Jump to content
IGNORED

2022 VGS NES Weekly Contest - Tetris!


BeaIank
 Share

Recommended Posts

Events Team · Posted

The state of collecting NES games, which would inevitable drawn new people towards the contest has also changed significantly because everything is so much more expensive now, so we aren't drawing new players.
It is a tough math, not boring the regulars by having always the same games while needing to have the classics in the hopes to draw one or two new people to the contest with them.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeaIank said:

The state of collecting NES games, which would inevitable drawn new people towards the contest has also changed significantly because everything is so much more expensive now, so we aren't drawing new players.
It is a tough math, not boring the regulars by having always the same games while needing to have the classics in the hopes to draw one or two new people to the contest with them.

Maybe the rules scared some people off, but I'm surprised that we didn't get more than six scores for Tetris. I'm starting to wonder if the older people get, the less interest they have in actually playing the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bearcat-Doug I'm pretty sure it wasn't the fact that Tetris was being played, but the fact that Level 18 is a barrier of entry that's simply too high.  I doubt I'd even be able to get a single line, nevermind 11,000 points on Level 18.  And for others it's probably the same problem.  I would've played at level 9, but level 18 is just too much for the average Joe.

With that in mind, considering the low turnouts, why do we even have participation minimums?  I'm sure there would've been a few more scores if there wasn't a minimum requirement this week that put it out of reach for many.  Hell, when we did Gradius II, I played for over an hour and the best I could do was about half-way through level 1.  The score required couldn't be achieved without beating level 1, so the score requirement prevented my participation despite a genuine attempt to do so.  Minimums make sense if you regularly have 20+ participants, but now that we're lucky to get double digits, maybe scrapping the minimum score, especially with harder games or tougher rulesets, is the best way forward.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

With that in mind, considering the low turnouts, why do we even have participation minimums?  I'm sure there would've been a few more scores if there wasn't a minimum requirement this week that put it out of reach for many.  Hell, when we did Gradius II, I played for over an hour and the best I could do was about half-way through level 1.  The score required couldn't be achieved without beating level 1, so the score requirement prevented my participation despite a genuine attempt to do so.  Minimums make sense if you regularly have 20+ participants, but now that we're lucky to get double digits, maybe scrapping the minimum score, especially with harder games or tougher rulesets, is the best way forward.

That combined with a "last place gets 1 point" would be perfect.  No minimum score required, just that you have to get a score, meaning you can't snap a photo with zero points.  The "last gets 1 point" rule would prevent someone from getting major points in a low turnout week just for turning the system on for five seconds.  So if only five people post a score, fifth gets 1 point, but if ten people post scores, tenth gets 1 point.  That way anyone can play any game, but at the same time you're encouraging people to at least try and not be dead last...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
7 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

That combined with a "last place gets 1 point" would be perfect.  No minimum score required, just that you have to get a score, meaning you can't snap a photo with zero points.  The "last gets 1 point" rule would prevent someone from getting major points in a low turnout week just for turning the system on for five seconds.  So if only five people post a score, fifth gets 1 point, but if ten people post scores, tenth gets 1 point.  That way anyone can play any game, but at the same time you're encouraging people to at least try and not be dead last...

Does 1st place get punished for success in this model with lowered points as well?  Or is that reserved for 2nd and 3rd?  or 4th, or what? 

Really asking..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

@Bearcat-Doug I'm pretty sure it wasn't the fact that Tetris was being played, but the fact that Level 18 is a barrier of entry that's simply too high.  I doubt I'd even be able to get a single line, nevermind 11,000 points on Level 18.  And for others it's probably the same problem.  I would've played at level 9, but level 18 is just too much for the average Joe.

With that in mind, considering the low turnouts, why do we even have participation minimums?  I'm sure there would've been a few more scores if there wasn't a minimum requirement this week that put it out of reach for many.  Hell, when we did Gradius II, I played for over an hour and the best I could do was about half-way through level 1.  The score required couldn't be achieved without beating level 1, so the score requirement prevented my participation despite a genuine attempt to do so.  Minimums make sense if you regularly have 20+ participants, but now that we're lucky to get double digits, maybe scrapping the minimum score, especially with harder games or tougher rulesets, is the best way forward.

I'm not sure when the participation scores started, but I believe it was intended as a way to make sure players gave a legitimate effort as opposed to just starting a game and taking a picture to get a free leaderboard point. I remember having a pretty rough time making the participation score for Gradius II as well, so there may be times that the threshold should be adjusted if needed.

Edited by Bearcat-Doug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PII said:

Does 1st place get punished for success in this model with lowered points as well?  Or is that reserved for 2nd and 3rd?  or 4th, or what? 

Really asking..

No, all points are as normal except for dead last.  So under the current scheme, if only five people posted scores, the points would be, from first to fifth: 20-16-13-10-01, and this is assuming no minimum score required at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
18 hours ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

Maybe the rules scared some people off, but I'm surprised that we didn't get more than six scores for Tetris. I'm starting to wonder if the older people get, the less interest they have in actually playing the games.

It was the ruleset for sure. I'm sure we would've had at least several more players with easier rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
On 10/11/2022 at 6:39 PM, Dr. Morbis said:

No, all points are as normal except for dead last.  So under the current scheme, if only five people posted scores, the points would be, from first to fifth: 20-16-13-10-01, and this is assuming no minimum score required at all...

 

I think this could help balance the point system in case of a lower turnout, like now.  Could create some more flurry since you now don't wanna get last.  I mean I'm still fighting for glory but my M.O. this year has been a lower-effort approach where usually I only play on the final day, and I'm still in 4th overall (missed 2 weeks as well).  If I knew I was getting 1 point for dead last in these smaller comps I would probably be forced to pick up my game a bit.

 

The thing I wonder on the whole is: outside of enjoyment ,what motivates anyone to play?  It's well and good and necessary to have a balanced leaderboard but not everyone is ultimately gonna care about actually getting a good rank for the season.  So the point system working for the diehards is important, it has generally seemed to work, and it also seems like for the genre leaderboards it's worked since there's multiple contenders for some genres, chances to come back with a big point gain on genre leaders (although I'm not following that genre side too closely - it might look more lopsided in some cases since we don't have a high turnout, so there aren't others placing in between to make them bigger swings).

 

Maybe to increase interactivity with the larger site, we should try to get a new VGS Award (badge, icon) for getting a single win in the comps?  Just get a win in any week and you get a badge?  The best comps are when everyone's really truly going for the win.  I think it increases the glory incentive, but that's me.

 

I think anyone who's nervous about playing and wants to try oughta just go for it, everyone is totally welcome here.  I always love seeing new faces or people who haven't participated, or even ones who just don't participate often.  It's great being put in the hotseat when exploring the library.  Even if no tremendous score comes out of it, it's fun anyways - I've played like 9 or 10 seasons now and I still only have like 4 wins.  But I'm beginning to see some improvement!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Krunch said:

outside of enjoyment ,what motivates anyone to play?

For me, one major facet was the idea of playing less popular games at the same time as other people, kind of like watching a movie or sport together, to make the experience more interesting.  Like, for example, this week is Top Gun, a game I would literally never be interested in playing myself, outside of my goal to beat every game on the NES.  But playing it in this setting spices up the experience, and I almost always learn something about the game that I wouldn't have learned playing alone, like with this week's example of the extra screen in Top Gun that you get for beating the high score but not finishing the game.

49 minutes ago, Krunch said:

Maybe to increase interactivity with the larger site, we should try to get a new VGS Award (badge, icon) for getting a single win in the comps?  Just get a win in any week and you get a badge?  The best comps are when everyone's really truly going for the win.  I think it increases the glory incentive, but that's me.

That's a neat idea, and takes the current participation badge (the one you have) a step further by making it an actual accomplishment.  I don't even know if they're keeping up on the participation badge for any "new" players who've come along in the last few years as it is...

Edited by Dr. Morbis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
34 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

For me, one major facet was the idea of playing less popular games at the same time as other people, kind of like watching a movie or sport together, to make the experience more interesting.  Like, for example, this week is Top Gun, a game I would literally never be interested in playing myself, outside of my goal to beat every game on the NES.  But playing it in this setting spices up the experience, and I almost always learn something about the game that I wouldn't have learned playing alone, like with this week's example of the extra screen in Top Gun that you get for beating the high score but not finishing the game.

That's a neat idea, and takes the current participation badge (the one you have) a step further by making it an actual accomplishment.  I don't even know if they're keeping up on the participation badge for any "new" players who've come along in the last few years as it is...

 

I agree, the playing it live with other people is what does it for me, and why I dont really participate in the beat every NES game threads which is basically the inverse - im more interested in playing when everyone's temporarily playing the same game.  And of course that the contests make you play specific games some of which are not that popular.  I've gained appreciation for a wide variety of NES games that maybe wouldnt have been as vibrant without the context of the contest.

Who knows, the badge thing could be a decent idea, I'd even be okay with starting it from scratch next season so you have to get a '23 season or later to get a badge - no retroactive badges. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Events Team · Posted

Final standings posted.

And with this, we have our 2022 VGS NES WEEKLY CONTEST PUZZLE CHAMPION!
All hail @PIIthe king of puzzles of 2022!!!

Regarding the low participation, I blame the combo hard rules + late in the season.
So, lesson learned. Keep gruesome hard rules for the start of the season.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was unpinned

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...