Fifth Quest Planning and Discussion

Gleeok wrote:If the time restraints on the 4th contest weren't so tight we would've seen 8 entries for that, and even with the 6 that made it, real life issues crept up on half of those responsible for judging the thing, with a few dropping out entirely. This led to the longest "waiting for a result" period only trumped by Duke Nukem Forever.

I want to remind everybody about what happened with the judging situation during the 3rd Quest Contest.

For that contest there were 3 or 4 judges, and all of them dropped out for one reason or another several months after judging had started.

The Silent Assassin (aka TSA), wanting to salvage the contest, disqualified his own personal entry and then took it upon himself to be the sole judge of the quests himself.
The administration decided to roll with it because without a judge there would be no contest. TSA picked a winner, AlphaDawg, fairly quickly.

There were accusations of favoritism (AlphaDawg was TSA's best friend on the forums), accusations that TSA didn't play all the quests (TSA somehow managed to beat 7 or 8 quests in a matter of maybe a couple weeks).
Then you had the whole back-and-forth with the people accusing the accusers of sour grapes... what do you expect when you only have 1 judge? The whole point of multiple judges is to avoid that sort of controversy.

The point I'm trying to make is that judging these things is an enormous effort, and you want to make sure you have people who understand what they are getting into and will commit to the job, and yes, judging will probably be a several month-long affair.

Thread updated: The poll is now anonymous.

Glenn the Great wrote:I want to remind everybody about what happened with the judging situation during the 3rd Quest Contest.

For that contest there were 3 or 4 judges, and all of them dropped out for one reason or another several months after judging had started.

The Silent Assassin (aka TSA), wanting to salvage the contest, disqualified his own personal entry and then took it upon himself to be the sole judge of the quests himself.
The administration decided to roll with it because without a judge there would be no contest. TSA picked a winner, AlphaDawg, fairly quickly.

There were accusations of favoritism (AlphaDawg was TSA's best friend on the forums), accusations that TSA didn't play all the quests (TSA somehow managed to beat 7 or 8 quests in a matter of maybe a couple weeks).
Then you had the whole back-and-forth with the people accusing the accusers of sour grapes... what do you expect when you only have 1 judge? The whole point of multiple judges is to avoid that sort of controversy.

The point I'm trying to make is that judging these things is an enormous effort, and you want to make sure you have people who understand what they are getting into and will commit to the job, and yes, judging will probably be a several month-long affair.

Yes, this was actually my main concern. I realize what happened in the 3rd and 4th contests (I was also part of the 4th), so fixing that is a must. What we've decided, and also seems to be the best option, is to have open 5th reviews and judging by the entire community to narrow it down to the top 3 or 4 quests.

What's that, you say!? A popularity contest? How can many people play all those quests when a few cannot? That's crazy!
Not exactly. There won't be any polls and peer reviews will require a full post. Reviews from people that didn't play a quest will not hurt that quests overall rating, provided people are honest (some math may be involved). The goal here is too narrow it down to the top tier contenders where they can be judged fairly. Also, we know if a 5th entry is a strong candidate without having to play it beginning to end, so the developers and final judges reserve the right to save any really good candidates from elimination. In short: If you make a really strong 5th quest, we will know it is good.
Also, from past experience, the majority may not always be right but they get it pretty close most of the time.

Another thing is the possibility of streaming or LP's of many of the quests. New technology is sometimes cool. Ya?

So we're going to see how well this works. 😊

I'm on the fence myself. I don't have a ton of time normally but I will have a couple weeks that I can devote to this soon and I can probably crank quite a bit of it out and make a decent entry. I will have a better idea in a week or so.

Wouldn't it be okay for participants to also serve as judges if they:

1.) Were disallowed from voting for their own project

2.) Were REQUIRED to vote for one of the projects they played

3.) Were REQUIRED to give point-by-point explanations for their vote decision, to show they didn't just pick an opponent out of a hat because it was part of the rules.

FYI, I am participating and my quest is going to have [redacted] and [redacted] as well as a [redacted] that will [redacted].

(I've decided to be more secretive about my plans, since announcing them just results in more contest rules. :grief😊

I will join in. Even when I don't have access to ZC, I can rough out the room layouts. The dungeom layouts will be themed after [THAT'S CLASSIFIED!] and will contain custom enemies like [THAT'S CLASSIFIED!] and [THAT'S CLASSIFIED!] to make the quest more challenging.

I'd like to make a quest for this contest, but having made one for the 3rd quest contest back when I was in High School, and now with my full time job plus other activities on the side, I know I don't have that kind of time anymore.

On the other hand, I figure I could save a lot of time if I start with my old 3rd quest entry, make some tweaks and put on some polish, and enter that in.
Not a whole lot of people have played it so it would still be a new experience for most people, and under the new set of rules I might get to do some things with it that I didn't get to do last time.

Glenn the Great wrote:On the other hand, I figure I could save a lot of time if I start with my old 3rd quest entry, make some tweaks and put on some polish, and enter that in.
Not a whole lot of people have played it so it would still be a new experience for most people, and under the new set of rules I might get to do some things with it that I didn't get to do last time.

That-- sounds like a great idea.

I'd love to play through some of the old entries to 3rd and 4th quest contests... Just to see what works and what doesn't. Is that possible?

All this discussion makes me really want to throw my hat into the ring. 😊

I have decided to say "fuck it" and am entering this contest. Prepare yourself, because it's time for Super Omega 5th Quest Fun-Time!

I too shall enter.

Soooo...when do we have to start? Can we start now? Or do we have to wait for the announcement?

Goriya wrote:Soooo...when do we have to start? Can we start now? Or do we have to wait for the announcement?

Well you could start six hours before the quest is due (like that one crazy guy from the two-weeks contest), but I recommend starting as early as possible. Several people have already begun constructing their 5th quest submission and I know at least one has a functional 9 dungeon prototype already.

This won't be like the two-week contest where the challenge is the time constraint; rather the challenge is to build a quest that is so memorable that it is worth bundling with Zelda Classic.

Goriya wrote:Soooo...when do we have to start? Can we start now? Or do we have to wait for the announcement?

CJC wrote:Wouldn't it be okay for participants to also serve as judges if they:

1.) Were disallowed from voting for their own project

2.) Were REQUIRED to vote for one of the projects they played

3.) Were REQUIRED to give point-by-point explanations for their vote decision, to show they didn't just pick an opponent out of a hat because it was part of the rules.

Allow people to vote for more than one. That'd be the best way to handle voter bias.

-James

Nightmare wrote:Allow people to vote for more than one. That'd be the best way to handle voter bias.

-James

I don't think that's much of an improvement.

If we're going to make community voting a component (or hell, even if it's only official judges) I suggest doing a Borda count.
For those unfamiliar, that's where every person votes for their top 3 (or other number) favorites in order of preference. Each placement is worth a number of points, to be totaled up among the votes to decide a winner.

Glenn the Great wrote:I don't think that's much of an improvement.

If we're going to make community voting a component (or hell, even if it's only official judges) I suggest doing a Borda count.
For those unfamiliar, that's where every person votes for their top 3 (or other number) favorites in order of preference. Each placement is worth a number of points, to be totaled up among the votes to decide a winner.

There are only a limited number of people here, and if you enable people to vote for themselves, then they're obviously going to vote for themselves first and not for anyone else.

At least if you allow for the option to vote for more than one they will pick the others to go with their own and we'd get a better #.

-James

Nightmare wrote:There are only a limited number of people here, and if you enable people to vote for themselves, then they're obviously going to vote for themselves first and not for anyone else.

At least if you allow for the option to vote for more than one they will pick the others to go with their own and we'd get a better #.

-James

If everyone votes for their self as their top pick, those votes will cancel out.

Okay so, after looking at the rules:

You must use boss keys and boss doors.

Like I said, there won't be a poll. Because everyone will not have played all the entries they're voting on, it's likely to get slightly complicated. The exact system used to tally the votes is still up in the air, and to be honest, might depend on how close they are. A Borda count sounds like a good place to start, say top 30-40% or so of quests, but still needs to factor in what quests that voter had not played or the total number that they did play, or, if they entered or not. Maybe a total rating or category as well? Perhaps "Best overall", "Most in-line with the NES", and maybe "Funnest" or "Most Addictive".

Glenn the Great wrote:If everyone votes for their self as their top pick, those votes will cancel out.

Goriya wrote:Okay so, after looking at the rules:

Why is the even in the rules? I mean, the first 3 quests didn't have boss doors or boss keys, so shouldn't these things be optional?

Actually yes, yes it should be optional. Subsequently, any other requirement that didn't exist in the previous contests should probably be optional as well, except for the new enemies requirement, that one needs to go in. :P Even if you're a hardcore NES guy and want authentic NES enemies, you can create Item Bubble varieties just to qualify. Also going to simplify the "quest rules" section since it is a little confusing, and try to simplify some sections in general. We should be good to go this week sometime. 😊

Also, first person to put in "ITS DANGEROUS TO GO ALONE, TAKE THIS", and then give Link the Magic Book automatically gets 42 million point-tokens redeemable for contest-points.

And so it begins!

edit:

aturtledoesbite wrote:Hi there. I registered just so I could put in my two cents on all this. (Not that a new guy's opinion is worth anything, but hey.)

I only have a few issues with the rules as they are. First off, there's the "mandatory three new enemies" rule. I can certainly see the arguments for it, but I fear that most contest participants will read that and come up with a solution that can be summed up as "hurr durr i'll make a lynel with 3x as much hp as the blue ones and 2x its damage". Increasing health and damage seems to be a popular action in ZC quests. It is also, in my opinion, a very stupid action. The only thing that increased health accomplishes is that it makes fighting enemies more tedious. Raising damage simply means that a mistake incurs a stronger punishment. While there are cases where either of these actions can be appropriate, there are incredibly few cases where both are appropriate together.

I'm not necessarily saying to get rid of the rule, though. Actually, if I were a participant (I won't be, because Zquest map creation goes over my head), I would use this as the opportunity to make a new enemy species or two. An idea I had was for an enemy that had DR/Wand in the same way Pols Voice have DR/Arrow. Put Link's items through their paces.

Speaking of items, I would be careful about adding a lot of ZC's included items. This isn't even from a "tradition" standpoint; a lot of the other items are simply gamebreaking. Lemme list some of the ones I can think of right now that would destroy any semblance of balance.
Magic Bomb Bag: Everything explodes. Player wins.
Hookshots that do damage: Stunlocks and kills anything that isn't a Wizzrobe or boss, and stunlocks Wizzrobes.
Boomerangs that do damage: See above, except add Darknuts, and it doesn't stun either those or Wizzrobes, but the loss of versatility is made up for by block piercing and diagonal attack.
Life Ring: Essentially, unless a single room can kill Link at full health (which is probably bad balancing in itself), he can't die. Even for the players who aren't very patient, all they have to do is turn off FPS limiting for a few seconds and even the slowest Life Ring will regenerate all of Link's health.

...Huh. I could've sworn there were a lot more. Ah well, if I think of any others, I'll either edit this or make a new post. In any case, included items should be playtested carefully to make sure they don't trivialize the quest.

I'd like to conclude this with one thing that I should not really have to mention, but given the stories I've heard outside of the ZC community about the average quest, I'll mention it anyway. Play time is not an accurate measurement of fun.

(P.S. Pushing blocks into solid tiles is a dumb mechanic.)

Hi! I somehow missed of forgot about this post. Anyway,
I agree with a lot of those and I think you'll see the "finalized" rules reflect them better. The rough edges have been rounded out for sure.

In the past the Nth quests have been pretty good, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

And yes, I have a hard time playing "epic" quests as well. I don't think I've even finished one of them actually.

Cheers.

An early prognosis Gleeok (my opinion, not official):

The Iron Man Award (Most Difficult):
1. Glenn the Great
2. BigJoe
3. Gleeok
4. CJC
5. Nightmare
6. Chris Miller

The Riddler Award (most puzzles):
1. Glenn the Great
2. Chris Miller
3. CJC
4. Nightmare
5. BigJoe
6. Gleeok

The Smeargle Award (Most Creative):
1. CJC
2. Glenn the Great
3. Nightmare
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok
6. Chris Miller

The Tetris Award (Most Fun and Addictive Quest)
1. Nightmare
2. CJC
3. Chris Miller
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok
6. Glenn the Great

The NES award (Most Authentic):
1. BigJoe
2. Chris Miller
3. Nightmare
4. Gleeok
5. Glenn the Great
6. CJC

This is subject to change as time goes on, but this is from what I've tested so far.

-James

Hey, 3 of those aren't even done or downloadable yet! :P

Updated: An early prognosis Gleeok (my opinion, not official):

The Iron Man Award (Most Difficult):
1. BigJoe
2. Glenn the Great
3. Gleeok
4. CJC
5. Nightmare
6. Chris Miller

The Riddler Award (most puzzles):
1. Glenn the Great
2. Chris Miller
3. CJC
4. BigJoe
5. Nightmare
6. Gleeok

The Smeargle Award (Most Creative):
1. CJC
2. Glenn the Great
3. Nightmare
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok
6. Chris Miller

The Tetris Award (Most Fun and Addictive Quest)
1. Nightmare
2. CJC
3. Chris Miller
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok
6. Glenn the Great

The NES award (Most Authentic):
1. BigJoe
2. Chris Miller
3. Nightmare
4. Gleeok
5. Glenn the Great
6. CJC

Nightmare wrote:
The Smeargle Award (Most Creative):
1. CJC
2. Glenn the Great
3. Nightmare
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok
6. Chris Miller

Woo! I took home the Smeargle!

I think you need a new category, though.

UnderHell Warden (Best Boss):
1. CJC (Ganon)
...

Well, you get the idea! (And no, you don't have to rate me #1, I was kidding!)

Updated: Glenn out, doing a separate quest for him

The Iron Man Award (Most Difficult):
1. BigJoe
2. Gleeok
3. CJC
4. Nightmare
5. Chris Miller

The Riddler Award (most puzzles):
1. Chris Miller
2. CJC
3. BigJoe
4. Nightmare
5. Gleeok

The Smeargle Award (Most Creative):
1. CJC
2. Nightmare
3. BigJoe
4. Gleeok
5. Chris Miller

The Tetris Award (Most Fun and Addictive Quest)
1. Nightmare
2. CJC
3. Chris Miller
4. BigJoe
5. Gleeok

The NES award (Most Authentic):
1. BigJoe
2. Chris Miller
3. Nightmare
4. Gleeok
5. CJC

Since for some reason you thought to put me at the bottom of the list for the puzzle category, I'm going to personally make a puzzle specially designed for you: To keep you occupied for at least 5 hours or whenever you decide to ask me for help. 😉

I will call it "spite puzzle 1.0", and I won't tell you where it is.

Cheers.

I know that I said before (I think in another thread) that I'd do a 5th quest, but with work picking up with the holiday season (Halloween, Thanksgiving and Xmas) and family issues have taken up my off work time. I'll have to withdraw my 5th Quest entry. Unless I said that already in an another thread. Then you can just ignore this post.

SUCCESSOR wrote:I guess. Don't look for the boomerang early on in my quest though.

But why? I've found that annoying in the couple custom quests that I've played.

icedawg wrote:But why? I've found that annoying in the couple custom quests that I've played.

If it's a BAD custom quest it's annoying, but not if it's a GOOD one. At least, that's been MY experience.

How can one judge how hard is too hard?

And let me step back and say this "taking enemies out of the equation," as enemies are often artificially pumped up as a crutch (which I do not intend to do).
At what point is a puzzle "too hard"?

What if, at some advanced point in a quest, you are in a room, where you must bomb to get out, but for some reason the player ran out of bombs? Is that bad design?
I mean, at some point, isn't is just *expected* that you have stuff on hand that is needed?