Game 3 Feedback - Part 3

[arivess.livejournal.com]

Part 3! Is... ultima_arena all by its lonesome self. I'm sorry, Tako and Xinn, I probably made more questions than you'd ever need the answers for. D:

Again, grading system for scales:

1 - CHANGE IT NOW CHANGE IT PLEASE
2 - There are some really, really big problems that need fixing like now
3-4 - There are some really big problems, but I'm not going to quit over them
5-6 - I don't really like it, but I can live with it
7-8 - There are some problems, but it's not too bad
9 - There really isn't anything wrong with it
10 - It's perfect, please don't change it!

Also, once again, textbox entry is 255 max, feel free to give me your answers, and mod contact will be up soon so you can ask the specific mods.

[Poll #1830278]

Comments

[glacialphoenix]

Okay, commenting on the participation points for other fiction writing contests, specifically those with a set format, like drabbles or villanelles. I'm... actually slightly confused, because we've had drabble contests... twice in all three games, I think? And in Game 1 they had a bonus (6 points, but back then we didn't have a drabble bonus), and... in Game 3 they didn't - it was still 6 points.

Anyway - my thought is this: fic participation points in UA tend towards being the same as MWS points. While it's difficult to adjust that for long fic (since we have a word-count range for that), I think there ought to be a small bonus if it's a set format. I think my main point of contention is this: for UA, you're a) writing to a deadline; b) if it doesn't fulfil that format, it's disqualified - so the rules of entry are, in that sense, stricter than what's in MWS. So... I feel that the points should be adjusted to reflect that difference, because it's what differentiates UA participation from MWS participation.

ETA regarding low point participation:

I haven't voted in that one yet, because I need clarification: what exactly is 'award placings as normal?'

[arivess.livejournal.com]

Award placings as normal means like... I think they meant, give out bonus points, and then give out a first, second, and third (or however many places).

[glacialphoenix]

Ah, all right. I wasn't sure if it meant that, or 'award points the way we've been doing so far', which is not exactly the same thing.

Okay. Leaving my opinion here in comments because I don't think it'll fit in the text-box. My issue is this: I like the extension idea, because then it opens it up to more people who might not have had the time to take part during the original period, and the people who did participate in the original period are being rewarded for their participation. The thing is that this assumes that you have enough for a competition (wherever that line is drawn) instead of defaulting to placing (so, ideally, five or six people total, perhaps?), which means the people who submitted earlier don't necessarily place. And if they do, well, then, good for them and they've earned it.

In the event that you don't get more people, though, it might be best to just cut the bonus and award placings as usual - because UA placings are worth a lot of points. I feel awarding a bonus and placings on top of that is kind of overkill. If you get a placing by default, that's already a hefty bonus, particularly if it's a month-long contest. I do believe the people who participate in low-participation contests deserve a bonus, but when the participation is low enough that your entry is guaranteed a placing, the amount of points you get from said placing is likely more than the participation bonus you'd have snagged if more people had joined, so I don't see a need to double it.

[chacusha]

I think there ought to be a small bonus if it's a set format.

Noted!