-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GAF GOTY 2010 Rules Discussion
- Thread starter timetokill
- Start date
timetokill
Banned
seat said:
Previous years: Can you count to ten? And list at least three games?
Last year: Can add to ten, and only give one of your games 3 points?
This year: Can you count to ten?
The requirements for voters are really not that high. Points are assigned automatically. Just make your list of games and the rest is taken care of.
But you'd want to know how your voting affects the votes as it were. I'd prefer if you had problems v solutions explanations to this system or that. I really can't keep track of this thread.
edit: what happens if the winning votes is less than a percent away from the game in second place? UC2 ran away with it last year, but what if it were much closer? what is you plan of action then?
edit: what happens if the winning votes is less than a percent away from the game in second place? UC2 ran away with it last year, but what if it were much closer? what is you plan of action then?
Neuromancer
Member
Timetokill is a brave earthworm, I would never attempt such a thing. You can never make everyone here happy. :lol
timetokill
Banned
Neuromancer said:
you said it :lol
it helps that i'm a stat nut, I guess.
Ashes1396 said:
What do you mean? Whichever game comes in first, comes in first. I'm not going to massage the numbers. Generally, where a tie must be broken, I go by # of first place votes it got, and then by number of appearances in ballots.
timetokill
Banned
Fredescu said:
Courtesy of grandjedi from the 09 mediapicks thread.
:lol :lol :lol
NullPointer
Member
Either way you do it I'm sure it will turn out great. GAF GOTY is the best out there.
My body is ready.
My body is ready.
timetokill said:
Well, don't mean to sound rude, but the niche games are more likely/tend to stay at the bottom regardless of the voting system. There is no point in focusing on a system to help them.
As for the voting system, I think it should be:
- 1 up to 10 games system (No "penalties" for making more or less choices)
- 1st Place can have up to 5pts
- 2nd Place up to 4pts (and so on)
- 5th to 10th Places (if present) can only have 1 pt
Anyway, I agree that a "GOTY + Runner Up" would be better, but since people will complain about their votes "not counting as much", why don't we just do both?
Basically 2 polls in 1.
I know it will be extra work to gather those up as well (sorry :lol), but it would help further study the choices made, specially to see how the numbers stack up.
Forever Giraffe
Member
Well, of all the games I played this year there are only two that I feel are worthy of voting for GOTY. But under this system, listing only two games doesn't give me many points to work with, essentially invalidating my votes compared to other members.
I suppose I could pad my list with games that I thought were just "good," but I don't want to contribute any points to a game that has a chance of actually winning if I don't think it deserves it.
Therefore, my optimum strategy is to pad my list out with eight bullshit shovelware titles that have no shot at winning. That way I get the maximum amount of points to assign to my top two picks, and I can be confident that the other eight games I vote for will just be discarded.
Now to find some good crap shovelware to vote for. Sounds easy, but I want to find eight of the absolute worst games out there to really make my point.
I suppose I could pad my list with games that I thought were just "good," but I don't want to contribute any points to a game that has a chance of actually winning if I don't think it deserves it.
Therefore, my optimum strategy is to pad my list out with eight bullshit shovelware titles that have no shot at winning. That way I get the maximum amount of points to assign to my top two picks, and I can be confident that the other eight games I vote for will just be discarded.
Now to find some good crap shovelware to vote for. Sounds easy, but I want to find eight of the absolute worst games out there to really make my point.
NullPointer
Member
Forget strategy and points systems. What does your heart tell you?Boglinus said:
Forever Giraffe
Member
My heart tells me to give as many points as possible to the games I think should win.NullPointer said:
timetokill
Banned
Boglinus said:My heart tells me to give as many points as possible to the games I think should win.
As I said earlier, I will be ensuring that at the very least, the top vote for everyone will receive the same amount of points for everyone. I may end up doing this for the top 3 or so.
timetokill said:
I still don't see the logic where any position should have a different number of points based on the number of games on the list. Why, under any circumstances, should Bob's number 1, 3, or 5 get a different number of points than Greg's number 1, 3, or 5? Especially since it's something as arbitrary as the number of games on the list in this case.
Forever Giraffe
Member
Heck, you could even do it for all 10!timetokill said:
Cheesemeister
Member
Boglinus said:
You could do that if you're really bored, but you'd look like someone who has no taste. You don't want to be that spiteful or look like you have no taste, do you?
The point is to avoid the Kotick-friendly torpedoing of competing titles by voting for only one preferred title. Moving away from a 10:1 ratio for top vs. bottom rank to even a 4:1 ratio should mute this to some extent.
By encouraging people to list a full 10 titles, the more interesting variety in the mid and lower-tiers comes out. Everybody already knows basically what the top 20 will consist of. But what if only a few of those appeal to you and you want the full breadth of recommendations from everyone? Encouraging lists closer to a complete 10 titles seems reasonable to me, and limiting the list to 5 is needlessly restrictive.
KevinCow said:
You could ask why Bob, who listed 10 games, gets a different total number of points than Greg, who only listed 1 game.
In the end, what matters more than specific point distributions is who votes, and what tastes in games they have. No matter the distribution, the top games will percolate up to the top, the decent games will occupy the middle section, and the niche titles will be toward the end of the ranking list.
In any case, I'm going to run some example tests for the suggested point systems using rankings listed in a previous thread.
Whatever the ideal spread from game #1 to game #10 winds up being, I don't see any reason why the system would not just be that ideal number at #1 then decreasing by 1 for each spot on the list until the minimum value of 1 is reached. Even if it winds up just being 3/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1, that seems like it would make sense to everyone involved, and retains the value of the top spots while allowing potentially more titles to gain points on the low end.
Any type of system where the user can influence the relative weight of their top picks by adding more games to the tail end of their list does not - at least on the surface - make any sense to me whatsoever.
Any type of system where the user can influence the relative weight of their top picks by adding more games to the tail end of their list does not - at least on the surface - make any sense to me whatsoever.
This is what I mean; it's convuluted on a base level.
I say people take it back to the drawing board.
Main aim: Pick gaf's game of the year.
Everyone should at the very basic level have their game of their year.
Some people will have two or three, and I don't know how to solve that to be honest. I guess it has to be lost in the shuffle.
To explain what I was asking timetokill before, is that in the events of the votes being too close, what really is the point of splitting hairs? If it's within a margin of one percent, just give it to both. If anything, Gaf shouldn't be gameranking or metacritic.
secondary aim:
Then we have the people who will want to have a top three, top five, or top ten.
We have to find the fairest way of giving everyone the same level of influence- unless we somehow agree that a person choosing to have a list of three has a worse opinion than somebody who has ten, and so deserves less. Look, basically, we're never going to objectively agree on whether 1,3,5 or 10 is best. So we have to find a way to represent gaf by being the fairest to them all.
extra point:
how many tiers of points is optimum and/or fairest? 2,3,4,5 or 10?
Basically answering each question brings us closer to the best system overall is what I would say.
edit: If the system is good, then you shouldn't have to do math to work out how to best support your game if the year, as well as listing your top ten.
I say people take it back to the drawing board.
Main aim: Pick gaf's game of the year.
Everyone should at the very basic level have their game of their year.
Some people will have two or three, and I don't know how to solve that to be honest. I guess it has to be lost in the shuffle.
To explain what I was asking timetokill before, is that in the events of the votes being too close, what really is the point of splitting hairs? If it's within a margin of one percent, just give it to both. If anything, Gaf shouldn't be gameranking or metacritic.
secondary aim:
Then we have the people who will want to have a top three, top five, or top ten.
We have to find the fairest way of giving everyone the same level of influence- unless we somehow agree that a person choosing to have a list of three has a worse opinion than somebody who has ten, and so deserves less. Look, basically, we're never going to objectively agree on whether 1,3,5 or 10 is best. So we have to find a way to represent gaf by being the fairest to them all.
extra point:
how many tiers of points is optimum and/or fairest? 2,3,4,5 or 10?
Basically answering each question brings us closer to the best system overall is what I would say.
edit: If the system is good, then you shouldn't have to do math to work out how to best support your game if the year, as well as listing your top ten.
Seriously, I don't understand comments like whether or not your favorite game of the year has a "chance to win."
No matter which system is used, the number one game is likely going to be the same. If you're really really concerned with how to game the system to get your game higher in the rankings, you're probably voting for a niche title. It's not going to "win," no matter what you do. So stop worrying about the math and just take some time to remember the great moments you had this year while gaming, then try to place them into some kind of order. It's not actually a race.
For all the scoffing GAF does over achievement whoring and how metacritic is not to be taken seriously, suddenly we think GOTY should be all about putting a crown on one supreme game to hold above all others? Seriously?
Edit: I have nothing against the super simplified system of two years ago where the number 1 game gets 10 points, number 2 gets 9, etc. I just prefer the idea of encouraging longer lists since I think it results in more variety. I'll probably have Alan Wake in my top 10, but certainly not my top 5.
No matter which system is used, the number one game is likely going to be the same. If you're really really concerned with how to game the system to get your game higher in the rankings, you're probably voting for a niche title. It's not going to "win," no matter what you do. So stop worrying about the math and just take some time to remember the great moments you had this year while gaming, then try to place them into some kind of order. It's not actually a race.
For all the scoffing GAF does over achievement whoring and how metacritic is not to be taken seriously, suddenly we think GOTY should be all about putting a crown on one supreme game to hold above all others? Seriously?
Edit: I have nothing against the super simplified system of two years ago where the number 1 game gets 10 points, number 2 gets 9, etc. I just prefer the idea of encouraging longer lists since I think it results in more variety. I'll probably have Alan Wake in my top 10, but certainly not my top 5.
timetokill
Banned
Cheesemeister gets the main point. As some others posted as well.
Well I already mentioned that I like the system, but I just want to say that please don't listen to the guys that say 10 games is too much. I play a shitton of games and made my list yesterday, I already hat trouble figuring out my top 10. With just 5 spots I would not know what to do with some of the smaller titles. Do I put them in my top 10 just so they might end up recognized among the 1000 pound gorillas?
timetokill
Banned
KevinCow said:
Uh, no? That wasn't anything like what I said. And actually I've already agreed to make at least one pretty significant change to the scoring.
Everything has a for and against unfortunately. Take for example a top ten list as such:
1, a 4 pts
2, b 2
3,c 2
4,d 2
5,e 1
6,f 1
7,g 1
8,h 1pt
9,i 1pt
10,j 1pt
Avoiding the torpedoing effect is good and all, but you've made my list mathematically irrelevent to a great degree. I've gone to the trouble of ranking my games exactly, but it may as well be:
1, a
2, d
3, c
4, b
5, j
6, i
7, h
8, g
9, f
10,e
This is what that voting system actually sees and represents:
game e is equal game j, even though there are five whole places between them.
So we have to create more tiers to allow variety but reduce the torpedo effect or whatever.
I've looked at this from the bottom up, and this is my suggestion:
1, a 6 pts
____
2, b 5 pts
3,c 4 pts
____
4,d 3
5,e 3
___
6,f 2
7,g2
8,h 1pt
9,i 1pt
10,j 1pt
groups listing Top 1,3,5,10
So why have six groups?
justification:
Top 1 lists, have the one game, one tier maxium points.
Top three lists, actually has I think three tiers rather then two. Just the way my mind works, gold silver bronze. I think. Is this not correct or fair?
Top five lists, has four tiers instead of five, because we don't want the weight distribution problems, the torpedo effect etc. So we sacrifice the one place. Something has to give. Nothing is perfect etc.
Top ten. has the two aditional tiers just so that no title is three places off the ranking.
Yeah, that's the best balance that I could find. Have your top 1,3,5,10 list and this should still work as expected. Top games get more votes, lesser games get more propotional votes. Tactical voting should be lessened in strength.... you don't need to artificially increase your list size... but you would have to limit your list to ten.
You can vote 1,2,3,4,5 up to ten games.
edit: Some people will exert more influence on the list, but only in the right way, and that is in the addition of games... so more games:more reward.
So if you have a niche game, just add it to the bottom, it won't have a great influence but your point will get accross fairly.
edit: timetokill, you are the person who is doing the counting... at the end of the day, you did a great job last year, and what ever you choose, you've got my support atleast.
1, a 4 pts
2, b 2
3,c 2
4,d 2
5,e 1
6,f 1
7,g 1
8,h 1pt
9,i 1pt
10,j 1pt
Avoiding the torpedoing effect is good and all, but you've made my list mathematically irrelevent to a great degree. I've gone to the trouble of ranking my games exactly, but it may as well be:
1, a
2, d
3, c
4, b
5, j
6, i
7, h
8, g
9, f
10,e
This is what that voting system actually sees and represents:
game e is equal game j, even though there are five whole places between them.
So we have to create more tiers to allow variety but reduce the torpedo effect or whatever.
I've looked at this from the bottom up, and this is my suggestion:
1, a 6 pts
____
2, b 5 pts
3,c 4 pts
____
4,d 3
5,e 3
___
6,f 2
7,g2
8,h 1pt
9,i 1pt
10,j 1pt
groups listing Top 1,3,5,10
So why have six groups?
justification:
Top 1 lists, have the one game, one tier maxium points.
Top three lists, actually has I think three tiers rather then two. Just the way my mind works, gold silver bronze. I think. Is this not correct or fair?
Top five lists, has four tiers instead of five, because we don't want the weight distribution problems, the torpedo effect etc. So we sacrifice the one place. Something has to give. Nothing is perfect etc.
Top ten. has the two aditional tiers just so that no title is three places off the ranking.
Yeah, that's the best balance that I could find. Have your top 1,3,5,10 list and this should still work as expected. Top games get more votes, lesser games get more propotional votes. Tactical voting should be lessened in strength.... you don't need to artificially increase your list size... but you would have to limit your list to ten.
You can vote 1,2,3,4,5 up to ten games.
edit: Some people will exert more influence on the list, but only in the right way, and that is in the addition of games... so more games:more reward.
So if you have a niche game, just add it to the bottom, it won't have a great influence but your point will get accross fairly.
edit: timetokill, you are the person who is doing the counting... at the end of the day, you did a great job last year, and what ever you choose, you've got my support atleast.
timetokill
Banned
Thanks Ashes. and thanks for the thoughtful discussion as well I think some of your suggestions are similar to what I did last year as well as aspects of this year. One of the main things I don't want to budge on is the top score -- I want a 4:1 ratio at max. Last year was 3:1 and I liked that a lot, even.
I think some of your suggestions are similar to what I did last year as well as aspects of this year. One of the main things I don't want to budge on is the top score -- I want a 4:1 ratio at max. Last year was 3:1 and I liked that a lot, even.Fair enough... I've made my argument in the best and simplest way I know. We work different ways I guess. No system is ever going to be perfect so good luck with it all.
edit: on the ratio thing:I didn't know what ratio would be best and fairest, so I just asked my self what tiers can't I get rid off? what tiers just exist? I tried getting down to five. But there really are 1,3,5, and 10 lists, and the justification I gave for splitting them into tiers are in the other post e.g. top three lists have three tiers not two etc...
edit: on the ratio thing:I didn't know what ratio would be best and fairest, so I just asked my self what tiers can't I get rid off? what tiers just exist? I tried getting down to five. But there really are 1,3,5, and 10 lists, and the justification I gave for splitting them into tiers are in the other post e.g. top three lists have three tiers not two etc...
revolverjgw
Member
NullPointer said:
Agreed, the only GOTY awards that matter. Even though I do find the methods amusingly convoluted. That they change every year just makes it funnier. But it works!
Forever Giraffe
Member
With the kind of shovelware I'm thinking of, I suspect people would more likely think I was insane. I'm fine with thatCheesemeister said:
I see the logic in this, but I guess it just seems ingenuine to me if you have to finegle the numbers. A vote's a vote, and if crappy games come out on top, well, guess what? That means people like crappy games. And while the desire to get people to list more games so they pay more respect to lesser titles is noble, to me it seems just as likely to make people vote for games they don't really care about, thus dampening the actual meaning of the results.Cheesemeister said:
Granted, this seems to be a difference in how you and I view the purpose of the vote. I seem to be viewing it as "vote for the games you thought were the absolute best this year", whereas you seem to be viewing it as "rank the 10 best games you played this year from best to worst."
True, but I don't see why Greg's favorite game should get less recognition than Bob's.Cheesemeister said:
This isn't what bothers me, though. What bothers me is my votes counting less than someone else's just because I'm more particular about what I consider GOTY-level quality. My strategy isn't to give my top picks extra points, it's to give them equal points. Because unless I list 10 games, my votes will count less than other members' do.stupei said:
Boglinus said:
And that part is being fixed. The argument being presented now is that Greg's 3rd favorite game might get less recognition than Bob's 3rd favorite game.
Considering that the difference between those two would be 1 point at maximum on a placement that's mostly just fighting for scraps anyway, I don't think that's such a big deal.
What's happening now is something that's sort of at the root of all human problem solving. Simple solutions are easy but often have major flaws. Complicated systems are hard but have fewer or smaller problems. No system is going to be perfect. Having a system like the 2x+2 model I suggested may be kind of complicated, but its problems are much less significant than a simple model like a straight single vote would have.
Forever Giraffe
Member
Well, okay, since I'm only planning on voting for two games anyway that takes care of my situationZealousD said:
Anyhow, I've made all the arguments I wanted to make so I'll stop being a nuisance now. I would like to say that I'm happy to vote - as the lowly junior member that I am, this will by my first year taking part and I've been looking forward to it, no matter how the votes are tabulated.
So thank you for your trouble, timetokill! I'm excited to see how it all turns out.
timetokill
Banned
Well said, ZealousD.
And thanks for the discussion Bog, I did enjoy it. What you noted, about "finding the best game this year" is interesting, and that is largely the tack that was taken last year, and many people didn't like it. This year's system addresses complaints from last year and emphasizes that many members wanted to be able to list more games and that many members wanted to see people actually encouraged to post fuller lists as opposed to only one title. What Cheesemeister said earlier hits on the point very well, as does ZealousD's comments. I think, again, we have to note that this is an enthusiast forum, where people have played a lot of games, and it follows that people would want a lot of games to be recognized. I can understand the desire to see more games recognized and discussed, because after all this is a discussion forum.
Regardless of the system, voters have been able to list awful games, and very few ever have. But I know the vast majority of people here on GAF are not spiteful in that way, and I would hope that you wouldn't go down that path
And thanks for the discussion Bog, I did enjoy it. What you noted, about "finding the best game this year" is interesting, and that is largely the tack that was taken last year, and many people didn't like it. This year's system addresses complaints from last year and emphasizes that many members wanted to be able to list more games and that many members wanted to see people actually encouraged to post fuller lists as opposed to only one title. What Cheesemeister said earlier hits on the point very well, as does ZealousD's comments. I think, again, we have to note that this is an enthusiast forum, where people have played a lot of games, and it follows that people would want a lot of games to be recognized. I can understand the desire to see more games recognized and discussed, because after all this is a discussion forum.
Regardless of the system, voters have been able to list awful games, and very few ever have. But I know the vast majority of people here on GAF are not spiteful in that way, and I would hope that you wouldn't go down that path
ZealousD said:
if even 200 people voted for game V ranked 5 and X ranked 10, with the one point similarity. the difference between game V and X would zero, whereas thats splitting apart 1000 pts. That's unacceptable to me. Others differ though.
I don't think that we will have an uncharted 2 scenario. I think it is going to be a lot closer. Personally, I think there's a sizable nintendo gaf audience, so mario galaxy 2 will ride high, whereas the ps3 gaf audience may go for gt5, red dead, bayonetta, god of war and the x360 in addition to those will add halo, assasins creed, cod mass effect. there's also tomb raider amongst other games, like demon souls.
I'm going for red dead win, even if I think the odds sort of favour mario galaxy. Those who love gt5 absolutely love playing it, so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a lot of people's favourite or top three games of the year. In that regards it might do well. Off topic but there you go.
edit: Just to suggest that more than five games are good:
Meta critic and game of the year media picks top games
Mass effect 2
Red Dead redemption
Super Street Fight 4
Bayonnetta
God of war 3
Mario Galaxy 2
Civilization V
COD:BO
And we haven't even talked about
Halo reach
Starcraft 2
Super Meat Boy
Vanquish
GT5
You might not agree with some of those, as I don't agree with some of those games (COD:BOPS I'm looking at you) but there are more than five outstanding games this year, that could be in the top three any year; the argument to pick just five devalues the list more than other years.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I strongly believe most GAFers will have played 10 different games in 2010, but what I'm more concerned with is that one may find most of them not worth being mentioned as a game of the year but doing it anyway as it will guarantee the higher ups more points (for example in 2006 I've played Sonic 06, but I'd never call it worthy of being named in a GotY list).Haunted said:
The Faceless Master
Member
i get the main point, i just disagree with it. if you really want to push the main point, use my blackjack system. 1st game (required) gets 2 points. games 2-20 (optional) get 1 point. tons of diversity there.timetokill said:
I understand the idea but I completely disagree with it. As we all can see this will end up with people voting for shovelware for GOTY! This alone is reason enough to ditch this system, the idea is having people to vote for the best games not the worst games.
Like a lot of people said, the 1st/2nd/3rd/xth place should always have the same value no matter how many games you include. If not this will end up as "My GOTY vote is worth more than yours because I voted for more games".
Like a lot of people said, the 1st/2nd/3rd/xth place should always have the same value no matter how many games you include. If not this will end up as "My GOTY vote is worth more than yours because I voted for more games".
marathonfool
Member
I disagree with the point allocation in regards to the #1 position especially with a compressed pyramid system.timetokill said:
With 10 games listed, 5 games would have 50% or more points of the #1 game. The other 4 games having 25% of the points. I feel that it diminishes each person's GOTY list. The #1 game is less influential to the total vote count. I would bump the points from 4 to 5 points for #1. The problem with last year's system was that each person's #1 game had a different influence on the total point system.
Due to a compressed pyramid system, the total vote difference will be arbitrarily flattened and closer together. At the very least, the #1 game on each person's GOTY list should be emphasized.
People with smaller lists should be awarded with the same points for the top 3. By allowing different sized lists, the smaller lists already have less influence on the total vote.
Having read most of the thread, I agree that we should be able to list up to 10 games and first is equal for everyone.
I disagree that we should be forced to list only one: what if gaf UNANYMOUSLY placed one game second on every list but firsts were diverse... the overall best game would be completely ignored?!
Also, I think people should be able to have their ranking reflected by the points. If someone has a top 3 they love and for whatever reason third and fourth need equal points, for example, they would have to change their whole list to accommodate a reflective point distribution.
So instead of using .5's etc why not be out of 20?
Game #1: 20pts
Game #2: 19pts
Game #3: 18pts
Game #4: 17
Game #5: 16
Game #6: 15
Game #7: 14
Game #8: 13
Game #9: 12
Game #10: 11
That way game 10 is worth half as much as game 1 as opposed to a 1/10th. People could distribute the scores better if they wished such ad 20 19 17 12 5 2 1, listing as many up to 10 but having no repeated scores.
The question is what would be the default if the author didn't manually distribute his points...
Also 20 is arbitrary, why not %age?
I disagree that we should be forced to list only one: what if gaf UNANYMOUSLY placed one game second on every list but firsts were diverse... the overall best game would be completely ignored?!
Also, I think people should be able to have their ranking reflected by the points. If someone has a top 3 they love and for whatever reason third and fourth need equal points, for example, they would have to change their whole list to accommodate a reflective point distribution.
So instead of using .5's etc why not be out of 20?
Game #1: 20pts
Game #2: 19pts
Game #3: 18pts
Game #4: 17
Game #5: 16
Game #6: 15
Game #7: 14
Game #8: 13
Game #9: 12
Game #10: 11
That way game 10 is worth half as much as game 1 as opposed to a 1/10th. People could distribute the scores better if they wished such ad 20 19 17 12 5 2 1, listing as many up to 10 but having no repeated scores.
The question is what would be the default if the author didn't manually distribute his points...
Also 20 is arbitrary, why not %age?
Cheesemeister
Member
Mesijs said:
FAQ. You can vote for a game if it was released in your territory in 2010, or imported from a territory in which it was newly-released (i.e. Japan).
ZealousD said:
Is this the system currently proposed? The most charitable thing I can say is that it's much better than the original model. I still think there are obvious problems. Obviously the point of this scoring method is to decrease the point spread, but who exactly was asking for that?
1. No two games on a person's list should have the same point value. Your 4th favorite game is obviously not as good as your 2nd favorite, yet this model treats them the same. If you bother to spend the time to rank your list, this should disturb you.
2. One person's 7th favorite game gets as many points as another's 2nd favorite game; one person's 3rd favorite game gets as many points as another's 10th! Does this seem reasonable, or does it seem like a crude attempt at grading on a curve for the benefit of "minor" games at the expense of "major" games?
3. Anyone who pads their list gets the benefit of having their top 3 games (the only games many people would put on their list voluntarily) with 4, 3, and 3 points respectively, but we have already talked about list padding, and I expect it to be endemic if it is not outright banned.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Just tell me when to vote, and I'm there! I trust GAF's mathamagicians.
Though are we doing actual award badges again this year?
I didn't think we did last year, but I know we did 2 or 3 years ago... who made them, modus? Don't remember offhand, but I thought giving away actual GAF's seals was awesome.
Though are we doing actual award badges again this year?
I didn't think we did last year, but I know we did 2 or 3 years ago... who made them, modus? Don't remember offhand, but I thought giving away actual GAF's seals was awesome.
YianGaruga
Banned
How about everybody just votes like they would anyway, timetokill uses his system and anybody who really cares uses another system of their choice to allocate and count the points.
I'd be interested in if/how it would actually change things.
I'd be interested in if/how it would actually change things.