Game On C

HandsFreeCookieDunk
Member
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: January 14th, 2016, 4:53 pm
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Game On C

Postby HandsFreeCookieDunk » March 26th, 2016, 1:29 pm

The concern that I have about this event (granted, I didn't do it, so maybe I'm wrong about this), is that it seems to me as though there is no point in having two people on the event. If the game can only be worked on by one person at a time, what is the point in allowing two people?

kenniky
Member
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: January 21st, 2016, 6:16 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Location: ABRHS --> UMichigan

Re: Game On C

Postby kenniky » March 26th, 2016, 3:10 pm

The concern that I have about this event (granted, I didn't do it, so maybe I'm wrong about this), is that it seems to me as though there is no point in having two people on the event. If the game can only be worked on by one person at a time, what is the point in allowing two people?
It's just the format of scioly, honestly. This is definitely one of the more solo-able events. Having two people makes it easier to come up with ideas though, and they can switch off coding and such, but it's not strictly necessary.
Automated Event Assigner!
UMich 2018: Chem Lab, Fermi

[url=http://tinyurl.com/kenniky-so-test]Rate my tests![/url]
[url]https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/User:Kenniky[/url]

[url=https://scioly.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10008&start=34]2017 Nats = rip[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/MCo8IAovjfw]ABRHS 2016[/url]

KILLERpanda
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 12:36 pm

Re: Game On C

Postby KILLERpanda » April 15th, 2016, 1:00 pm

Hello guys, my team went to our Regional tournament and got 1st place with this game. If you want an example of a game, whether you personally find it 1st place worthy or not, you're free to try it. Please don't copy this game and use it in your own tournament (and get disqualified). Thank you and I hope you enjoy. ;)

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/102362700/#fullscreen

Plz, comment what u think.

chaguy2457
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:53 am
Division: C
State: NY

Re: Game On C

Postby chaguy2457 » May 28th, 2016, 5:38 am

The concern that I have about this event (granted, I didn't do it, so maybe I'm wrong about this), is that it seems to me as though there is no point in having two people on the event. If the game can only be worked on by one person at a time, what is the point in allowing two people?
It's just the format of scioly, honestly. This is definitely one of the more solo-able events. Having two people makes it easier to come up with ideas though, and they can switch off coding and such, but it's not strictly necessary.
When the topic is announced, my friend draws up (sometimes literally) a game while I just make all the default sprites we must have regardless of the game. Part of why I like having a partner is while I can use Scratch I'm pretty uncreative. I once tried recreating Flappy Bird (the theme was gravity) and wound up in the bottom half.
Captain

Bold indicates main event
2016 Events: Disease Detectives, Dynamic Planet, Forensics, Fossils, Game On, Green Generation, It's About Time
Medal Count: 3

2017 Events: Experimental Design, Game On, Hovercraft, Rocks and Minerals, Herpetology, Wind Power
Medal Count: 3

JoJojohnson
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: May 29th, 2016, 11:02 am

Re: Game On C

Postby JoJojohnson » May 29th, 2016, 11:10 am

As a graduating division B student, I've been watching Game On with much interest. I plan to be a video game programmer and have worked in scratch for several years. In my opinion though, I feel as though this event took the wrong approach. I find the idea of making a program and a handful of assets/sounds in 50 minutes restricting. I've seen some projects and though they were good, I'm sure that they could be better if they had more time. So, I thought I'd make a recommendation.

I think that the event should be handled more like a build event than a study event. I think that students should be presented a theme in advance so that they have more time to make their program. Then at the competition, the teams could present their projects to the supervisors individually, during which the supervisors would score the work based on the set criteria (maybe this time could be split into showing the code behind it and the supervisors playing it). This would allow teams to produce programs that have been optimized for the event.

Now when it comes to themes, The frequency of theme changes would most likely have to decrease to provide the time needed to make the game. How many themes would there be? I can't tell, but I was thinking that three or four would be a good number, changing with the level of the competition(invitationals, regionals, etc). I will admit it, having eight to ten months to make a game that would probably be ten minutes long at most is a pretty long time, so the theme should change at least once.

Of course there are several issues with this idea(mainly being that scratch is not the most powerful programming engine, and confirming that the assets used were made by the teams in the scratch editor would be much harder), but it still seems like a better idea then what we have right now. Either way, I am just tossing ideas around and seeing what people think

chaguy2457
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:53 am
Division: C
State: NY

Re: Game On C

Postby chaguy2457 » May 29th, 2016, 1:40 pm

As a graduating division B student, I've been watching Game On with much interest. I plan to be a video game programmer and have worked in scratch for several years. In my opinion though, I feel as though this event took the wrong approach. I find the idea of making a program and a handful of assets/sounds in 50 minutes restricting. I've seen some projects and though they were good, I'm sure that they could be better if they had more time. So, I thought I'd make a recommendation.

I think that the event should be handled more like a build event than a study event. I think that students should be presented a theme in advance so that they have more time to make their program. Then at the competition, the teams could present their projects to the supervisors individually, during which the supervisors would score the work based on the set criteria (maybe this time could be split into showing the code behind it and the supervisors playing it). This would allow teams to produce programs that have been optimized for the event.

Now when it comes to themes, The frequency of theme changes would most likely have to decrease to provide the time needed to make the game. How many themes would there be? I can't tell, but I was thinking that three or four would be a good number, changing with the level of the competition(invitationals, regionals, etc). I will admit it, having eight to ten months to make a game that would probably be ten minutes long at most is a pretty long time, so the theme should change at least once.

Of course there are several issues with this idea(mainly being that scratch is not the most powerful programming engine, and confirming that the assets used were made by the teams in the scratch editor would be much harder), but it still seems like a better idea then what we have right now. Either way, I am just tossing ideas around and seeing what people think
I've also thought of this idea, but think about the myriad of games available on Scratch. It would be hard to tell whether a competitor made his game from scratch (no pun intended) or not. Or if a coach helped out. Or anything. Placing everyone in a room and making them crank out a game in 50 minutes is the most fair way by a long shot.

What I do think would be helpful is a redesign of the rubric so there is little or no ambiguity. Especially the criterion "complex movement." What does that even mean? Like is bobbing up and down and circling "complex?" The rubric from the 2015-2016 season just left too much for the judge to decide.
Captain

Bold indicates main event
2016 Events: Disease Detectives, Dynamic Planet, Forensics, Fossils, Game On, Green Generation, It's About Time
Medal Count: 3

2017 Events: Experimental Design, Game On, Hovercraft, Rocks and Minerals, Herpetology, Wind Power
Medal Count: 3

0ddrenaline
Member
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: May 21st, 2015, 6:36 pm
Division: Grad
State: MI

Re: Game On C

Postby 0ddrenaline » May 29th, 2016, 2:11 pm

A significant change to the event as previously suggested by JoJojohnson is probably not going to happen before next season. I'm not in the event, but I have heard many complaints about the rubric like the ones suggested by chaguy. I think a plausible change to the rules would be a more objective take on the rubric. A team member also complained about the rubric only having 50 points, although I don't know if that is a relevant argument, as there is a pretty solid tie breaking system.

DaPlug
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: March 9th, 2016, 10:14 pm
Division: C
State: CA

Re: Game On C

Postby DaPlug » May 29th, 2016, 8:23 pm

At the National Competition does anyone know what type of game came in first place. The topic was LIGHT.
Mira Loma High School
2016:
Air Trajectory/Robot Arm/Wright Stuff/Game On
Regionals: 7/2/2/1
States: 3/2/4/2
Nationals: 4/1/3/-

0ddrenaline
Member
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: May 21st, 2015, 6:36 pm
Division: Grad
State: MI

Re: Game On C

Postby 0ddrenaline » May 29th, 2016, 8:46 pm

West Windsor-Plainsboro got first. If anyone saw what they made or if any team members are on here then we could know. It must have been a genuinely great game. Usually you have to add "for a game made in 50 minutes," but I probably would enjoy playing this game for fun.

kenniky
Member
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: January 21st, 2016, 6:16 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Location: ABRHS --> UMichigan

Re: Game On C

Postby kenniky » June 4th, 2016, 6:43 pm

I liked our game, and we got 23rd, lol

I agree with the rubric being too subjective, but there's a super fine line you have to draw. If the rubric is too objective, you kind of lose out on the creativity aspect that makes Game On fun. If we look at Experimental Design's rubric, for example, it's super hard to be subjective with, but it also reduces variety. Game creation should be about creativity imo, so it's kind of hard to find a balance

I feel like Scratch is the easiest way they could go about running this event, unfortunately... Processing (which runs Java) could be used, though, that's not too hard. The problem is that the more complex the language, the more potential bugs you'll have and it gets pretty ridiculous.

If they wanted to test computer science skills, though, there could be a new event that's kind of a mix of Code Busters and the USACO... get a bunch of problems and see how many you can solve. Although that might be pretty hard to implement, and that's wayyyy outside the scope of what we should be discussing here lol

Game On is a flawed event :(

maybe if Scratch got a substantial update (Scratch 3, anyone? MIT, are you reading this?)
Automated Event Assigner!
UMich 2018: Chem Lab, Fermi

[url=http://tinyurl.com/kenniky-so-test]Rate my tests![/url]
[url]https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/User:Kenniky[/url]

[url=https://scioly.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10008&start=34]2017 Nats = rip[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/MCo8IAovjfw]ABRHS 2016[/url]


Return to “2016 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest