This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

FRC 2013 Gaming Grand Prix

17891113

Comments

  • It's so crazy that it might just work. I'm down.
  • Techincally yes, time zone difference will be a doozy ;-)
  • I've never tried, but if it is as easy as screen showing in Skype... I guess yes?

    That is, if I'm not on a ship.
  • edited March 2013
    I've never tried, but if it is as easy as screen showing in Skype... I guess yes?

    That is, if I'm not on a ship.
    It's dead easy. Livestream, twitch and the like have applications that will do 95% of the work for you, and hangout streaming is just as easy as skype streaming.

    Post edited by Churba on
  • You do need to have decent upstream bandwidth, though.
  • That sounds interesting. I'd be game.
  • Oh mans - I had an idea. 2 divisions: non-doping division and hax division. If you're entered in the clean class, you have to do it yourself. If you enter the doping class, anything goes.
  • edited March 2013
    Idea to avoid you having to schedule and watch 50+ games:

    When we are ready to do the challenge, we post stating the exact time in wich we will do it (likely 5-10 minutes after posting). Then we proceed to capture a video showing both the post and time.gov*. We play the game. We show time.gov once again to ensure there was no editing (if it's not a full screen game, time.gov must be allways on screen).

    *It must show how the exact time we posted come. If you said you would do it at 9:00 but your video shows time.gov at 9:00:01, you are discualified.

    The only cheating options I see to this is either a not-worth-it carefully edition or to edit your post to delay the time and try agin, but this way someone may have already seen your original post and you would be exposed. Having to start the video 30' after posting to avoid editing may be problematic, because life could happen during that gap of time.

    Edit: Improvement: Specific thread to serve as evidence. We capture how we post on it, then show time.gov to hinder video edition, play the game, show time.gov again. Every player must post only once on that thread, so no cheat by editing the message can be done.
    Post edited by 5ro4 on
  • Looks like I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to register! I've been playing Canabalt all week and I'm curious to see what else we'll be playing.
  • edited March 2013
    (Ignore, didn't realize I wasn't on last page)
    Post edited by Axel on
  • Idea to avoid you having to schedule and watch 50+ games...
    When you switch to your game, and back from it, edit in a clip from a different game. You already know ahead of time how long that clip is going to be if you pre-record it, so 'starting and stopping' of recording has to be timed, but shouldn't be hard.
  • Here is a scoring table I came up with to give points to the top 20 positions instead of just the top 10.

    1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 30, 37, 45, 55
  • I'm in! Let's see how many event I can participate in...
  • edited March 2013
    Here is a scoring table I came up with to give points to the top 20 positions instead of just the top 10.

    1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 30, 37, 45, 55
    Man, just give everyone points equal to total signed up players minus person's ranking, plus optionally a high rank bonus of a few points for the top 3/5 spots. That'll differentiate people who signed up but never submitted any scores from people who signed up and just failed to ever get in the top 20. It'll also create different tiers as it were between the crazy highly competitive folks vying for spot #1, and people playing more relaxed and then getting in their own rivalry with people scoring in the same area. You know, fun.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • Psssst. Scott, wanna add me to the Google doc?
  • Quick question: How many rounds are there going to be? I was imagining 6 to 10 rounds over 6 to 10 weeks. Is that about right? It would be great to know how many rounds there are going to be, confirmed in advance.
  • Four, unless there's a tie, I believe.
  • I only have four planned. You want this thing to last all year long?
  • I thought it might be like the F1 season.
  • edited March 2013
    I only have four planned.
    And you have a 10 point difference between a first and second place? Good god.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • I only have four planned.
    And you have a 10 point difference between a first and second place? Good god.
    First place is a big deal. If you want more rounds, I'll have to make them less than a week long, or pick games that are going to exclude people.
  • edited March 2013
    Yes, first place is a big deal, but 10 points is fucking huge if there's only 4 matches. In F1 the difference between first and second is only 7 points, and only 25 points between first and not ranking. With 20 or so matches to score points in everyone has a chance even if they fail to rank a match due to problems. And even then F1 has a championship winner before the final race even begins which is no fun at all to watch.

    If you want to be all competitive and taken seriously about your competition, be serious in all your competition encompasses.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • edited March 2013
    Here is a scoring table I came up with to give points to the top 20 positions instead of just the top 10.

    1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 30, 37, 45, 55
    That 17 should be a 16 and the 8 should be a 7, otherwise ok. Personally I'd add four "1"'s at the low end.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • Here is a scoring table I came up with to give points to the top 20 positions instead of just the top 10.

    1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 30, 37, 45, 55
    That 17 should be a 16 and the 8 should be a 7, otherwise ok. Personally I'd add four "1"'s at the low end.
    Maybe I'll add fractions. Who says we can only use integers?
  • edited March 2013
    Is there a logic behind the 6-8 and 13-17 gaps being bigger than the ones that come after them?
    Post edited by 5ro4 on
  • Is there a logic behind the 6-8 and 13-17 gaps being bigger than the ones that come after them?
    It's an exponential scale.
  • edited March 2013
    Is there a logic behind the 6-8 and 13-17 gaps being bigger than the ones that come after them?
    It's an exponential scale.
    Yeah, but you should use FLOOR or CEILING instead of ROUND.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • Is there a logic behind the 6-8 and 13-17 gaps being bigger than the ones that come after them?
    It's an exponential scale.
    Yeah, but you should use FLOOR or CEILING instead of ROUND.
    Ok, but why?

  • edited March 2013
    Is there a logic behind the 6-8 and 13-17 gaps being bigger than the ones that come after them?
    It's an exponential scale.
    Yeah, but you should use FLOOR or CEILING instead of ROUND.
    Ok, but why?
    Because otherwise you get those weird effects like the difference between place 7 to 8 being four points and the difference between 8 and 9 being three points.

    The gaps between placings shoud only increase or stay the same (not decrease) as you go higher (towards 1st place). That's why you use an exponential function to start with. If you round it badly you get integer jumps that don't follow the intent of your function (even though they follow the closest numerical approximation).
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • 1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,16,20,25
Sign In or Register to comment.