Contests / NE's Contest Survey Returns!

One of the bits of H2H I have always enjoyed is the relatively unknown or less popular players coming in off the alternates list and surprising everyone.

That's exactly what H2H is about IMO. Giving upcoming talent the opportunity to shine.

Thanks for all the votes. It's helping us out a great deal.

if we're going for a H2H like contest, then how many players will be picked to enter? i'd really like to participate but i don't know if i would be good enough to be chosen

Normally in a H2H contest, there are like 10 people to a team and either 6 or 8 teams, so you'd definitely be chosen.

Going by the votes we currently have, we'd barely make 50 people, definitely not enough for full teams. Instead, how about reducing the number of people to a team to 6? It might sound like it would exclude some people at first, but 8 teams, 6 people per team, that's 48 people.

But what are the benefits of this, you may ask. Well, for a start it means that the best players would be more evenly spread around the teams. It means that if you're a low seed you're more likely to be paired up with a high seed. And it means that we could still see a similar amount of parks.

I suggest 8 teams, 6 people per team, and these 8 teams are then put into 2 divisions, rather than having a complete round robin as we saw in H2H6. Division 1 would play in round 1, round 3 and round 5 while division 2 would play round 2, round 4 and round 6. This would allow every team to play against each team in their division once, and the rounds could either be 1 week apart or two weeks. It also means that each team only has to build 3 parks, split between 6 people is 2 people per park.

8 teams x 3 parks each team equals 24 parks over a space of either 6 or 12 weeks. Very decent if you ask me, and definitely doable. Each player would obviously have to go at least once in the division stages, and no two players could work together more than once in the division stages, while a maximum of 3 could work on any park, standard H2H rules. 

The top 2 teams from each division would go onto the semi finals, where winner of division 1 would take on runner-up of division 2, and vice versa. The finals would then be the winners of those two matches, with a 3rd place playoff between the two losers. The rules would change slightly at this point though, and a minimum of 3 people must work on each park, and everyone must build on either the semi final park or the finals/3rd place playoff park.

It works much more like the older H2Hs, and I think it's the way to go back, but reducing the team size, if we want to have an active community in this time. Smaller teams mean that the teams would have more of a togetherness, while more teams means that it's easier to spread out the parks. A team would only have to send in one park a month, but we'd still see the same amount of parks as we would do in a regular season.

I don't know what my opinion is for another H2H at the moment.

On the one hand, it's always a great thing to watch. You have great RCT2 players, building awesome parks with some insane ideas. I think the last contest was my favourite time on NE, because you could just look forward to all these parks being released on a shedule, built by amazing guys, who knew what to do. This feeling of suspense was just incredible.

But on the other hand, H2H is a little bit elitist. I might be the only one thinking this way, but I, as a rather unskilled player, would love to participate in a NE contest (even if I'm just going to finish last), just because contests are just fun. The concept for H2H just makes it diffucult for unskilled players like me to participate in a relevant matter (other than voting for the winners).

In short: I'm not sure if the next contest should focus on competition or fun for everyone

all i'm saying is is that when h2h7 rolls around, you very well may see ncso make more than one appeareance

So, Version, your worry is that you wouldn't be picked, right? The likelihood is that if you sign up, and there are enough teams as I outlined in my post, you would be put on a team. There aren't hundreds of people who would sign up as in previous seasons, and then on top of that quality isn't the only thing people look for, especially when getting to the lower picks, people then tend to look for people who can finish something, quickly. 

If we use smaller teams, you'd have a minimum of a 1/6 chance of working with a top seed player, compared to a 1/10 chance for a regular 10 player team. Not only would this mean you'd obviously be more 'relevant', but by working with a top seed you'd pick up on how they build and it would improve your own building technique. There's a reason that the quality of H2H seems to step up every season - it's the main driving force for improvement across the community.

So, Version, your worry is that you wouldn't be picked, right?

It's not just about that. I don't think I would enter H2H, just because I don't build CSO or LL and my NCSO is medicore at best. I think the only way I could participate in H2H in any way would be a NCSO team. In a different contest there would always be room for a NCSO submission.

Why would there be no room for an NCSO submission in H2H?

H2H usually brings tons of older builders out of retirement to play, so that's how we have always made the numbers even when it seemed less would participate. That being said, those older builders are also usually some of the first people to drop out or go MIA during the contest. Smaller teams would be interesting....

FK

Rawry, you mention that only 50 people have voted here so that would be how many would participate, but that isn't right. There are always people who pop out of nowhere to bring numbers up. Last time we weren't expecting to get a complete roster, we ended up with 6 teams of 10 and several people being left unpicked. It's surprising how many people you can get for H2H.

Also, whilst we appreciate all your comments, ideas and suggestions, they may fall on deaf ears as we haven't got an idea yet of where we want to go. Everything seems very H2H focused in this thread, yet H2H isn't necessarily what we will be doing.

Please feel free to jump aboard the hype train, it is always nice to see excitement, but just be warned that you could end up disappointed. We aren't trying to lead anyone on, we are merely gathering data at this moment in time.

Oh I'm just giving suggestions on the direction that it could go. Honestly, I doubt I personally would be able to take part in a contest like H2H because it would take up too much time for me, hence why I voted for something different. But seeing as most people seem to want to go to H2H, I'm just throwing in my two cents to see the contest evolve and for the community to get the most out of it.

let me just copy over some bits from the last survey for consideration:

from Liampie

- I will only participate in the next contest if the format appeals to me and if I have proper inspiration and motivation.
- 1-2 months is maximum for a single round contest. Otherwise community will lose interest.
- Prize money won't encourage me to participate, but it will encourage me to finish.
- I prefer a NE classic, of course slightly adjusted.
- A Pro Tour or Hi-Rollers won't work unless the bench has limited detailing possibilities or if the maps are much smaller. I don't see ANY added value of these contest over the accolade system. None at all. Micro Madness is great fun, but the forfeit problem has to be solved. Maybe three or four-way matchups? I say no to NEDC because we just had one. This leaves the Blockbuster Challenge which could be jolly good fun! 50x50 maps themed to a movie or maybe a game. I'd like a new Blockbuster Challenge.
- All games or NCSO. Maybe NCSO/LL too.
- Duo contests tend to fail. Team contests probably will too unless it's H2H.
- The contest is most likely to be succesful if it's a single round contest. Multiple round contest (including qualifiers) is too reliant on having dedicated people. I doubt enough people are. We've seen it happen a lot before. Exception is the three or four-way matchup version of Micro Madness.

All of that still holds true, as best I can tell, with the exception that personally a prize would encourage me to start, not to finish.  

things I said a year ago:

I would like to see structured, small-scale challenges that encourage some less-traveled aspects of RCT. Something like the QFTBX rounds; small but rigid requirements that force entrants to think a little more creatively. I feel like NEDC is heading in that direction with theme requirements, but I want to be able to build something that doesn't fit neatly into the Design/Park expectations for once.

To clarify; I don't want a big multi-round bracket ordeal. 
I want a month-long "build the best log ride using yellow as a track color." 
I want a "build a non-looping design on this map without altering any land tiles." 
I want a "Build a 40x40 park using green water."

Force some creative constraints, keep the entry bar low, let people get out of their comfort zone as an exercise to make them better designers.

Contestants all get the same CUSTOM1.WAV file and must create a design to match the chosen music
24-hour park challenge
heck even a 1-hour challenge would be an interesting experiment
Blind collabo/duo 
build the other half of this dueler

build the best NE-style park out of this scenario with no added cash

Basically go read the old survey thread

We are keeping the old survey in mind thanks for bringing this over though

What I would like to see is H2H7 having almost all of the limits of the past ones taken out.

Make it into a real team contest. Anyone can build for any week. Teams could be beyond 10 players this way and everyone could play. You could basically hot potato a park to whoever is free to build. No edge to any single team as all teams could have anyone building. Deadlines should also be longer. I would like to see the contest go at least 6 months.

If something like that happens, the Hurricanes will return for H2H7

I really like the four way matchups idea for micro madness! It really sucks to submit something to have it win by default, and the chances of all three competitors not having a finished submission is lower. The winners can be ranked from 1-4, with points given to each position. Having a certain amount of points could be a requirement to advance to the next rounds, so perhaps this gives players some leeway - you're allowed to miss one submission deadline and still survive if you do well in the other rounds, etc. 

I also like the idea of 3 or 4 way matches to curb the risk of default wins that just kills the drive of everyone involved. I would like to see something team oriented, old or new, for the purely selfish reason that is what I would like to participate in. A contest requiring team effort injects a sense of excitement and accountability that solo contests lack. Avanine also brings up a good point that a rank system might be good to add rather than just a straight win/loss (winner gets 3 points, second gets 2 points, last gets 1 point, forfeits award no points. This puts a pressure to at least get something in rather than not show up at all as the point of a contest should be to see more rct work, unfinished or rushed or whatever.

It's hard to know what sort of customization is best to do on old contest formats but something that mixes Micro Madness and H2H would be interesting. Bigger maps than micros but multiple teams. And I agree that teams should function more as a pool of potential players rather than a group to split off into pairs. The H2H captain and draft style always is interesting and adds some life to the community.

I would love three- or fourway matchups. Besides dealing with the forfeit problem, it'll be quite spectacular and exciting too. It might do the opposite as well though... In a traditional matchup, you have to deliver a park simply out of decency. If you don't, that means someone else wasted time and effort. Knowing there's a backup, there'll be less motivation to finish anyway.

True but I don't think the sense of decency does any more or less to inspire finishing than a system where "there's no way we could win with just this" as a opposed to a system that rewards everything besides submitting nothing. A point acquiring system rather than an all or nothing win/loss would realistically provide a baseline motivation to produce something for the sake of the team's chances.

That's a great idea about the point acquiring system. That would be a lot of fun.