-FrozenFlame- wrote:

Bump!
I'd be happy to register someone experienced as a judge or co-host.

Hmm… wdym by that? Cuz for me, being a judge is not overwhelming

Bump

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

-HOT- wrote:

Maybe he means “from the teams there is one project??”

Pretty sure he meant “is therw still time”

MegaByteCorporations wrote:

-HOT- wrote:

Maybe he means “from the teams there is one project??”

Pretty sure he meant “is therw still time”

Too lazy to find out but it was pretty surprising Google Translate thought it was a different language

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

-FrozenFlame- wrote:

MegaByteCorporations wrote:

-HOT- wrote:

Maybe he means “from the teams there is one project??”

Pretty sure he meant “is therw still time”

Too lazy to find out but it was pretty surprising Google Translate thought it was a different language

Ye

Bump!

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Bring up this random person's post!

Can I do the competition

cupcake9919 wrote:

Can I do the competition

Never mind I missed the signups

Judging Rubric - Round 1 of Tea Table

Team:
Judged by:

Design: /20
/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
/2 - Included a thumbnail
/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
/1 - Visually appealing project
/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes:

Functionality: /20
/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes:

Creativity: /20
/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes:

Teamwork: /20
/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
/5 - Communication was effective
Notes:

Completion: /20
/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)
/3 - Includes realistic setting
/1 - Includes team's colors
/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
/2 - Includes an Easter egg
/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes:

Total: /100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Judging Rubric - Round 1 of Tea Table

Team: Black Tea Team
Project

Design: 17/20
2/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
1/2 - Included a thumbnail
4/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
1/1 - Visually appealing project
9/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: The studio had a thumbnail, but was not incorporated into the final. The bricks could be revised to look better, and so could the flaps at the bottom of the tube. The artwork is consistent, but next time, try for more detailed artwork that could make the objects look nicer. I liked the glare/shine on the tubes!

Functionality: 14/20
8/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
1/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
5/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes: Running the project with the flag multiple times are fine, but when I switch tabs, the bricks seem to stick and glitch out on me. Sometimes, the block would not fall all the way down to the bottom of the tube. There are many reports of bugs in the comments as well (I won't list them all). The project worked, but was not completely reliable. (It was also not a Rube Goldberg Machine.) Shocking code! That is very amazing, how you made the bricks move accordingly to time and to fall depending on the time.

Creativity: 20/20
20/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: Extremely creative way to start! I don't think any other team thought of incorporating a real-time clock into their project! It was also interesting for the team to take on this project by “over-complicating” everything.

Teamwork: 6/20
3/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
1/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
1/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
1/5 - Communication was effective
Notes: Many attempts of communication was made, and members promised activity and work, but it wasn't effective. Team members were constantly active but did not seem dedicated to the project. Next time, try to assign everything early on so that people might have more time to work and more reminders about the task instead of wondering what to do. I'm sure this team will be able to do better in Round 2.

Completion: 5/20
2/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)
3/3 - Includes realistic setting
0/1 - Includes team's colors
0/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
0/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
0/2 - Includes an Easter egg
0/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes: So far, so good! This team had a great idea, but was unable to be finished.

Total: 62/100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

When is judging due?

Team: White Tea Team
Project

Design: 11/20
1/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
0/2 - Included a thumbnail
3/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
0/1 - Visually appealing project
7/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: Most of the artwork reflected simple shapes in Scratch Vector, but the girl at the end seemed out of place. The lever of which the marbles changed also didn't seem to have the right gradient, and did not appear realistic. To improve the cardboard, maybe some shading could have been added. My biggest suggestion would be to make the objects smoother and apply colors that would better identify the object.

Functionality: 16/20
10/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
2/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
4/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes: Everything worked. The yellow marble went down the cardboard track, it seemed very rough (not a glitch, just rough code). Coding was not exactly organized, with plain or random names as broadcasts and unnecessary actions (ex: repeated sprite). There was code to reflect physics, and most of it seemed fine. There were also two intros, which was confusing.

Creativity: 15/20
15/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: This team made a machine that seemed to have a very important real-life purpose, and was very relatable to one of the team members! It was interesting that they thought of using it in their own life. Points were deducted because of the lack of interesting objects. Try using something else other than marbles and a track.

Teamwork: 11/20
4/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
2/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
3/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
2/5 - Communication was effective
Notes: This team did not have a correct amount of members (the leader said they were good ). The team's individual members worked individually, and did not seem to cooperate.

Completion: 18/20
10/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)self note: clock ticking, marble, lever, marble, sink
3/3 - Includes realistic setting
1/1 - Includes team's colors
1/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
1/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
2/2 - Includes an Easter egg
0/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes: Good job! You almost have everything finished. Next time, try to go more in detail with the explanation.

Total: 71/100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Team: Team Matcha

Design: 16/20
2/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
1/2 - Included a thumbnail
5/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
1/1 - Visually appealing project
7/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: The water (?) by the button did not seem to fit in with the other colors. Intro was not centered, and “Matcha” was spelled incorrectly as “Macha”.
I would suggest a smoother transition of when the Easter egg changes to the costume that it can activate the function in. There was a thumbnail, but it didn't actually seem to be for the project. It was directly from the intro, so it didn't seem exactly unique. Good job about the consistent design and clean artwork style!

Functionality: 16/20
10/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
1/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
5/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes: The Easter egg function doesn't seem to work. (Please note that a revision was made on 12/27 after I questioned them about their Easter egg function. It now works.) I loved how they made the “press flag two times” and “no turbo mode” warnings show when you didn't follow through as requested! (After fixing the Easter egg, this function doesn't work again.) The coding work was great! Instead of plain “glide” blocks, there were snippets of code that reflected gravity and physics of objects. There were a few unnecessary blocks (go to front, or multiple of the same block), but as a whole, coding was quite organized.

Creativity: 18/20
18/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: Nice work! I liked how this team incorporated the warnings of double clicking the flag and “no turbo mode”. It added a very nice touch to the project. The machine related to the topic of tea, which was a good idea. It was different from other projects. My suggestions would be to use less of pre-made machines (perhaps the hand that raised the teapot), and more objects built from “scratch”.

Teamwork: 18/20
4/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
4/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
5/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
5/5 - Communication was effective
Notes: This team had wonderfully effective communication! Every day, the studio had another message. To ace this section, try to include all of your team members.

Completion: 20/20
10/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)
3/3 - Includes realistic setting
1/1 - Includes team's colors
1/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
2/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
2/2 - Includes an Easter egg
1/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes: Good job! You met all the criteria. Everything acted reasonably and realistically.

Total: 88/100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Team: Oolong Tea Team
Project

Design: 15/20
1/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
0/2 - Included a thumbnail
5/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
0/1 - Visually appealing project
9/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: The faucet was very well drawn, with nice lighting and a clever reflection! However, the mug didn't seem to follow through with the same style. As the saved thumbnail was the mug, it didn't make the project look good on the cover. Try to shape those details even sharper so they are cleaner and look nicer. Very smooth animation!

Functionality: 17/20
9/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
2/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
6/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes: As being incomplete, there are many sprites that are unused and scripts detached in the work space. A more efficient way of coding the reflection would be to use a clone instead. Code could have been optimized, but everything worked.

Creativity: 17/20
17/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: This team also thought of a food related purpose for their machine, dipping a donut into milk. It seemed interesting, as you cannot dunk a donut into milk, and I don't think people classically dip donuts into milk. It would be tricky to actually build something like that. However, the elements shown in the project so far seem too “pre-made”.

Teamwork: 9/20
3/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
2/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
2/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
2/5 - Communication was effective
Notes: I'm so sorry about everything your team has been through! The original team completely disbanded, and their new leader tried so hard to get another team working. Some members were active, but did nothing as they were not the leader. Thanks for trying so hard!

Completion: 7/20
4/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)
3/3 - Includes realistic setting
0/1 - Includes team's colors
0/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
0/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
0/2 - Includes an Easter egg
0/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes: This team only had about one week to work, because the original team disbanded and it was hard to actually start.

Total: 65/100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Team: Herbal Tea Team

Design: 10/20
1/2 - Consistent design and artwork, of the same style
0/2 - Included a thumbnail
4/5 - Artwork was complete and every object was drawn (and it resembles the object)
0/1 - Visually appealing project
5/10 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: As the team told me, art is not one of their strengths. More work can be done to improve their artwork in general (shading, lighting, etc.). (Perhaps this is because PencilGalleryInc was inactive (their artist), so not much could be done.)

Functionality: 7/20
1/10 - The project worked, and it is a Rube Goldberg Machine
0/2 - Was not buggy, and project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
6/8 - Up to judge's interpretation (Was it well revised and efficiently coded?)
Notes: The coding for the snow was very nice and not a classic boring clone-script. It reduced lag. That earns quite a few points. It was not a machine and was un-compiled, so many points were deducted. The “Herbal Tea” also seemed somewhat glitchy and was not very smooth.

Creativity: 20/20
20/20 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes: A very clever idea! This team decided on a holiday theme because their due date was the 25th of December (2017).

Teamwork: 10/20
5/5 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (1 point per member)
1/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
2/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
2/5 - Communication was effective
Notes: This team did not seem to be itself after a mishap of sharing Discord IDs. Therefore, there were only 4 possibly active members. There were attempts of communication but they lacked potency. It was hard to get things going as well because of the lack of animation skill.

Completion: 6/20
2/10 - 5 aspects of motion (2 points per aspect)
3/3 - Includes realistic setting
0/1 - Includes team's colors
1/1 - Includes logo/intro/design (any/or)
0/2 - Includes (thorough) explanation
0/2 - Includes an Easter egg
0/1 - Finished on the correct due date and submitted in proper format
Notes: Sadly, the team was not able to make enough in the given time frame.

Total: 53/100

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

Judging Rubric - Round 2 of Tea Table

Team:
Judged by:

Design: /20
/8 - Artwork is organized and neat (i.e. any effects can be revised without severely breaking the project)
/6 - Up to judge's interpretation
/3 - The design choices are flexible to any revisions
/2 - Visuals are disconnected from the functionality of the engine
/1 - It is visually pleasing
Notes:

Functionality: /30
/10 - The project is an engine. It does NOT have any aspect of a plot, story-line, built-in mini-games, etc.
/8 - The project worked consistently and reliably (run the project at least 3 times)
/7 - The project is error-free from bugs or glitches, and when swapping the placeholders, it still works (i.e. if I change the visual of something, the engine still functions, showing that it is not based on color detection or specific points of a sprite, etc.)
/5 - Up to judge's interpretation
Notes:

Creativity: /20
/8 - Up to judge's interpretation
/7 - The engine would prove useful for games, and seems like a good addition/base
/5 - Idea was unique from other teams
Notes:

Teamwork: /30
/10 - All 5 members have contributed in one way or another (2 points per member)
/5 - All 5 members were dedicated to working (1 point per member)
/5 - Constantly active (Did the team have to be constantly reminded? Deduct how many reminders were given.)
/5 - At least 90% of the work was by the team, and not from other sources
/5 - Communication seemed effective (i.e. team goals in the studio were met, people planned who did what, etc.)
Notes:

Completion: /30
/10 - Explanation of how to use the engine
/10 - Placeholders for values; or can be easily changed (i.e. any visual can work in substitution of a pre-set couch)
/4 - The project is an engine.
/2 - Submitted on the set due date (Feb 4)
/2 - Submitted on the extended due date (if applicable, was to 2/9, if submitted 2/4, give full credit)
/2 - Submitted before Feb 11

/1 - Extra: Included a remix using the engine for its intended purpose (can also be embedded in the project)
Notes:

Total: /130

(Kumquat) //This is Kumquat, my kumquat protector... wait what?

So which ones do I review?

Which team won?