Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground XXIII

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Sous chef.

And Shneeky, there is no competition in the world that requires its contestants to explain their entry. You enter a poem in a literary contest, you don't have to explain the hidden meanings and subtleties. You enter a car in a motor show, you don't have to explain how it works. If you want to go against that and require contestants to explain every single trick they use, then TELL them BEFORE they submit entries, so they can actually fulfil that, rather than going 'Oh, but you didn't do this other thing we never asked you to do, so it's your fault'.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. List that in the OP as 'guidelines'.

Furthermore, since judges are different every time, if there are certain things which will actually get your build to score higher, then it is not because of one or two guys, but because it overall presents a better picture.

Do the contest requirements for an engineering competition include asthetics requirements? Generally, no. However, something that looks sleeker or at least more 'finished' will almost certainly score better than something that looks skeletal, but functional.

I'm amassing a list of things that must be kept in mind to have any chance of doing well in this, and none are in the OP, and none have ever been stated before the entry deadline. Every time this runs, I'm going to post them as soon as is possible, because it is frankly unfair on new contestants to have them go in with no idea about what is required of them.

Such as?

[term1nally s1ck]

Points are *heavily* docked for taking less than 3 levels in a class, regardless of why or which class.

Everything that works in combination must be explained, regardless of whether it is already listed.

Using obscure sources will be docked quite frequently, and using more than one setting in your sources will be docked heavily.

Power is not marked consistently, some judges mark power based on how well a build does compared to other builds with similar objectives, and some mark based on a general scale of power. As such, building for Power primarily will not net you spectacular scores, since many will compare you to the perfect version of whatever you did.

I'm reading through older threads now, and I'm probably going to be adding a few more.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Points are *heavily* docked for taking less than 3 levels in a class, regardless of why or which class.

Everything that works in combination must be explained, regardless of whether it is already listed.

Using obscure sources will be docked quite frequently, and using more than one setting in your sources will be docked heavily.

Reading the judges criteria will help you here.

Power is not marked consistently, some judges mark power based on how well a build does compared to other builds with similar objectives, and some mark based on a general scale of power. As such, building for Power primarily will not net you spectacular scores, since many will compare you to the perfect version of whatever you did.

Reading judges criteria will also help you here.

[term1nally s1ck]

And how many judges have posted criteria over the past few contests? Not many, and the ones that did were very much different. (For example, the *only* criteria posted in the dervish contest said no points docked for dips that fit the theme. And I don't even think he judged in the end.)

Saying 'you can just read the criteria' is meaningless when the large majority of judges do not post criteria.

[Cieyrin]

We can certainly give general guidelines on what's expected but the judging guidelines vary between judges, often greatly, and sometimes between contests judges participate in, so making any complete list is likely a fool's errand. If the judges had a unified rubric, it may be a different story, but it takes a lot of time and effort to read through entries and grade them fairly and evenly between entries. We should thank the judges for putting aside the time they do so this contest to run. IC shouldn't be contestants vs. judges and it's kinda going that direction these last 2 contests. Not a good trend in my opinion.

[term1nally s1ck]

That doesn't change that there are some *very* clear things that are *always* marked down, and they are rarely mentioned as something to avoid. I'm trying to put together the stuff that people who want to join the contest can actually do so without spending multiple contests learning that judges always hate some things, aren't going to mark consistently on certain things, and then finally after about 3-4 events figuring out what they actually need to do to stand a chance. Because right now, this is the least new-person friendly event on the board, and I used to run the NED, which regularly kills even experienced players.

And if you don't want things to be turning into competitors vs judges, we need to not have judges posting things like this, then getting offended when people challenge them on their complaints.

Going over these a little more in detail, I may end up the jerkface judge after all.

Game mechanics are there for a reason. Many of the builds have rather gross mechanics violations. Ignoring CL caps, ignoring prerequsites, ignoring swift action limitations... each build will have it set up in my judging post.

Just remember, I'm doing this to help you improve your optimization skills, not because I enjoy being a meany-face.

Everyone here is definitely above par for average skill. But the devil is in the details, and a couple of builds look a bit rushed, and some of those details got left behind, and now they're coming back to bite you in the arse.

[Draz74]

I know there are some advantages to judges presenting Criteria, but honestly ... I think the lack of strictness on this rule is part of why we had so many (punctual) judges this round. I probably wouldn't have judged if I had to write formal Criteria, for example, especially if I had to do so before the entries' deadline.

Also, when I've entered Iron Chef as a contestant in the past, I honestly didn't read the Criteria very carefully ... I just made the character I wanted to make. Sometimes this got me good scores, sometimes it got me lousy scores ... but that probably would have been true if I'd read the Criteria, anyway.

I've got an alternate solution to the 'rules argument' issue: specifically, any given poster is only allowed to make one single post per judging disputing that judging.

I like it. But I also approve of continuing to emphasize that only factual, non-subjective arguments should be made to challenge judges.

Hmm, it sounds good, but what happens if the first post gets lost in the shuffle (as almost happened to Sortes' disputes)? Would reposting count as a second post?

I like to think that generally, bystanders (including other judges) would jump into this situation and continue to advocate that various objections get the attention/corrections they deserve.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

And how many judges have posted criteria over the past few contests? Not many, and the ones that did were very much different. (For example, the *only* criteria posted in the dervish contest said no points docked for dips that fit the theme. And I don't even think he judged in the end.)

Saying 'you can just read the criteria' is meaningless when the large majority of judges do not post criteria.

Ahem...

Awww.... no Sovereign Speaker Shenanigans...

Count me as a judge for this one.

My criteria:

Spoiler

Show

Originality - Would I have seen this coming? Have I seen this before? If so, expect deductions. I don't count you down in this if several people had the same unexpected trick, I'll simply give everyone who used that unexpected trick the same bonus.

Power - This is going to be a fairly high bar, since you've got a 9th level spell. The ones with a higher score here are going to be the ones who can synergize well and get the most out of their spells. Keep in mind that being one-dimensional and having a trick that is easily foiled will cost you points here. One of the key things I am looking for is 'can this character handle a random immunity without risking getting nerfed badly'. I will also be looking for a character who, despite only having 9 spells per day, can contribute meaningfully in the daily recommended dose of four fights, so staying power is also going to be considered.

Elegance - Dips will be penalized, simply because they are almost completely unnecessary to qualify. The requirements can be done by any level Warrior (yes, the NPC class), so you shouldn't need three classes to get here. Questionable rules judgements will be made in the most unfair manner possible. If your GM is actively looking for ways to ban your build on a mechanical invalidation, would he swing the ban-bat at this? If so, I will almost certainly deduct here. No strongheart vests for Hellfire blast, etc...

Because of the rules clarification, any attempt to gain bonus domains to increase your spell list will result in a flat 0 in this score for failure to read the rules. Of course, you're probably not reading this anyways if that is the case, so it's probably a pointless clarification, but hey... at least when someone complains, I can point here and look all smug like any judge should.

Use of Secret Ingredient - I'm not only looking for 'did you take all 10 levels', but I'm looking at 'how are you using each and every single one of your 9 spells known to their utmost' AND 'did you leverage your domain ability'. After all, what's the point in having spells and a domain ability if you never use 'em? Most of the other class abilities are fairly passive, so aggressive use of spells will certainly help this score as well as Power.

I posted my criteria the day the contest came out.

Perhaps we should require this of all judges?

[term1nally s1ck]

Yep. And how many others have we had over the past several contests?

I don't mind that judges aren't required to post criteria, but when there's some things that are universally punished, or not rewarded, contest after contest after contest, we need to give any new contestants some warning of that.

[ILM]

Re: disputes: à la Sous-Chef, just allow people to volunteer for being dispute judges instead of full-on judges; there are always some who'd like to judge but don't quite feel like tackling this particular Special Ingredient, or don't think they'll have enough time, or whatever. Judging only disputes takes a fraction of the time and each dispute judge can just go yay/nay on any particular issue. Majority wins, no appeals, and we just need to agree once and for all on what happens if they're evenly matched. You only need between one and, say, 3 anyway.

[term1nally s1ck]

W.R.T factual disputes, a vote is not a solution. That's like claiming you can vote on whether the sky is blue. If a build works, it works, and it should be marked as such even if a judge disagrees.

I personally agree with taking it to the RAW thread as an independent party.

[Hecuba]

Spoiler

Show

I have entered one science fair ever, and the judging was done overnight. No explanation from the contestants except a written note of 'how to make it work' which could be as simple as 'pull this lever'.

Our experiences are vastly different then: every one I did required a paper to be submitted with it documenting the experiment and background.

I also study mathematics at university. The perfect answers to most of the questions that are asked are as minimal as possible. The *less* working we show, in probably the most technical subject, the better, because a good solution, just like a good build, should be self-explanatory.

Again, vastly different experiences: I didn't do much math beyond Linear Algebra, but in every programming class I ever took the ideal code for presentation was well commented with explanations.

You do not talk to the panel. They have to understand it themselves..

Edit: This seems to be a semantics issue on my part: I wasn't presuming you meant a formal verbal defense. I'm not saying people should talk to the panel, so to speak. I'm saying that the paper should include references if, for example, it uses accepted proofs that aren't assumed to be part of everyone's general reference.

[term1nally s1ck]

References being a note that X is to be found here. Which were included. I gave sources for the things used. What I didn't do is give a walkthrough of the trick I used, and apparently that is my omission, and the judge is not required to be sure he understands the build to judge it.

For reference, my char had an ability, Healing Hymn, which was in the build's level progression, and in the source list. It's only purpose is to increase the amount healing spells do.

Apparently, not mentioning that I am using the ability I have that only increases the effectiveness of healing spells to increase the effectiveness of my healing spells is an omission on my part and it is my fault that that was not understood.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

References being a note that X is to be found here. Which were included. I gave sources for the things used. What I didn't do is give a walkthrough of the trick I used, and apparently that is my omission, and the judge is not required to be sure he understands the build to judge it.

For reference, my char had an ability, Healing Hymn, which was in the build's level progression, and in the source list. It's only purpose is to increase the amount healing spells do.

Apparently, not mentioning that I am using the ability I have that only increases the effectiveness of healing spells to increase the effectiveness of my healing spells is an omission on my part and it is my fault that that was not understood.

Not mentioning that you have said ability when explaining the calculation of your healing output was probably step one...

[term1nally s1ck]

So you judge builds without accounting for their abilities? Kind of iffy.

[Cieyrin]

I don't think we should expect every judge to be a mechanical expert in the system rules and pick apart every nuance of a build. Plus, we're only human, we make mistakes. It is the contestant's job to explain their build that showcases what it can do and how well it uses the secret ingredient. If you don't mention how you use your tools, do you expect the judges to know how they're used? The judge's job is to give ratings in the four criteria areas as their judgement calls for. There's a certain bit of metaknowledge that comes with being a frequent contestant and if we can pass that knowledge on to new contestants to entice them to enter, we should do such a thing. And we have done so in the past by providing the build skeleton for those of us who are less table savvy so its easier for the judges to provide an accurate and timely judging. IC is suffering growing pains, it's to be sure, so if we can improve the intro for those who both haven't entered previously as well as seasoned veterans, we will all benefit for it.

[term1nally s1ck]

Ability X is listed in build.

Ability X does precisely one thing.

Is it really so hard to assume that Ability X is used for that one thing? I see no explanation of how Leap attack is used to increase damage. Was it taken account of? Certainly.

EDIT: I'll be clear. There is precisely one way that he didn't account for it: He didn't even look it up. He never saw the ability and didn't check what it did. This is indeed a mistake, and I find it offensive that someone who has not even noticed an ability, or hasn't paid attention to it if he did, can claim that that is *anyone's* fault but his own. If you screw up, you should take the blame, rather than immediately trying to pass the buck.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So you judge builds without accounting for their abilities? Kind of iffy.

The only place it was mentioned was in the middle of a table somewhere, and quite easy to overlook. Mentioning it briefly in your healing calculation would have made it more clear.

For example "She can heal for ~32.5 damage per person per round with a cure light wounds spell!" you could say "Healing is 1d8+5 for a CLW + 20 from Healing Hymn for a total of 1d8+25".

By doing so, it prevents people from assuming that you forgot about the silly little limitation of effective class level on healing, since it comes out to the exact same number.

Presentation... it's a good thing. When was the last time you saw a dish on Iron Chef that was poorly presented get even a passable rating from the judges? Or on ANY of the multitude of reality shows which do similar things. Or ANY contest in general?

[term1nally s1ck]

By doing so, it prevents people from assuming that you forgot about the silly little limitation of effective class level on healing, since it comes out to the exact same number.

No, it doesn't. It's actually 7 off from what the CL would be at every stage that was mentioned. And again, you are basically saying 'I am not responsible for taking account of parts of your build that you do not immediately highlight'.

If an iron chef dish includes a spice or seasoning that improves the dish, they do not have to highlight it in the presentation for it to be counted.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

{Scrubbed}

[term1nally s1ck]

{Scrubbed}

[OMG PONIES]

Please stop, gentlemen. This is devolving from discussion of how to make ICO more accessible into personal attacks. Shneekey and term1nally, please either agree to a stalemate or take it to the PMs.

[Private-Prinny]

Please stop, gentlemen. This is devolving from discussion of how to make ICO more accessible into personal attacks. Shneekey and term1nally, please either agree to a stalemate or take it to the PMs.

This man is a herald of truth, apart from what, at this point, I would consider a stretch of the word "gentlemen". This has gotten completely out of hand. Fortunately, Shneeky doesn't want to continue this any farther than it has already gone.

And frankly, you're both wrong.

Shneeky, taking another look at Mother Teresa, there's one passage that sticks out.

Teresa starts as a straight bard. She's okish at supporting, but her real role shines when healing. She adds her perform rank to all healing spells using Healing Hymn, which leads to a fairly impressive d8+14 healing at level 5 with a single L1 spell.

It was explicitly called out in the beginning of the tactics explanation. Since it was brought up, you have only yourself to blame for allowing it to slip your notice. Next time, please save the heavy-handed introductions for after all of the factual errors are ironed out (especially since there were quite a few).

term1nally s1ck, while I agree with the requirement of criteria, you are taking this round incredibly personally. You seem to want to take Shneeky's perceived high horse as an excuse to persecute him exclusively for something that you complain all judges are doing. If you could send me that list of yours written in as unbiased language as possible, I would love to have a look at it. Until then, I stand by Shneeky in saying that even with Healing Hymn (the main mistake you seem to keep harping on), Mother Teresa just was not terribly impressive.

If either of you have anything to argue about with either of those assessments, PM me about it. But do not bog this thread down anymore, because even if I can't use the official red text, I can contact someone who can.

And with that, I'd like to try to piece my mind back together from the Truenamer and the Arcane Archer taking the top two spots. Really impressive work, you two.

Remember to PM me with any SI suggestions you might have.

[term1nally s1ck]

To clarify (especially for the other judges), the only judging I had issue with was Shneeky's attempt at being the mechanical critic, and I've no intent to pursue things with him. I feel like everyone else's was well done, and relatively consistent between entries, and I have absolutely no complaints on that front, nor with my placing, given what I learned this round about how people judge power in different circumstances. The judging on a whole was superb.

My other point was that I do not feel like any new contestant has the knowledge he needs to participate fairly. I'll PM you the list of things I feel like every contestant should know in advance as soon as I get through the most recent half a dozen or so contests, to make sure all of them are consistent trends.

[Draz74]

My other point was that I do not feel like any new contestant has the knowledge he needs to participate fairly. I'll PM you the list of things I feel like every contestant should know in advance as soon as I get through the most recent half a dozen or so contests, to make sure all of them are consistent trends.

I like the idea of having a general FAQ/Beginner's Guide that has sort of "generic judge's Criteria" in it. I look forward to seeing what you've come up with.

[term1nally s1ck]

Power is basically impossible to do that for. The criteria vary wildly between judges. Not too surprising, given how difficult it is to determine whether a character is powerful, and how much good tactics change how effective a char is.

The rest? Pretty easy. Would that be preferable to a string of general guidelines? And I can find a few things to say about the different ways that judges decide on Power.

[DeAnno]

I'd have to dispute that building for power is universally bad. My Bloodstained Hurricane in the Dervish competition last month was pretty much built on sheer power alone, with all the originality of a PB&J and a dash of spicy flavor added on. Since it came just a whisker from first place, I think that its definitely a viable way to build.

The only thing that irks me on judging is the tendency for people to dock dips instead of multiclassing penalties, or in some cases wildly more painfully than multiclass penalties. Part of this is because dips beget dips in a contest like this, where you usually only have 10 "free" levels at all to begin with, so the penalties can get pretty steep for something that isn't mechanically disadvantaged. I feel like in most optimized fields of play taking an assortment of dips to build a character isn't really a bad idea if you can keep MC penalties under control, and that it creates a strange divide between "reality" and "perception" as strange as those terms might seem referencing something like this.

I'm not sore or anything, and ultimately it's up to the judges who spend their time on it, but it just seems a little bit weird to me. I get the sense that some judges dock points for it just because it's perceived as something that they're supposed to do, while something so un-mechanical in nature should really be the call of the individual judge if anything.

[gbprime]

My other point was that I do not feel like any new contestant has the knowledge he needs to participate fairly.

Sure they do. We have HOW many examples of winners and low scorers to read up on? Just browse the past competitions and read the judge comments on the highest and lowest scores. You can even find out who the repeat judges are before you make your build and see what they like and don't like.

That's what I did, anyway. My first Iron Chef was 14 (seeker of the song) and I took 1st place.

[Thurbane]

Just my 2 coppers here - the only thing that sometimes vexes me in judging is the subjectiveness of docking someone for "obscure sources". For some, anything that isn't core + Completes is obscure. Some include the environment series in "non-obscure". Few if any would dock for ToB being obscure, yet in the grand scheme of things, it really is no less obscure than Planar Handbook, IMHO. For myself, I would classify "online only" material as fairly obscure, yet others see it differently: if it is an online article, everyone has access to it, ergo it cannot be called obscure.

...I guess my point is, I personally find docking for obscurity a little pointless, when "obscurity" in this case is such a massively subjective term. If something falls withing the guidelines of accepted sources set out in the rules of the comp, what purpose does rating "obscurity" really serve?

[OMG PONIES]

I support the newbie guide--I'll look over my info from all past rounds to help determine consistent scoring trends. While some, like prime and myself can sit down and read all threads, it shouldn't be required for ICO success.

On the topic of dipping, it's something that varies widely from judge to judge, but has been docked consistently. I know someone could actually get hit thrice by me if they 1) take an expected entry class 2) for less than 3 levels 3) resulting in MC penalties. I admit that's harsh; perhaps we should have a hard and fast rule on dipping, or at least revise our individual stances?