s&box

Facepunch

JoinedApr 2021 Posts442 Score2,285

It's pretty obvious to everyone that it's not working and needs tweaking. I just want to let you all know that we know too, and we're working on it. There will be a tweak coming today.

It sucks that we're having to move the goal posts at this stage.. but we all knew we would have to at some point. Sorry to everyone that worked hard and feel like it's not being appreciated. This is all fixable, it's an iterative process. I want to iterate until we find a system that is feasible for us all going forward so the next 20 game jams will be easy and smooth sailing.

Any ideas or suggestions please feel free to post them here.

9 hours ago

#2

chomnr

Member

JoinedAug 2023 Posts11 Score2,840

I'm glad you finally addressed it.

9 hours ago

#3

Rango Chicken Roll

Member

JoinedApr 2026 Posts5 Score270

Thanks Garry, maybe hiding nominations would help for some of the manipulation going on, not sure.

A bit more notice when a jam might be so people can possibly take off work.

Free week with nominations being that free week, and while building don't accept nominations yet.

9 hours ago

#4

Potassium

Member

JoinedApr 2026 Posts1 Score463

I would suggest maybe a curated list of entries to vote on from you guys, things that meet the quality standards of what you guys are trying to encourage on the platform. That way going forward there would be a precedent set for future game jams as well as a showcase of what the platform is trying to encourage. Of course this is not without issues, but it also seems like just letting the community decide on what is good enough doesn't seem to be working.

8 hours ago

#5

Jinjav6

Member

JoinedJul 2023 Posts1 Score2,205

It would be great in the future if the building and nomination phases were separate rather than nominations being possible during the building phase. As well as the nominations being hidden.

8 hours ago

#6

Jay

Member

JoinedJul 2022 Posts1 Score105

I agree with the notion of creating a curated list of entries from sbox team that the public then votes on. Separating the building and nomination process in future would be better as well. Glad to its being addressed

8 hours ago

edited 8 hours ago#7

Lebofly

Member

JoinedSep 2021 Posts10 Score2,120

Here's my proposition: (I ran it through GPT cause I'm sleep deprived, yes, yes, suggestion slop)

Randomised Community Qualification

Every voter is assigned a balanced random selection of approximately 10 jam entries. They play and nominate whichever entries they believe deserve to advance.
Each entry receives roughly the same number of independent evaluations, and rankings are determined by nomination percentage rather than raw nomination count.
The highest-performing entries advance to another round, votes reset, and games are redistributed to a new random group of players.
This continues until approximately 10 finalists remain, at which point the wider community can play and vote on all finalists.
Players therefore can't simply join the platform to nominate one specific game. Supporting a game requires encountering it naturally through the judging pool, dramatically reducing the effectiveness of coordinated voting, bribery, alt accounts and external popularity while also giving lesser-known entries guaranteed exposure.

Perhaps reward people that take part in the nomination process with a cool skin :-)

8 hours ago

#8

Reimanpt

Member

JoinedJul 2026 Posts6 Score495

Players are given random games to play, without seeing who made them.

This helps in a few ways:

Every game has a better chance of actually being played.
Voting is less influenced by friendships, popularity, or who the creator is.
Players can’t just pick the games they already know.

After finishing a session, the player gives the game a rating from 1 to 5.

Once enough votes are collected, the final score for each game could be calculated using the median of all its ratings, rather than just the average.

That should also make the results less affected by extreme votes like random 1s or 5s.

The random selection could keep rotating players through different entries so that, ideally, every game receives a similar number of plays and ratings.

I think this would make voting much more about the game itself, rather than who made it.

8 hours ago

#9

ExcelFX

Member

JoinedAug 2021 Posts1 Score11,898

I agree with the random games, but 10 feels like it might be low imo. we have 400 games this jam, we cant get through them properly even like that, and as long as the game list only refreshes each time an elimination happens, that would be good. don't want people spam refreshing their list by reloading the game.

I worry that multiplayer games get the short end of the stick with the limit of 10 games randomly shown to each player, on a platform where multiplayer is arguably pretty encouraged to have in your game.

8 hours ago

#10

Swimrat

Member

JoinedJul 2026 Posts5 Score695

Yeah, the "randomization" won't work if it's multiplayer game / or more fun with multiplayer. Community votes like we have now can technically if we have A LOT of players, but currently we do not. for now I still think a dedicated jury would be the best, I'm sure tons of student's wouldn't mind a 100 pounds salary for playing video games a full day.

ExcelFX posted:

I agree with the random games, but 10 feels like it might be low imo. we have 400 games this jam, we cant get through them properly even like that, and as long as the game list only refreshes each time an elimination happens, that would be good. don't want people spam refreshing their list by reloading the game. I worry that multiplayer games get the short end of the stick with the limit of 10 games randomly shown to each player, on a platform where multiplayer is arguably pretty encouraged to have in your game.

8 hours ago

#11

fishy

Member

JoinedFeb 2023 Posts84 Score1,548

I want to iterate until we find a system that is feasible for us all going forward so the next 20 game jams will be easy and smooth sailing.

The past jams (both game and tech jams) have felt quite fair, with set judges and at least some semblance of judging criteria. I think it's going to be tough coming up with a system that involves or encourages community voting in a lot of ways, especially when there is money involved. Theme adherence also feels like it takes a backseat when it comes to community voting - if I have 100 friends, they're going to nominate my game regardless of if I stick to the theme or not. I guess it just comes down to what you consider feasible - does having Facepunch manage a board of judges (either from Facepunch or select members of the community) sound feasible or are you aiming to make these jams as hands off as possible? I don't really see a situation where cash prizes and community voting work together without people trying to game the system.

In terms of nomination period, I think a set cut-off of submissions and then a nomination period would be best. From what people have said, releasing early seems to hurt them with not many returning players, and releasing later also appears to be an uphill battle, with less time for player exposure. A level playing field, with equal exposure and equal voting time feels like it would be the most beneficial to everyone.

I think there would also be a considerably higher turnout with a higher quality bar if there had been a bit more notice of the game jam period. Not having enough notice to properly devote time to the jam has been a concern for me for a while and ended up how I feared it would, with a 4 day notice period before it kicked off. Not enough time to work it into a schedule, let alone find a group of people who could all work it into their schedules. You can't expect a jam period to work for absolutely everyone of course, but there is a middle ground where giving some extra notice could result in wider engagement, especially from people outside of the s&box community.

I feel like these are the kinds of conversation that needed to happen before the jam. While I respect the 'if it doesn't work out we can fix it' mentality that comes with a lot of s&box's development, it does start to feel like an unnecessary uphill battle at times against identifiable issues. The negative press s&box gets for these kinds of things makes it harder to entice outside developers to try the engine. I do worry that it could get to a stage where "play my game on the s&box platform" is no longer a selling point and instead a detriment for games based just based on general sentiment.

8 hours ago

edited 7 hours ago#12

AReallyLongName XxX

Member

JoinedDec 2022 Posts4 Score670

It's bullshit. That current top nominee is bullshit. Waiting until the last day to tell all of their followers to nominate it on the first day of the noms is mega bullshit.

https://sbox.game/voxelite/test

How is that thing gonna win 20 grand?

Use the nominations in a different way, because it's already given you a good idea of what the community enjoys and plays.

You should curate based on actual human responses and reviews. If you have like 50-100 people working for your company maybe all of those people should also play and nominate. You have lots of stats to work with here - reviews, playtime, number of players. Nominations are meaningless.

But you have 430+ entries now, so it's fucked either way. Maybe you could do this:

1) Community nominations - means nothing, proves which user was botting or asking people to vote for them, but gives you a better idea of which games Facepunch can play or test out after sifting through the slop. This is not final. You (fp) get the final say and should select a bunch of games that are viable for the platform's future.

2) Facepunch nominations - all FP employees from all departments of the company play a bunch of games both you and the community have verified as being prospective finalists or good games. This gives you a broader pool of real people to test out the games. Meanwhile, the community know where to focus their play efforts, not sifting through 430+ entries.

You guys are good with this stuff. You're good with the engine and how games should be made. So I say you guys should handle it. By Facepunch I don't mean the community organisations either, or these affiiliate groups who are close to you. I mean you and your employees should be participating by being testers as well. You guys should know by now what kind of stuff works on your platform, and what doesn't. Then have a discussion as a company.

I just want to see the platform work but this current system is obviously giving everybody the wrong idea.

Other ideas: not letting people upvote or downvote until after a certain minimum playtime, having reviews checked by some kind of automated system to check it's not bullshit or isn't eloquent enough, some kind of anti-botting practices, checking s&box platform scores, playtime, Steam account age or activity, s&box playtime or activity or engagement for "trusted reviews", being able to flag or report products if not a review. Lots of ways you can strengthen the curation process that extends the platform's life.

7 hours ago

#13

Braxen 🐟

Member

JoinedJun 2021 Posts190 Score190

Yes, please. Not only is there clear vote manipulation, but many of the games started development before the jam did, by months to almost a year.

7 hours ago

#14

|H|A|P|P|Y|

Member

JoinedJan 2023 Posts7 Score3,360

I think nominations with player votes can work to help weed out games but they should not have been allowed to vote during building phase and we needed a longer voting phase like 5-7 days then some judges would play top 25 games or so to be able to have a more manageable pool of games and the winners can be picked that way. One thing I really belive is that there was no need to make the rewards so top heavy to me it would be better if more people won 5 winners with 433 entries is pretty low keep the prize pool the same and either pick out the top 10 and balance the rewards that way or have extra rewards for games that judges / the community like or thought was special. Also the way that you vote is way to hard it popping up in the bottom right for 5 seconds I feel like I dont get votes till the second time someone plays my game either later that day or some other day.

7 hours ago

#15

Justin

Member

JoinedNov 2023 Posts3 Score0

We have observed that the current format promotes vote brigading, and causes hostility in the community. Also, I reckon a significant amount of the voters are also competing. That concept relies on good faith, which is not reliable when it comes to competing for money. Anything involving public voting is going to have these issues.

Hiding votes does not address brigading.
- It will resolve the scenario where winners snowball by acquiring more votes based on already receiving a bunch of nominations
- However, people can still actively seek the game they are trying to boost votes on.

Random games only makes brigading slower.
- If people are able to eventually play the game they are trying to brigade, they will vote for it without voting for anything else.
- If people are NOT able to eventually play the game they are trying to brigade, it implies voters will not be able to vote on all games which sounds like introducing an entirely different problem.
- Forcing voters to play random games, rather than play what they want, sounds like a job. I mean, I certainly would be discouraged from playing the entries if I were forced to play random ones.

I do not think any solution involving a fully open voting system is capable of resolving the problem, but maybe someone else can come up with something.

7 hours ago

#16

Swimrat

Member

JoinedJul 2026 Posts5 Score695

All of us with the 15 nominations be like that meme "Y'all Got Any More Of That Nominations"`

Braxen 🐟 posted:

race8.mp4 1.62 MB Yes, please. Not only is there clear vote manipulation, but many of the games started development before the jam did, by months to almost a year.

7 hours ago

edited 6 hours ago#17

Halo

Member

JoinedAug 2021 Posts7 Score2,455

My vision:

I’ve come up with a new system: the nominations remain, but a points system decides the outcome. Points are based on the percentage of nominations relative to the number of players, plus some factor accounting for likes/dislikes and reviews.
Or like a other variant: A voting weight system could also be developed: a player who frequently plays s&box and various games has a weight of 1, whereas a player who has just downloaded s&box and joined a single game solely to cast a vote for a friend has a weight of 0.1
Displaying the top 5 games on the jam's main page before the final stage is a bad idea, as people will prioritize playing those and overlook the others; it would be better to show them only during the final stage.
Why have separate "final" and "grand final" stages? It would make more sense to merge them into the nomination phase and extend its duration. Since many participants finish their games toward the end of the building phase, this would give them a fair chance. The final stage would then simply be the point where the top 5 games remain; once time runs out, the results would be locked in, and the 5 winners would be ranked

Don't try to reinvent the wheel for this game jam.

Just this once, as an exception, run it according to the old traditions - let the s&box developers themselves play the games and decide which project is the best.

Absolutely no one will question your choice, we trust you and want you to take notice of us as developers. The next jam can then feature a new, refined voting system

6 hours ago

#18

MarsBar

Member

JoinedNov 2024 Posts23 Score2,586

Mr Newman I think you need to bring in heavier AI regulations or 3rd party check. I know that in this age with all this new shit coming out its so hard to keep on top of it as its ever evolving and you said that the slop will just fall to the bottom but... Half the vibecoded games have no indication they are that from the game page and they need to be, not having that plus voter manipulation should be top priority systems to overhaul. The slop be slopping and making everything extra slippy.

6 hours ago

#19

Halo

Member

JoinedAug 2021 Posts7 Score2,455

The problem isn't AI. AI is a tool. The problem is quality control

6 hours ago

#20

MarsBar

Member

JoinedNov 2024 Posts23 Score2,586

Halo posted:

The problem isn't AI. AI is a tool. The problem is quality control

You're right it is a tool, that's being heavily abused, resulting in waves of unoriginal and lazy content. Making all the gems harder to sift through! Theres a massive resurgence of anti AI because people crave organically crafted passion projects created with love and care. Thats why there has to be a stricter system. This is what people are counting on.

6 hours ago

edited 5 hours ago#21

Osama Bin Ramen

Member

JoinedSep 2024 Posts8 Score80

There must be a way to separate the real passion projects that aren't being noticed, and the slop? Let me think!

Edit / idea 1 - disqualify any games that are not related to the theme (but do not stop them from entering their game into another jam)

5 hours ago

edited 5 hours ago#22

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

Why not use the format that has been successfully used in other game jams for years?
Nothing gets published until the development phase ends. There is a pre-moderation step that, in addition to standard rules, ensures projects actually address the jam's theme—after all, isn't that the whole point of a game jam? It seems to me that the current leaders have almost no technical connection to the subject matter. Projects are published at the start of the voting phase with zero votes. Allow plenty of time for voting—more than three days. Instead of just picking a top five, use categories like "Best Gameplay," "Best Graphics," and so on; that adds a huge boost to variety.
I agree that AI is an excellent tool; the "slop" only appears when people misuse it and don't care about the final result—those kinds of projects should be weeded out during pre-moderation.

5 hours ago

#23

CSEliot

Member

JoinedMar 2026 Posts12 Score615

Having a panel of judges is the ONLY way to control for corruption.

Make a panel from a combo of FP staff and community leaders.

That panel will themselves choose the top 5 among the top 20% nominated.

5 hours ago

#24

Who who?

Member

JoinedJan 2023 Posts4 Score1,515

I don't think nominations should be available during the first (building) stage of the Game Jam.

5 hours ago

#25

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

Braxen 🐟 posted:

race8.mp4 1.62 MB Yes, please. Not only is there clear vote manipulation, but many of the games started development before the jam did, by months to almost a year.

The "theme" exists precisely to weed out games created before the jam began, yet here, it seems nobody cares about it.

5 hours ago

#26

garry

Facepunch

JoinedApr 2021 Posts442 Score2,285

Which games would you disqualify due to not being on theme?

5 hours ago

#27

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

garry posted:

Which games would you disqualify due to not being on theme?

Please organize a committee to resolve this internally. What is the point of asking the participants about it?

5 hours ago

#28

garry

Facepunch

JoinedApr 2021 Posts442 Score2,285

Because I'm interesting in your opinion

5 hours ago

#29

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

Mr. Newman, I don't think any of the participants should mention specific names. You have the theme and the entries, I don't think it takes a great deal of experience with game jams and games to notice the discrepancies between them. With all due respect.

5 hours ago

#30

garry

Facepunch

JoinedApr 2021 Posts442 Score2,285

Mr PartyHard, with all due respect, everything is subjective and I am curious what not on theme would look like yo you, given that the theme is purposely vague and open ended.

Yours Sincerely, Garry Newman.