Home
Contact Us
Login
Register
Store
Exchange
Browse The Scrapyard
Forum
Donate
Board index ‹ Public Relations ‹ Contests ‹ CCNLT 2008 - Finals _[RESULTS PAGE 2]
Ah, okay. That's what was confusing me, was that there were some ratings that didn't quite match up with the numbers, but if you just didn't know what to say, that's understandable. I do still disagree with you about the finals, though, but it's your contest so I'll shut up. ;p
I guess the g's were just another wording issue. For some reason, in round 1, I remembered you saying that the lateral g's had to be under 1.5 as an absolute requirement. Never mind.
But hey, again, great job for a first-timer. Keep working on it, and I'll certainly be looking forward to your next contest.
CCNLT 2008 - Finals _[RESULTS PAGE 2]
84 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Yes. Of course.
Xpress is better at tutorials.
"Careful man, there's a beverage here!"
no not him at all. you could let him if he can find a way back onto the site. [:D][lol]
Is now 15!
RIP Wildcatter, 1982-2007.
RIP Wildcatter, 1982-2007.
hyyyper, here's my take on your running of this contest; (based on how this contest has been run in the past and based on what worked and what didn't.)
Things you did great:
-Timing. You were right on schedule with the ratings and the templates every single time... a feat that neither I, nor GFA, nor Jake, nor gazag has ever matched. That deserves some serious props.
-Template design. I loved the ideas behind all of your templates. They were very original and gave some unique challenges.
Things you did well:
-Template execution. The actual execution of the ideas behind the templates were likewise done well as a whole. The only one that really bugged me was the terrain woodie round. The terrain was very strangely shaped, and high in the most inconvenient locations possible, which resulted in some serious headaches. Also, this and the guitar round, the restrictive nature forced people to build in one exact shape because it was the only thing that would fit the requirements. I still liked the templates, but be very careful where you put the boundaries. Try to test everything out first, to make sure that it is not too difficult, and that it still leaves the door open for individual design possibilities.
Things that needed some improvement:
-The ratings. You really lucked out that you only had to make "real" decisions in two of the five rounds, because so many of the ratings seemed overly harsh on minor details, while others completely slipped under the radar. There would have been some serious rebuke if you had been forced to rate more rounds. You seriously need to consider more of how the overall coaster experience would be in real life, rather than nitpicking on finite technical NL-specific details. I seriously disagreed with you about the judging of the final round. You can rate however you want, but please work on being consistent, for your own sake.
-Rule difficulty. Please, please, don't EVER use absolute g-force limitations in the early rounds. Especially not when disqualification means banning. Remember, the first round of the contest is completely open. Do you remember how hard it was to keep the g's down as a newbie? You just can't make that a banning rule so soon. It knocks way too many people out.
Things that needed serious improvement:
-The structure. I was really upset that I wasted 3 months of my life waiting before I finally got to go head-to-head with someone. Sorry, dude, but the ridiculous amounts of disqualifications and the 5-round structure really annoyed me because I was sick of having to pour so much of my time into making a respectable coaster, when I could have submitted a no-effort dud track and still gotten through. That is aggravating.
-Clarity. Work on making your rules air-tight. That way there is absolutely no room for interpretation, and people don't get disqualified because of confusing technicalities. That is inexcusable for someone to get disqualified and banned because they understandably mis-interpreted the rules. Leave no question about what it means. This is hard, because judging your own writing from another person's eyes is basically what you have to do. I recommend writing the rules out, then mentally detaching yourself and leaving them alone for a few days before coming back and submitting them. The break gives your mind time to see them unbiased, and mistakes and loopholes are a lot easier to spot.
That's my take. I think you did a terrific job for a first-time contest host running the biggest contest in all of NL fandom, but there are many things, though understandable, that need improvement. I'd be more than happy to see you run it again next year. I do agree that we need more judges, though. I'm willing to hop in if you need one, now that I'm back to doing contest work again.
Things you did great:
-Timing. You were right on schedule with the ratings and the templates every single time... a feat that neither I, nor GFA, nor Jake, nor gazag has ever matched. That deserves some serious props.
-Template design. I loved the ideas behind all of your templates. They were very original and gave some unique challenges.
Things you did well:
-Template execution. The actual execution of the ideas behind the templates were likewise done well as a whole. The only one that really bugged me was the terrain woodie round. The terrain was very strangely shaped, and high in the most inconvenient locations possible, which resulted in some serious headaches. Also, this and the guitar round, the restrictive nature forced people to build in one exact shape because it was the only thing that would fit the requirements. I still liked the templates, but be very careful where you put the boundaries. Try to test everything out first, to make sure that it is not too difficult, and that it still leaves the door open for individual design possibilities.
Things that needed some improvement:
-The ratings. You really lucked out that you only had to make "real" decisions in two of the five rounds, because so many of the ratings seemed overly harsh on minor details, while others completely slipped under the radar. There would have been some serious rebuke if you had been forced to rate more rounds. You seriously need to consider more of how the overall coaster experience would be in real life, rather than nitpicking on finite technical NL-specific details. I seriously disagreed with you about the judging of the final round. You can rate however you want, but please work on being consistent, for your own sake.
-Rule difficulty. Please, please, don't EVER use absolute g-force limitations in the early rounds. Especially not when disqualification means banning. Remember, the first round of the contest is completely open. Do you remember how hard it was to keep the g's down as a newbie? You just can't make that a banning rule so soon. It knocks way too many people out.
Things that needed serious improvement:
-The structure. I was really upset that I wasted 3 months of my life waiting before I finally got to go head-to-head with someone. Sorry, dude, but the ridiculous amounts of disqualifications and the 5-round structure really annoyed me because I was sick of having to pour so much of my time into making a respectable coaster, when I could have submitted a no-effort dud track and still gotten through. That is aggravating.
-Clarity. Work on making your rules air-tight. That way there is absolutely no room for interpretation, and people don't get disqualified because of confusing technicalities. That is inexcusable for someone to get disqualified and banned because they understandably mis-interpreted the rules. Leave no question about what it means. This is hard, because judging your own writing from another person's eyes is basically what you have to do. I recommend writing the rules out, then mentally detaching yourself and leaving them alone for a few days before coming back and submitting them. The break gives your mind time to see them unbiased, and mistakes and loopholes are a lot easier to spot.
That's my take. I think you did a terrific job for a first-time contest host running the biggest contest in all of NL fandom, but there are many things, though understandable, that need improvement. I'd be more than happy to see you run it again next year. I do agree that we need more judges, though. I'm willing to hop in if you need one, now that I'm back to doing contest work again.
I agree with you on the template design, the guitar and woodie round were indeed to difficult.
The reason for the low attendence is probably because of the banning-punishment, which was a test this year to minimize dropouts, but it didn't had any effect.
As for rating, I try to incorperate the important things. Sometimes I seriously don't know what to write about some track other than that it feels good.
On the G-force limits, I never DQ'd somebody over G-forces. If there were G's mentioned in the rules, they were guidelines.
The reason for the low attendence is probably because of the banning-punishment, which was a test this year to minimize dropouts, but it didn't had any effect.
As for rating, I try to incorperate the important things. Sometimes I seriously don't know what to write about some track other than that it feels good.
On the G-force limits, I never DQ'd somebody over G-forces. If there were G's mentioned in the rules, they were guidelines.
I didn't mean to be mean at you when I said what I said about your ratings, you just tend to do bizarre things like complain about realism and then pick the track that is BY FAR the most unrealistic to win. It's just really frustrating to put all of that time into the contest and then see something like that.
"Careful man, there's a beverage here!"
Originally posted by hyyyper
As for rating, I try to incorperate the important things. Sometimes I seriously don't know what to write about some track other than that it feels good.
On the G-force limits, I never DQ'd somebody over G-forces. If there were G's mentioned in the rules, they were guidelines.
As for rating, I try to incorperate the important things. Sometimes I seriously don't know what to write about some track other than that it feels good.
On the G-force limits, I never DQ'd somebody over G-forces. If there were G's mentioned in the rules, they were guidelines.
Ah, okay. That's what was confusing me, was that there were some ratings that didn't quite match up with the numbers, but if you just didn't know what to say, that's understandable. I do still disagree with you about the finals, though, but it's your contest so I'll shut up. ;p
I guess the g's were just another wording issue. For some reason, in round 1, I remembered you saying that the lateral g's had to be under 1.5 as an absolute requirement. Never mind.
But hey, again, great job for a first-timer. Keep working on it, and I'll certainly be looking forward to your next contest.
Payment sent unfortunate_smiley!
Paypal Transaction ID #9V379628DC8014210
Enjoy!
Paypal Transaction ID #9V379628DC8014210
Enjoy!
Support Us! - Click Here To Donate $5 Monthly!
Paradox wrote:
No need to tell Oscar about the problems. He is magic.
don't you feel happy, unfortunate_smiley with all your money, and your points, and your ability to build good coasters! I'm so jealous [:(!]
anyway, good job with everything Hyyyper, i will probably do next year's contest if there is no banning involved with the first few rounds.
anyway, good job with everything Hyyyper, i will probably do next year's contest if there is no banning involved with the first few rounds.
Cradled by two loving arms that I'd die for,
One little kiss and Felina goodbye.
One little kiss and Felina goodbye.
84 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
