s&box

edited 5 hours ago#31

Member

JoinedSep 2024 Posts8 Score80

Garry, I think any game that does not have a game mode system or round based function, would be disqualified, if we stay with the "One More Round" theme.

For example, my game Skatebox has game modes that request participants on a semi regular basis.

One game mode is a turn-based S.K.A.T.E. mode, where one player sets a trick on a skateboard, and the other player has to match it.

I assumed that would qualify as a "round".

Thanks for Garry's Mod btw.

5 hours ago

#32

|H|A|P|P|Y|

Member

JoinedJan 2023 Posts7 Score3,360

The theme is is one more round almost any game fits that theme

5 hours ago

#33

elpupper

Member

JoinedSep 2025 Posts3 Score2,731

Games that should be dq'd are games who had already created the game and had a playable build before the jam. Braxen has dug in deep and curated a list of those games that are in the top 10.

Goblingeddon
Micro Wars: Tactical RTS
DON'T PRESS THE BUTTON
Street Rats

5 hours ago

#34

Titanovsky

Member

JoinedSep 2021 Posts337 Score4,323

garry posted:

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

I don’t think there’s any point in excluding the theme at this stage, many people have interpreted it as "freedom" anyway, given that the aim of this game jam is to gather loads of new games. Anyway, many of the games that got more shit from discord and made dramas, have the Round System or something similar. You should take the theme more seriously and not be afraid to limit it to 4-5 genres to the next game jam.

The good thing is that you’ve already acknowledged the problem, and I’ll just quote your own words about the system needing to be simple. So, simple. If we have to choose between two bad options, then community judging, something like 10 people, together with Facepunch judging, something like 2-3 people, is probably the best option. There is no perfect solution and there never will be, while people here will just keep suggesting more and more complicated systems.

From myself, I can add that you should just look at how Trundler ran the game jam in 2025. He clearly specified the rules, explained things to people, and tried to solve complicated cases. That’s a good approach. I can give a specific case. Make the rules more specific, for example the same "This should be a new creation, not something you have already created", so it explains in more detail that, for example, a game with that name shouldn’t have been mentioned on social media before or previously worked on in s&box. Yeah, it’s boring work, but it’s important.

I think judging still gives the best overall experience, I think It's better than a community vote

5 hours ago

edited 5 hours ago#35

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

garry posted:

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.

Fair enough, Mr. Newman.

For me, an entry starts to feel off-theme when “One More Round” could be removed entirely without changing the game’s core mechanics, structure, or concept in any meaningful way.

I agree that the theme is intentionally vague and open-ended — that is part of the fun. But I would still expect it to influence the design somehow: gameplay loop, progression, narrative, rules, or a central mechanic.

If the connection is only “the game has rounds”, “you can play another run”, or the word “round” appears somewhere in the title, then the theme becomes so broad that almost any game ever made could qualify. At that point, the theme starts doing very little actual work.

There is also a practical problem with that. If an entry does not visibly depend on the theme in any meaningful way, and the theme itself can be retrofitted onto almost any existing game, then from the outside there is very little distinction between a game genuinely designed around the jam theme and a game that may have already been in development long before the jam started and was simply adapted to fit it afterwards. I’m not accusing any particular entry of doing that — only saying that a stronger thematic requirement would make that distinction much clearer.

That is mainly what I meant. I would still rather not start naming individual entries, because I think this is more useful as a discussion about judging criteria than as a public list of games people think should be disqualified.

Yours subjectively,
PartyHard

5 hours ago

#36

Halo

Member

JoinedAug 2021 Posts7 Score2,455

To me, a game based on the One More Round concept needs to have some sort of cyclical nature. For instance, the reason I decided to make a loot-gathering game Gamma Team is the constant, infinite replayability, if your team die, or if you didn't meet the quota you just start over.

5 hours ago

edited 5 hours ago#37

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

At the conceptual stage, I actually thought the author should interpret the word "round" not just as a round [in a match], but also as a circle, a bullet, and so on.
Btw, it’s not just me—among the entries, there are many games where you have to land a hit with a single round to get one more round.

5 hours ago

#38

ЛАКЕР

Member

JoinedJul 2024 Posts1 Score465

I LOVE GARRY NEWMAN I LOVE YOU MAN.
just don't do it roblox 2, just do garrys mod 2 pls, not sbox and sausages, just do what everyone want, not rust 2, what you do, when you was young. We are all love you. Just change concept game, if garrys mod works, If it works, don't touch it. with new physics source 2 game gonna be amazing and it's gonna be very good.

4 hours ago

#39

defthue

Member

JoinedFeb 2026 Posts12 Score1,425

im glad its being adressed, after publishing i had pretty much given up even tho im quite happy with my game, simply because the competition is not fair, if you ask me nominations should be completely reset and all slop games should be filtered out. this can perhaps be done by taking the top 100 after this current nomination phase.

i dont really understand the discussion about the theme, who cares how "one more round" has been interpreted, this is about making good games right, not about wether you got the theme perfectly right.
the problem i think is how the competition is unfair due to nominations allowed during building phase and low player count allowing devs to buy up votes.

4 hours ago

#40

sauce

Member

JoinedDec 2024 Posts2 Score1,000

If you played every entry for 10 minutes, it would take 72 hours to play all of them.

Theres 72 hours in the "nomination phase". Assuming that people sleep/eat, this phase may need to be longer.

If you were planning a free weekend, extend this phase into it.

In the future, probably no voting until the nomination phase, unless its *internal checks* to verify games meet your criteria during building & submission phase [low error rates / project within timeframe / whatever quality assurance needed].

4 hours ago

#41

NickToony

Member

JoinedMay 2026 Posts3 Score285

I don't think using existing assets/code/prototypes from before the jam is the big problem here. It happens in all jams and it's mostly just not reinventing the wheel.

I think the number one problem from day 1 has been nominations open and visible from day 1 of building. It rewards those who rush out an early version, and continues to reward the most nominated games with highest visibility. Anything late submitted gets lost at the bottom of a list forever.

I quite like how itch.io does it: voting/reviewing only happens when everyone has submitted (so everyone starts on level playing field), and all voting/rankings are hidden until after the voting period. This would give every game a fair chance of being seen and played.

This doesn't stop nomination manipulation, but I don't know how the community could be trusted to solve that part.

Btw: to all of us complaining, we should ourselves do our best to play a wide range of submissions and genuinely nominate fairly. This will benefit everyone. Good luck!

4 hours ago

#42

Jennings

Member

JoinedJul 2024 Posts3 Score215

As someone who's been working on a game since it started I've very much enjoyed it, but seeing the drama around games being in that started work way before the jam begun is quite disheartening. If anything was going to change seeing those removed would be amazing.

4 hours ago

#43

CorentArt

Member

JoinedNov 2024 Posts11 Score1,216

garry posted:

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

Before removing games that are not in the theme, you can check the games that are cheating.

Micro Wars : Tactical RTS: has two packages from 3 months ago and a README.md inside with a gameplay audit dated June 2026.

Goblingeddon: This game change his name :

I know Braxen and others have called out some of them, and I'm sure there are a lot more.

4 hours ago

#44

Aedous

Member

JoinedMar 2026 Posts7 Score225

garry posted:

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.

I'm glad to hear that you're looking into it, I think this game jam has been exciting personally. It's my first one and I really enjoyed it, but I do feel like and maybe it's shared feeling, once I found out 1 week into the gamejam that voting had already started I was kinda bummed out because I instantly thought "whoever gets their game up there first has a huge advantage to later submissions".
It wasn't a motivating feeling but I think that was purely just confusion on my part too, if I understood that was how it worked I probably would have decided to make something different, so I guess in that part just clearer rules would help!

Community voting is an odd one for me, but that's just for me, I've always found it to be skewed in some way and a lot of the times it's not necessarily an accurate feedback on opinion because of trolls, hate trains, love trains etc I've always leaned more into panel judges, I think there is a balance between the two though that's a lot of games to play.

Saying that though I really enjoyed it, I submitted the game I've been working on, so thanks for organising this game jam there's been a flood of games that I've seen pour in (some slop, but there's always been slop even before slop was a thing) the next one can only be better and glad to hear you're making adjustments :)

4 hours ago

edited 3 hours ago#45

EGoriy

Member

JoinedNov 2025 Posts15 Score5,635

Thanks for being open about it. Honestly, even as it is, the jam turned out really cool, and it's more of a plus than a minus for the platform. A few suggestions to make it even better:

1. Separate the submission and voting phases.
Everyone submits by the deadline, and only then does voting open. This gives everyone an equal start, so nobody gets more votes just for publishing early. It should also improve game quality, since devs won't rush to release early to collect votes.

2. Rate games on criteria instead of a single button.
Replace the single "Nominate" with several criteria on a scale, for example Theme 3/5, Gameplay 4/5, plus Visuals/Audio and Originality. Ratings would spread out more accurately, and the theme would actually matter again. Right now, if you like a game you just hit nominate and move on, and the theme barely plays a role.

3. Bring back the jury with two-stage voting (Eurovision-style).
The jury was dropped for being biased, but audience votes aren't unbiased either, especially when a dev has a big following.

Stage 1: players vote, and the top 30 advance.
Stage 2: the jury reviews only the top 30, so they don't have to play everything.

A jury vote carries more weight than a player vote, and the final ranking combines both stages.

4. Clearly define the rules and penalties, with examples.
Yesterday's conflict showed that everyone reads "This should be a new creation, not something you have already created" differently. My reading is that you can't submit a game that was already in development before the jam. Having the idea beforehand, or a small piece of code written earlier, is a minor issue that shouldn't be punished.
Spell out what is and isn't allowed, with concrete examples;
use graded penalties: a minor violation costs a small rating deduction, and a serious one can go all the way to disqualification.

5. Add honorable mentions.
A few extra spots for games that didn't make the top but deserve recognition for an unusual idea, atmosphere or the effort put in.

4 hours ago

#46

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

defthue posted:

im glad its being adressed, after publishing i had pretty much given up even tho im quite happy with my game, simply because the competition is not fair, if you ask me nominations should be completely reset and all slop games should be filtered out. this can perhaps be done by taking the top 100 after this current nomination phase. i dont really understand the discussion about the theme, who cares how "one more round" has been interpreted, this is about making good games right, not about wether you got the theme perfectly right. the problem i think is how the competition is unfair due to nominations allowed during building phase and low player count allowing devs to buy up votes.
i dont really understand the discussion about the theme, who cares how "one more round" has been interpreted, this is about making good games right, not about wether you got the theme perfectly right.

It is exactly what gamejams about. If not, then just call it a contest. I’ve participated in plenty of game jams and seen genuinely great games lose to inferior ones that simply nailed the jam’s theme.

4 hours ago

#47

rhy_boy1

Member

JoinedSep 2026 Posts8 Score10

Make game
Enter game
Nomination weekend comes
You are gived 5 games to play, for at least x amount of time.
You vote yes or no one each game

If you dont, your game doesnt go out to anyone for voting after the first day or whatever.
Voting yes on games gives you credits for boosts...but also more likely that game you voted for will be pushed to front page (this gives some reason to not just vote no on the 5 games)
Games that are good get yes votes, and games that are bad get no votes.

Every entry plays 5 games, so 200 games means 1,000 at least (thats just to get your game in the door)

You can then play and vote for more games to earn boosts, boots push your game to front of page more, same as before, yes votes mean more, but also create competition.
leaving a reviews of at least x amount of words means more boosts.
Turns the voting into constructive, leaving reviews, encourages playing of games, you want to put yes votes out, but not on everything, so you just vote accordingly. good - yes, bad - no..

I dono, i just made all of this up on the spot.. but there needs to be some system in place to discourage NO voting everything, as well as a system that stops yes spamming on single titles.
paying for votes just exists, it always will... but at least that means games get seen.

As a solo dev, first game ever, literally no idea what im doing but wanted to get something under my belt, i did it for me.... but if people actually played the game and left reviews, it would make the entire thing 10000x times more usefull.

As it stands, there is 0 reason to play any of the games once yours is published...

Also, like, the theme... damn bro, mines literally about drinking and getting drunk and having one more round.... i feel like some of the games are just... games... the theme is redundent at this point.

4 hours ago

#48

АППАРАТ СВАГАОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ

Member

JoinedAug 2023 Posts8 Score3,435

To start with, we need to disqualify all games that were developed prior to the jam. People on Discord have already found plenty of these (a direct violation of the jam's rules).

Then, we need to deal with the remaining ones.
Here is how I see it: the developers (Facepunch) should nominate the games themselves.
1. It’s their money, so they get to decide what they liked best.
2. They are the most neutral party in this matter.
3. It eliminates the possibility of vote rigging.

I understand the issue: with 400+ games, even spending just 5 minutes on each would take 2,000 minutes—that’s basically a day and a half.
But other options don't solve the problem.
Also, we all realize that over 60% of the games in the jam are very rough, unfinished projects, so the actual workload isn't that huge.

Right now, any other system would be subject to sabotage.
1. Restrict voting to older accounts?
That would trigger the mobilization of specific local communities to vote for certain games (we’re already seeing this in the Russian community, for instance).
2. Leave everything as it is? You’ve got a bunch of botters inflating their vote counts, as well as influencers—like Gabe Follower—pushing hard for *Street Rats* (I assume he’s involved in its development or part of the team).

The biggest issue with all this is that truly good games end up languishing at the bottom of the list.
I still don't understand how *Vertigo Tower* has only 26 votes. It’s a fully playable game—basically *Tricky Towers* thrown together in a couple of days. At launch, it had two modes, block skins, and difficulty levels.
(They’ve since added spells, too—features that were promised right from the start.)
Yet this fully functional, self-contained game has just 26 votes.
*Vertigo Tower* has been played by 114 people.

For comparison, take *Bomberparty*: it also has 114 players, but it has 76 nominations. That means over 70% of the people who played it nominated it.
Hard to believe, right? I don't buy it either.

3 hours ago

#49

enemyrau

Member

JoinedAug 2023 Posts3 Score65

I think you should divide the entire prize pool among 20 people, organize future JAM events with a large number of prize spots that way, the whole point of cheating will disappear, and people will start making games just for fun.

garry posted:

3 hours ago

#50

rhy_boy1

Member

JoinedSep 2026 Posts8 Score10

enemyrau posted:

true, or split into different catagories.

best overall, shows most promise, up and coming, best on theme, best art, best story, all that sort of stuff...
that way you cant just whole hog the show with votes.

3 hours ago

#51

defthue

Member

JoinedFeb 2026 Posts12 Score1,425

CorentArt posted:

Before removing games that are not in the theme, you can check the games that are cheating. Micro Wars : Tactical RTS: has two packages from 3 months ago and a README.md inside with a gameplay audit dated June 2026. image.png 324.32 KB image.png 118.03 KB Goblingeddon: This game change his name : image.png 20.67 KBI know Braxen and others have called out some of them, and I'm sure there are a lot more.

lol why even have rules if your just allowed to ignore them xD

2 hours ago

#52

Germ

Member

JoinedMar 2026 Posts6 Score3,507

Garry, you're a legend. That’s how it should have been from day one: whoever managed to make the game better is the one sitting at the top of the rankings.

an hour ago

#53

ct0mmen7al

Member

JoinedSep 2026 Posts1 Score0

Hello Garry,
The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight.
I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages.
Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards.
Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking.
Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result?
Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round
Thanks for reading.Hello Garry,
The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight.
I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages.
Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards.
Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking.
Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result?
Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round
Thanks for reading.

an hour ago

edited an hour ago#54

lujich

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts1 Score0

I want to share my opinion that the innovation in your jam is not good, because new players should be considered the same as old ones, This is because the game needs new players and such contests help the developers to attract new players, their friends who will buy the game, play even if they play one mode, they will learn about the s&box, since many still do not know that the game has already been released, I hope for your understanding and changing the work of the jam. You only benefit from this, the game rises a little in sales, someone attracted players through streamers, someone through other projects, and in the end it turned out that the oldies who are already sitting in that game every day get a majority and this breaks the concept...

also about the innovation in the new jam - there should be a period for the development of the game WITHOUT the possibility of publishing, for example, two weeks, after two weeks allow publication and all modes should be shown to players in random order, this will give everyone the opportunity to upload the game at the same moment with more or less the same degree of readiness, which will reduce the gap between projects that were released on the same day or that have been in development for a long time.

an hour ago

#55

PartyHard

Member

JoinedFeb 2025 Posts10 Score4,640

ct0mmen7al posted:

Hello Garry, The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight. I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages. Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards. Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking. Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result? Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round Thanks for reading.Hello Garry, The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight. I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages. Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards. Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking. Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result? Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round Thanks for reading.

What do random streamers have to do with it? It’s about good games, not a PR platform. The game is actually pretty mediocre, by the way.

an hour ago

#56

Anthon

Member

JoinedMay 2021 Posts8 Score590

First of all, I really enjoyed this game jam. It was my first time taking part in anything like this, and even though I don’t expect to win, it motivated us to make a really cool game that we plan to keep updating. That alone made the experience worthwhile for me.

That said, I found the voting system a little frustrating. When the results depend on player votes, having an existing community feels like a significant advantage. For a small team without an audience, it can be difficult to get people to try your game in the first place, let alone vote for it. It makes you wonder how much comes down to the game itself and how much comes down to your ability to bring people in.

Having voting open from the very beginning of the jam added to that frustration. It creates pressure to release early so you can start collecting votes, even when you’d rather spend more time developing and polishing your game. We decided to release ours a week before the deadline partly for that reason, and looking back, I don’t think it was the right decision for us. Choosing when to release ended up feeling like part of the competition itself.

Thank you for making this post and being open to feedback from the community. I love s&box and still believe it’s a fantastic tool with a lot of potential. I’ll definitely take part in future events.

Sorry I don’t have a concrete solution to suggest. I just wanted to share how the experience felt from our perspective, because I really enjoyed participating and want to see these events keep getting better.

an hour ago

#57

IVAN BEN ZOLO

Member

JoinedSep 2026 Posts1 Score0

Hi, Harry and the Facepunch team.I found out about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, who showed this game during a stream. It caught my interest, and I decided to help the guy because I liked the game. And then I found out that on the very last day you changed the scoring rules. And now, my vote as a new player essentially weighs nothing at all (just 1), while some old, probably abandoned accounts (developers’ friends, old newsletters) multiply by 5, 8, or even 10. Imagine voting for country presidents like that — it’s just not logical, where’s the democracy? Because of this absurd change, the game I supported dropped from 6th to 40th place overnight. Game Jam should support new games and encourage the influx of fresh audiences, but instead, you’ve created a system that completely ignores real new players and manipulates the table in favor of old accounts. You’re essentially punishing the game for successfully attracting new people. This looks like complete disregard. My voice and the voices of dozens of other new players who joined this jam have been thrown in the trash.
Reconsider this decision. This is completely unfair to the players who actually came, played, and voted.
Link to the game: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round

an hour ago

#58

DOGEDATEX

Member

JoinedOct 2024 Posts1 Score0

I first discovered SClash through a stream by a popular Russian creator. The project really caught my attention: I jumped in, played it, left a review, and voted for it.
However, not only has the game plummeted to the very bottom of the rankings, but it has also been hidden across the platform. You practically can't find it anywhere now.
Isn’t the core purpose of a Game Jam to help developers reach new audiences and grow? Unfortunately, following the recent system changes, votes from new users carry almost no weight. This creates a bizarre paradox: a project brings in genuine traffic and gains strong organic support, yet ends up penalized, buried in the rankings, and essentially made invisible.
Why does successfully bringing in a large, engaged player base lead to this kind of outcome? I would appreciate some clarification from the organizers on the current system and why this happened.
Link to the game: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round

an hour ago

#59

DEADMONSTOR

Member

JoinedMay 2021 Posts3 Score1,325

DOGEDATEX posted:

I first discovered SClash through a stream by a popular Russian creator. The project really caught my attention: I jumped in, played it, left a review, and voted for it. However, not only has the game plummeted to the very bottom of the rankings, but it has also been hidden across the platform. You practically can't find it anywhere now. Isn’t the core purpose of a Game Jam to help developers reach new audiences and grow? Unfortunately, following the recent system changes, votes from new users carry almost no weight. This creates a bizarre paradox: a project brings in genuine traffic and gains strong organic support, yet ends up penalized, buried in the rankings, and essentially made invisible. Why does successfully bringing in a large, engaged player base lead to this kind of outcome? I would appreciate some clarification from the organizers on the current system and why this happened. Link to the game: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round

IVAN BEN ZOLO posted:

Hi, Harry and the Facepunch team.I found out about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, who showed this game during a stream. It caught my interest, and I decided to help the guy because I liked the game. And then I found out that on the very last day you changed the scoring rules. And now, my vote as a new player essentially weighs nothing at all (just 1), while some old, probably abandoned accounts (developers’ friends, old newsletters) multiply by 5, 8, or even 10. Imagine voting for country presidents like that — it’s just not logical, where’s the democracy? Because of this absurd change, the game I supported dropped from 6th to 40th place overnight. Game Jam should support new games and encourage the influx of fresh audiences, but instead, you’ve created a system that completely ignores real new players and manipulates the table in favor of old accounts. You’re essentially punishing the game for successfully attracting new people. This looks like complete disregard. My voice and the voices of dozens of other new players who joined this jam have been thrown in the trash. Reconsider this decision. This is completely unfair to the players who actually came, played, and voted. Link to the game: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round

ct0mmen7al posted:

Hello Garry, The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight. I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages. Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards. Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking. Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result? Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round Thanks for reading.Hello Garry, The Game Jam is supposed to help new games attract an audience, but after the voting system was changed, votes from new players now carry almost no weight. I learned about Sclash from the streamer Bratishkinoff, supported the project, and genuinely liked the game. Streamers and advertising also brought in a lot of new players who were supposed to be the ones the jam encourages. Yet under the current system, a single vote from a genuine new player counts as just one vote, while old accounts (many of which may not even play anymore — developer inboxes, friends of developers, etc.) can count as 5, 8, or even 10 votes. That feels completely backwards. Thanks to people like Bratishkinoff and Lagoda on Twitch we brought in 40–50 new players, but in the end all of us new participants effectively get ignored. As a result Sclash, a game that actually attracted a lot of fresh audience, ended up near the bottom of the ranking. Why does a game that genuinely brought in new players get this kind of result? Game link: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round Thanks for reading.

Just as a headsup to all of you, the project got hidden because it has an AI thumbnail and that hides it from all the discovery

34 minutes ago

#60

BABADZAKI

Member

JoinedMay 2023 Posts1 Score0

Hi Harry and the Facepunch team,

I recently discovered Sclash thanks to Bratishkinoff, who featured the game on his stream. I enjoyed it enough to join the jam, play the game, and cast my vote to support the developers.

That’s why I was surprised to see how dramatically the leaderboard changed after the voting system was modified on the final day.

The current system seems to give dramatically different amounts of influence to different voters. As someone who joined recently, my vote is worth only 1 point, while older accounts can apparently have voting multipliers of 5x, 8x, or even 10x. This means that a large group of people who discovered the jam recently can have far less influence than a much smaller number of long-standing accounts.

The result is particularly strange in Sclash's case. The game managed to attract a new audience, but instead of that additional support helping it, its position reportedly fell from around 6th to 40th almost immediately.

I don't understand how this benefits the Game Jam or the developers participating in it. One of the main purposes of an event like this should be to give games an opportunity to reach people who had never heard of them before. New players discovering a project and genuinely wanting to support it should be part of the process, not something that effectively counts for less.

Changing the scoring rules at the very end also makes the outcome feel especially confusing for participants who joined under the previous system.

I'm not asking for Sclash to receive special treatment. I simply think that everyone who actually participated, played the games, and voted should have a meaningful and transparent influence on the results.

Please reconsider the current scoring system or, at the very least, provide a clear explanation of why such a significant change was introduced at the end of the jam.

Sclash: https://sbox.game/namicry/one_more_round