Mega Man: The Wily Castle Remix Gauntlet 2011

[Jason Covenant]

Even the tournament style was flawed:

A vs. B, C vs. D

A wins, D wins.

But C had a better remix than A.

That's definitely not right he can't keep going.

I'm not suggesting we vainly pursue perfectionism, only that we not pointlessly disenfranchise participants and voters. The current point system adds a whole other arbitrary layer to the point tallies. I don't think that layer is needed.

Please, spare me a vote. I'm having the worst week ever due to wrongful accusations at work, and I odn't want this on top of it

Sorry things aren't going the way you'd like at work. For the record, I did notice your improvements in production and samples.

[SuperiorX]

I heard your Plant Man references Rexy I think you did a great job blending the two themes!

[Rozovian]

Dunno if Darke's system is set in stone, but no-one says we have to care how Darke counts the votes. It's a community thing, the community can count total votes at the end of the competition and announce the actual score and ranking.

But count me among the dissenters. Winning by one vote or winning by a landslide makes no difference, you still get two points more than at second place. Likewise, coming fourth, by one vote, nets you as many points as coming last with no votes. If the whole thing gets decided by single vote margins, ppl will undoubtedly complain.

If SectorZ's spreadsheet is accurate, the top scores were 64, 57, 53, 50, and 48. That puts them all within 16 points, a negligible lead to the Block Rockmen Beats. In Darke's rankings, they're way ahead, especially as The Hard Men, Blue Bomber Brotherhood and The Concrete Men are 4 points behind the leader... no different than my own team, and we got less than half their amount of points.

Wait, why am I complaining?

[Jason Covenant]

Dunno if Darke's system is set in stone, but no-one says we have to care how Darke counts the votes. It's a community thing, the community can count total votes at the end of the competition and announce the actual score and ranking.

Quite right. Regardless which system darkesword goes with in the end, I'll be keeping track:

http://jasoncovenant.com/wcrg-scores

I'll update it weekly. I'll move teams up and down the rows based on total points, so it's easy to see changes and progress. Feel free to double check my work. This is a community after all.

[Nutritious]

No to undermine DS (<3), but I'm going to concur that I'd like to see actual vote totals vs. a tiered system. Per my chatlog with Willrock:

Nutritious414 10:41 am

well think about it

lets say team1 got 60 votes in round one

2nd place had 58, third 57, fourth 56

Team1 now gets 5 times as many points as fourth palce

rather than just 4 more points

it's going to be that much harder for them to catch up, even though Team1 is only marginally better

While the current system does help teams in the very top and bottom of the vote totals, it really hurts those in the mid range who may have just missed out on the next ranking. I'd hate to see really close rounds with a small vote difference end up causing such a disparate score in the end.

At the very least perhaps we could post both score systems to see how things shake out differently (electoral vote vs popular vote anyone? )

[Rexy]

No to undermine DS (<3), but I'm going to concur that I'd like to see actual vote totals vs. a tiered system. Per my chatlog with Willrock:

Nutritious414 10:41 am

well think about it

lets say team1 got 60 votes in round one

2nd place had 58, third 57, fourth 56

Team1 now gets 5 times as many points as fourth palce

rather than just 4 more points

it's going to be that much harder for them to catch up, even though Team1 is only marginally better

While the current system does help teams in the very top and bottom of the vote totals, it really hurts those in the mid range who may have just missed out on the next ranking. I'd hate to see really close rounds with a small vote difference end up causing such a disparate score in the end.

At the very least perhaps we could post both score systems to see how things shake out differently (electoral vote vs popular vote anyone? )

EDIT: By the way, going by Jason's tally, the spread from first to last (not counting the two teams with 0) is only a 3:1 ratio of points. In the current system first to fourth and below is a 5:1 ratio. Just sayin...

Honestly, this is why I didn't want to see any change. People can be too subjective to what they find enjoyable, and I honestly think that Darke's system has done something that would make everyone happy with the result no matter where they place. So just stop complaining and make music, and stop using new systems as a chance to put others down >_>

And I know there was an edit above, but let's say for example WillRock makes something that didn't grab peoples' attention next round, and that only gets 2 votes. Added on top of the BRB points, that would actually hurt the team as a whole. Under Darke's system, just having him submit would count as a 4th place vote regardless, so that didn't hurt the outcome all that much in comparison.

[WillRock]

Since people are talking about the voting system, I'd like to add that I think this voting system is slightly silly, and this is coming from someone who right now would really benefit from the current system. The reason for this basically what everyone else has stated... if people voted for the wrong group, then it hasn't really made a difference.

Not to mention, you've got to count up the votes anyway. Why can't we just count up the amount of votes we've got and just have a separate sheet for each round. Its got to be done anyway, and at the end, just add the votes for each team up. I'm guessing that this system might have something to do with giving other teams who have less experience a chance by tieing everyone 4th place and below but its an unfair system because its not a realistic showing of how the votes went in each round. Its great for the teams that win but its devastating for those that get 4th or below if the top ranks were close to begin with. My team placing 1st to 4th was basically down to a few points and because we got a few more, we are - thanks to this new system - way ahead of those who didn't do as well.

I've probably said the same thing as people below me but I feel that goes to show that because many of us are of the same mind, it might be worth reconsidering the way the votes are being tallied.

[Helios42]

Hmm, I think the system is fine. It's clear cut, and sometimes you just need that cutoff. Even if you're a close 4th, the 3rd place is still ahead. At the close of a round, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd should be the clear cut victors, no matter how close it was, because they are the ones who made it over the cutoff. It's the same in tournaments. Even if one side wins by ONE vote, they continue on and the other is eliminated. That's an even larger dichotomy than is being caused here. No matter how many points you are behind here, you still get to add to our awesome remix collection and show off your robot master's theme!

I hope everyone remembers that people are going to be listening to the good mixes, even if they don't win. For example, Under Construction didn't get above 3rd. Does that change the fact that I really enjoy it and will definitely keep it on my iPod? Nope.

Main finger, even though you could have farted into a microphone for 3 min and got the same points, we would be down one great mix.

Rexy, you have no idea how much I appreciate the amount of time, skill, effort, and awesomeness that went into Root of All Things. It's outstanding! But there are also a lot of outstanding mixes this round, which makes voting hard. I haven't voted yet, because I haven't decided which are my top 3, but no matter how that falls, know that I will be listening to Root of All Things, along with many others, for a long time to come!

So everyone, don't let the voting discourage you! I'm looking forward to so many awesome mixes! Kick doubt out and show me your best!

[Jason Covenant]

No to undermine DS (<3), but I'm going to concur that I'd like to see actual vote totals vs. a tiered system. Per my chatlog with Willrock:

Nutritious414 10:41 am

well think about it

lets say team1 got 60 votes in round one

2nd place had 58, third 57, fourth 56

Team1 now gets 5 times as many points as fourth palce

rather than just 4 more points

it's going to be that much harder for them to catch up, even though Team1 is only marginally better

While the current system does help teams in the very top and bottom of the vote totals, it really hurts those in the mid range who may have just missed out on the next ranking. I'd hate to see really close rounds with a small vote difference end up causing such a disparate score in the end.

At the very least perhaps we could post both score systems to see how things shake out differently (electoral vote vs popular vote anyone? )

I've got another idea for a system that EVERYONE can get behind. Just send me beer and put your name on it. The more beer, the better your chances. I'll get wasted off of a different supply of alcohol and then eventually wander towards the fridge at some point. Being unable to see the labels on the beer bottles I am selecting, I will drink a large quantity of bottles but probably not all of them. After I've sobered up, I will tally the names on the empty bottles and reveal the results.

People can be too subjective to what they find enjoyable,

Yes, but their votes should still count.

and I honestly think that Darke's system has done something that would make everyone happy with the result no matter where they place.

Except that most people, top, middle and bottom don't want it. Not to mention voters.

So just stop complaining and make music, and stop using new systems as a chance to put others down >_>

Our opinions are just as valid as yours. Please don't belittle us or accuse us of "using new systems" as a chance to put others down. We're disagreeing, but I don't think anyone's getting hard feelings about this. Right guys? If not, I'm sorry if I come across as "putting anyone down." That's not my intention.

Hmm, I think the system is fine. It's clear cut, and sometimes you just need that cutoff. Even if you're a close 4th, the 3rd place is still ahead.

If being clear cut is our goal, why vote for a top 3 at all? Why not just have a vote for #1 and then give them all the points? That way the guy that won by a couple points can have 5, then everyone else can get a consolation "thanks for trying" 1 point.

[Nutritious]

Honestly, this is why I didn't want to see any change. People can be too subjective to what they find enjoyable, and I honestly think that Darke's system has done something that would make everyone happy with the result no matter where they place. So just stop complaining and make music, and stop using new systems as a chance to put others down >_>

And I know there was an edit above, but let's say for example WillRock makes something that didn't grab peoples' attention next round, and that only gets 2 votes. Added on top of the BRB points, that would actually hurt the team as a whole. Under Darke's system, just having him submit would count as a 4th place vote regardless, so that didn't hurt the outcome all that much in comparison.

Yeah I re-edited out my edit because I was comparing 1st to 7th rather than 1st to 8th in the ratio. What I'm trying to point out is, the current system gives 1st place five times as many points as every team 4th place and below. If we just counted votes individually, that spread of 5:1 is from first to eighth. Even seventh place is only a 3:1 ratio.

Not trying to be argumentative here, and I do see where people are coming from in advocating for a system that balances out 4th place point. But I'm just trying to point out that this system actually only benefits the top mixes of a given round.

[Rexy]

It's not just the top mixes that are being benefitted. You stated before that lower ranks will struggle in a Popular Vote system, which would really crush things apart.

To take a more obvious example, let's look at the Hard Men. Benjamin Briggs scored really well last week even if he didn't break the top 3. Emunator's work on the other hand seems to be an underdog from what I'm seeing of the votes so far, so under that sitation, the Hard Men's performance is actually being hindered by the initial reception for Emu's track.

Going under Darke's system, it may be true that Ben's work may have a slight handicap due to being just outside the top three, but because Emu took part then the Hard Men won't be considered a handicapped team in regards to point totals. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

[Jason Covenant]

To take a more obvious example, let's look at the Hard Men. Benjamin Briggs scored really well last week even if he didn't break the top 3. Emunator's work on the other hand seems to be an underdog from what I'm seeing of the votes so far, so under that sitation, the Hard Men's performance is actually being hindered by the initial reception for Emu's track.

Going under Darke's system, it may be true that Ben's work may have a slight handicap due to being just outside the top three, but because Emu took part then the Hard Men won't be considered a handicapped team in regards to point totals. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

So you're saying that Emu should score the same as Ben because he's the underdog? I don't follow. I think people should get points based on the points they get, not because they're the "underdog" and not getting points. That seems to defeat the point of having a compo at all.

[Gario]

Y'know, if everyone is having a real problem with this why don't you guys find DS and talk to him about it in IRC or something and discuss it with him there? Rather than talk about it among yourselves, just ask DS if it would be a problem to change the point tallying system to another proposed system that people agree with, while it's not too hard to change up.

It's not easy to make something like this work for everyone, so don't get upset over it in here - it's not going to help, and will probably just dissuade DS from having a compo like this again (which would be a damn shame - I'm enjoying this quite a bit, personally). Talking to him more or less in private would be a better option than venting about it in here.

I would also like to add this: when did the compo become about winning rather than making cool music? It's not like there's a grand prize waiting for us at the end - it's merely set up so that everyone has something to shoot for (and therefore tries their best at it, producing better music overall).

[orlouge82]

Honestly, this is why I didn't want to see any change. People can be too subjective to what they find enjoyable, and I honestly think that Darke's system has done something that would make everyone happy with the result no matter where they place. So just stop complaining and make music, and stop using new systems as a chance to put others down >_>

And I know there was an edit above, but let's say for example WillRock makes something that didn't grab peoples' attention next round, and that only gets 2 votes. Added on top of the BRB points, that would actually hurt the team as a whole. Under Darke's system, just having him submit would count as a 4th place vote regardless, so that didn't hurt the outcome all that much in comparison.

This is correct.

The current voting system ensures that all of the teams stay within relative reaching distance of one another, and, especially if there are as many as nine rounds, it's anyone's contest.

I don't know if those teams who received 30+ points last round are upset that they are lumped at the same level as teams that received very little or no points, but in a competition with 12 teams each round, a lot of great remixes are going to be relatively unrecognized by the voting system.

The great part about this system is that one round can make a huge difference for any team.

[Nutritious]

It's not just the top mixes that are being benefitted. You stated before that lower ranks will struggle in a Popular Vote system, which would really crush things apart.

To take a more obvious example, let's look at the Hard Men. Benjamin Briggs scored really well last week even if he didn't break the top 3. Emunator's work on the other hand seems to be an underdog from what I'm seeing of the votes so far, so under that sitation, the Hard Men's performance is actually being hindered by the initial reception for Emu's track.

Going under Darke's system, it may be true that Ben's work may have a slight handicap due to being just outside the top three, but because Emu took part then the Hard Men won't be considered a handicapped team in regards to point totals. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Yeah, I totally hear what you're saying here. A good portion of our differing points is more point of view oriented, rather than misunderstanding each other I believe.

In your example, if the Hard Men are making a run for first place overall, the current system leaves them quite far behind after round 1. True, in round 2, this system keeps them at the same point level and a poorly received mix (voting-wise) won't hurt them as bad.

Try this example though:

Team Mega Man Remixers consistently creates solid mixes round after round - not the best of each round per se, but enough to consistently score in the 4th to 6th place range.

Team Wily Destroyers has one great round in getting first place, but after that round, skip a couple weeks (0 points), and turn in a couple midi rips in other weeks (1 points).

So after 5 rounds the points are:

Mega Man: 5

Wily: 7

HOWEVER, if we were going by a literal vote count system, I'd argue that Mega Man would likely be crushing Wily due to consistency - even if they never break into the top 3 in a given round.

If you are going to implement a tiered scoring system, it should probably have tighter point awards like 1st place: 10, 2nd place: 8, 3rd place 6, 4th and on 5. That way the ratio from first to last is 2:1, rather than the 5:1 we currently have. Make sense?

Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. I don't plan on belaboring the point any further (I actually wasn't intending on posting any more after my initial post). I can totally see and respect other points of view here and I look forward to seeing a ton more awesome mixes in the coming rounds.

[Helios42]

If being clear cut is our goal, why vote for a top 3 at all? Why not just have a vote for #1 and then give them all the points? That way the guy that won by a couple points can have 5, then everyone else can get a consolation "thanks for trying" 1 point.

Because Darke decided on that level of cutoff. It makes it a little more varied than just the top one, while still being clear cut, as opposed to a pure popular vote.

Popular votes work well when its between 2 sides, because then it's easy majority wins. Having a tiered system is good for multiple participants. Which group is most 'ahead' is really fuzzy if you just look at the raw scores. For the purposes of displaying winners, it should NOT be fuzzy, but rather clear cut. That is why a tiered system works best.

The more tiers, the more distributed it is, but the closer to that fuzzy, no real distinction between groups setup. That is why a tier of 3 is reasonable moderation.

Now, when discussing how much that victory means in terms of ability, it's important to look at how close the votes were. But that is in the realm of post vote discussion. The victory itself, no matter how close should be rewarded the same for the purposes of fairness between rounds. This seems unfair, but it is a time tested method used in sports, politics, etc. It is more fair because it rewards each victory the same, so long as it is a victory. Close victories, landslide victories; those are for discussions after the fact and in drawing meaning from victory. For the purposes of tabulation, the clearer system of a tier works better, in my opinion.

[WillRock]

This all comes down to a matter of perpective. As far as I can tell rexy, the only reason you don't want this other voting system is because under it, some mixes will do much worse than others whereas with the system right now, it would level the playing field up to the fourth vote. Of course, that sounds great for those who are doing worse and will probably make some others feel better who didn't vote well last time. However the voting system is too simplified for those at the top of the ranking board, which is where the flaw is realised. You see, where it levels out people who didn't do as well, it divides the top 3 by a considerable amount even if they didn't do so much better than say the 4th or 5th placed tracks. Therefore, this new system is giving a very fragmented view of how well these tracks actually placed. And because the system is so fragmented, it has the potential to change the final outcome.

Which do people prefer? A safer but fragmented voting system designed to try and keep people getting upset at massively low scores? Or a more in-depth and ultimately more realistic voting system which might upset those if they feel the voting should have gone differently?

[orlouge82]

However the voting system is too simplified for those at the top of the rooster which is where the flaw is realised.

Is this a British idiom that I don't get?

[WillRock]

Is this a British idiom that I don't get?

edited so you can understand

[orlouge82]

edited so you can understand

Sorry, I couldn't just let it go

[Jason Covenant]

Y'know, if everyone is having a real problem with this why don't you guys find DS and talk to him about it in IRC or something and discuss it with him there? Rather than talk about it among yourselves,

Darkesword has an account on ocr. He's active in this thread and will probably weigh in at some point. I don't think expressing our opinions in the public competition thread is "talking amongst ourselves" since it's in the public thread.

just ask DS if it would be a problem to change the point tallying system to another proposed system that people agree with, while it's not too hard to change up.

I don't think darkesword would make a change for one person if he thought everyone else was fine with it. This is a public thread and involves discussion of the contest, including its rules. By sharing our opinions here, darkesword can see who thinks what and we can have meaningful discussion.

It's not easy to make something like this work for everyone, so don't get upset over it in here - it's not going to help, and will probably just dissuade DS from having a compo like this again (which would be a damn shame - I'm enjoying this quite a bit, personally). Talking to him more or less in private would be a better option than venting about it in here.

It's not easy to come up with effective rules that everyone will be happy with. But that doesn't mean that all systems are created equally or that we should accept systems that are needlessly divisive. And expressing an opinion is not the same as "venting" which implies we're all just pissed off and taking it out on this compo. Please don't condescend that way. We just have a difference of opinion.

The current voting system ensures that all of the teams stay within relative reaching distance of one another, and, especially if there are as many as nine rounds, it's anyone's contest.

If the goal is to keep everyone at the same score, why not just give everyone the same score every round? And it's not true anyways, since the leaders win by a much larger ratio with this system so no, it's not "anyone's contest."

[ectogemia]

Ehhh?? I hadn't really been following the scoring debate, but I just checked the spreadsheet on the OP, and yeah, what? I think I'll have to count myself among the dissenters now. Ben's remix had way more votes than our score reflects. Why not just do exactly what Prophecy suggested? This feels like the electoral college system...

[orlouge82]

If the goal is to keep everyone at the same score, why not just give everyone the same score every round? And it's not true anyways, since the leaders win by a much larger ratio with this system so no, it's not "anyone's contest."

Yes, it is. After round 1, the largest point spread is 4 points. Guess what? After round 2, it is very possible for a team currently in fourth place to take the lead.

True, it's not "anyone's contest" if the same team consistently wins every round, since that would create an insurmountable lead by the fourth or fifth round (if there were only six rounds), but that's hardly the fault of the voting system, is it?

[Jason Covenant]

Yes, it is. After round 1, the largest point spread is 4 points. Guess what? After round 2, it is very possible for a team currently in fourth place to take the lead.

Tell you what then, let's take the vote totals and divide them by 100. So halc actually got .64 in the first round. That means that even a team with zero points is less than 1 point off from winning. Wouldn't that be even better than what you're suggesting? I mean, everyone's score would be super close.

My point is, it doesn't matter that the current system uses smaller values. What matters is proportions.

[Mirby]

You're totally copying my review style. Stop it.