Game On C

Locked
User avatar
poonicle
Member
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: September 22nd, 2017, 3:11 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by poonicle »

Magikarpmaster629 wrote:I'll update this post with more info later, but I have a lot of advice for teams having graded most of the tests at MIT. Only the top four teams were not tiered as most did not understand what 'racing' means.
Honestly, I was quite confused by some of the grading... Did the ES use https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... lained.pdf to grade? As an example of something that confused my partner and me when we got our rubrics back, the linked rubric awards 1 point for having a default starting position of sprite under "sprite orientation," but we got 0 points for that part.

As for the "racing" game, I believe the confusion was in the "two-player" portion. Most competitors assumed that two-player meant player vs. player, not 2 players vs. an autonomous sprite (this is the sense that I got from our school's B team)
Events: WIDI, Geomap, Disease, Chem Lab
Acton-Boxborough A for Invites season
User avatar
Riptide
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 202
Joined: December 4th, 2017, 7:09 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Re: Game On C

Post by Riptide »

poonicle wrote:
Magikarpmaster629 wrote:I'll update this post with more info later, but I have a lot of advice for teams having graded most of the tests at MIT. Only the top four teams were not tiered as most did not understand what 'racing' means.
Honestly, I was quite confused by some of the grading... Did the ES use https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... lained.pdf to grade? As an example of something that confused my partner and me when we got our rubrics back, the linked rubric awards 1 point for having a default starting position of sprite under "sprite orientation," but we got 0 points for that part.

As for the "racing" game, I believe the confusion was in the "two-player" portion. Most competitors assumed that two-player meant player vs. player, not 2 players vs. an autonomous sprite (this is the sense that I got from our school's B team)
I hadn't even considered that a 2 player racing game could imply 2 players vs an autonomous sprite. That is very interesting and may be the reason for the large number of tiers. I doubt any team was prepared for creating a 2 player racing game however, since it is a National level game type as Unome said, and so most people (including me lol) probably just went with the first thing that came to mind which was most likely a player vs player race.
UC Berkeley
Seven Lakes High School '19
User avatar
Magikarpmaster629
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 578
Joined: October 7th, 2014, 3:03 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Game On C

Post by Magikarpmaster629 »

poonicle wrote:
Magikarpmaster629 wrote:I'll update this post with more info later, but I have a lot of advice for teams having graded most of the tests at MIT. Only the top four teams were not tiered as most did not understand what 'racing' means.
Honestly, I was quite confused by some of the grading... Did the ES use https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... lained.pdf to grade? As an example of something that confused my partner and me when we got our rubrics back, the linked rubric awards 1 point for having a default starting position of sprite under "sprite orientation," but we got 0 points for that part.

As for the "racing" game, I believe the confusion was in the "two-player" portion. Most competitors assumed that two-player meant player vs. player, not 2 players vs. an autonomous sprite (this is the sense that I got from our school's B team)
So we had around 10 people grading tests at one point, and I was the main grader. There wasn't enough time to properly teach them how to grade, but I believe they were all using the rubric. If I was grading your test I would have given you one point for using any sort of orientation at all (e.g. one team had just a flag sprite with no sense of orientation, so they got a zero for that) and I would have given you a second if the orientation changed during the game while still functioning well (iirc I gave the AB b-team two points for orientation but I'm not sure).

You are correct on the bit on racing. It was a bit misleading that it was included with the two player, but as with the other topics they're meant to be single player in the first place, with two player being an additional topic so they must have both.

Some other things/advice from helping run the event:

-The highest score was Troy A's with a score in the 80's (I'm hesitant to say exactly). From what I remember, all untiered teams still had very high scores and would have been ranked pretty high if not as high as they were if we did not take tiers into account.
-A lot of teams missed points simply for not including simple things. If they put in any sounds at all, even if it's just a single button click we gave one point on the sounds section. Even if it's much uglier, a custom sprite automatically gets two points while a stock sprite is limited to one.
-The ES told me she chose the theme to be as broad as possible so we wouldn't be playing the same games while grading. In the end, there were probably around 45-55 recycling games, with most of the rest being 'energy' related. Only one stood out to me, and that was Troy B's conservation of quantum color. I know there are only four available points for creativity, but when you've been grading for eight hours and come across the 10th Recycle Rush in a row, you're certainly more likely to dock points for things that might not otherwise be counted off for. Think outside the box a little!
-We're really sorry for how poorly the event was run in especially the first two time slots. This event was disaster after disaster after disaster, from the door being locked to only having one computer able to log in at a time to not being able to download Scratch to grading half an hour into awards. It makes me curious as to how many events typically go bad at tournaments that I couldn't tell as a competitor...

Feel free to reply to this or send me a PM with other questions/concerns/etc. If anyone wants their game back I believe you can contact the ES for that, but if her contact info is not available to you then send me a PM.
Ladue Science Olympiad (2014ish-2017)

A wild goose flies over a pond, leaving behind a voice in the wind.
A man passes through this world, leaving behind a name.
User avatar
Riptide
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 202
Joined: December 4th, 2017, 7:09 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Re: Game On C

Post by Riptide »

Magikarpmaster629 wrote:
poonicle wrote:
Magikarpmaster629 wrote:I'll update this post with more info later, but I have a lot of advice for teams having graded most of the tests at MIT. Only the top four teams were not tiered as most did not understand what 'racing' means.
Honestly, I was quite confused by some of the grading... Did the ES use https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... lained.pdf to grade? As an example of something that confused my partner and me when we got our rubrics back, the linked rubric awards 1 point for having a default starting position of sprite under "sprite orientation," but we got 0 points for that part.

As for the "racing" game, I believe the confusion was in the "two-player" portion. Most competitors assumed that two-player meant player vs. player, not 2 players vs. an autonomous sprite (this is the sense that I got from our school's B team)
So we had around 10 people grading tests at one point, and I was the main grader. There wasn't enough time to properly teach them how to grade, but I believe they were all using the rubric. If I was grading your test I would have given you one point for using any sort of orientation at all (e.g. one team had just a flag sprite with no sense of orientation, so they got a zero for that) and I would have given you a second if the orientation changed during the game while still functioning well (iirc I gave the AB b-team two points for orientation but I'm not sure).

You are correct on the bit on racing. It was a bit misleading that it was included with the two player, but as with the other topics they're meant to be single player in the first place, with two player being an additional topic so they must have both.

Some other things/advice from helping run the event:

-The highest score was Troy A's with a score in the 80's (I'm hesitant to say exactly). From what I remember, all untiered teams still had very high scores and would have been ranked pretty high if not as high as they were if we did not take tiers into account.
-A lot of teams missed points simply for not including simple things. If they put in any sounds at all, even if it's just a single button click we gave one point on the sounds section. Even if it's much uglier, a custom sprite automatically gets two points while a stock sprite is limited to one.
-The ES told me she chose the theme to be as broad as possible so we wouldn't be playing the same games while grading. In the end, there were probably around 45-55 recycling games, with most of the rest being 'energy' related. Only one stood out to me, and that was Troy B's conservation of quantum color. I know there are only four available points for creativity, but when you've been grading for eight hours and come across the 10th Recycle Rush in a row, you're certainly more likely to dock points for things that might not otherwise be counted off for. Think outside the box a little!
-We're really sorry for how poorly the event was run in especially the first two time slots. This event was disaster after disaster after disaster, from the door being locked to only having one computer able to log in at a time to not being able to download Scratch to grading half an hour into awards. It makes me curious as to how many events typically go bad at tournaments that I couldn't tell as a competitor...

Feel free to reply to this or send me a PM with other questions/concerns/etc. If anyone wants their game back I believe you can contact the ES for that, but if her contact info is not available to you then send me a PM.
Honestly, the main problem for me was just the computers itself. They were lagging just way too much for me and partner to finish our game in time - especially since the game that we were trying to make was actually pretty intensive and caused the computer to lag to the point where it was almost unusable. As for the grading time, I can't even imagine how you guys finished. It took us around 4 hours just to grade 24 teams. Props to you guys for getting it done.
UC Berkeley
Seven Lakes High School '19
technoal9
Member
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: January 21st, 2018, 5:52 pm
Division: C
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by technoal9 »

Magikarpmaster629 wrote:
poonicle wrote:
Magikarpmaster629 wrote:I'll update this post with more info later, but I have a lot of advice for teams having graded most of the tests at MIT. Only the top four teams were not tiered as most did not understand what 'racing' means.
Honestly, I was quite confused by some of the grading... Did the ES use https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... lained.pdf to grade? As an example of something that confused my partner and me when we got our rubrics back, the linked rubric awards 1 point for having a default starting position of sprite under "sprite orientation," but we got 0 points for that part.

As for the "racing" game, I believe the confusion was in the "two-player" portion. Most competitors assumed that two-player meant player vs. player, not 2 players vs. an autonomous sprite (this is the sense that I got from our school's B team)
So we had around 10 people grading tests at one point, and I was the main grader. There wasn't enough time to properly teach them how to grade, but I believe they were all using the rubric. If I was grading your test I would have given you one point for using any sort of orientation at all (e.g. one team had just a flag sprite with no sense of orientation, so they got a zero for that) and I would have given you a second if the orientation changed during the game while still functioning well (iirc I gave the AB b-team two points for orientation but I'm not sure).

You are correct on the bit on racing. It was a bit misleading that it was included with the two player, but as with the other topics they're meant to be single player in the first place, with two player being an additional topic so they must have both.

Some other things/advice from helping run the event:

-The highest score was Troy A's with a score in the 80's (I'm hesitant to say exactly). From what I remember, all untiered teams still had very high scores and would have been ranked pretty high if not as high as they were if we did not take tiers into account.
-A lot of teams missed points simply for not including simple things. If they put in any sounds at all, even if it's just a single button click we gave one point on the sounds section. Even if it's much uglier, a custom sprite automatically gets two points while a stock sprite is limited to one.
-The ES told me she chose the theme to be as broad as possible so we wouldn't be playing the same games while grading. In the end, there were probably around 45-55 recycling games, with most of the rest being 'energy' related. Only one stood out to me, and that was Troy B's conservation of quantum color. I know there are only four available points for creativity, but when you've been grading for eight hours and come across the 10th Recycle Rush in a row, you're certainly more likely to dock points for things that might not otherwise be counted off for. Think outside the box a little!
-We're really sorry for how poorly the event was run in especially the first two time slots. This event was disaster after disaster after disaster, from the door being locked to only having one computer able to log in at a time to not being able to download Scratch to grading half an hour into awards. It makes me curious as to how many events typically go bad at tournaments that I couldn't tell as a competitor...

Feel free to reply to this or send me a PM with other questions/concerns/etc. If anyone wants their game back I believe you can contact the ES for that, but if her contact info is not available to you then send me a PM.
I was on Acton-Bxborough B and we got tiered. The other AB team placed 4th place with the use of an autonomous sprite + 2 players and scored a 52.5. Our side scored 60 points and got 20th place. The only reason the other AB team didn't get tiered was because they asked the ES about what was necessary which saved them from being tiered. The event rules weren't clear about what was necessary for a 2 person racing game, and the computer issues were very troubling. All of 1st block was rescheduled with only 35 minutes to complete the game because they lost all the saves and even when we came back to retake the computer issues were still troubling. The lag was very bad and at times our scratch window was frozen for minutes at a time. The grading was also troubling for both of our teams. They got docked points for not having a title and buttons, when both were clearly present, and we got docked for not having environmental interaction when the environment of our game was a functional maze, as well as not stating the objective of the game in which there was a whole screen dedicated to it. In general I think the event definitely could have been run clearer with more transparency to certain rules, as well as better setup.
User avatar
poonicle
Member
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: September 22nd, 2017, 3:11 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by poonicle »

While I agree with what technoal said (I was perturbed by how the event was run, to be fairly honest), I'm decently amazed at how the event got salvaged despite all of the mishaps.
Events: WIDI, Geomap, Disease, Chem Lab
Acton-Boxborough A for Invites season
kenniky
Member
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: January 21st, 2016, 6:16 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by kenniky »

where are all these AB children coming from

go study for yale
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]
fdf4
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: March 5th, 2017, 11:34 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by fdf4 »

What exactly is meant by "Science of Theme"? The rubric says "Level of scientific thought applied to theme" and I try to do this but I never score any (maybe 1) of the points in this area.
mastersuperfan
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: March 20th, 2017, 3:28 pm
Division: C
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by mastersuperfan »

this is why you don't do inquiry events
2020 MIT Sounds of Music Event Co-Supervisor
Acton-Boxborough Regional High School '19
2019 Nationals: 1st Anatomy and Physiology, 1st Designer Genes, 2nd Chemistry Lab, 2nd Sounds of Music, 3rd Forensics
2018 Nationals: 1st Chemistry Lab, 6th Forensics, 8th Herpetology, 9th Anatomy and Physiology
User avatar
antoine_ego
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 387
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 5:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Game On C

Post by antoine_ego »

kenniky wrote:where are all these AB children coming from

go study for yale
I seem to have had a bad influence on them :D
Rest in Peace Len Joeris
[b]2016 Air Trajectory Nationals - 3rd
2018 Hovercraft Nationals - 6th
2018 Mousetrap Nationals - 6th
2018 Nationals - Team 9th Place!
2019 Astronomy Nationals - 3rd!
2019 Nationals - Team 9th Place!
[/b]
Acton-Boxborough Regional High School Captain 17-19
Locked

Return to “2018 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests