Generic Contest Discussion

[Jim]

I’m not talking about you in particular. It’s a general comment.

[SaperPL]

About voting - I noticed that voting is a bit cumbersome, and while the numbers' game may work perfectly in deciding the order, maybe we could have a form or a javascript widget for making it easier. We have multiple clever people here doing various things including websites, maybe someone would pick up the task to make something useful that would encourage people to vote? Ideally I would see a widget that lets you visually order the promo images, one of each from the submissions while showing points given out, this would mean that while you browse and you'll find something that you like better than previous choices, you can simply put it there quickly to shift your order.

One way or another we could think about whether there's a laziness factor involved in why people don't participate. Also maybe giving out badges for figuring out the podium or just counting people who took part in voting in some way would be rewarding enough for people to be less lazy.

About the shrinking contest - if we end up with multiple people stating they are already working on something, setting a specific size and/or parts count could make it harder to luckily fit into the requirements. There's a big difference between 9, 11 and 13 stud wide vehicles when it comes chassis and body shape.

Finally, when it comes to contests with smal size/parts limit, I would really like a contest with required virtual model submission. People come up with some various clever assembly techniques under size restrictions and it often ends up being hidden underneath the body.

[Erik Leppen]

1 minute ago, SaperPL said:

I would really like a contest with required virtual model submission

This would rule out people who don't work with virtual model software.

I don't know how many people these are, but I don't assume everyone uses this kind of software, even if many of us do.

Also, a clever assembly technique has no real use if we can't see the effect it has on the actual body that it's assembling. Also there's always the option for people to show pictures of their model's internals. There's a reason one of my entry's photos is a view of the underside. :)

[msk6003]

Talking about contest, my idea is still on 'idea' now. I don't start actual build yet.

Talking about vote system, how about use google form? It may be hard if contest entry is to many like small car contest but it will useful for easy vorting.

P.S - @Jim I voted too.

[SaperPL]

9 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I don't know how many people these are, but I don't assume everyone uses this kind of software, even if many of us do.

That is why I said it in context of small scale models. It shouldn't be a problem to learn to assemble a small model in studio. The software is free and really easy to use...

And I'm not saying that all contest should be like that, for bigger models it would obviously get cumbersome.

12 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Also, a clever assembly technique has no real use if we can't see the effect it has on the actual body that it's assembling.

I never said the contest would be virtual-only...

13 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Also there's always the option for people to show pictures of their model's internals.

That is true, but how do you construct a requirement for showing internals in a way that it will be always clear how something was built? A lot of detail is often lost in the photos when elements are obstructed by other elements.

[Milan]

23 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

I voted too.

[Jim]

12 hours ago, msk6003 said:

Talking about contest, my idea is still on 'idea' now. I don't start actual build yet.

Talking about vote system, how about use google form? It may be hard if contest entry is to many like small car contest but it will useful for easy vorting.

P.S - @Jim I voted too.

Thanks!

We will stick to this voting system. You can copy and paste the list to a spreadsheet or use other tools, but we will keep the same voting system.

[Lipko]

Maybe it's just me, but I think in general we should not discuss the next contest until the currently running one is closed. Talking about the next totally removes the focus from the current. See voting, see how fast the result topic is being unpinned, how easily it's forgotten to put the winner(s) to the Hall of Fame, etc. It also feels a bit dishonest to the contestants of the current contest.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Lipko

[Jim]

8 minutes ago, Lipko said:

Maybe it's just me, but I think in general we should not discuss the next contest until the currently running one is closed. Talking about the next totally removes the focus from the current. See voting, see how fast the result topic is being unpinned, how easily it's forgotten to put the winner(s) to the Hall of Fame, etc. It also feels a bit dishonest to the contestants of the current contest.

I totally agree with you on this one. It bothers me as well (although I am part of the problem). Too much discussion about future contests. I will read the ideas and make up my mind, instead of going into detail here.

[allanp]

I could be very wrong here, so apologies in advance if I annoy someone, but I get an overall sense that there has been a bit less enthusiasm for this current contest. And honestly, if that is true, I think it might be because of the topic of the contest being space vehicles. The main function of a space vehicle is space flight, something we can't replicate in Technic, so contestants are left with landing gear and in some cases some very creative new functions. But not even TLG themselves have been able to make Technic Starwars popular. 8480 took multiple TLG designers a long time and around 80 prototypes to develope. But of course, this is all thinking in hindsight, it never crossed my mind before the contest started, and with so many great contest topics in the past and I'm sure the future as well, I mean, every great band has a not so great album! Maybe something to bare in mind for future contests, to make them more accessible and with a view to how engaging the final entries might be. I wonder if a 12 week time frame might also be an option depending on the contest topic.

With this in mind, I should probably rethink my own previous suggestion of a "build a universal set" contest. It's hard enough to build one model in the time frame let alone 4 from the same pile of elements, so might not be the best idea from an accessibility stand point, though might make for a more interesting selection of entries. Maybe I should suggest a "build a theme park ride" contest instead

And purely for accessibility reasons, I probably wouldn't want digital entries to be a requirement. A simple size limit and pictures of the interesting internals from the already required WIP topics would be easier to stick to. For models with a limit of 200 parts or less, like the mini contest, a picture of the pieces laid out nice and neatly might also be an option to revisit.

[Jim]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

Maybe something to bare in mind for future contests, to make them more accessible and with a view to how engaging the final entries might be. I wonder if a 12 week time frame might also be an option depending on the contest topic.

Absolutely. The current subject was a  bit too limiting.

I was planning on running the next contest for an extensive period, let's say three months or so.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

And purely for accessibility reasons, I probably wouldn't want digital entries to be a requirement.

Agreed

[howitzer]

With voting, the most cumbersome thing is to familiarize yourself with all the entries, especially when there's a lot of them. Perusing the entry topics, watching all the videos, etc. takes a significant amount of time, and then you'll have to actually do the deciding on which entries to vote. This was a real problem with the small car contest and the construction vehicle contest, as they had huge number of entries. I don't think this can be eased up that much with tools but if someone is willing to spend the time and effort to actually make such a tool, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[msk6003]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

"build a theme park ride" contest

Here it is.

 

For simple, easy-creating, popular theme, I still suggest one-set alternative contest.

Build anything from just one set. Can't add ANY other which not include in selected set.(like wire, rubber band, etc) Maybe we can limit spare parts too.

Edited April 24, 2023 by msk6003

[gyenesvi]

I just wanted to chime in to agree with many speaking here, with @allanp about the theme of the current contest being a bit lacking in requiring technically interesting solutions, with @howitzer about it being difficult to decide a ranking for voting (for me it would be easier just to independently give points to each build on a 1-5 scale), and with @msk6003 about the one-set alternate contest, though the hardest part could be choosing the one set :) But I also like the shrinking contest idea.

[msk6003]

6 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

though the hardest part could be choosing the one set :)

Exactly. Hardest part is choose one set and second hardest is choose what to build from choosen set.

[gyenesvi]

4 hours ago, msk6003 said:

Exactly. Hardest part is choose one set and second hardest is choose what to build from choosen set.

Oh, do you mean everybody would choose one set on their own? Then the entries become incomparable I guess, bigger sets are much easier to build from. I thought choosing one set collectively and then everybody builds from that one, so that everyone starts with an equal pile of bricks. But then it would have to be a popular, maybe smaller / cheaper set that many people potentially have. But such sets have less interesting parts for mechanisms. Or we could allow color alternations so that even people who don't have the set but have the parts in other colors could participate.

Another way could be letting everyone choose their set but limiting the part count to be more fair.

[SaperPL]

49 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Then the entries become incomparable I guess, bigger sets are much easier to build from.

If there is a set size requirement then it's going to be a level ground for everybody. I would expect the requirement to be something sized like the $10 sets - like mini claas xerion.

[msk6003]

38 minutes ago, SaperPL said:

If there is a set size requirement then it's going to be a level ground for everybody. I would expect the requirement to be something sized like the $10 sets - like mini claas xerion.

 

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

 

If you limit sets such as mini-class exileon, it will be no different from the existing contest of up to 2 sets and up to 600 parts(TC5). I would like to have no limit on the selection of sets or limit to sets over 100$.

Edited April 25, 2023 by msk6003

[Jundis]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

Oh, do you mean everybody would choose one set on their own? Then the entries become incomparable I guess, bigger sets are much easier to build from. I thought choosing one set collectively and then everybody builds from that one, so that everyone starts with an equal pile of bricks. But then it would have to be a popular, maybe smaller / cheaper set that many people potentially have. But such sets have less interesting parts for mechanisms. Or we could allow color alternations so that even people who don't have the set but have the parts in other colors could participate.

Another way could be letting everyone choose their set but limiting the part count to be more fair.

26 minutes ago, SaperPL said:

If there is a set size requirement then it's going to be a level ground for everybody. I would expect the requirement to be something sized like the $10 sets - like mini claas xerion.

Good points: But I guess sets for 10€ or even 20€ for everybody would lead to very similar B-models. Maybe Jim selects 2 or 3 currently available models in small to medium range (1000 pieces max). This would also prevent the "early starters" problem mentioned before. 

[Seasider]

We’ve had a C model contest before. TC5 almost 10 years ago now! So perhaps something to revisit. I think limiting the sets that are selectable would be a good idea to then focus the challenge better than the last time we ran it.

[SaperPL]

1 hour ago, msk6003 said:

If you limit sets such as mini-class exileon, it will be no different from the existing contest of up to 2 sets and up to 600 parts(TC5). I would like to have no limit on the selection of sets or limit to sets over 100$.

I wasn't talking about limit on the set you want to shrink, but on the limit on the target size of the model that you are making. I was giving out an example of this size because if we were to go for the size of car-transporter-fitting cars, we could end up with sets that are in the size of close to this size.

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, SaperPL said:

If there is a set size requirement then it's going to be a level ground for everybody. I would expect the requirement to be something sized like the $10 sets - like mini claas xerion.

1 hour ago, Jundis said:

Good points: But I guess sets for 10€ or even 20€ for everybody would lead to very similar B-models. Maybe Jim selects 2 or 3 currently available models in small to medium range (1000 pieces max). This would also prevent the "early starters" problem mentioned before. 

I think that the size of $10 sets is too small for an interesting competition. I was also thinking in the max 1000 pieces range, many sets have lots of small parts (something like the size of 42139 or 42151).

1 minute ago, Seasider said:

We’ve had a C model contest before. TC5 almost 10 years ago now! So perhaps something to revisit. I think limiting the sets that are selectable would be a good idea to then focus the challenge better than the last time we ran it.

Indeed, preselecting a number of sets with roughly equal number of parts seems like a good idea! It circumvents unfair set selection and also there's a bigger chance that people have at least one of them.

2 minutes ago, SaperPL said:

I wasn't talking about limit on the set you want to shrink, but on the limit on the target size of the model that you are making. I was giving out an example of this size because if we were to go for the size of car-transporter-fitting cars, we could end up with sets that are in the size of close to this size.

Oh, we weren't talking about sets for the shrinking contest, but a possible alternate model contest. If I am not mistaken..

[SaperPL]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

I think that the size of $10 sets is too small for an interesting competition. I was also thinking in the max 1000 pieces range, many sets have lots of small parts (something like the size of 42139 or 42151).

I was just setting an example. I'm not sure which approach I like better, for a car competition I liked the bounding box and the requirement it's supposed to fit the car transporter which made all cars roughly the same scale. If you make it about part count, we'll end up with bigger designs that are simpler inside and smaller ones that are more fleshed out, not sure if that's bad, but I really liked the past competitions that ended up with similar sized models.

[msk6003]

2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

max 1000 pieces range

I don't want MAX limit. Over 100$ set is enough for this theme.

[SaperPL]

27 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

I don't want MAX limit. Over 100$ set is enough for this theme.

I think you're not getting what we're talking about - we're not talking about limit of pieces of the set that you want to shrink, but limit of how many pieces your shrunk model can have.