Aloyzo's Arsenal Discussion Thread

Yes thanks Flax!!

I must admit, I was skeptical and frustrated of Caverns at first, but now I'm turned around and actually enjoy it on the whole. This, and the nudie run using only elves have really ramped up my skill the most.

 

@Sir Veza: Sorry if I haven't succeeded in expressing myself as intended.

I've tried to explain the ambiguity I see in the rules.

Here's a refresher on why people break the rules in the OP from my perspective -

In the past, it hasn't hindered winning entries. This does not concern me, but it provides ambiguity.

Here's a quick summary of what I was hoping to have clarified in Yes/No format:

Spoiler

Will extra content hinder winning entries in the future?

Would it work to have accompanying information allowed, but on the proviso that it's spoilered?

A monkey with a typewriter can design the perfect item. If the monkey designs the perfect item, that item should win. It doesn't matter who wins, it just matters which item wins. Some people want to improve their submissions and this is apparently allowed through the Forge thread, as long as they haven't yet been submitted.

There's ambiguity here because submissions can be deleted and edited.

Is it acceptable for entrants to delete an entry, discuss it in the forge, then submit it unchanged?

Is it acceptable for entrants to delete an entry, discuss it in the forge, then submit it an altered version?

Is there a significant difference between deleting and reposting an entry and editing the entry?

If you feel like any of those questions would open up other questions, feel free to talk about it, but those are the questions that I've been asking without any luck. I didn't think it was a huge ask and I can't be the only one who wonders. If I knew it would be taken badly, I wouldn't have bothered asking, but it doesn't have to be taken badly and to me, it seems unhealthy to leave it open after there has been a discussion.

That said, I'm fine with leaving that stuff unanswered if it's an uncomfortable subject. I'd just like to close the book on it, really.

@Inkfingers has very kindly been helping me in PMs, but I welcome your two cents with open arms, @Sir Veza. I bet someone knows how this all works (Inkfingers has been a help).

P.S. If reading any of this you feel like you're being accused or ridiculed or that I'm trying to take you on a guilt trip, then you've got the wrong impression and I hope you can find a way to get rid of it, I won't bite your head off if you want to talk to me about it. I'm just trying to make sense of the situation and asking for help.

P.P.S. @Flaxative, I really mean it, I haven't tried to cause you any grief and I hope you can come to see that. Inkfingers tells me that I speak a language that can be taken as cold/unfeeling and though it's the first time anyone's ever taken that view with me, I guess things like that can depend a lot on the atmosphere, so my apologies if it's the same thing that's caused you problems.

 

Best motivational quote I've read in a while!

 

Spoiler: My thoughts on the rules.

These are all just my impressions. I think they're right, but I could be wrong. I don't think Flaxative wants to bind himself with too many strict, unbreakable rules, and I can see his point.

Q: Will extra content hinder winning entries in the future?
A: He has never said this is grounds for disqualification, but if I had two entries tied for first, I'd go with the one that followed the rules over the one that didn't.

He has mentioned some things are acceptable, such as including the item level and rarity which most of us get from Vakaz's Item Creator. He has also mentioned he's annoyed by people including item flavor text, which doesn't exist in the game. I can see his point, because it makes people look like they're not paying attention, and is about as appropriate as gasoline in coffee.

Q: Would it work to have accompanying information allowed, but on the proviso that it's spoilered?
A: I'd go with "No" on this one. If it isn't needed or wanted, why include it at all?

A monkey with a typewriter can design the perfect item. If the monkey designs the perfect item, that item should win. It doesn't matter who wins, it just matters which item wins. Some people want to improve their submissions and this is apparently allowed through the Forge thread, as long as they haven't yet been submitted.

There's ambiguity here because submissions can be deleted and edited.

Comment: I don't understand exactly why Flaxative doesn't want open discussion of submitted items, but he doesn't. I can live with that. Using the smithy, or any other means, to circumvent the restriction should be considered a violation. Note that he has never said it's grounds for disqualification, he's just said not to do it.

Q: Is it acceptable for entrants to delete an entry, discuss it in the forge, then submit it unchanged?
A: I'd say no. Someone might get away with it, but it clearly violates the intent of the rule.

Q: Is it acceptable for entrants to delete an entry, discuss it in the forge, then submit it an altered version?
A: This would also violate the intent of the rule. The question is a bit ambiguous because how much needs to be changed before it becomes a different item? If you delete an arcane skill, then build a helmet in the smithy and submit it, you'd definitely be in the clear.

Comment: The two preceding questions will only come into play for people who do things backwards. Do we really need rules that cover doing things badly? The smithy thread exists to help players learn to craft items. Putting some thought and study into the process should work much better than buying your monkey a typewriter. Just sayin'.

Q: Is there a significant difference between deleting and reposting an entry and editing the entry?
A: No. He's said so in this thread.

 

I cant wait for Flaxative to open the poll vote to let players pick which item wins, because lets be honest who will win (Happenstance 's item for sure)

 

I almost submitted something, but then I realized I would never use it, as none of the categories are ones my characters use.

Too bad, because this was likely the best submission ever, and would have shattered the meta into a billion trillion million pieces.

Oh well, maybe next time.

 

What was it?

 

The thing about the arsenal is that the entries can't really be playtested before release. Something useful might make it through, but I don't think anything powerful enough to change the meta stands a chance.

 

Clearly some people want it and it's been accepted in the past. I've explained the rationale for this in detail to you.

I don't understand either. If the entries are judged at the end of the month, as Flaxative has said in this thread, what could possibly be the difference between putting them in the forge, in the submission thread and in both before that point?

I have some kind of mild dyslexia at the moment and find it really hard to read stuff with remotely strange formatting (actually took me a few minutes to find what the 4 items types for the month were), so it could be just me, but nowhere in the competition rules do I see any reference to the smithy thread. Telling new players that they're doing it badly and they're an idiot not worthy of your time, just because you haven't explained it doesn't seem like the most inclusive strategy to me.

Sorry that I'm not sticking around to take any reply.

@Flaxative has read your post and liked it, even though it contradicts a few things that he's said himself. He hasn't bothered to give me his time of day, despite a grovelling apology for agitating his problem with something I was unaware of. I love the game, I donated to it, I've recommended it to my friends, I play it every day. Finding that it's run by such a toxic person is pretty unpleasant. I've heard rave reviews about him from older members, but this is just not how you treat people, full stop.

As a guy who's recently received a poor prognosis, I have to take stressful situations seriously and since apparently the situation can't be resolved, I can't hang around, even if I want to. I'm avoiding the forums and uninstalling.

A game that is so beautifully designed. Just one problem and it's a very immature ego.

Thanks to everyone who has tried to make this a welcoming environment, I'm sorry, it must be disappointing to see this resolution. I hope you can understand that I don't have a choice here. Adios.

 

You should still submit it, it might make the game better for other players

Re: the rest of what's going on here ... wow. Through no design of mine I have a fairly busy life. Can't post on the forums 24/7. Also can't account for people reading way too far into my post likes when I'm reading stuff on my phone. Oh well! Guess some things resolve themselves when you leave them alone for half a day.

That said, I think Sir Veza is close to hitting every nail on its head here.

I was thinking about the "ambiguity" in my guidelines today while riding the bus to meet my partner for Subway sandwiches before our political party meeting, and I struck on something really interesting! There would probably be less ambiguity if I were approaching this contest more seriously than I am—or, more strictly. I could just delete every submission that includes extra information, and auto-DQ anyone who tries to be sneaky about getting item feedback. I could permaban people from the competition for skirting the rules. I could really remove all the ambiguity and enforce my guidelines and requests as ironclad law. Instead, I'm frustratingly forgiving, and have set up every single rule of the contest as a guideline, suggesting that you'll have a lower chance of success if you go above the item level limit, or that your submission will look worse if it's accompanied by extra materials.

I agree that my attitude toward Meevar wasn't particularly inclusive; I found their method of inquiry somewhat aggressive. This was someone who needed Truths about the contest on an order I don't personally believe exist in this universe.

But if inclusivity is a real issue here, which is better? And please, I am open to feedback on this:

A. a contest with draconian entry requirements, where a careless misstep could end your chance of ever getting an item into the game, or
B. a contest with some wiggle room, where guidelines are laid out but every good entry has a chance to shine even if its user misread a word or ten

Right now we have B. It lacks some of the structure a rules lawyer might like, but it's my preferred system for something like AA. There are systems for feedback, there are arenas for improvement. There are helpful users who are good at design and are willing to help newbies. There are very generous rewards given the nigh non-effort of entry. I'm also responsive to feedback and have already taken fairly dramatic steps to include the community more in the process.

I would have though that B, my preference, is the more inclusive of the two options, because it doesn't automatically disqualify people for minor mistakes. And I like to think that I've been fairly clear on this. In the last month's contest, there was a snafu around the enforcement of the design challenge with Tasty, Tasty Staff, and I've addressed that.

But I will go with the community on this one.

And let me be clear, before I ask for the final call: the guidelines for the contest regarding additional materials, submission discussion, etc., are par for the course in contests like this. I think someone in another thread recently said that the devs aren't rookies? Sir Veza again perhaps? The point is: I'm not a rank noob at game design. Based on my experience being a game designer—both amateur and professional—and on seeing other game designers and game designer aspirants interacting with game design contests, I can tell you with certainty that my guidelines aren't random.

I ask for the information I ask for (name, slot, cards) because it is all the information the user gets (besides the item icon, which, again, is another issue). If you can't convey your item's theme to me with this information, you won't convey it to the player. If you submit additional materials, it could be an accident (suggesting carelessness). In basically every other case it's a signal of a weakness in your design. You can disagree with this if you want, and good design isn't purely objective so I may not make the best call every month. But I hope this reasoning makes some sense.

So that's where I'm coming from here.

If folks want me to make my guidelines into DQable rules, let me know. Meevar may be gone due to my supposed toxicity but I still want to work with the community.

 

Yeah, I think this rule, "Submitted items should not be discussed anywhere until after submissions are closed." is just silly. I can understand not discussing it in the item post thread, but items should be freely discussed outside of that.

Similarly, why can't people put notes for their submissions? I know it takes time away from judging them, but if it is a short quip on why it is cool or should be included isn't that helpful in decision making? Designers should never really design in a void.

 

gulo gulo starts to panic, realizing their attempt at humor was taken somewhat seriously.

gulo also is dismayed that they might have to try to design an item that will make their monumental struggles of attempting to be the best human wizard triad player even that much harder.

gulo decides to take a long vacation to the Tomb of the Magus (blessed be her name), in a quest to meditate, and to contemplate the complexities of the arcane arts of Cardhuntria....and to also, hopefully, let this all blow over.

 

You're too modest gulo gulo, you came up with a simple way to double the effectiveness of bejeweled elves!
Why on earth wouldn't you submit it?

 

Aren't you already the best triad human wizard player by virtue of being the only one?

 

A quick edit turned into a more genuine attempt at continuing the discussion, so if you read my last post and thought it was just @ gulo, you may want to reread.

The "why it's cool" should be apparent. Also, see my longer post above.

 

Already did! Don't worry about it too much. There will always be overly dramatic people. You're doing an awesome job.

 

I've seen others.

 

In the same sense that people have seen Bigfoot.

 

No, that wouldn't work at all. Not only would that anger a lot more people, but you'd be a huge hypocrite. You picked an item that SPECIFICALLY violated your rules. To disqualify any item for not following your rules now would be a double standard.

It doesn't have to be as binary as A or B (strict or completely not strict) -- you as much as anyone should know things aren't just black or white. You could have easily said "you may include more than 1 monster card, but doing so greatly reduced your chance of winning" to include but also warn.

Yes, the item itself might be the only information a player gets, but they are looking at things through a very different context. That's like saying "don't ever include backstory for characters when writing them because the player won't learn it." When you're picking an item having any information, even if it is an explanation, should be useful. The item itself should speak to its merit, but sometimes small bits of commentary should strength a submission.

Having discussion about items and more can only help. Especially when the community is deciding on an item. Being able to talk about submissions and see what people are looking for and what gaps can be filled or interesting areas explored is helped by talking about it.

 

As you say, it's a light-hearted contest. Arsenal has completely amateur, screw-up, wacky submissions that get plenty of likes and give plenty of smiles. I like that your guidelines allow this, by remaining guidelines. I see nothing wrong with the core submission guidelines themselves, but neither am I worried about posts that break those guidelines. When you describe their purpose you're really describing your judging perspective, which is both reasonable and not going to change because someone snuck in flavor text.

So the talk is the only part I would change: no more calling out mistakes in the videos, no more criticizing rule-breakers on the forums, no more mention of "carelessness" and "weakness". Let us charge in and make a mess and fail. I know your comments are just honest game design critiques, and not mean-spirited. But Arsenal is about fun, not growing as game designers, and for many people public criticism is the opposite of fun.

As for discussions, they would be a ton of fun. They would also remove a problem in the current rules: the ability to gain an obvious benefit (e.g. Smithy feedback) with no obvious penalty (so the appearance of the problem is still there). I think this fix outweighs any appearance of bias or an uneven playing field that discussions could create. And again, I don't think your judging skills are going to collapse because someone wrote some extraneous info on another sub forum.