Mod of the Year is biased towards populism Thread

I thought Mod of the Year was about the best mod, not the most popular mod.

The current system, where one can simply vote 'for' a particular mod, rewards mods with a huge playerbase at the cost of smaller mods. Mods which are not popular will have few people voting for them, causing them to lose. Even if all of their players vote for them and only half of the players of [insert hugely popular mod] vote for that one, the latter mod will win if it has twice the playerbase of the former mod.

For next year, I propose a voting system where people rank the mods they have played on a scale from 0% to 100%. This nullifies the effect of playerbase size, and allows the mods that are actually good to shine, regardless of how (un)popular they happen to be.

Anyone dabbled in Warcraft 3 mapmaking? Then you are probably familiar with DotA and the way it dominates online play. Other maps remain unpopular because they are unpopular, which is because they are unpopular. It doesn't matter how good your Warcraft 3 map is, people will ignore it and play DotA because everyone else plays DotA so it 'must be the best map'. Getting out of this vicious circle is pretty much impossible.

This is an extreme example, but it happens with many other engines as well including my own, Diablo 2.

I understand that the MotY award has some value in the game development industry, and the industry cares more about sales figures than about inherent quality... but the current setup prevents competition. Do you want to be communists? No? Thought so.

I like this idea. Although it would still cause the ones people like to be consistently voted 100%, there are plenty of constructive people out there that can create a much more competitive atmosphere. I wholeheartedly agree that having Player's Choice based on voting alone is entirely biased (that's the reason why I felt Editor's Choice for me was the only saving grace for me to help promote the little guy).

Let's hope Scott really considers this proposal. I'd hate for great mods to be ignored.

I support this idea. As a an example out of current situation there's Insurgency. Up in top100 racking some votes but I happen to have played this recently and I would have given this mod at most 50% rating since it lacks a lot. If critic voices would have been in there the results would have been better.

In the end though having a huge fanboy-base still weights in a lot. I am skeptical at how much such a system can fix this problem. But there's one important thing to know. Nearly all MOTY aspiration mods have not been that great if looked at in the second run. The sleeper hits still are the ones with the biggest potential. Minerva for example never did make a huge fanboy collection mayhem and just hit the world with a new installment when the time has been right. The good stuff always finds the people and the mediocre stuff dies no matter how much hype it gets

As it stands, MOTY is a test of which mod has built the biggest community, who will then vote en masse.

this is where editor's choice comes in.

It's pretty annoying seeing yet another anime/movie/zombie/remake mod and other unoriginal shit up there all the time, most of which will probably never be released.

What if one person votes 100% for a mod no one knows about. Since it only received one vote, and it got 100%, would that mod win?

Nope. You would use math. You would average the number of votes with the percentage it receives. So the strength of that percentage would be measured. Then, you would toss out those with so many votes and below.

Hopefully next year, it will also be measured by influence. That way, a new member's 100% can be crushed by a respected member's 20% (or whatever it may be). Just like with Newgrounds, in a way. That's when you would experiment with such a system, as I understand what you're talking about, Phoenix.

Edited by: Karuto

Would this be based on Karme/Influence? A bit tricky to base it on that system seeing how it is exploited currently. Furthermore assuming the system works you have then the problem that a few elected people dominate the voting with their opinion. This though I think is also not a good thing to have.

I'm love this idea, but another solution leilei mentioned that I would also agree with is Player's Choice and Editors Choice. The only problem is that that requires staffies to have played all the mods.

I think the % system would be perfect because if you had a top 100 list, the instant some one voted 100% on a mod it would shoot to the top with 100% and if it was crap tons of people would see it immediately and down vote it, and if it was good it would gain publicity quickly. I would also be nice if more active members had a larger effect, like the Newgrounds voting system, out of any I've seen that one is probably the best model ever. It has it's flaws I guess (damn you kitty krew) but it's the most effective I've ever seen.

Edited by: Jyffeh

There is already an Editor's Choice. I participated in one of them.

Moddb.com

I voted for Katana and Median 2008 on there.

But yeah, we need to do our research and help Scotteh come up with a better system so everyone benefits. That's the only way the ModDB Awards are going to evolve and everyone (well, mostly everyone) will be satisfied.

Edited by (in order): Karuto, Karuto, Karuto

What you activity be based on? Forum posts? Time online? Time as member?

I didn't notice that Karuto already mentioned NG. But I really think that system works great.

smfk wrote: What you activity be based on? Forum posts? Time online? Time as member?

It's a combo of a lot of things I assume.

Edited by: Jyffeh

Jiffy_No0b wrote:

I think the % system would be perfect because if you had a top 100 list, the instant some one voted 100% on a mod it would shoot to the top with 100% and if it was crap tons of people would see it immediately and down vote it, and if it was good it would gain publicity quickly. I would also be nice if more active members had a larger effect, like the Newgrounds voting system, out of any I've seen that one is probably the best model ever. It has it's flaws I guess (damn you kitty krew) but it's the most effective I've ever seen.

It really doesn't matter to me, just playing a voice. But, wouldn't a system like that tend to cause alot more fighting between mods? Like if my mod and your mod were FPS and I didn't like you, so I'd get all my fans to bomb your rating, while your fans bomb mine.

I voted for Katana and Median 2008 on there.

Much appreciated.

Ratings would only be counted after 100 or 200 people rated the mod. This number should be high enough to avoid people telling their friends to vote 100%, and low enough to give mods with a smaller playerbase a chance.

To avoid mod wars, perhaps some statistics could be applied to throw out all votes that deviate too much from the mean (ie. that jerk who downvotes you because he doesn't like your mod logotype - been there, done that), and perhaps people should only be allowed to rate a single mod per game engine. Any 100% vote should be discarded as well. Also, if more than X% of the people who voted for a mod also downvote another mod, ban the former from the competition.

Either way, the system would at least partially measure actual quality. The current system does not measure quality at all; the size of the playerbase is almost the sole deciding factor now, because there is no way to reduce the score of a mod you don't like.

This is a bit of a tangent, but maybe some of the less popular mods could look at the way the more popular ones handle their presentation. I mean, developing a mod that is on a popular platform or based on a popular IP may contribute to part of it but look at their marketing. All the popular mods have their shit together when it comes to media releases, news updates, website etc. They maintain that popularity by keeping in the public eye and looking good while doing it. All mods have to work to develop their communities; the ones that work harder at it, have bigger communities.

Popular mods didn't get that way overnight.

Edited by: Metafiz

I know; I get accused of 'populism' for doing just that.

That said, not everyone with modding talent also knows how to advertise - or wants to learn to advertise. Although 'releasing lots of media' is obvious for any modder, designing a brand identity and positioning your mod correctly in the market is not necessarily so.

The name 'Median 2008', the colour scheme and logotype are meant to draw attention, which is useful in a buyer's market where too many mods compete over too few players and most mods just get skipped over. I am using other tricks, including 'creative use' of version numbers to stress patch updates which implement popular player demands, and screenshots that are pretty much set up just right using improbable skill combinations that happen to give off matching coloured light. The only thing I haven't done yet is astroturfing, because it does not actually enlarge the community, merely make it look larger.

It is paying off, but then I'm in this to become the biggest name in Blizzard modding with time, not because I am looking for a creative outlet or because Diablo 2 has some secrets left for me to unlock. Your approach may (and should) vary.

It's because they're making a mod on *very popular engine name here* and you're making it on Diablo 2, or someone else is making it on Max Payne, or whatever you can come up with. That's really the case here, that the size of the community itself also helps determine the popularity.

You can say World of Warcraft is big, but the Diablo 2 mod playerbase is small. That's an obvious, albeit quite unfortunate state of things.

stenchy wrote: This is a bit of a tangent, but maybe some of the less popular mods could look at the way the more popular ones handle their presentation. I mean, developing a mod that is on a popular platform or based on a popular IP may contribute to part of it but look at their marketing. All the popular mods have their shit together when it comes to media releases, news updates, website etc. They maintain that popularity by keeping in the public eye and looking good while doing it. All mods have to work to develop their communities; the ones that work harder at it, have bigger communities.

Popular mods didn't get that way overnight.

I'm not very fond of this view. If the only reason for your mod to exist is to gather as much publicity as possible where is the meat then? Most mods here are like most games: all hype but no real substance. So if somebody tries to get substance and not caring about PR in the first run then he's a looser or "bad modder"? That's a hefty accusation there.

This entire debate is completely ridiculous. Of course the MOTY awards are biased towards populism. In case you haven't noticed, that's what voting systems are all about: what the popular opinion is. If you want awards based on the opinions of people that you think can judge better than the general public, then look to editor's choice.

Polling based on a percentage rating system isn't going to change anything. You're still going to have the same people voting for the same mods and probably giving them high ratings.

This is not to say that I think mods with superior PR are necessarily superior themselves, but rather that mods with inferior PR are probably not going to get voted for in a people's choice award because no one knows about them. Changing the rating system isn't going to change anything.

Everyone is so desperate to see a certain mod win or mods of a certain game win and I don't see why. If you enjoy the mod yourself, why do you care if the general public also enjoys it or even knows about it. It's naive to think that mod awards should be anymore based on the opinions of "elites" than normal game awards.

When these mods are winning $3,000 computers and widespread coverage across gaming sites, then I think you can understand why some people are upset that their work is going unnoticed. I do think that a new system is in order. Perhaps instead, we should do Editor's Choice first and then Player's Choice. That way, the lesser-known mods are out there in the public eye before they go to vote! It would probably be the best solution if you don't want to radically change the system.

I do understand why people might be upset when such hefty prizes are at stake, but honestly, the unfortunate truth that people need to understand is that the mods with the best PR are always going to win unless we mainly go for an "editor's choice" method as you're talking about. I'd definitely support an "editor's choice" approach because I find that the staffers, for the most part, have the best, most seasoned opinions when rating mods.

stenchy wrote:

Popular mods didn't get that way overnight.

Unless of course they are based on a movie/tv show/anime/a remake of another game.

Dragonlord wrote:

stenchy wrote: This is a bit of a tangent, but maybe some of the less popular mods could look at the way the more popular ones handle their presentation. I mean, developing a mod that is on a popular platform or based on a popular IP may contribute to part of it but look at their marketing. All the popular mods have their shit together when it comes to media releases, news updates, website etc. They maintain that popularity by keeping in the public eye and looking good while doing it. All mods have to work to develop their communities; the ones that work harder at it, have bigger communities.

Popular mods didn't get that way overnight.

I'm not very fond of this view. If the only reason for your mod to exist is to gather as much publicity as possible where is the meat then? Most mods here are like most games: all hype but no real substance. So if somebody tries to get substance and not caring about PR in the first run then he's a looser or "bad modder"? That's a hefty accusation there.

Where did I make that accusation?

All I am saying is people should pay more attention to the way they present their content if they want to have more of a community. Marketing and substance can co-exist and it does in a lot of the popular mods that are original creations. If you want people to appreciate your work, then you have to let people know about it. It kind of defeats the purpose of making a multiplayer mod if all your are going to do is focus on the mod and not give any love to the community.

Editor's choice is clearly a better idea than a refined voting system, because in all cases of internet communities staffies have always shown competence over the general populace.

As shown here: