We've had three contests so far on the site, with more planned for the near future. A point of discussion that's come up in various channels since before the first contest even began was how builds should be scored. The current rubric, for reference, is as follows:
- Gameplay: 10 points
- Roleplay: 10 points
- Lore: 10 points
- Presentation: 10 points
- Community Vote: 10 points
Now, everyone looks for different things when they are judging a build, but obviously, there needs to be some universal rubric that we use to score. There's no way to judge that will keep everyone completely happy. But having said this, I've always felt that the current rubric does not favor gameplay prominently enough, and is too focused on what I will call "characterization" (i.e., lore and roleplay). To me, the gameplay of a build is bar none the most critical element. I could read a build with amazing innovative gameplay, and no roleplay at all, and I'd be a lot more likely to remember it and to want to play it for myself, compared to a build with uninteresting gameplay but exceptional characterization.
Again, I know I do not speak for everyone here. Some people may genuinely feel that characterization is worth twice as much as gameplay. But perhaps the majority disagrees. To that end, after discussion with Curse, we'd like to get some input from the community. Are you happy with the current rubric, or would you be interested in shaking things up? On the one hand, we have not had any major complaints about the judging or scoring so far. But on the other, it might make for an interesting change of pace to use a new rubric, and to force builders to adjust accordingly.
Here is a proposal I have:
- Gameplay: 20 points - This would cover the skill set, perk selection, gear/spells, etc., with a specific focus on combining the elements together in an interesting and/or innovate manner, consistent with the build's characterization/theme. Stuff like special moves, recommended mods, potions, shouts, etc. would all fall under this umbrella as well.
- Characterization: 20 points - This would cover roleplay, lore integtation, and backstory. I think combining the elements this way helps allow someone with a top notch concept to have a bit of wiggle room. e.g., if you have an ace roleplay concept and a killer character backstory, but have to make some lore assumptions to sell it effectively, you might not take quite as big of a hit. But to get the full 20/20, you need to work all the harder.
- Presentation: 10 points - This is a bit of a tough one for me. On the one hand, truly transcendant presentation can often be the difference between a decent build and an unforgettable build. But at the same time, I don't think presentation is really worth quite as much as gameplay or characterization. I'll touch a bit more on this shortly.
- Community: 10 points - No need to change this IMO, I think it's working well.
So with my proposal, we have a 60 point rubric, of which 33% is gameplay, 33% is characterization, and 33% is community/presentation. For reference, the current rubric is 20% gameplay, 40% characterization, and 40% presentation/community.
So, that's the proposal. There's no plan as of now to change the rubric. However, if the community tends to agree with my philosophy here, the admin team is open to making changes.
One other thing I'd like to address: It's hard to strike a balance between an "objective" rubric and "subjective" judging. To me, the rebric approach we're currently using tends to lean a bit too hard on the objective side. Obviously the way a judge will score each field is influenced by their subjective preferences (e.g., maybe I care more about nitpicky design and writing elements than another judge, and so I give a 7 where the other gives a 9). But I'm wondering whether there's a place for a bit more judge subjectivity, or if that would risk stirring the pot too much?
My original proposal also included a 10 point "judge's choice" bucket, where each judge could select up to three builds to "favor". Basically, this would allow a judge to add just a tad more opinion to the scoring. Say one judge really thinks gameplay is the be-all, end-all, and there's a build with an incredible gameplay concept, but virtually no characterization. Well, that judge could "favor" this build, and give it just a small edge over other builds that receive similar scores. I realize this could open a can of worms, as we've seen in contests run on other communities. Which is why I left it out of the rubric.
A simpler way to let judge subjectivity come into play would be to let the judges vote on the winner in the event of a tie, rather than letting the "Likes" make the decision.
So what do you all think? I'd love to get some comments on both my new rubric proposal, along with the idea of giving judges a tad more subjective control. And if you have any other ideas for tweaking the rubric for future contests, feel free to voice those here as well. Again, there are no plans to change the rubric as of now, but with three contests come and gone, it seemed like a good time to test the waters and hear some fresh input from the community.
Replies
Dig the idea here Teccam. I personally found the backstory/lore/roleplay often go hand in hand and this characterization category sums that up nicely.
Given that each contest is different, I think it could be worth looking at weighting the categories differently for each contest; at least in my view the gameplay in the vanilla contest wasn't going to quite be on par with say some of the modded builds we had seen previously.
I think presentation might deserve a bit more weight as well, but that could be achieved with a sort of bonus points category that the judges could put up to say 5 additional points in for builds with that bit of x-factor.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops!
Yeah, I think for Presentation, having that little bit of wiggle room for the judges to let their own preferences add to the mix might be a good way to highlight the true standouts. The difference between an 8/10 vs a 10/10 in Presentation, for me, is astronomical. Yet it's only worth 2 points out of 50. I know I would have given some extra bonus points to builds like the Sea of Ghosts Pirate or the Chimera, because their presentation wasn't just excellent -- it was over-the-top special.
On the other hand, some of the best builds from the old days had fairly mundane presentation. Mason and Snakes for instance pretty much just used the defaul font with larger, bold headers, and a handful of artwork images found online -- maybe one or two quick photoshops if they really wanted to go a bit further. That's why it's hard to justify putting more than 10 points into Presentation for me.
I definitely like the idea of mixing the rubric up periodically just to keep things fresh and to encourage builders to experiment with their style a bit. Not sure if it would be better to change it every time, or every 2-3 contests.
Definitely an interesting point around how some of the older builds would stack up against the rubric and one I've considered myself as well. I guess it's like any assignment (or contest in this case) with a well-defined rubric; if you're going for top marks you want to build to the rubric. For instance I wouldn't have gone nearly as hard on presentation for my contest build if I wasn't be graded on it; perk spreads and fancy titles have never been part of my style but I put them in because I knew I'd lose points if I didn't.
I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that while a lot of the older builds had stellar gameplay and might be considered a gold standard by some, people going maximum effort and gunning for the top spots in a contest are always going to go all out on their presentation as long as it can provide points. In my opinion at least presentation and gameplay go hand in hand in that a good presentation can make average gameplay sound interesting. I guess it depends whether you want the gameplay category to purely be what the gameplay simply 'is' or also include how it is conveyed to the reader; I've seen in the past interesting and complex playstyles muddled by poor writing that fails to get the full intricacies of the playstyle across or requires repeat readings to properly understand.
Well that sure got longer than I was intending but I hope that makes sense!
Im thinking maybe every 2-3 contests it wouldnt hurt to revisit this topic, gather opinions, and switch up the rubric.
Hmm, I'd agree with that rubric, it would be neat, and a bit more fair. Gameplay and Integration are perhaps the keys to a build. If you make it fun to play, and really get us into the character, then one has made a good build, IMO
I for one love the idea of changing up the rubric once in a while. Got to keep the contestants on their toes.
I think it's fair to say that gameplay-wise we have not seen some groundbreaking builds in a while (I don't even know if it's still possible, the OGs of character building have nearly done it all), so I'll be in for adapting the sections according to the contest. Let's say we choose a topic on which we don't have a lot of lore information, we could lower the characterization section in that case. Overall I would agree with you Gameplay and Lore/roleplay should be the most important stuff.
TBF, builds don't have to be groundbreaking to work, you can make even the simplest concepts shine if you put your blood, sweat, and tears into it
I actually agree with you, maybe I used the wrong words to express my thoughts. I agree with the new sections because the "Gameplay" section is more than just gameplay per se in the proposal of Teccam.
I don't have much say since I've only participated in like 1 contest. But I will say it's probably best to lean on the side of objectivity. I like the the current rubric because it's as close to objective as we can get. I feel awarding extra points based on judges preference feels too subjective
The proposed rubric is great too. It strikes a closer balance between gameplay and lore/roleplay.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next