Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
Admin (1 edit) (+1)

As a submitter, the goal isn’t to avoid the “penalty”. The point of the “penalty” is to allow for a way to rank every game against every other game as fair as possible.

I think the mistake here is referring to it as a penalty, because it suggests to people they did something wrong with their submission. In reality, it’s more appropriate to call it an adjustment, as it’s serves as a mechanism to more fairly rank every game against every other game.

As an example, if your game got 10 votes with an average rating of 4.5, and someone else got 100 votes with an average rating of 4.5. Do you think it’s fair they rank above you? I think so, since they’ve managed to collect that many more votes while still maintaining a relatively high score.

If there is a fixed number minimum number of ratings required, then it’s going to create a distortion in rankings to the people who collect exactly that number of ratings. A lower number of ratings creates higher variance in the average score compared to a submission with a higher number of ratings. There is a chance the lower-number-of-ratings project has a non-representative score that could bump them above a game that got substantially more ratings.

you get a few ratings and think it’s enough

If you care about your results in a ranked jam, then I recommend participating in the voting process throughout the duration. Rate other people’s work and leave comments. It’s the best way allow others to discover your submission. If you’ve only collected a “few” ratings, then it’s unlikely your raw average score is representative in a way that can be compared to submissions that received substantially more ratings.

how many ratings are needed at least to not get the penalty

The goal is not to tell you to hit a target number of ratings, as that essentially encourages people to try to game the ranking system. Instead, your goal as a participant is to continue to collect ratings. The more ratings you collect, the more “accurate” your average score is relative the number of ratings collected by all other submissions.

(+2)

Thank you for the reply! I'm not sure about itch.io crowd, but in Ludum Dare there are Twitter superstars, which will of course collect 100 ratings, and since the ratings are from followers, I'd assume they're slightly in favor of the developer. I have no way to compete with them, so they are already "adjusted" higher, why also adjust me lower?

Admin (2 edits)

The adjustment is based on median number of ratings. Superstars typically don’t represent the majority of the entries collecting votes. As an example, the largest jam we’ve hosted collecting over 160k total ratings, with many entries collecting hundreds and even over a thousand ratings, has a median number of ratings of 16.

https://itch.io/jam/gmtk-2023/results/top-marks

I’d assume they’re slightly in favor of the developer

This is debatable, the increase attention of a page may skew the voting bias of a rater to lower. In my experience, once a population size increases outside a core set of fans into general audience, you attract people who are more likely to casually rate things very low.

(+1)

Ahhh. The dangerous assumption that all followers on social media are fans and wish the account followed all the best.

Sometimes fans are the harshest critiques. After all, they know you could do better. Just look at those Marvel movie fans attacking some of their beloved Marvel movies.

The opposite is also true. There is a certain indie bias. I am searching for words here. If you see a nice game from an unknown dev that has not much ratings or none at all, some people are more inclined to give a slightly better rating than they would have given the same game from an extablished "superstar". Or they would feel bad to give a 1-2 star rating while not having such qualms concerning an established developer with a game that is "overrated" in their opinion.