Board index DeFRaG Competitions

DFWC 2019 Survey Results

Show them you are really the best

DFWC 2019 Survey Results

Postby dqopb » Jan 11th, '20, 10:38 pm

Hi everybody, and thanks to all who filled out the DFWC2019 survey form.

It's time to publish the results.

First, let's talk about the maps.
Here are the points distributions per map per category. Just a reminder, only the so called general score affected the prize of the mappers. And it is not equal to the sum of design and gameplay points. Because some players may value design and gameplay differently, or they can also have other aspects in mind when giving a score to a map, we decided to count design and gameplay points separately (just for information), and have the general score decided by the voters themselves.

Round 1 by f1o
round1_f1o.png

Round 2 by aXos
round2_aXos.png

Round 3 by p00nie
round3_p00nie.png

Round 4 by Imoor
round4_Imoor.png

Round 5 by Nibbit
round5_Nibbit.png

Round 6 by Licktorr & quBit
round6_Licktorr_n_quBit.png

Round 7 by Kabcorp
round7_Kabcorp.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Maps final scores

Postby dqopb » Jan 11th, '20, 10:58 pm

Now, let's see the final scores of the maps in each category.
rounds_scores_table.png

Let's also make a chart with the total scores of every map in all the 3 categories. I normalized the "general score" category by dividing it by 2, because it had a maximum of 10 points per vote, when both visual design and gameplay categories had a maximum of 5.
rounds_scores_diagram.png

We can see that the general score in all the maps is very close to the gameplay score (they seem to correlate pretty strongly). The biggest deltas are -23 points (general score 360 vs gameplay 383 in round 2) and +23 points (general score 309 vs gameplay 286 in round 4).

Some maps have visual design scores much higher than both their gameplay and general scores (rounds 4, 6, 3). And the high visual design score didn't pull the general score up.

The only 2 maps where the visual design score was lower than the general score were round 7 (458 vs 471.5) and round 5 (417 vs 421.5). It didn't stop them from taking the 1st and 2nd place in the general score category, respectively. These are also the only 2 maps where the visual design scored lower than the gameplay. But then, again, they took the 1st and 2nd places in the gameplay category, respectively, just like in the general score category.

I can make a conclusion that, despite visual design of maps is important, players tend to value the gameplay higher. We should try to focus on the gameplay first, and then on the visual design second.

Congratulations to winners and good job every mapper whose map made it into DFWC! :clap:
Every map was good in its way - the maps that didn't get a high gameplay or general score have instead scored very high in the visual design category. That is also worth praise and gratitude. Thanks everybody.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Wanted Mappers

Postby dqopb » Jan 11th, '20, 11:19 pm

Who would you like to see among mappers next time?
The available checkbox variants were a lot more popular than the free-text variant:
mappers_wanted.png
I assume, this is because people were lazy to remember their favorite mappers and type :lol:
Anyway, we have a clear winner - n1k. 69.7% of the respondents want to see his map in the next DFWC. Too bad, he told me a few months ago that he had lost interest in mapping, and went inactive, at least temporarily. I really hope he comes back to mapping and brings us many more mapping masterpieces! :)
If you are some of these top-voted mappers, please consider making a map!
By the way, NSW should get +2 points, and Zapadlo should get -3 points (based on the free-text answers). It doesn't change the picture though.

Here are the free-text variants.
5 votes: Biotrix
4 votes: Tutty Frutty, Zerg
3 votes: gnj
2 votes: th0ca, orangemetal, Benz, agressor, effect, spray, wub, kop4ik
1 vote: Bardok, Bliccer, andrei, Mikrob, uglybunny, DamnedLight, ZaD, eT|Leoo, PaTTes, Koz, Bug, morbus, ghost, yotoon, chronos, mccormic, kool, cmc, elco, Runningman, Moko, GVN, polish oldschool mappers

If you are some of the above mappers, please consider making a map also. And don't feel forsaken - like I said, only the variants with checkboxes took many votes, and there were few free-text variants.

By the way, if you're not listed above and you want to make a map - please consider making one! We need high quality maps - without maps there would not be any DFWC. And the more maps we have to choose from, the better.

I didn't include the mappers from the current DFWC on purpose, but some players mentioned them in the free-text answers.
Kabcorp (9 votes)
f1o (aka nood) (7 votes)
p00nie (5 votes)
Imoor (4 votes)
Nibbit (3 votes)
w65b61s (2 votes)
aXos (2 votes)
Licktorr (2 votes)
p00nie feat. Kabcorp as a collaboration (1 vote)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Should difficulty grow or alternate with rounds?

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 12:03 am

Should difficulty increase with rounds, or should harder and simpler maps alternate?
difficulty_grow_vs_alternate.png
Both variants are very close.

Other free-text variants that are worth mentioning:
Not difficulty, but complexity of maps, i.e. how hard they are to perfect should increase with each round. Aside from that, the difficulty to complete a map *at all* should alternate but never go too high. This way, you are presenting an increasing challenge for pros but a diverse level of challenge with breaks and recovery periods for noobs..
Difficulty should grow, but weapon and strafe maps should alternate, if possible (it was in Russian)
With that many participants as we had this year i believe we should start out easy and then increase over time with more structured sections so people can get an idea of where to go. Let their own creativity come into play so they can improve as individuals. We would want to encourage people to play not discourage.
it was just perfect this time when it comes to difficulty
both
This year was perfect. Seriously. Map 5 with the individual checkpoin order was the perfect change. If this kind of map will be in round 1-4, then map 5 as some rest is good idea.
same as this year, easy to finish but extreme(possible but close to impossible) routes available, also balance both physics

I want to state that it wasn't easy to order the maps properly this time. At first, I had 3 competing priorities in mind: growing difficulty, alternating difficulty, and alternating strafe & weapon maps. But then I realized that some of the maps we had were very linear and technical, while others had more routes to explore. I decided to focus on these linear/free-route and strafe/weapon aspects. I discussed it with the other orgs and mappers, and we agreed with this order:
    1. f1o - round 1 - because it is a short strafe, has many routes, and is fun to play even for newbies (we didn't want to put a hard first map after the hard dfwc2017-1). This attracted many players - this round had a record number of demos submitted! Also, f1o's map got the 2nd place in the DFWC 2017 survey, with a minimal lag after Kabcorp. It was nice to have f1o open the competition
    2. aXos - round 2 - basic weapon tricks, pretty linear
    3. p00nie - round 3 - strafe with a variety of routes
    4. Imoor - round 4 - a weapon map, pretty linear
    5. Nibbit - round 5 - a free route, freestyle weapon map that should feel relaxing after a linear weapon run
    6. Licktor & quBit - round 6 - a pretty linear strafe map, supposed to be relaxing after 2 weapon maps in a row
    7. Kabcorp - round 7 - a long combo run. This map was the most ready, the first of all the weapon maps. Also, Kabcorp's similar styled map won the 1st place in the DFWC 2017 survey - so putting his map for the final round was well deserved.
    0. W65W61S - warmup round - because his map wasn't quite ready from the map tester point of view. We liked the map, but it has some design and gameplay bugs - mirrors, kill triggers throughout the map, random OBs etc. W65W61S came to us in the last moment and offered his map. We liked it, but there was no time to fix it, and we didn't feel like putting it at the end of the DFWC. So we decided to accept is as a warmup round and not give any points for it. Yes, it is nice. Yes, it is long and hard. But it had some FPS issues, kill triggers and stuff. So we made it not mandatory to play it.
I should also explain that when I say "linear" I don't mean too linear. Even the maps that I described as linear had some sorts of shortcuts in them.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

What is the optimal DFWC duration?

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 12:14 am

What is the optimal DFWC duration?
Just like in 2017, the opinions average around 7 weeks.
duration_of_DFWC.png
Some free-text opinions that are worth mentioning:
small competitions means more competitions, more communication, more views, more players, more cash prizes, more mappers, etc...
The first 3 rounds are played with enthusiasm, then rounds 4 and 5 feel like something you HAVE TO even if you don't want to, and the last 2 rounds are like hard labor. This makes me not want to play until the next DFWC (translated from Russian)

There were strong arguments for making shorter DFWCs with less maps. However, a couple of people also mentioned that there could be more maps. :?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

iDFe-based anticheat engine

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 12:22 am

engine.png

There was an issue with the 64-bit build, but we fixed it shortly. Also, the 32-bit build is allowed to play with on both 64- and 32-bit operating systems. So it wasn't a big problem at all.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

DFWC 2019 Orgs Team

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 12:42 am

orgs_team_2019.png
Please rate the responsiveness of DFWC 2019 team

Somebody didn't know how to reach the orgs if he had some questions. Discord is the fastest way to get help - either from other players or from the orgs.

Some said that we should test maps more painstakingly. We should test maps on low-end PCs, but shouldn't go to far in it, meaning that laptops without a dedicated graphics card should not be a priority.

Other free-text answers basically repeated some of the predefined answers.

Please rate the competence of DFWC 2019 team

Some free-text answers that are worth mentioning:
Map choice, anticheat, website quality and levelshots were all excellent. The teaser movie was alright but it was pretty awkward how they used wrong dates for earlier DFWCs and nobody caught that. The rollout of announcements was a bit unorganized, sometimes they just floated around in the discord for quite a while before they appeared on the website. Schedule was fine, but should be up for debate / suggestions.


Zapadlo said that a goof chose the maps (apparently, because we didn't take his maps).

I think you do a very professional effort into making defrag world cup as special as it is, couldnt ask for a better team. webpage is flawless as always <3
Thanks dude!

DFWC is something great but we need more content before and after
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Who would you like to be the organizers of the next DFWC?

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 1:01 am

orgs_team_next.png

A few people voted for uN*DeaD clan. Some other people voted for whoever else but uN*DeaD. :think:
One player even didn't trust the current org team. He suspects that we shared the maps with uN*DeaD clan in advance.
I don't know what to say. There wasn't even anybody of uN*DeaD among the orgs. Sa1rax was kind to make and give us the 3d texts and other visual stuff, that's about it. Oh yeah, we used Enter & Exten's point system.
uN*DeaD members offered their help - not necessarily related to map testing. Perhaps, making movies, or validating demos, testing anticheat client, or something else.

But it feels like the lack of map testers is the most important thing to fix. We need motivated mappers, and motivated map testers.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Rating system

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 1:09 am

rating_system.png

People liked Enter's & Exten's system overall.
One person mentioned the 2019 system but with excluding the worst result (the very original Enter's and Exten's system). Another person said that a single skipped round should be excluded as the worst result (that's a misconception according to Enter, and I agree with Enter - we should motivate players to play all the rounds).
2019 ver is generally fine with time difference consideration, i think larger margin should be expected near top(to punish losing a frame war or throwing a round without hard grinding), but not as large as from 1000 to 800.
Mixed opinion. I dont feel either point system fully succeded. I think enter exten was an improvment but being based of time difference, the point system is at risk of being tied to map design only. i.e. the time improvements may be critically limited by map design and therfore true skill per map is not fully valued depending on weapons and/or strafe. Players tend to hit the limits of strafe maps while having more varied times in weapon maps. Therefore skill is not transfered to scores with enter and exten
EE but less linear. The current EE system has very small step between 1st and 2nd places, etc.

The majority of the rest free-text answers seem to not care about the point system.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

How should the prize pool be distributed among winning playe

Postby dqopb » Jan 12th, '20, 1:13 am

How should the prize pool be distributed among winning players? How many top players to get how many percent?
Many people don't have opinions here. Others have different opinions, it is hard to find the common one.
a) The current distribution is fine
b) Reward top-10 with a linear distribution (e.g. 50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-5)
c) Reward top-10 with each next place getting half of the previous: 50-25-12.5-6.25, etc
d) Some say top-3 only, some say top-5, top-10...
e) Prizes should be calculated and given out per map
f) Distribute money according to points, and not only the standings (BUT this would be very close to linear, with a very small money step)
dqopb
 
Posts: 194
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Next

cron