I agree that a single party (IC) can create a game that meets all the criteria in a reasonable time frame. My issue is with the engagement strategy required. You mention that you are a VE/GM trainer; that means that you have an immediate audience to play your game and drive visits that others that are outside the academic and studio community do not have.
Itâs a whole lot easier to offer incentives when you know youâll make the minimums. I am also aligned with some other ICs, and they boosted my visits in the first challenge greatly. Because I am not getting to visit other experiences much this time, I donât feel comfortable asking them to visit mine.
@TSBCreators@PeaJay Hello. I just want to confirm that my original experience that I had to delete to continue publishing due to a Sandbox issue will be included in the leaderboards.
For any future builder challenge, REQUIRE each experience that is published and WANTS to participate in the challenge to fill in a simple form that
1 - SP or MP
2- Does or does not have booster present.
3- Is a wholly new launch.
4 Builders name and contact
5 - Wallet address
An experience form could be submitted any time in the 10 week event, though wouldnt be eligible for biweekly rewards that theyâve missed in prior weeks.
Something like that would go a long way to putting the reasonable onus on a builder to have to do, rather than whay happened in the last few weeks where anyone who launched had no idea if they were registered.
This would create an official paper trail, trackable, verifiable on both sides, and assuage anxiety about status.
It doesnt solve some of the other points brought up, but it chips away a tad.
@theJoncrowStrictly trying to figure out a solution with you I think this would be one approach but if this approach was executed, is there any kind mechanism in place to prevent cheaters from filling out the form incorrectly?
I honestly think having the data that TSB has access to should be enough. Unfortunately, there seems to have not been effective testing to make sure their data retrieval process was ready for the current challenge. Just like we builders are used to test certain mechanics and logic, they too should test their data retrieval system. We builders know that testing in GameMaker Editor vs. Draft Gallery vs. Game Client is different⌠The data retrieval should have been thoroughly tested as well. What I believe would be great is to have a random group outside of the TSB circle of builders to do testing prior to an event like this. It would do wonders having real testing for a more accurate testing result. I personally know through IRL Escape Room design & programming that just because something is designed & programmed to go a certain way and in a certain order, does not mean a customer is going to do the puzzles/activities in the order I had designed it. So ultimately it needs tested to prevent certain actions. We can only hope, TSB will integrate more thorough testing.
Not sure if anything is truly anti cheat these days. It seems like a continual arms race, but a basic form would at least formally enter people into the challenge at which point they know theyâre in, and then the anti cheat layer takes over.
Entrants get a response with a unique number or code confirming their entry so later on if anything goes sideways, its a kind of proof of entry.
Let me share with you my results of the engagement strategy yeah. BC1 I only had 2 entries for my games until I was featured by TSB. You can request for a feature from them. There is a form you can fill up on your experience page. Even with 600+ players from the feature, the total number of players entries on my discord for rewards increased to 5. . BC2 I did some paid marketing and new strategy to learn from. Fiverr can do it as cheaply at 20USD. Interesting outcome but new crazy ideas are brewing after first 2 weeks.
I donât ask my students to play my game just to âboostâ the engagement. Itâs not sustainable and I feel itâs a bit âcheatingâ on my part. If I am to stay in TSB platform and its world offering, I am really thinking about the proper growth strategy and work to increase my player base organically. Its okay if I start small⌠When I grow up I wanna be like @Gikis with a bazillion players.
Hit me up on X @SandCastlerSG. We do have a small player base that we can assist each other and learn from each other in building and growing. APES 2GATHER STRONK!
@EscapeRoomArtist & theJoncrow, lil ol me just playing the devilâs advocate here.
I somewhat agree with theJoncrow on its beings an arms race however I do not think a form helps the situation nor a code for entrants. It hurts legit creators and players into doing a lot more âworkâ in order to enjoy a game. Current steps new players have to take its just to create an account, there is already a bit of resistance there, believe me. Adding a secondary step + an OTP or PIN just to enter the system will most probably put people off from accessing. The form itself the 5 data that Jon suggested is already captured not only from the KYC process but also through âNew Experiencesâ launched section. The question I have is we know all the experience and the builders that have launched it. How do we ensure they are qualified for rewards and if anything fraudulent is flagged so we as the builder can make the adjustment on the fly and not have a nice suprise at the end that 2 weeks. . I believe most builders are rallying and getting legit players into their sphere of influence.
The backend probably all the data captures and its really up to the screening criteria to filter and remove such data. There would be times of false positives which the backend team would have to keep catching up. Honestly from the perspectives of software engineer, any bot farm capable of passing the Turing Test will break through any layers you placed infront of the system as a security measure. The farm has no issue running through the layers. It will stop REAL people thou.
I still believe this is just an over tuning of the parameters for the screening/filtering process which most entries might be flagged as fraudulent. Lets give @TSBCreators some time to adjust. Who knows right⌠maybe Wk5&6 they undertuned it and now we have an explosion of new experience that clears the criteria and another whole shebang happens again.
I think re the form, i was suggesting it until the back end / filter/ snare is working 100 percent reliably. This thread had too many people reply whose games werenât considered, and that is kind of angsty.
As for codes, it wouldnt be a login / pw type thing, just a number in an email or some confirmation # or something like that.
For me, filling in 3 to 5 lines of info is quick work and ensures that I have yhe agency in ensuring my game is included.
When the system is finally working , then yeah, phase the form out.
I have another idea in this regard, and it would be something like a set of small status icons on the experience page, or in the analytics that could validate a games entry, as well as any boosters.
Really, its all about having some kind of visual confirmation that i am entered, and with what perks.
To that end, a suspected fraud / cheating flag could also be included on the analytics page to make users aware of their status, along with any notes as to why they are flagged, and a link to contest the decision.
The âuniqueâ situation was indeed very negative for this BC, especially for solo artists who never had a community before. The whole âuniqueâ issue, even for Native Americans, created a lot of confusion.
Many in the community tried to warn when BC was launched about how embarrassing the situation around âuniqueâ was. It was not only poorly explained, but the entire construction of the expressions in the text was poorly written and unclear to everyone. The lack of a solution to the problem also led many to not participating in the BC.
The area of education and communication, especially with ânon-natives,â like me, also needs to be improved. There is no room for doubt; please be clear.
I understand that the âuniqueâ for weeks 1-2 has to be maintained and TSB needs to honor these eligibility conditions, as we take them very seriously, according to:
@Dankoyy I âassumeâ that the numbers in the leaderboard above are with removing those labeled as cheaters even though the experience/game has achieved the minimum 10 unique. Possible example: builder got 14 unique in week 1 and 6 of those were labeled cheaters, leaving only 8 to be calculated in the ranking formula. âAssumeâ we all know what assuming doesâŚ
Yes, Iâll âassumeâ here, if this is the case, it seems to me that cheaters, if they cannot be timed, should also be discarded as âuniqueâ players.
Here, I want to clarify that Iâm not trying to disqualify experiences; in fact, itâs the opposite. I want to show how bad this âuniqueâ situation is to the ecosystem. In my opinion, this âuniqueâ elegible situation it shouldnât even exist at first place.
I did submit the form to TSB, but they did not select me. I donât know how they select featured experiences, but I suspect it is quite arbitrary and subjective.
I appreciate your ethics in not asking your students to play your game. That said, Iâm sure they know you have an experience and will of course check it out. After all, they want to see if you know what youâre talking about. If you are good, they will want to see real examples of what you are teaching. Thereâs something to be said for a ready-made audience, especially to get the first 10 unique visits.
Iâve updated two of my experiences so that they are eligible.
If the sandbox analysis is incorrect or there are discrepancies. How do we know that we have reached 10 unique players this week? Is there anything we can confirm or check?
. BC2 I did some paid marketing and new strategy to learn from. Fiverr can do it as cheaply at 20USD. Interesting outcome but new crazy ideas are brewing after first 2 weeks.
, then yeah, phase the form out.
