The Spore 100

Vektrix wrote:Yeah, it is an idea I shared with kyle ages ago (so he may not remember me mentioning it).

Yeah, seems a lot of ideas here about how to do it. I think we need a solid base of judges, and they should be from various part sof the world as well.

Some say he invented the taco, and that on weekends, he sleeps like a cat. All we know is, that he is called... Vektrix.

Some say he has over two thousand dinosaur toys, and that sometimes, just sometimes, he goes on a rampage acting as a T-Rex. All we know is, he's called Vektrix.

Trickatel wrote:

Vektrix wrote:Yeah, it is an idea I shared with kyle ages ago (so he may not remember me mentioning it).

Yeah, seems a lot of ideas here about how to do it. I think we need a solid base of judges, and they should be from various part sof the world as well.

Some say he invented the taco, and that on weekends, he sleeps like a cat. All we know is, that he is called... Vektrix.

Some say he has over two thousand dinosaur toys, and that sometimes, just sometimes, he goes on a rampage acting as a T-Rex. All we know is, he's called Vektrix.

I somehow got a picture in my head of a vektrixaurus in glasses running around with a taco in one claw and a calculator in another. o_O

I think we should send the Stig-style Vek stuff to Forum Games, and leave this to the Spore 100.

Yes we should. *Creates topic in Forum Games*

SuperLoki wrote:Did he? I know he made lots of props, but not adventures

*runs to the Spore computer... is stopped by sister*

He was at the GA adventure camp so that is one adventure. He also made a few adventures after that one. They have tough enemies though.

I, personally, will find it hard to judge GA, since I do not play adventures

I also think that some people are so good in some editors or some styles that I rate them higher than those who are good in more than one or all editors.

werderfan2012 wrote:Maybe its better to make 4 lists and not only one,
because you CAN'T be the best in everything and the problem with
GA wouldn't be there, too ...

So what I mean is to make 4 lists (Creature, Building, Vehicle, Adventure)

Every list would have 25 spots (100/4=25)

For example:

Creature:
1. Creativity
2. Style & Design
3. how many themes is the person good at (not only Warriors for example)
4. Reputation
5. Dedication & Help to Community
6. Attitude and Personality

Buidling:
1. Creativity
2. Style & Design
3. how many themes is the person good at (not only Warriors for example)
4. Reputation
5. Dedication & Help to Community
6. Attitude and Personality

I think that would be better, because its stupid to value people like andevor in all editors ...
Like I said its not possible to be the best in ALL editors, I think it should be enough honour to be the best in his own specific editor ...
And if someone is even really good in other editors, too, it should be possible to get him in more then one list ..

Example:

DonaldDuck

Creature:
1. Creativity - 7
2. Style & Design - 8
3. how many themes is the person good at (not only Warriors for example) - 5
4. Reputation - 9
5. Dedication & Help to Community - 6
6. Attitude and Personality - 10

Vehicle:
1. Creativity - 6
2. Style & Design - 9
3. how many themes is the person good at (not only Warriors for example) - 9
4. Reputation - 9
5. Dedication & Help to Community - 6
6. Attitude and Personality - 10

You see? The Social skills would still be the same, only the skills in the editors would change ..

Couldn't say everything I wanted, because of my stupid english ..
But I think this should be enough for the moment

nice idea, there is only 1 problem...some of us (like me)^^ don't create many for example cars...( I only have 1)! so you have to handle this...

Nahh, then you would only be valued for the Creature list ...

If you would be really good at the vehicle editor, too.
Then you would get valued at the vehicle list, too ...

Its like a nomination ...

If you are good at creating creatures you get nominated for that, then we would value you and we would see if you would get it into the list ..

Ify you are not good at the other editors or not good ENOUGH for a nomination, you simply won't get nominated for them

I've made half-of-an-adventure before, but never hosted it

werderfan2012 wrote:Nahh, then you would only be valued for the Creature list ...

If you would be really good at the vehicle editor, too.
Then you would get valued at the vehicle list, too ...

Its like a nomination ...

If you are good at creating creatures you get nominated for that, then we would value you and we would see if you would get it into the list ..

Ify you are not good at the other editors or not good ENOUGH for a nomination, you simply won't get nominated for them

oh ok! NOW it sounds very good

lol the looks interesting is this a new thread you guys are doing?
I do agree that there should be a separate GA category.
I'v only made one decent GA to date, but there is a follow up to it in the pipeline somewhere.

Ah, I remember that you said you wanted to do something like this Vektrix.

I don't think that people should be penalized for something they don't make or specialize in. Instead maybe there should be another category. If they are good in all editors then they get a high score.

Also, recreations can be really hard. You have to make them incredibly accurate for them to look good. This is sometimes hard to do with the parts we have. The community will nit-pick it as well and can compare it to the actual thing.

This is a good idea Vektrix. Looking through the profiles will be hard. Maybe if there's a few judges everyone can go through every profile. Then average between the scores they get. That will be really really time consuming though

Indeed, Saki. Time has always been my main concern with such an idea.

I think it has been clear from the outset, that I do not want to "punish" people who do not use certain editors. In this respect, I am fairly lucky since I think I am of high enough standard in all the editors, but not outstanding in any. But, like I said earlier, I would consider some creators a better creator than someone else. I'll justify this;

Creator A is SO good at spaceships that they are considered one of the best, and get a 10/10 in spaceship editor. However, they have shared no adventures, 1 distinctly average building set and several creatures. They have also shared an outstanding captain or two, but not enough of these have been made to prove any sort of consistency. Creator A is also well known on the sporum, but not particularly helpful, however, they do not flame, troll or spam.

Creator B makes better than average stuff in ALL editors, although their spaceships are nowhere near the quality of Creator A's (by a long shot), they are certainly better than the majority of the community. They have made a wide variety of creatures and several well made captains. They even make forays into the building editor. They have at one time or another made stuff in each editor that is just mind-blowing, but as standard their stuff is of high quality. Like Creator A, Creator B is also well known on the sporum, but does not really help or hinder.

Therein lies my biggest dillemma. Creator A on average would appear the same as, or even worse, than Creator B. However, some would actually consider Creator A the better creator. In mind mind I have a few creators like this, whom I would consider better than someone who is a great all-rounder.

^^ This is why we have to break down the list in different categories, placing the specialty creators in their respective departments.

What about the subscriber count?

Well, taking in consideration several issues raised, we could go in splitting up people by categories, like suggested previously.

We could do top 25 building makers, for example. Or top 25 community helpers, another example.

But this, seems to me, it would diverge a little from Vektrix´s initial idea of top 100.
If we are to make a top 100 taking in consideration all criterias, then we´d have to judge people in all editors.

Let me give an example of runescape. The top player list was achieved by those with most points in all skills. The higher your skills were, the higher you would be on the list. If you chose to specialize in certain skills, ignoring others, you would very likely be average on the list, since the system took in consideration all skills. And to runescape, top players, were the ones with good skills in everything.

We can choose how we want to make this. I´m just throwing ideas and examples on the table.


Btw, good to see a lot of people interested and devoting themselves a little to this

hmmm.... there is one way around this, where people you may consider worthy of the list being high up the list when they specialise is IF they specialise, that score gets doubled.

We would have to define speciality and would have to be a judging team consensus for this to occur.

I am happy, in myself, btw, to have GA as an optional field that is ONLY counted if they have shared captains and/or adventures. There is also of course the ability and willingness of the judging team to actually play and judge a number of adventures from nominated creators. So it may be worth having a judging panel, and assign 2 or 3 of them who are willing to judge adventures themselves.

As many of you know, I have not played or made an adventure in like 8 months, so obviously, I am not in a position to do such judging, but since I have GA, I can judge outfitting.

Also, those willing to be on the judging panel can now put themselves forward for such roles, but please, bare in mind, I am going to strict about who I accept, please do not be offended if you are not chosen. Please, no nominations for judging at this stage.

One question, how large should the panel be? Baring in mind, I expect the entire judging panel (or at least most of it) to be considered for a position within the Spore 100.

Vektrix wrote:
Also, those willing to be on the judging panel can now put themselves forward for such roles, but please, bare in mind, I am going to strict about who I accept, please do not be offended if you are not chosen. Please, no nominations for judging at this stage.

I´m sorry, but you lost me here. You started saying those willing to be, to put themselves forward and then you said no nominations for judging at this stage?
What am I seeing wrong?

Edit: Unless you mean no nomating other people to be judges. If this is what you meant, now I gotcha

Vektrix wrote:
One question, how large should the panel be? Baring in mind, I expect the entire judging panel (or at least most of it) to be considered for a position within the Spore 100.

I think the judging panel should have either 5, 7 or 9 people. It´s good to have an uneven number, in case of votes and such. More than 9 would be too many people and less than 5 would be not enough.

Well, in that case I put myself forward for judging, should you want me.

If what I perceived was correct, then I´d also like to be a judge, if so is possible :-)

Arkster, I meant no nominating creators yet.

All judges scores will be taken into account as well, so the number is not important for splitting up ties etc. In the case of equal scores, then good, that means those creators overall cannot be seperated. The size of the panel is more concerned with realising that some of the panel will be nominated for entry and that how many judges will be needed to give a fair and valid result.

Thanks both for showing your interest in becoming judges.

Vektrix wrote:Arkster, I meant no nominating creators yet.

All judges scores will be taken into account as well, so the number is not important for splitting up ties etc. In the case of equal scores, then good, that means those creators overall cannot be seperated. The size of the panel is more concerned with realising that some of the panel will be nominated for entry and that how many judges will be needed to give a fair and valid result.

Thanks both for showing your interest in becoming judges.

I understand.

I still believe more than 9-10 judges will become too much, like less than 5 will be not enough. So my bet would be a number between those.

Maybe we could also give each judge its specialty in judging. For example, judge A would rate creatures, but although he would also rate other criterias, his main thing would be creatures.
Just another thought.

I know many people who'll come in the top 100, I wonder who'll be left out

I think 7 judges would be decent. It allows room for many opinions. I'd offer to judge, but the only thing I could really give critique on is Creatures, Outfitters, and maybe Buildings. Adventures... I just don't have the chance to play them


And, in response to an earlier suggestion about Subscriber Counts. I think we should ignore this completely. We all know there are some really overrated creators out there, those exceeding by 1,000s, while others such as xDoomsoulx and Cyana have, last I checked, a mere 200 subs, which is heavily underrated. Sub-count isn't really reliable, especially when it's quite easy to take advantage of and corrupt.

I would love to critique buildings or spaceships

SuperLoki wrote:
And, in response to an earlier suggestion about Subscriber Counts. I think we should ignore this completely. We all know there are some really overrated creators out there, those exceeding by 1,000s, while others such as xDoomsoulx and Cyana have, last I checked, a mere 200 subs, which is heavily underrated. Sub-count isn't really reliable, especially when it's quite easy to take advantage of and corrupt.

Agreed. And having said this, we shouldn´t rate personality as well.

Just sounds wrong to me.


What we can rate regarding social aspects, is how they contribute for the community (making contests, guides, etc) and for other users development (if they give tips, help, etc).