Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LIX

[Sian]

Ah, never mind. That's more like it. Out of curiosity, why post in-thread that you've submitted a dispute? Doesn't that remove the anonymity the dispute process was created to provide? Especially if yours is the only dispute--then I immediately know which build is yours and I'm forced to take it personally. Just kidding! Yeah, everyone knows we'll never just have one dispute! But I really had you going, didn't I?

Mainly so there is awareness that there is at least 1 dispute in the Aether, so it can't be warped out prematurely.

I highly doubt that i'm the only dispute and even if it was such, I don't think you knowing it was me would make much, if any, difference.

[OMG PONIES]

I highly doubt that i'm the only dispute...

I'm encouraged by your faith in the soundness of my judging.

[Sian]

its not a question about faith in your ruling or not, its about a lack of faith in the ability for the cooks to shut up (and yes, irony is noted since i'm one of those unable to shut up)

[relytdan]

well it seems time is up and aside from a possible extension for disputes.. looking forward to the next challenge!

[sideswipe]

come-on survivor... come-on survivor.....

[The Viscount]

Yay for judgings! Thank you for your dedicated efforts, Mr. Ponies.

Gnome Giant-Slayer? Eunuch Warlock? True Necromancer?

Some of those are maybe a bit too powerful for the comp though.

I think Eunuch Warlock could be very interesting, but it depends entirely on which version. The original OA version is too powerful for this one I think, and would likely produce some highly similar entries. If it's using the Dragon Magazine update it's much less interesting, but still probably too strong.

Gnome Giant-Slayer is perfect, and I'm glad others seem to think so.

True Necromancer's power and length are easily solved by replacing it with the far more fitting Yathrinshee. It's nearly as restrictive to enter (you have to be a drow), and instead of 12/14 dual casting, it's only 6/10ths! Its class features are actually better though, except for the ones which are the same, even with the same capstone.

[Thurbane]

I actually already have the bare bones of a Gnome Giant SLayer build ready, so I may be a little biased.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Torn between letting it run a bit long for an extra judge (and moving halfway across the country) but oh well. I have disputes!

Dispute:
"While it's a throwaway line that things that boost Charge damage "should arguably apply" to your trample attack, you don't back up this argument with any RAW citations. The way I'm reading it, Charging and Trampling are two different special attacks, each of which requires a separate full-round action." - OMG PONIES

Among the origins for the argument that speed should improve trample damage:

Charge's SRD definition: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." Emphasis mine. Charge is not an attack, although it is listed under 'special attacks,' but a specific allowance of movement in combination with attack. Greater speed will create a greater 'range' on the charge AND the trample. The ability to hit more things in a round will increase average expected DPR, as a matter of statistical probability.

There's also this line from one of the Totemist's Handbooks online: "Shedu Crown: . . . If you're Base Land Speed is high enough (Dusklings...) you can do some damage with the Trample ability at the low levels." That reads to me as tying speed to trample damage, fairly explicitly, based on the handbook writer's common language understanding of how both speed and the trample attack work; it's a common language understanding I happen to share.

You rolled a 1 on spotting the cornerstone rule in my build, which is mentioned under tactics (specificly under level 15 tactics)

full quote of the last sentence of Spelldance (su)

A spelldancer can safely spelldance a number of rounds per day equal to her Constitution modifier plus her spelldancer class level. Every spell she casts with spelldancing after that causes her to make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + total rounds spent Spelldancing in the last day) to avoid taking 2 points of temporary Constitution damage and becoming fatigued (if already fatigued, the character becomes exhausted and can’t spelldance again until only fatigued).

Yes, i can only spelldance safely for 1 round a day (as you mentioned), but this is only a softcap not a hardcap as you seem to believe. I can spelldance as much as i want beyond this, as long as i'm willing to take fort saves, or as i do, cast Sheltered Vitality before starting to dance (doesn't need to be extended, much less persisted, to work for what i use it for, given that it have a 1min/cl duration) and become immune to the penalties (ability damage and fatigue, and exhaustion if it were needed, which it aren't since i never get to the point where i can become exhausted since that only trigger if i'm allready fatigued), I'm immune to failing the Fort Save, hence i can roll it just as much as i want to, failing and succeding is of no difference.

Most important part gone over, i still have a couple of issues with the rest of the jugding of the build which i felt was very unfair

Druid is often used, yes, but mainly thats due to Wildshape which i explicitly sidestep with using Deadly Hunter ACF trading it away, and calling it a splash (hence indirectly calling it out as a reason to downgrade) is quite unfair, since i'm 'merely' Prestiging out of it asap, starting with Human Paragon.

BAB and damage output is sorted via Heretic of the Faith (changing my domain into Competition, which have Divine Power on it) and simply boosting my ability scores high enough to become a strong melee combatant.

As for if touch spells can be persisted, well i'll point towards that the Persistent Spell Feat (missourced in my sources but eh, its so known that it hardly would have been a pain to find it) have been changed from explicitly banning touch spells from working (in Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting from June 2001) to not mentioning it in Tome of Blood (July 2001), Complete Arcane (November 2004) and Players Guide to Faerun (March 2004), and since the explicit banning have been removed from the reprinting of the feat, i'm going from the expectation that its not explicitly banned.

I point blank admit that Shot of the Run aren't used in the build (since it doesn't really fit with the rest) and the mere mentioning that Run of the Wild is limited to 1/day, and this is reason of a certain downgrading in UoSI? ... Que? would you rather have i didn't mention it in the hopes that you didn't notice that those things weren't used/had issues?

Given the issues I request a complete rejudgment.

Simple Dispute for Ponies

Fleet of Foot is a feat in Complete Warrior that has no Racial requirement, Only Dex 15 and Run, therefore Nal'ridelthi qualifies for it.

[Darrin]

Any word from Vaz? I think he was the only prospective judge that mentioned a possibility of having scores.

With only one judge, I don't feel we really have enough data to ascertain if the "experiment" is viable. In fact, there's been very little discussion about the builds, although most of that is probably dispute-driven, and we didn't have anything to argue about until recently. (Actually, I'm disappointed there weren't more judges, as I thought the change in judging was at least partly designed to make things easier on the judges. This doesn't appear to be the case so far.)

Oh, and I keep forgetting:

My Honorable Mention goes to Cur'Miit.

[dysprosium]

Thank you for judging Ponies. You were able to give your usual thorough commentary even with the new judging system.

We all know the real reason why a new judging was set up. Just no one is saying it. It all has to do with a certain troll . . . Did you think there would be white text here where I would go into more detail?

But yes, with only one judge reporting it is hard to tell whether or not the new system "works" or not. Does that mean it will be continued for the next round? I imagine it would.

I know part of the theory was that the judging supposed to be easier. I cannot say it would be easier for me though. As I am a creature of habit I will admit that I would not change my judging style (and I would probably even give my number score too).

My point here is that all of us who would judge are all creatures of habit and until the new system becomes the norm, if it does, we would have to figure out how to do it normally. Does any of that make sense?

And Cur'Miit is my choice for honorable mention as well.

[OMG PONIES]

I have disputes!

Don't you always? Time for my responses.

Farandal

• Re charging/trample: I wasn't arguing that increasing your speed wouldn't help both your charges and tramples. I was arguing that things that boost charge damage (like your Rend routine) don't necessarily boost Trample Damage and vice versa, though you state that they should. Your interpretation that charging is not an attack is tenuous for the reason you present; it's listed under special attacks. Commentary stands.

Shindra Greenthorn

• [ruleslawyer] You can't critically fail a skill check, so rolling a 1 on my Spot check doesn't matter as much as my overall result.[/ruleslawyer]
• Re: Spelldancer, it looks like my overall result on that Spot check still wasn't enough to beat the DC. My mistake, I misread the cap on spelldancer levels. As such, combining spelldance with Sheltered Vitality does allow you to dance limitlessly (and it's a rather nice trick), so you gain back some credit when it comes to Power. I've raised your Power ranking to Average. This moves you from 13th place to 12th.
• Re: druid levels, the class was deducted in Originality not for your reason for using it, but because it showed up a few times this round. There was a deduction in Elegance not just for splashing Druid, but all the other things you dipped along the way.
• Re: Divine Power, your power ranking has already been updated based on the fact that you CAN persist this and other buffs.
• Re: persisting touch spells, I'm not going to have the argument here about whether or not touch spells can be persisted. It's been had already multiple times on multiple forums, and that itself was the reason for the comment.
• Re: Fleet Runner class features, I wasn't asking you not to mention the class features you didn't synergize; instead, I was hoping that you would have sunergized more of the class features afforded by this round's ingredient.
• Re: your request for a complete rejudgement, that isn't the way this works. I've reviewed your specific comments and responded accordingly.

Nal'ridelthi

• Re: Fleet of Foot, thanks for pointing out the updated sourcing. That takes your Elegance score from Poor to Excellent, which rises your ranking from 9th place to 3rd place.

For everyone wondering how a simple feat qualification can jump a build 6 places in my rankings, allow me to provide a glimpse behind the curtain. After assigning scores, I created a simple point system where each Poor ranking receives 0 points, each Average ranking receives 1, and each Excellent ranking receives 2. Changing Nal'ridelthi's Elegance to Excellent brought his total up to 5 points, which was the third-highest in this round of competition.

With only one judge, I don't feel we really have enough data to ascertain if the "experiment" is viable. In fact, there's been very little discussion about the builds, although most of that is probably dispute-driven, and we didn't have anything to argue about until recently. (Actually, I'm disappointed there weren't more judges, as I thought the change in judging was at least partly designed to make things easier on the judges. This doesn't appear to be the case so far.)

Yeah, I don't think my input alone will tell us whether or not the new way works. I will say, though, that each individual build took less time to judge using my new rubric than it did under my old rubric.

On an unrelated note, I've tagged in for Kazudo to chair Junkyard Wars Episode VI! Come take a look and see if you want to participate in our special Labor Day Edition!

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yeah, I don't think my input alone will tell us whether or not the new way works. I will say, though, that each individual build took less time to judge using my new rubric than it did under my old rubric.

Well then, people, what do we want? In the end, this is our competition, not mine. Do we want the next round to be point-based or opinion-based? I'll give you guys about 24 hours before I call this one off and announce the next ingredient. Fair?

[DeAnno]

Well then, people, what do we want? In the end, this is our competition, not mine. Do we want the next round to be point-based or opinion-based? I'll give you guys about 24 hours before I call this one off and announce the next ingredient. Fair?

I think the principal reasons for this system being attempted were

#1a) To make judging a less onerous prospect
#1b) To therefore attract more judges more consistently
#2) To sharply reduce the number of subjective disputes

1a has questionably succeeded, though we have only one data point. 1b has unquestionably failed. 2 has also questionably succeeded, though it is difficult to tell due to different judges and different judge timing.

I think it's telling that OMG's system ended up being about adding up points anyway though, despite the first post's assertion that it not be required; it's simply the way most people default to doing things. I'm not sure how he resolved point-ties, but the coarseness of the points themselves bothers me a lot. I think if we go with this again, a "hybrid" system with the same rules as this time, but categories of Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, and Fail might be the best of both worlds. It allows for things to be a bit more fine if judges decide to just add up points, and also gives judges latitude to do something other than simply adding points if they feel it is appropriate.

Also, I really dislike having only one judge, or even two. I would be completely open to the chair judging in situations where there were two judges or less in the future (contingent on the chair having time to do so, of course.)

[WhamBamSam]

I do feel a little guilty about not really making an attempt to judge. I sort of feel like were I to try judging by the opinion system I'd still have to write about as much and take about as long as normal, and I wouldn't have the same confidence in the results without the numbers.

I'd say call this round and go back to the point system. To cut down on disputes I'd like to once again air the idea of having a set period of one or two days' worth of "dispute time" at the end of the judging. That'd make it clear who really has a shot at cracking the top three, and would give people a chance to cool off a bit before sending stuff in. I know I've been guilty of rushing to dispute things in the immediate aftermath of my work being criticized, and I've been more reasonable about it when I've taken a break from the internet then come back to dispute later.

[Sian]

I lean heavily towards argeeing with WhamBam.

Making it a sliding scale with Exellent-Good-Average-Poor-Fail as DeAnno suggests, is back to the point system in all but name (and with the subsequent confusion about what means what, since its still pseudo hidden).

Much better IMHO (together with a dedicated dispute period at the end of it with no disputes beforehand) would be to crack down on overly pedandic judging (Tim being the most noted judge doing that, but most do it to a certain degree) with teeny weeny tiny point differences that invite disputing, if something deserves a +.017 points or not

[relytdan]

my 2 cents worth
judging is and always will be subjective to the one whom is judging as to how they see an entry in the SI at the time and score points or words around that factor. Speaking just for myself I prefer the point based system as long as each judge uses the same system for all entries consistently.

[OMG PONIES]

I think it's telling that OMG's system ended up being about adding up points anyway though, despite the first post's assertion that it not be required; it's simply the way most people default to doing things. I'm not sure how he resolved point-ties...

Any ties in "overall score" were broken by consulting which build had a higher Use of the Secret Ingredient score, since that's what this competition is all about. Failing that, Originality was consulted as the tiebreaker. We didn't have any builds go farther than that in ties, but if we did the tiebreakers would then be decided by Power and, finally, assuming a tie in all other categories, Elegance. If two builds tied all the way down, then I'd just make a judgement call.

I do feel a little guilty about not really making an attempt to judge. I sort of feel like were I to try judging by the opinion system I'd still have to write about as much and take about as long as normal, and I wouldn't have the same confidence in the results without the numbers.

Yeah, I definitely felt a little bit of this. I would up worrying that my scores would be more heavily disputed this round. So far, it actually looks like the disputes are down, though.

Much better IMHO (together with a dedicated dispute period at the end of it with no disputes beforehand) would be to crack down on overly pedandic judging (Tim being the most noted judge doing that, but most do it to a certain degree) with teeny weeny tiny point differences that invite disputing, if something deserves a +.017 points or not

Not to be pedantic, but you've spelled the word "pedantic" wrong . Please, let's refrain from calling out any individual judges. Also, I find it interesting that small point differences invite disputing from your perspective. The way I look at it, I'm way more likely to dispute something that's worth a full point rather than something that's worth a small fraction. Your mileage may vary, though.

My 2 cp is that we engage in what's been done before with proven results--the Chairperson receives all disputed items and "screens" them, if you will. They lay out a few bullet points about what does or doesn't make a valid dispute at the beginning of the round, then post only what they consider to be valid disputes.

[Amphetryon]

It's been said before, but I'm in favor of restricting disputes to two things: 1) Your build is in medal contention, or 2) the judge made a factual error (deducted for not qualifying for Power Attack when you listed a 14 STR, or something).

[Thurbane]

It's been said before, but I'm in favor of restricting disputes to two things: 1) Your build is in medal contention, or 2) the judge made a factual error (deducted for not qualifying for Power Attack when you listed a 14 STR, or something).

I tend to agree. While most contestants are pretty reasonable with their disputes, historically some are just needless nitpicking about a judge's personal opinion, and they often refuse to let it drop.

[Venger]

I agree with the crowd. we should definitely go back to the points system for next round.

what're people hoping to cook? I've got my eye on slime lord.

[The Viscount]

I'm partial to the points system.

I agree that there should be some sort of limits on disputes. The above seems a good idea, and/or a straight up limit on disputes per judge so we don't have the back and forth that tends to bog things down. I also agree with Sam that a window for disputes sounds a good idea.

Honestly I kind of want to do Yathrinshee now, but on the other hand I really don't.

[DeAnno]

I think its a little iffy to make restrictions on disputes based on "medal contention"; as we saw this round a single dispute can jump a build from 9th to 3rd (though I think that may have had more to do with the scoring granularity issues than anything.)

[AvatarVecna]

The points system was better. Opinions can be endlessly debated; numbers can't. The two main points of contention under the points system was judges being inconsistent (which can be checked and fixed) and judge's opinions being weighted in a particular builds favor (which can be endlessly debated). Seeing this, we switched from a point system with room for opinions (partially debatable, partially not)to an entirely opinion-based system (entirely, endlessly debatable).

From what it looks like, this didn't solve much, and TBH I'm not sure what it was expected to solve.

[Troacctid]

A three-point scale like we had this round is definitely not enough granularity. But the straight numerical scores often went to decimals, making them effectively twenty points or more, which is too much granularity. What we need is something in between.

[OMG PONIES]

I think its a little iffy to make restrictions on disputes based on "medal contention"; as we saw this round a single dispute can jump a build from 9th to 3rd (though I think that may have had more to do with the scoring granularity issues than anything.)

This was the first time in all our rounds a single dispute changed a score so much, and it was largely due to the new system.

From what it looks like, this didn't solve much, and TBH I'm not sure what it was expected to solve.

It was intended to solve the overabundance of disputes we've had in recent rounds. Since we only had 3 disputes, some may call it a success, but it's hardly enough data to know for sure.

[Thurbane]

I know I'm pretty late to jump on the bandwagon, but I think the traditional scoring system was far superior than the new one. The only thing I might suggest is not allowing fractions in the numeric scoring.

IMHO, things can be defined on a scale of 1,2,3,4, & 5 without needing one (or two!) decimal places to emphasize a point. If you need that much detail, it might was well just be a percentile system.

(P.S. Yes, I know even with whole numbers, averages etc. will have decimal places in them).

[Sian]

which is also what i (prehaps somewhat unelegantly) mentioned ... the changing granuarity in recent times ranging between 1 to 5, prehaps with .5 and .25 increments, to where its down towards .1 or .05 increments, is probably one of several core issues which have merged together into a perfect storm recently.

[dysprosium]

One judge in the new scoring system is not really enough data to decide if it was a success or not. But only three posted disputes was a welcome change. The theory was that since the judging was supposed to be easier there would be more judges. Blame the summer weather? (That's what I did with the lackluster showing for the latest round of Zinc Saucier . . .)

I never had a problem with the points system even with having number scores go in quarters (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) to help pinpoint the scores. I do this in my own judging. Only one judge in recent memory abused the judging system as much as that one did with scores in the thousandths citing a ridiculously unnecessarily overcomplicated system applied haphazardly which was too rigid to accept or handle change.

My commentary on the things I've seen in this thread lately.

With the one build this round going from 9th to 3rd: In Ponies' old rubric it would have been a 1 point swing (-0.5 for not qualifying for feat to +0.5 no Elegance issues). Would that build have jumped up that many places? Don't know, hard to tell without looking at it the "old" way. But again this new system with only one judge and only 13 builds, there isn't enough data to tell.
Dispute Window: This seems like a good idea. Potentially one would have to wait until multiple judges score and then can decide whether or not to weigh in. A potential issue could be availability for entrants to get disputes in that window. That could be alleviated with the Chairman collecting them and posting them all at once at the predetermined time. (Which is not unlike what happens now.)
When to dispute?: I like the idea of only disputing for factual errors and medal contention. This can be combined with the point above. Contestants and judges are not going to see eye to eye on certain things and what may fly at one table would never even be considered at another. Some judges are just not going to like certain builds. It is really that plain and simple. An example from recent rounds: the worship of Elder Evils (to get the extra vile feats) along with worshipping Demon Lords. I hate this. To me it is inelegant and warrants a deduction. Even when presented with a WotC example provided by WhamBamSam, I would not change my opinion on it. I would keep the Elegance penalty in my own judging--even if citing RAW, citing WotC designers, or citing the Space Pope's official stance on it.
Chairman (additional) Duties:

• A) I like the idea of the Chairman judging, especially when only one other judge posts. Kuulvheysoon has judged plenty of Zinc Saucier rounds in the past. Of course that would depend on his personal schedule. Though it does go against the idea of the Japanese version of Iron Chef where the Chairman sits on his throne, enjoys fine cuisine, and is the only one on the show to not be dubbed.
• B) I also like the idea of the Chairman screening the disputes, to take out the personal attacks (or anything that could be construed as a personal attack) and to post only the pertinent parts of the disputes. This would also take away any fears of those who worry about "in character" disputes getting more attention and/or points because of the creativity. Problems from this is that it puts more responsibility on the Chairman and we the viewers miss out on entertaining "in character" disputes. Though how many in character disputes have there been over all this time? Four or five tops?

[Amphetryon]

My issue with the Chairman judging is that it runs counter to this competition's ideal of anonymity of the contestants preventing the appearance of bias toward/against particular competitors. While regular competitors and readers may have a rough sense of who built which entry, the Chairman would need no such guesswork. This either obviates the notion of anonymity in the competition, or creates the very real possibility that competitors will take the Chairman's scores a good deal more personally than they would if they believed they were being scored anonymously.

[dysprosium]

My issue with the Chairman judging is that it runs counter to this competition's ideal of anonymity of the contestants preventing the appearance of bias toward/against particular competitors. While regular competitors and readers may have a rough sense of who built which entry, the Chairman would need no such guesswork. This either obviates the notion of anonymity in the competition, or creates the very real possibility that competitors will take the Chairman's scores a good deal more personally than they would if they believed they were being scored anonymously.

Yours is a good point about the potential for personalization. I didn't consider that in my post.