Suggestion for rule change: prize distribution

Moderator
Posts: 682
Joined: 2002.11
Post: #1
There are 90 prizes. Given the current segmented distribution of quality of the uDG entries, I suggest a rule change: that the prizes be given to the top 10 winners in each category, not the top 3.

If we stick with this 'top 3' business, we will have maybe 4-7 winners. There are just too many prizes to be distributed among so few winners. Also, I would argue that the people who deserve the prizes most are those who didn't quite win, and would do better with better tools. By upping the number to the top 10 in each category, better games still get more prizes by winning more categories, but people who came close and didn't quite make it will still get something. By giving prizes to the top 10 winners in each category, we will probably get more like 15 total prize winners, which is more reasonable, given the sheer volume of prizes.

Entrants should post their opinions so we can get a consensus.

My web site - Games, music, Python stuff
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008.04
Post: #2
Seconded.

Even if you were to say, "Mark, this is now your decision, if you vote yes then the distribution will be done like Stephen wants it but you're guaranteed to get no prizes" I'd still vote yes.

I genuinely feel this is a better system of doing it, given the number of prize and entrants, it's not just a mad attempt at increasing the likelihood of me winning something.

Mark
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 623
Joined: 2007.09
Post: #3
*nods in approval*

- Lincoln Green
http://www.binkworks.com/
Quote this message in a reply
DoG
Moderator
Posts: 869
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #4
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #5
Well Tobi has already suggested that "if we win, lets give some of the prizes to..." (I won't name names yet!).

So maybe the winners can play Santa Claus.

Charles Goran gave us his copy of Runtime Revolution ($400 to $900 prize!) years
and years ago as a way to say thanks for the help and well, because he didn't really
plan on using it. Thanks Charles, where ever you may be today.

So maybe in thinking of the prizes, make a little gifting list list to go along with the "gimmee gimmee" list.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008.12
Post: #6
I'd be fine with this. There are some nice prizes, but I've been in this less for the prizes, and more for the motivation to write the game, and for the publicity if I do well. I probably don't need any of the prizes as much as some of the other devs.

-Matt
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 682
Joined: 2002.11
Post: #7
Minor note: If you're not in this for the prizes, then please look out for the "uDG Prize Distribution Cabal" thread that I'm going to put up when the winners are announced. We can work out our lists so that the people who want/need prizes the most can get them, and the people who don't care don't accidentally block anyone out.

My web site - Games, music, Python stuff
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008.12
Post: #8
There are several prizes that I'd like. If I do win anything though, I am certainly happy to donate a prize that I don't particularly want/need to someone who could use it. I'll keep an eye out for your thread.

-Matt
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 449
Joined: 2003.08
Post: #9
I agree with this amendment.
Alex
Quote this message in a reply
Apprentice
Posts: 10
Joined: 2009.02
Post: #10
I'm all for the idea of officially increasing the number of possible winners for the peer categories.


As far as the second idea being floated about regarding the directing of specific prizes to specific entrants who ask for them or who are deemed as "needy" ... I'm not at all cool with that idea.

(Now, to try and explain myself without coming across as a selfish jerk ...)

If entrants wish to forfeit their selection by simply not choosing a prize so that others further down the list, who is some way are deemed more "needy", can have a larger pool of prizes to select from ... fine.

But as someone who entered the contest in hopes of winning certain prizes, and assuming I do get to choose a prize, the idea of someone who, as per the official rules, should choose after me, getting a prize I hoped for simply because they asked someone or some-ones who placed higher than me to choose it for them ... I would be furious.

Now, of course, I can't stop people from giving their prizes to other entrants, but if at the last minuet this whole thing morphs from a competitive contest, to some sort of un-official, coordinated charity event, it would be completely unfair to those who did enter for the prizes and, FWIW, I'll never enter this contest again.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 2009.02
Post: #11
[bad cop part] I am of mixed feelings here. In general, I think that changing rules or deadlines after a contest's deadline is poor form. I do agree with the heart to help all of the hard-working developers out and I really agree with the "let's see these prizes get used and appreciated and not just hoarded" sentiment.
I personally would rather see this happen by the winning developers leaving whatever in the pool they don't really want and letting the developers who didn't win pick from that.
[good cop part] That being said, I do not object to the proposal and am willing to go along with it. But I disagree with the cutoff point: "By giving prizes to the top 10 winners in each category, we will probably get more like 15 total prize winners, which is more reasonable." What about the five developers (or teams) who are not winners? I don't think there is any game in the contest that did not require a good deal of work (I could be wrong). I think it is more discouraging to be among a really small number of non-winners that a large number - "I was one of the few games that didn't get a prize." Perhaps it would be better to go through the top ten in each category (as suggested) then offer any "stragglers" left over that were not in any of the top ten a pick of the pool before going back to the top of the list again. They won't win as much as the others, but they'll get something for their sweat and courage to get out there and compete.

Finally, DavidGuy wrote: "As far as the second idea being floated about regarding the directing of specific prizes to specific entrants who ask for them or who are deemed as "needy" ... I'm not at all cool with that idea."
I haven't seen this floating by but if it is I agree with the sentiments that DavidGuy expressed.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #12
This is one of those things that can't make everyone happy.
Getting ticked that someone 'gave' something to someone or a competition became a charity is a bit distorted.

After all people run marathons for charity, hundreds and thousands of people at a time.
People beat each other up in charity football games, it doesn't change the fact
that its a football game and they are trying to tear each other apart on the field.

I can see where you are coming from and I'm a bit split on this decision myself.
Every time I glance over at the prize page, while writing this,
and see the price of the prize you want and what it represents in terms of
opening dev opportunities its even easier to understand your perspective.

Maybe its best to let the winners win as planned, and then let them gain the
good karma by giving what gifts they wish to give to whoever they wish to give it
too, fellow competitor, dear old mom, that hobo down on the corner with the new macbook, what have you.

The best stuff is going to be picked from the top of the pile by the top winners anyway.

In closing, I think I'll vote to leave things as they are, and let the
winners choose how they want to hoard or spread the wealth when the smoke
has cleared and the bodies have have been put in the cart.

Even if that means I don't win anything.
Quote this message in a reply
Apprentice
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009.03
Post: #13
I'd be fine with such a rule change!
But why move from a 3-winner to a 10-winner system in each category when you could also have a 20-winner system in each category?? Everybody who made it this far is a winner!
As it has been said before, the best prizes will be picked by the higher ranked dev teams anyway, so there is no unfairness in it.
And let me suggest that you can also deny getting more prizes when you already got everything you wanted! That way you won't have to randomly pick prizes you don't need and have them standing around unused. Of course donating some of your won prizes to others makes you happy as well Cool

Having that said, this could also have been considered when making the contest rules in the first place. LOL
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008.12
Post: #14
To clarify my position, there are several big prizes I would like, there are also several small prizes I would like. If I win anything I plan on choosing the big prizes I want first, then the little ones (even if there are big prizes left in the pool). After that list is exhausted, I'm not sure what I would pick. I think diordna's proposed thread is more about the winners not stepping on each other's toes. If I mildly want a certain prize, but the next person in the prize line really wants it badly, I might be persuaded to pass on it. In general I am just in favor of the prizes going to people who can use them, and to as many people as possible. There are a lot of good games this year and I hate to see the developers of good games walk away empty handed.
Quote this message in a reply
Nibbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009.03
Post: #15
I vote Yea!
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Art Contest - $150 Contract Prize Kapz 0 2,176 Jun 30, 2012 07:00 AM
Last Post: Kapz
  Prize Distribution Rules Question pinguoren 7 6,700 Mar 18, 2009 10:20 AM
Last Post: DavidGuy
  uDG Prize Distribution stevejohnson 31 17,956 Mar 16, 2009 11:57 PM
Last Post: tcIgnatius
  Question regarding udev games contest rule 8 mattness 29 12,039 Feb 25, 2009 04:27 PM
Last Post: SethWillits
  uDG Rule Clarification: Eligibility #8 stevejohnson 28 11,233 Dec 8, 2008 04:13 AM
Last Post: DoG