1234 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Edit history:
mikwuyma: 2010-05-01 01:07:29 am
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Game Page: Doesn't exist yet.

Verifier Responses

Quote:
Verifying run "Grand Theft Auto 4".

===============
Verdict: ACCEPT
===============

---
Cheating: no.

---
Timing: in-game-timer. [4:40:02]

---
Quality (capture):
i've used link (the verification link) also used ( for problem parts
"gta4-v-35.avi" - cannot play this part, that part was verified through youtube link ( "Grand Theft Auto 4 Speedrun (4:40:02) Part 15" starting 4:20 ending 9:00)
"gta4-v-34.avi" - audio level here is noticably lower comparing to other parts (also noticed within corresponding youtube video) ( 2:30)
"gta4-v-54.avi - at 2:56 there are several seconds of encoding bugs (health-ammo gauge) // not noticed in corresponding youtube ( "Grand Theft Auto 4 Speedrun (4:40:02) Part 27" 2:51)
hope there will be HQ-version.

---
Quality (gameplay):
1. Planning: Whole run is very well planned.
1.1 Taxis are used to save time needed for driving.
1.2 Short-cuts are used heavily while driving (when taxis cannot be used).
1.3 Short-cuts/time-savers for mission-start or mission-finish are used.
1.4 Cut-scenes are skipped (not all, some scenes cannot be skipped)
1.5 Phone conversations are skipped.
1.6 "Vehicle Density" is manipulated (decreased before driving parts, increased before looking-for-taxi parts)
1.7 Missions not-needed for finishing the game are not played through.
1.8 During "Loose your wanted level" parts vehicle is moving towards final destination (if taxi cannot be used afterwards)
1.9 "Revenge" branch is chosen
2. Execution/playing: Excellent
2.1 Luck manipulation is used while looking-for-taxi
2.2 Driving/riding/flying is fast. Nice turns, quick landings, max speed.
2.3 Running and sprinting.
2.4 A lot of head-shots while shooting.
2.5 Shooting while moving or while driving.

Of course there are some imperfections during the run, which cause seconds or sometimes fractions of a second. These are totally acceptable taking into account whole run's time. (No significant time losses).

---
Consistency:
Since the run is multi-segment one there were things-to-check between saves.
1. Save slot. After-save's load should go from same slot. Load which takes place after auto-save should go from auto-save slot.
2. Load after auto-save. Nico should apper in save-house which is closest to auto-save place.
3. Nico should wear the same clothes.
4. Money amount.
5. Health/Armor. Gauges with no numerical representation are used in game.
6. Weapons/Ammo. Weapons are checked, ammo is checked where possible.

---
Questions:
1. Game patch/version ? (1.0.4.0 ?)
2. part06: "CRIME AND PUNISHMENT": Is first van always wrong one?
3. Is segment amount correct? ( part22 = auto-save takes place, but no load,  part25 = 3 saves in-a-row )

---
Biggest time loss: part37: "THREE LEAF CLOVER": looking for taxi after loosing wanted level.

---
Surely it would be nice to hear comments from runner, if he decides to do audio commentary.


Quote:
GTA 4 Verification

There is a lot to be said so I'll actually structure my comments with subtitles and try to be succinct rather than rambling like I normally do.

Timer Issues

There is a major problem that I think will make it impossible for SDA to accept this run, so I'll bring it up first and in detail. The runner clearly intended the in-game timer to be used. However, the in-game timer partly times loading screens.

I did some tests, consisting of checking the in-game timer just before and after a taxi ride skip and comparing with timing stuff with a stopwatch. In a typical taxi ride on my system, there's some 10-20 seconds (real time) of loading screens, of which some 3-10 seconds is included on the in-game timer, with more time passing on the in-game timer the longer the loading screen is. In other words, while the timer does not time entire loading screens, it times a significant amount of them and that amount depends on loading screen length. Presumably it will be less on faster computers, too.

Also, this run is optimised for the in-game timer, not for real time, so timing this run  manually would mean it would be horribly suboptimal due to all the unnecessary  time spent in menus. As such, I think our only option is to reject. All the same, I will give a full review of the gameplay and possible improvements in the hope that the runner will do another run.

Summary of actual run quality

Firstly, the fact that GTA4 has autosaves and taxi warps makes it a very different game for speedrunning to its predecessors. Before, segments were long and route planning revolved around finishing missions near the start of other missions. Now, the optimal strategy once taxis are available is to have only one or two missions per segment to allow optimal taxi manipulation. The runner does this.

Short segment length notwithstanding, execution in this run is still damn impressive. Even at its worst it is decent; at its best, in some of the shooting missions, it's insane. But as happens frutratingly often, the run is let down by a significant handful of major planning errors, some of them really basic ones that could've been avoided just by doing basic testing or flicking through the walkthrough at www.gta4.net, and almost all of them things that wouldn't have happened if the runner had simply read the threads at SDA before doing the run. In all fairness there's a few clever tricks the runner came up with himself, though.

I'll give details of all the improvements I've found below for the runner (or anyone else) to use if he does a rerun. The only major issues I haven't really tested are which missions are necessary (a lot of work to test and I think I'll just trust the runner hasn't screwed up here) and how to minimise the time wasted waiting for plot-advancing phone calls, which eats huge amounts of time in the final segments. I suspect, though I have not tested, that rather than devoting multiple segments to phone calls at the end of the run, it would have saved a minute or so if the runner had spread them out earlier in the run at the beginning of segments before taking missions. Then some of the time spent getting into taxis and travelling to mission markers would overlap with time spent waiting for phone calls, saving time over waiting for them with nothing else to do.

Mistakes

Really big basic mistakes that together I think warrant rejection are underlined.

1) I found a neat trick right after the first mission (the only trick I found that hadn't
already been pointed out months ago on the forum, I later discovered). If you jack a car before finishing The Cousins Bellick and park it outside the hideout, then later leave the hideout by entering the car instead of simply running out of the door, you'll skip the 15-second tutorial about hot dogs entirely for a net saving of a few seconds.

2) The runner doesn't use the trick, posted on the SDA forums, that lets you do First Date before Bleed Out (without having to pick Roman up from the hospital). He also needlessly triggers the cutscene with Darden's thugs beating up Roman instead of just shooting them from the car.

3) The runner should've just done Easy Fare in segment 2, then had a resaving segment to advance time to get the Vlad mission that unlocks taxis so he could use them for Jamaican Heat and Concrete Jungle, which would save several tens of seconds.

4) On Hung Out To Dry, the van can be stopped earlier by shooting out one of its front tyres as it goes into the first turn to spin it.

5) On clean getaway, the runner should've cleaned the car at the pay 'n' spray next to the garage he has to deliver it to, instead of at the car wash. This was a pointless 30 second detour.

6) In Uncle Vlad, the runner chases Vlad out of the back door and runs around the building to get back to his car instead of simply turning around and going out the front door instead, which is silly but only costs 5 seconds or so.

7) Do You Have Protection is absolutely riddled with mistakes. Firstly, the runner should've manually called Roman to unlock the mission, instead of waiting for his call. Secondly, the runner drives huge distances instead of using a taxi; my only explanation for this is that he hadn't realised yet that you can use taxis when someone is following you, which is a pretty huge and basic mistake. Thirdly, the runner should've run behind the guys you have to shoot in the leg and shot the guy who has to give money to Dimitri towards Dimitri instead of away from him to save a second or two. Fourthly, as soon as the money is handed over, the runner should've skipped the rest of the lengthy dialogue by killing the remaining porn guys and leaving, which prompts Dimitri to say 'This is a mess. Let's get out of here.' and run out of the building after you, instead of walking out slowly. Together these mistakes add up to almost 2 minutes wasted on a single mission.

8) On Logging On, the runner could've saved a second by shooting to scare the receptionist BEFORE talking to her to avoid a second of dialogue.

9) The runner squanders some 15-20 seconds or so on Escuela Of The Streets by, again, driving instead of using a taxi when he has a companion. (After this mission, the runner always correctly uses taxis whenever possible.)

10) The autosave at the end of Luck Of The Irish is weird in that, unlike every other mission, it happens after the post-mission phone call instead of when the mission actually ends. However, if you jump over the edge of the balcony so you're falling when the mission ends and hence can't immediately make the call, the call is postponed and the save happens immediately, saving 4 seconds.

11) The runner fails to skip several cutscenes on Easy As Can Be and Call And Collect, probably because he didn't realise they were skippable (they need to be skipped with enter instead of spacebar). This costs a minute. (Cutscenes that need to be skipped with enter later in the run are.)

12) The runner shoots Goldberg and leaves through the front entrance on Final Interview, meaning he has to deal with a shootout and escape from police. It is about a minute faster to silently knife Goldberg and leave through the window. This solution to the mission was posted about on the forum and can be found in any walkthrough.

13) On Late Checkout, it would've been a good 10 seconds quicker to leave the roof via the outside elevator instead of the inside one. Even more time could almost certainly have been saved by using one of the multiple 'damageless falling' tricks posted on YouTube or on the forum to jump off the roof without dying.

14) Killing Derrick in Blood Brothers is a mistake. As any walkthrough or basic testing could tell you, it means you have to drive to a much more distant cemetery on Undertaker, and costs 40 seconds.

15) There's 5-10 seconds to be saved on Dining Out by using a rocket to kill the manager instead of running into the office and back again.

16) Buoys Ahoy can be completed over 45 seconds earlier without adding any difficulty by simply shooting everyone on the boat instead of shooting the boat until it eventually explodes. I imagine a full 60 seconds would be savable by blowing up the boat with a rocket at the very start of the level, but rocket trajectories are so random that would take some luck and I wasn't able to pull it off in testing.

After all that criticism, I feel the need to point out a couple of moments that especially impressed me (not the only ones, just a couple that spring to mind).

1) Luck-manipulating a high-suspension vehicle on Waste Not Wants Knots in order to take an otherwise untravesible route was a great idea that could easily have been missed.

2) The shooting on Entourage was some of the fastest aiming at heads I've ever seen.

Conclusion

I'm going to have to reject this. Firstly, the in-game timer can't be used because it times a significant portion of the loading screens, which means the run would have to be timed manually, which means that all the time spent on the map screen (much of it unnecessary, or spent having a quick breather after placing a waypoint before going back to the game) would end up costing several minutes.

Even if that issue didn't exist, I would reject for run quality. While the execution is impressive throughout and there are a handful of nice tricks in there, there are just too many basic mistakes, together costing well over 5 minutes, resulting from a lack of simple knowledge that could've been easily picked up on the forum, through walkthroughs, or through the most simple testing. On top of that, there are other, less obvious or less serious mistakes costing even more time – and there's bound to be others I've missed not included in my list above.

All that said, I'll emphasise once again that the execution is tight and the runner is clearly very skilled, it's just that this run was a bit premature and he dove into it without doing anywhere near enough testing and without reading the stuff that had already been posted on SDA and elsewhere that would've helped him shave many minutes off his time. I really hope he isn't discouraged and that he'll do another run improving all the mistakes we're able to find and submit it.


Decision: Reject

Reason: The runner optimized his run according to the in-game time, which doesn't count time spent in the menu. However, we can't use the in-game timer because it counts load times. Sad Also, there were a couple of planning mistakes that cost a decent chunk of time.

BTW, I don't know why there were only 2 verifiers myself. I know there were a lot of people who watched the run when the runner put it up on youtube. If more of those people actually verified, maybe the run would have passed?

The run is available for download until June 1, just PM me for the link.
Thread title:  
I was the verifier who rejected. SCM, I would love to see another run from you. I was very impressed by the quality of your execution, and you found a couple of nice tricks like the drive off the bridge of Waste Not Want Knots and the fact that you can activate the trigger that spawns the vans on Crime And Punishment early by putting through a call to Dimitri's answerphone. It was just the big planning errors that killed it for me; you needed to take a little more time testing things and looking for useful tricks and glitches on the forum and online before you started the run, in my opinion.

Quote:
2. part06: "CRIME AND PUNISHMENT": Is first van always wrong one?


Yes.

Quote:
3. Is segment amount correct? ( part22 = auto-save takes place, but no load,  part25 = 3 saves in-a-row )


Part 25 is in fact 3 segments. I think 1 part = 1 segment for the rest of the run, can't remember.

Quote:
Surely it would be nice to hear comments from runner, if he decides to do audio commentary.


I agree, I thought that a run of this size deserved much more substantial comments than the runner produced. Perhaps this is because English is his second language and he isn't very confident with it? In that case, I'm sure that in future he could write his comments in Russian and somebody from SDA could find a friend to translate them into English (I know people who study Russian).

Quote:
BTW, I don't know why there were only 2 verifiers myself. I know there were a lot of people who watched the run when the runner put it up on youtube.


Perhaps this is an argument for leaving games in the Runs Needing Verification thread and accepting new verifiers even after the initial verifiers have been sent the verification copies of the video in future? Certainly there have been runs in the past I've wanted to verify but not had the chance to because they vanished from the thread before I even noticed them.
I'd like to watch that, how someone reject this because of some mistakes, that adds only 4-6 minutes of 4,5 hours gameplay. And this is very first run on this game. Also like to saw some bullshit runs on this site, which were accepted (like 'xeen's' Mafia run, which full of mistakes, counting more than 40 minutes at all).
About timing - is this unreal to count playing manualy, subtracting loading screens\map screens?
Quote from SCM:
I'd like to watch that, how someone reject this because of some mistakes, that adds only 4-6 minutes of 4,5 hours gameplay.


4-6 minutes is a significant amount, but it's not just about the time cost of the mistakes, it's about how easily avoidable they were. If we were talking about a possible 4-6 minutes of complicated savings using obscure tricks and glitches, I wouldn't have considered that grounds for rejection. If we were talking about execution mistakes, I wouldn't have even thought about rejection. But we're talking about 4-6 minutes of simple planning mistakes that could mostly have been avoided by either looking at a walkthrough or spending five more minutes testing each of the missions the mistakes are in. On top of that, all of the points I raise had been explicitly brought up on the SDA forum a long time ago anyway, and some of them (like the external elevator on Late Checkout) were immediately pointed out by random people on YouTube when you uploaded your videos.

Quote:
Also like to saw some bullshit runs on this site, which were accepted (like 'xeen's' Mafia run, which full of mistakes, counting more than 40 minutes at all).


The Mafia run is from 2005. Standards were much more relaxed back then, before Mike took over from Radix. I haven't played Mafia or seen the Mafia run myself, but if it's as bad as you say, it would never be accepted now.

Quote:
About timing - is this unreal to count playing manualy, subtracting loading screens\map screens?


Manually timing but excluding the map and menu screens would be an unusual thing for SDA to do and I've never heard of any precedent for it, but certainly it would be possible and I would've suggested it if it weren't for the fact that the run was borderline rejection territory for me without the timing issues anyway.



I'm saddened that you think this rejection was unfair. Like I said before, I was impressed by your execution and would love to see you redo this with the improvements I've pointed out, plus anything else you or the folks on the forum can come up with.
Quote:
would love to see you redo this with the improvements I've pointed out, plus anything else you or the folks on the forum can come up with.

Not in this life

Thats looks like you have taken offence about all that forum posts, where you post all these 'easily avoidable mistakes', to which i haven't paid attention. Anyway i dont care.
Well I have to admit to being surprised to seeing this rejected, I was thoroughly impressed when I watched it on YouTube. Everything considered, the rejection makes sense, but if SCM isn't going to redo it and no one else wants to do a new run then maybe we could just accept the run anyway considering it's still damn impressive execution-wise, which is arguably more visible than planning anyway. GTA4 done in under 5 hours would likely get SDA a little attention.

If you still wanna reject, fair enough, it just seems a shame that such a well-executed run won't be on the site because of a few planning errors.
I'm sure someone else will take up the gauntlet at some point. I seriously doubt that SDA will be forever without a GTA 4 run.
Fair enough then.
Don't want to turn this into another Twisted Metal 2 thread, but seriously, put this one through verification again. This is such an obviously awful decision, and the result of bad luck with the verifiers. It's kind of depressing to see this amazing run, with so much time and effort put into it, being rejected because of planning errors no one cares about and unimportant timing issues, according to the opinion of a single person. What does it matter if it's manually timed and therefore the final time is "horribly suboptimal"? It doesn't change anything about the run, and no one is gonna try to beat that time in years anyway , if ever

It's sad to see how some seemingly good verifiers, sometimes knowing more about the game than even the runner, can make worse decisions and be more detrimental to the site than a verifier who played the game eons ago saying "looks good, accept"
train kept rollin
Quote:
but now we will accept any game where the speed of a speedrun is faster than that of experienced, normal play.


Not sure which side of the fence I'm on yet but this quote from the rules would suggest It should be accepted. Also we cant expect the first run of a game to be fully optimised.   

Pehaps it should be accepted but have a note stating that due to runner misunderstanding with how the in game timer works this run can be improved or something to that effect
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Yeah I'm up for this run being re-verified, simply because there were so few verifiers, and everyone else who has watched this run really seems to love it.

I'm really baffled how none of you verified though. Huh?
If Mike is prepared to manually time, but exclude the map screen from the timing (to try and match the timing to the in-game timer on everything except loading screens) then this would become just about acceptable. When someone else submits a run of the game, though (and they will - it's a GTA game) that game-specific timing rule is going to look strange and arbitrary. Do we mess with the rules for the sake of rescuing one run with several minutes of planning mistakes? I guess that's a decision for Mike (but my vote is against it).

Quote from mikwuyma:
Yeah I'm up for this run being re-verified, simply because there were so few verifiers


By this I presume you really mean 'because I know ExplodingCabbage is a ridiculously picky verifier'. Wink
SDA Apprentice -- (3-1)
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
If Mike is prepared to manually time, but exclude the map screen from the timing (to try and match the timing to the in-game timer on everything except loading screens) then this would become just about acceptable. When someone else submits a run of the game, though (and they will - it's a GTA game) that game-specific timing rule is going to look strange and arbitrary. Do we mess with the rules for the sake of rescuing one run with several minutes of planning mistakes? I guess that's a decision for Mike (but my vote is against it).

Quote from mikwuyma:
Yeah I'm up for this run being re-verified, simply because there were so few verifiers


By this I presume you really mean 'because I know ExplodingCabbage is a ridiculously picky verifier'. Wink


To be perfectly honest, I never saw when this run was put on the verification thread and once it was, it was all taken... A reevaluation should be done to get 2nd opinions about the run... For all we know, there could very well be people who could side with ExplodingCabbage...  It's not that you are picky, be sometimes people have very good points when it comes to the verifications...
To be honest, I don't see what good a re-evaluation by new verifiers will do. I think the following things are all involved: execution is very good, the planning is fine for much of the run but there are 5 minutes of very basic planning mistakes. Also, there are the timer issues which will have to be either ignored or dealt with (by doing something unusual like manually timing without including the menus). A reverification will just provide the same information, but possibly with a different bunch of verdicts at the end. All Mike gains from that is a sense of whether people generally think the problems I've pointed out with this run are enough to justify rejection - and he'll get that from the posts in this thread anyway.

Mike, if you want to change your mind about your verdict once people have aired their views, go ahead. But I don't think there's anything to be gained by having another bunch of verifiers look at the run.
train kept rollin
Could just time it manually and include the menu times. Thats just something else that can be improved in the future.
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Timing issues are nonsense, from what I gather the only problem is that the runner did not realize the timer goes in loading screens and that these additions may be variable and as such invalidate the ingame timer (you did not confirm this is true), I believe this is completely excusable, I don't expect all people to figure out this stuff. So for timing first you have to solve the issue, and then time appropriately, if ingame is not to be used then time realtime even if it penalizes the run and makes it easier for following runs to beat it. The runner will suck it up.

Now for the actual verification I'll pass since I haven't played the game.
just stick "Note: The run spends a lot of time in the pause menus because it was optimized according to the in-game timer, which cannot be used for SDA because it times loading screens which vary in length on different hardware." or something similar on the game page somewhere.
I know no one wants my opinion but I'm bored and going to give it anyway.

Note: I actually never played this game myself so I'm just going purely on how the 2nd verifiers comments are written.

In my opinion when a run has (some) such simple errors as this one (mistakes 11, 12 and 14 seem really bad) the rest of the gameplay doesn't matter. (not talking about single segment runs)
Now yes it's a 4,5 hour run were those mistakes are only about 6 minutes time lost, but the way I see it is that it's SEGMENTED, which (imho) absolutely does not call for such mistakes and tbh the length of the total run should not be a reason for (each or a) segment to be granted 'lower quality'. The 'run is x long' argument should only be used in single segments. (Yes that's just MY opinion)

Then again I also noticed that I'm in general way stricter when it comes to segmented runs then most others as I like to see each segment as a separate run that needs to be accepted (of course with some leniency) , but I guess that's another discussion.

Well that's my 2 cents which most probably don't enjoy reading, so sorry for that. I'm off again Tongue
I can't wait for a Japanese speedrunner who doesn't care about all the community stuff and just wants to get his run more exposure, to submit a godlike run for a game, then for some verifier to respond with :

"I really enjoyed your run and I'm sure every single person in the world, even the highly experienced players would, but because of a few planning mistakes no one would notice (and even if they would, they wouldn't give a crap), I'm gonna have to reject it. You should've read the thread on our forums, don't you know it's essential before submitting a speedrun here? Language barriers aren't a proper excuse. I know you won't read this and that this rejection will probably discourage you from contributing to the site in the future, but it would be great if you could spend countless hours to fix said insignificant mistakes in the only interest of satisfying my pathological need for perfection and lowering the meaningless number attached to your run. I mean, what would happen if this unanimously awesome run got on the site? Someone could try to improve it or worse."

I really want to punch myself after rereading this, especially since this run will most likely end up being accepted. It's just irritating to think that some people don't have the site and the viewers in mind when verifying, only their debatable high standards
I survived MIKE-Fest 1
I'm against reverdict the same run too because it would destroy the sens of verification.
(The result would be that every rejected run would want to be reverdict or if the runner don't like the comments just reverdict it, very dangerous)

BUT if it manual timed it should be possible to redo the worst segments and than resubmitt it  Wink
The consistent thing of course would apply to the ammo the health and so on (can be manipulated) because its manuly timed the timing inconsistence at the ingametimer dosen't matter IMO.

btw: I was really impressed by that was I saw in you tube but I#m not a GTA hardcore so I can't really tell.
we have lift off
Quote from Tigger77:
I'm against reverdict the same run too because it would destroy the sens of verification. (The result would be that every rejected run would want to be reverdict or if the runner don't like the comments just reverdict it, very dangerous)


Completely disagree. There is more of a reason to reverify this than simply the runner doesn't agree with it (as would be the case in many rejections). The fact that a big discussion has evolved clearly indicates this rejection is highly controversial, how often does this happen? Once every few months or less? Then there is the highly important factor of there only being 2 verifiers, one accepted, one rejected. The point here is there's not really enough opinion to base a rejection on.

As for the run, I think that 4-6 minutes of mistakes is a lot, especially for a segmented run. That's more than a minute for every hour of the run, some single-segments have less than that. Then again, I think that the first run of a long game has to have lower standards and the amount of skips and level of execution this runner employs should be enough to overrule a few simple planning errors. I think if this is rejected, it could be a long time before another run of this is done and it is quite clear this runner isn't going to reattempt. Having this on the site does not lower SDA standards and it will encourage competition, something that I think is a very important factor and is often ignored, when judging a run for a game that is not on the site yet.
oh, totally forgot to add this part...

as for reverdict, tbh the reason 'there were only 2 of them' is valid for a reverdict specially if both verdicts contradict one each other.

And I'm sorry normand that you feel that way, but like I said if such a super japanese man would do it as a SS I could easily oversee such mistakes. I guess most people don't agree the way I look at segmented runs. You should be pleased to know I do not intend to be a verifier of a segmented run.

In case none of it was redirected at me... well I still feel the same Tongue
This frustrates me. I feel as though people think that the fact the run looks good cancels out the substantial planning mistakes. 5 minutes is a lot, and if it was 5 minutes of execution mistakes that were plain to see (like 30 ugly spins while taking corners costing 10 seconds each) I can't imagine a rejection being opposed in the same way. In reality, though, rejecting for that is much, much harsher, because then you're requiring the runner to go away and up his level of execution before he resubmits, which means spending longer on the rerun than the original. With planning mistakes, the runner doesn't need to up his play at all.

In fact, it would take substantially less time and effort to rerun this and fix the mistakes than it took to do the original run, because the runner has already got all the practice he needs on from the original run and can get straight into making proper segment attempts that have a good chance of success, rather than repeatedly practicing to learn things like visual cues for turning, how much to accelerate on each stretch of road, how hard to brake and turn at each corner, and getting the act of aiming at all the enemies on the shooting missions perfectly into muscle memory.

SCM, I implore you in the strongest terms to not be angered by my decision to reject, and instead to redo this run with the improvements. You clearly have the skill. Most of the work has already been done by the process of planning the original run and becoming proficient at running each segment in the course of making it. It seems like such a waste to settle for this now instead of taking another 5 minutes off. This is why I rejected instead of just accepting and figuring that someone else will improve it some day: because I want you, the person who has the ability and experience with the game, to be the one to create the rerun, not me or some other runner who will have to spend more days learning and practicing things you are already intimately familiar with than actually making segment attempts that have a chance of success.
I survived MIKE-Fest 1
Quote:
Completely disagree. There is more of a reason to reverify this than simply the runner doesn't agree with it (as would be the case in many rejections). The fact that a big discussion has evolved clearly indicates this rejection is highly controversial, how often does this happen? Once every few months or less? Then there is the highly important factor of there only being 2 verifiers, one accepted, one rejected. The point here is there's not really enough opinion to base a rejection on.


good point the problem is were to draw the line.
I agree 2 verdi is to low for sutch a game.

btw: When I hear reverdic I think of ignoring all verdicts that are done and make new ones. If the old one still count then it woud be in a case like this ok from my personal feeling but who shoud make this decision? I'm just frightening that the discusen on rejected runs will explode because every runner thinks the vertic only wants to bash him and think that it should be reverdict.
Talk to the Hand
I think one of the big questions here is "Why were there only two verifiers here?". Was it that only two people signed up and Mike decided that was enough? Or was it that a bunch of people signed up and all but two pulled a me and didn't actually verify squat in a timely fashion? If it's the latter, maybe for the future "(Has enough verifiers)" should never be mentioned in the verification topic again...I mean, more verifiers is surely better than fewer, right?