tomorrow.  I learned what I wanted from the experience.

 

You claim that we do not need to be too concerned about the incentives built into any award system because people will be more motivated by their own pride (or something) anyway, yet, by your own account, you yourself reacted to the incentives in place in the latest cycle in an extreme way, and criticize proposed systems on the assumption that no one will be able to tolerate being evaluated as less than completely perfect by a system they are not supposed to be that worried about in the first place.

 

If a system that nitpicks every minor detail exists, at least some (or most) people will be motivated by said system.

 

Huge difference between "We don't really need firm rules, people will have their own motivation" and "Let's established firm and detailed rules and we'll expect people to ignore it."

 

You claim that there is no good reason to be afraid of anyone trying to exploit the rules after you yourself approached them in a highly exploitative manner, showing far more concern with getting every possible point, until that endeavor failed, than just focusing on your module as an end in itself.

 

The endeavor failed because of my pride and time limit -- I wasn't willing to release a module I wasn't content with just to score more points.  What does that suggest?

 

...except that you apparently intend this as disagreement rather than agreement. Does this not seem rather weird?

 

No, because it's like saying the DnD grappling rules are just gravy on the combat turkey, ideally something not to get too worried about.  Except, of course, the rules wind up being so involved that you HAVE to worry about them in order to do it.  And by setting up such fine distinctions within the rules anyone who doesn't want to look worse than other people has to follow them very carefully and worry about them a lot.

 

Otherwise you'd get this conversation:

 

Bob: "Hey Joe, I see Chris got a 400 for his ABC project and you only got a 393.  Why's that?"

Joe: "Oh, you know, I just didn't bother paying much attention to the rules.  Whatevs!"

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

I am not certain there is any point in continuing to debate the finer points of systems neither of which is actually going to be used (at least not in their current forms). Quite apart from anything else I now believe that a penalty for buggyness is a terrible idea. One can only imagine the consequences if someone as argumentative as you decided to take issue with the definition of "game-breaking" or "serious." Whether it is worth it or not (perhaps some general principle will still prove relevant to whatever is ultimately done in regards to this matter) I will try to at least address the main point you seem to be making, which seems to be:

 

...a lenient system has to allow a non-perfect score to get the highest award... 

 

Having limited time atm, I am tempted to just respond "Why?" and leave it at that. I see no reason at all why the prospect of getting a less than perfect score should be such a problem, especially when the score is secondary (at best) to the actual point of the exercise, is at least partially based on somewhat arbitrary criteria that the one being scored might not care about anyway, and when getting a perfect score would involve fudging the definition of "perfect" in the first place.

 

...99% on a test is the same as getting a 100% on the test -- both get A's...

 

So that just means that according to you, getting an 89.4% is the same as failing. Also absurd.

 

...Even if getting a 91% rather than a 92% is less upsetting than slipping from an A to a B, both 91% and 92% are still absolutely terrible compared to a 100% which is considered the norm...

 

I realize there has probably been a lot of grade inflation and perhaps other kinds of lowered standards since the days I was in school, but when did a grade of 91% become "absolutely terrible," even if one is using a percent system rather than averaging for a letter grade? That aside, why would 100% be considered the norm? It would only be so if getting a 100% were easy to do, in which case most people in fact would get 100% and it would not be a problem, except for a few outliers (who your system in any case treats worse than mine). If it is not easy to do, it will not be the norm. Lots of people will routinely fall short, so there will be no particular shame in doing so. Again, not a problem.

 

...The odds of someone being caught in that situation are rather slim, you'd have to mess up considerably to drop below the best award and completely screw up to get the third best award.  Your system may make people feel better 1% of the time but my system would make people feel better 40% of the time...

 

How do you know the odds are rather slim? It seems that all you would have to do to get the unacceptable less than perfect award in your system would be to decide to ignore either theme or CC limits (never mind both) and then end up being late or buggy (again, never mind both, even though that also is entirely possible). On what data are you basing these percentages?

 

Must meet three of the four to qualify for (best) award?  That's what I've been saying the whole time!  I have *never* claimed we should change something AFTER the fact to show favoritism...

 

You're claiming that it's lenient because you're giving partial credit, in effect.  "Your answer to this essay question has a few minor mistakes, so I'll give you a B.  I'm being lenient by not giving you an F for the mistakes."

 

I'm saying it's not lenient because if it was lenient you'd say "Your answer to this essay question has a few minor mistakes, but it's still good enough to be an A."

 

See the difference?

 

The precise thing I objected to was declaring something a requirement and then not actually treating it as a requirement. The favoritism thing was just one possible example of that sort of thing, not meant to be a perfect match for our circumstances. As far as the general principle, it does seem the kind of thing you are suggesting has some problems in that regard. It puts forth certain requirements but allows some to be violated without consequence. If one wanted to remove a requirement altogether, that would be one thing (and indeed another and not necessarily illegitimate form of leniency to what I was doing). For example, one could say, "the time limit should be a month and a week, not a month," or "the CC limit should be 15 MB not 10 MB," or even "there should be no CC limit" and that would be perfectly reasonable, or at least raise completely different issues from what is under discussion here. But if you say "the time limit is one month but you can submit a week late without consequence" or the "the CC limit is 10 MB but you can go 5 MB over without consequence" than you are really saying the same thing as before, only less clearly. It is a fraud if you expect to fool anyone, and just silly if you do not. If you want to remove a requirement, then remove it outright, rather than maintain some pretense that it is still sort of in place.

 

Now earlier you suggested that some people might still have their own motivations to abide by illusory requirements. Even if that is the case, it is the people who will see whatever award system is being used as some sort of incentive who we need to be concerned with. We need not worry overmuch about how the person you describe, working solely for his own reasons, will react to our awards, since by definition he does not care about them.

 

Another possible problem with your system is that it involves treating the various requirements as a completely interchangeable currency (though admittedly the points and other proposed award systems also do this to some extent), which is somewhat problematic given that they are actually concerned with qualitatively different things - the analogy with grades perhaps breaks down at this point.

 

No, because it's like saying the DnD grappling rules are just gravy on the combat turkey, ideally something not to get too worried about.  Except, of course, the rules wind up being so involved that you HAVE to worry about them in order to do it...

 

You have to worry about grappling rules if anyone actually uses them, because they will have consequences that affect other players in the game. Whereas here, someone who thinks whatever award system is being used is stupid is perfectly free to just pay no attention to it.

 

Bob: "Hey Joe, I see Chris got a 400 for his ABC project and you only got a 393.  Why's that?"

Joe: "Oh, you know, I just didn't bother paying much attention to the rules.  Whatevs!"

 

Or Joe could just say that the rules involved some arbitrary impositions that were not really necessary and got in the way of making the module he wanted. Besides, who exactly do you think is even going to see the points/awards/whatever aside from those who are reading ABC related forum threads, and thus in a position to read exactly what the reasons for them are?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

As you did not mention an objection to me still posting my project, I have now released it here.

 

Having limited time atm, I am tempted to just respond "Why?" and leave it at that. I see no reason at all why the prospect of getting a less than perfect score should be such a problem, especially when the score is secondary (at best) to the actual point of the exercise, is at least partially based on somewhat arbitrary criteria that the one being scored might not care about anyway, and when getting a perfect score would involve fudging the definition of "perfect" in the first place.

 

Because you specifically called the system "lenient."  That's all.  If you called it a strict system, a precise system, etc, then I wouldn't have objected to how you framed it.

 

Also, the system I proposed did away with the idea of a perfect score in the first place and simply had the highest award category.  Perhaps a minor/subtle distinction but one that was intentional.

 

So that just means that according to you, getting an 89.4% is the same as failing. Also absurd.

 

If the expectation is that everyone will get an A then yes, it effectively is.

 

To give a very concrete example, I recall taking courses where I had to receive a B or better to get credit.  If I got a 79.4%, I effectively failed the class and would have to retake it.  So a C would have been a failure.

 

But if you say "the time limit is one month but you can submit a week late without consequence" or the "the CC limit is 10 MB but you can go 5 MB over without consequence" than you are really saying the same thing as before, only less clearly. It is a fraud if you expect to fool anyone, and just silly if you do not. If you want to remove a requirement, then remove it outright, rather than maintain some pretense that it is still sort of in place.

 

No, it's not the same because that allows you to break *every* rule instead of getting *one* mulligan.

 

Your system required people to follow every rule for the best award.

 

My system required people to follow every rule minus one for the best award.

 

What you're saying right now would mean people could follow zero rules with no consequence.  Which is absolutely not what I said.

 

Another possible problem with your system is that it involves treating the various requirements as a completely interchangeable currency (though admittedly the points and other proposed award systems also do this to some extent), which is somewhat problematic given that they are actually concerned with qualitatively different things - the analogy with grades perhaps breaks down at this point.

 

True enough.  All I was attempting to do is take your framework and relax it slightly.  Same general idea, just some leeway.  I wasn't trying to revamp everything into something brand new, just simplify your original idea and give it some leniency.

 

Or Joe could just say that the rules involved some arbitrary impositions that were not really necessary and got in the way of making the module he wanted. Besides, who exactly do you think is even going to see the points/awards/whatever aside from those who are reading ABC related forum threads, and thus in a position to read exactly what the reasons for them are?

 

I expect a decent chunk of people will just look at the total score while looking for the modules to download and not bother reading either the reasons behind it or the scoring rules in general.  Maybe you think I'm a pessimist, but I see people try to reduce everything (players, characters, modules, etc) to a single easy number to digest all the time.  Even if that easy number isn't really accurate or representation -- they just want a shortcut.

 

Happens for module scores on the vault, happens for player counts on PWs, happens to character item levels in WoW, etc.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

If the expectation is that everyone will get an A then yes, it effectively is.

 

This starts to get tautological. Obviously if one defines an A as the minimum requirement it will be. The only actual requirement for the ABC is to submit a playable module, and even the playable part is pretty negotiable. Anything else is a bonus. One does not want people getting too worked up about them, but one also does not want to deny the bonuses to people who actually earn them.

 

No, it's not the same because that allows you to break *every* rule instead of getting *one* mulligan.

 

Your system seemed to have tendencies in that direction, but I did not mean to imply it was precisely the same.

 

 

Happens for module scores on the vault, happens for player counts on PWs, happens to character item levels in WoW, etc.

 

Your other examples do not really seem like comparable situations. Module scores are explicitly evaluations of the module itself (however unreliable). Likewise assuming that a popular, well-frequented PW has some good reason for its popularity is, if not guaranteed to be the case, also not manifestly unreasonable. I do not really understand what the reference to character Item levels in WOW is about, but I would be surprised if whatever people are judging on that basis did not have at least a tenuous correlation.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

This starts to get tautological. Obviously if one defines an A as the minimum requirement it will be. The only actual requirement for the ABC is to submit a playable module, and even the playable part is pretty negotiable. Anything else is a bonus. One does not want people getting too worked up about them, but one also does not want to deny the bonuses to people who actually earn them.

 

I absolutely fundamentally disagree with this.  It's not a bonus to turn it in three days early, it's punishment if you do not.

 

100 for turning in a module

+25 bonus for turning it in three days early

 

can be exactly rewritten as

 

125 for turning in a module

-25 if it's not three days early

 

There is *zero* difference between those.  The score is identical.  There will never be a difference between those.

 

Your system seemed to have tendencies in that direction, but I did not mean to imply it was precisely the same.

 

It's not even remotely the same.  It's far closer to your original system than the idea you just described.

 

Your other examples do not really seem like comparable situations. Module scores are explicitly evaluations of the module itself (however unreliable). Likewise assuming that a popular, well-frequented PW has some good reason for its popularity is, if not guaranteed to be the case, also not manifestly unreasonable. I do not really understand what the reference to character Item levels in WOW is about, but I would be surprised if whatever people are judging on that basis did not have at least a tenuous correlation.

 

And I'm saying that people are going to assume at least a tenuous connection between them and figure a higher scoring ABC entry is probably better.  Even if it's not true, they'll assume it is.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Verilazic]

               

I respect that this is event important enough to you guys to spend this much time and conversation discussing it, but something about both the length and feel in this discussion compels me to add my two cents.

 

I'm under the impression that the goal of the ABC is to get more people creating more content for this game we love, and to do so in a way that is accessible to the average player, and promotes increasing quality in the content people are able to make. If this isn't true, please correct me.

 

Assuming it is true, however, I would humbly suggest that everyone reflect on those goals.

 

An anecdote: I am a huge fan of NWN, and taught myself how to script with only the help of the Lexicon so that I could write modules. I have other issues with motivation to actually complete projects that I think the ABC would help me with. However, this system of points, and this amount of really involved arguing about them and other things is a bit off-putting.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

 ...However, this system of points, and this amount of really involved arguing about them and other things is a bit off-putting.

 

I am perfectly OK with either massively modifying or completely scrapping the points system, and have said so all along. At this point I am not certain what else can be done but implement the original system of only two awards (Completion Award for a submitted module that is on time, on theme, and within CC limits, Honorable Mention for one that is not), since it appears that if an award system is the least bit complex the details of it will provoke relentless criticism.

 

My main reservation about doing that at this point would be that it is not a perfect fit with the new system of choosing themes implemented in the previous cycle, whereby one would have one story-oriented theme to work with, and another with more "technical" themes indicating that a module should be made for a particular level, class etc. The latter list in particular could get very specific so I preferred that builders be given some leeway to just ignore at least one of the theme lists, while still having some incentive to combine both. I do not really see how to do that with a purely binary award system, but I suppose that method of choosing themes could be modified or scrapped as well.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Verilazic]

               

Well, what's the purpose of having the themes? Aren't they there as prompts, to get people started? If someone has something else in mind that's completely different, how is that a problem? If, again, I am right in assuming the point is to quickly create adventures for people to play?

 

What about instead of a points system, just ask for people to play and write feedback on each submitted module? You could set up some very loose guidelines, like:

- What was your favorite aspect of the adventure? Be specific.

- What is one change you suggest that could improve the adventure? Again, be specific.

 

I don't know about you, but I find it extremely fulfilling to spend my time moderating feedback and discussions that could help people improve what they're doing. More so than arguing about an arbitrary system that is going to be game-able by it's very nature. It's a tool, and the right tool can be useful in the right situation.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

For the record, Verilazic isn't an alt account of mine.

 

The latter list in particular could get very specific so I preferred that builders be given some leeway to just ignore at least one of the theme lists, while still having some incentive to combine both. I do not really see how to do that with a purely binary award system, but I suppose that method of choosing themes could be modified or scrapped as we

 

Do we really need an incentive to combine both beyond recognition that they did so?  Could even just mark the categories the entry fulfilled as comments, like...

 

Magical Master's Awesome Mod of Awesomeness

- Druid theme

- Used specified haks

- Kept under CC limit

- On Time

 

Or whatever.