Continuation of Roundtable Discussion

2012-11-15 09:12:18 pm

Not a walrus

I mean we waited a year and a half for a response and never got one.

The runner in question was only active on the forum for one day and hasn't logged in since, so they're probably long gone.

Sir VG

2012-11-15 11:10:45 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from dballin:

I still feel like a dick for not verifying the Deep Fear or Vampire Panic runs because I do have the hardware to run the games and it's not like they're expensive or anything (I bought Deep Fear for $7), but then again I'm reminded that my first verification was for VG's Asteroids run that was sitting in hell for 2+ years so I feel better. Until I realize I rejected the run. teehee

I also haven't signed in for like 4 months? gogo guest posting!! Sup Lee or fake Lee whoever you REALLY are

I still hate you for that and now that I know it's you, I'll steal all your consoles and games next time I see ya. Tongue

dballin

2012-11-15 11:22:41 pm

I posted in the verification thread asking you to redo it and you said you wouldn't! You'd need a truck to steal all my consoles and games though. I have a lot.

Sir VG

2012-11-15 11:28:05 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from dballin:

I posted in the verification thread asking you to redo it and you said you wouldn't! You'd need a truck to steal all my consoles and games though. I have a lot.

Well, when you wait 2 years to post your verification, all skillz fade away. That's what happens when you get old. (Just like there's probably no way I could compete against my Ace Combat 5 run now, given it's been 3+ years!)

And don't worry. I have access to many vehicles. But the stuff won't be kept in my house. I'll donate it all to charity. Smiley

dballin

2012-11-15 11:36:16 pm

I wasn't a member in 2006 lol. I own Asteroids on PSX only because you ran the game Smiley

It's pretty fun though. Thanks

It would be several thousand dollars to charity. They would be happy if you stole my things.

Sir VG

2012-11-15 11:52:23 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Back on the topic, I looked over the idea of "what happens when a really obscure game gets submitted and gets no verifiers." I'm glad to see ideas beyond either A) Letting it sit on the list for all eternity and 2) Dropping it off the list. I've had both happen, and the 2nd one happened to me on a run that, for some odd reason, is my most watched video on my YouTube channel...EVER. It's even more popular than my Mega Man 9 run (the one with all the goofy comedic-like commentary).

I think public verification would be a bit scary for me, but at the same time we're doing that more and more now even BEFORE the run goes into submission, with Twitch/uStream and YouTube. Opening up the runs to public verification from this community could open up a few minor wormholes, but I don't think there's too much malicious intent (from those wanting to push crap through nor the people that hate a runner just cause) to mess up SDA too much. There's a lot more people here now than ever and I think if there was intent, it would be minimal and could be overpowered by numbers.

Back on the topic, I looked over the idea of "what happens when a really obscure game gets submitted and gets no verifiers." I'm glad to see ideas beyond either A) Letting it sit on the list for all eternity and 2) Dropping it off the list. I've had both happen, and the 2nd one happened to me on a run that, for some odd reason, is my most watched video on my YouTube channel...EVER. It's even more popular than my Mega Man 9 run (the one with all the goofy comedic-like commentary).

I think public verification would be a bit scary for me, but at the same time we're doing that more and more now even BEFORE the run goes into submission, with Twitch/uStream and YouTube. Opening up the runs to public verification from this community could open up a few minor wormholes, but I don't think there's too much malicious intent (from those wanting to push crap through nor the people that hate a runner just cause) to mess up SDA too much. There's a lot more people here now than ever and I think if there was intent, it would be minimal and could be overpowered by numbers.

Axel Ryman

2012-11-16 02:10:24 am

We all scream for Eyes Cream

Quote from UraniumAnchor:

Not speaking for the staff for this question, but I'm curious how you guys would feel about this:

After 60 days, 2 verifiers is enough to go through verification.

After 120 days, open a game up for public verification.

Funny, I had a similar idea in the past and everyone hated it Sad

DAMN YOU DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!

Personally, I feel that time frame is a bit too long, and instead think 30 days for 2 then 60 days none would be a good time. That's just me though, and I can go with those times instead.

The good thing about this type of verification is that the runner can always pop in to answer questions that only he/she can answer, or even people who know the game well can do that as well. If anything, it gets some of the Post-Run posted questions out of the way. I mean, not everyone can watch the verification copy, so they can't ask why certain things are as they are until after the run gets posted, and by then, not many people might even bother to ask it.

About the issue with a Poll getting favorable/negative votes to a runs submission, if a poll is done, it's not going to be there to make the final decision, it's just gonna be numbers being tallied up. The comments made by the viewers will be what influences the decision. Remember, you can submit 100 sloppy runs and get some recognition, but someone can submit 1 quality run and get even more recognition for it. In other words, Quality > Quantity.

Unless of course all your runs are high quality, then it's different Tongue

But I digress. The quality of the comments will be what influences the decision. Stuff like "I enjoyed this. Accept" or "I didn't enjoy this. Reject" won't be much compared to a 4 paragraph wall of text discussing the run itself and why it should be acceptedrejected.

I saw emulators mentioned before and I don't see anything mentioned now, so I'm just gonna flat out say no.

Aaand that's all I can think of at the moment.

[quote="UraniumAnchor"]Not speaking for the staff for this question, but I'm curious how you guys would feel about this:

After 60 days, 2 verifiers is enough to go through verification.

After 120 days, open a game up for public verification.[/quote]

Funny, I had a similar idea in the past and everyone hated it :( DAMN YOU DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!

Personally, I feel that time frame is a bit too long, and instead think 30 days for 2 then 60 days none would be a good time. That's just me though, and I can go with those times instead.

The good thing about this type of verification is that the runner can always pop in to answer questions that only he/she can answer, or even people who know the game well can do that as well. If anything, it gets some of the Post-Run posted questions out of the way. I mean, not everyone can watch the verification copy, so they can't ask why certain things are as they are until after the run gets posted, and by then, not many people might even bother to ask it.

About the issue with a Poll getting favorable/negative votes to a runs submission, if a poll is done, it's not going to be there to make the final decision, it's just gonna be numbers being tallied up. The comments made by the viewers will be what influences the decision. Remember, you can submit 100 sloppy runs and get some recognition, but someone can submit 1 quality run and get even more recognition for it. In other words, Quality > Quantity.

Unless of course all your runs are high quality, then it's different :P But I digress. The quality of the comments will be what influences the decision. Stuff like "I enjoyed this. Accept" or "I didn't enjoy this. Reject" won't be much compared to a 4 paragraph wall of text discussing the run itself and why it should be acceptedrejected.

I saw emulators mentioned before and I don't see anything mentioned now, so I'm just gonna flat out say [b]no.[/b]

Aaand that's all I can think of at the moment.

dunnius

2012-11-16 11:32:19 am

Intruding N313 and F014

Quote from Axel Ryman:

Personally, I feel that time frame is a bit too long, and instead think 30 days for 2 then 60 days none would be a good time. That's just me though, and I can go with those times instead.

I agree. Reducing the time that a run is in verification is important in speeding up the overall submission process.

Paraxade

2012-11-16 12:31:19 pm

Quote from Flip:

Quote from Paraxade:

I'm talking more about low volume than high volume. I'm not really seeing what public verification will do for runs that aren't finding verifiers. That sounds like there's just no one around interested or able to verify. Going public doesn't fix that as the option to be a verifier is still open to the exact same pool of people. The theoretical situation I was describing was if that was the only public response period. (Kind of an extreme hypothetical case, yeah, but given the things I just outlined I can see it happening, if maybe to a lesser degree.)

My opinion is that if there are no "experts" to be found, then our next best option is a community groupthink. Maybe individuals don't know a game all that well, but with enough exposure and feedback, my hope is that I can come to a reasonable verdict.

Other than that anything else I would say would basically echo what UraniumAnchor has said since my last post.

Yeah, I guess that's fair enough. I'm still skeptical it'll actually help, but it's not like it'll hurt anything either if we try it and it flops.

[quote="Flip"][quote="Paraxade"]I'm talking more about low volume than high volume. I'm not really seeing what public verification will do for runs that aren't finding verifiers. That sounds like there's just no one around interested or able to verify. Going public doesn't fix that as the option to be a verifier is still open to the exact same pool of people. The theoretical situation I was describing was if that was the only public response period. (Kind of an extreme hypothetical case, yeah, but given the things I just outlined I can see it happening, if maybe to a lesser degree.)[/quote]
My opinion is that if there are no "experts" to be found, then our next best option is a community groupthink. Maybe individuals don't know a game all that well, but with enough exposure and feedback, my hope is that I can come to a reasonable verdict.

Other than that anything else I would say would basically echo what UraniumAnchor has said since my last post.[/quote]

Yeah, I guess that's fair enough. I'm still skeptical it'll actually help, but it's not like it'll hurt anything either if we try it and it flops.

puwexil

2012-11-26 02:25:42 pm

Professional Second Banana

In my opinion, most of the changes to the speedrunning scene since SDA's launch stem from new technologies/services that improve speedrunners' ability to collaborate/compete with each other over the Internet (Youtube, TwitchTV/UStream, Skype, Twitter/Facebook, etc); and I think better integrating those services into SDA's site would be a huge step towards making SDA more of a Web 2.0 site/community. The main idea I've had on how to do that is to have a runner "contact card" of some sorts attached to runs published on the site, which would have links to the runner's stream, Youtube, Twitter, website, or anything else that he/she wants to share with viewers of their published runs (a lot of runners already include these links in their run comments, but having them more front & center and in a standardized format should lead to more clicks/follows).

I also like the idea of a leaderboard system for personal bests similar to the Japanese Nico RTA wiki (http://bit.ly/RN1dGi). This seems to me like a natural extension to the Casual Speedrunning forum, which was originally started to foster competitive speedrunning among runners that aren't interested in competing for the SDA record at a particular game, along with giving runners more feeling of accomplishment at getting new PBs. A leaderboard could also be a useful resource for people who are just getting started at running a game, helping them find other runners to collaborate with and saved videos to use for strat research.

As far as how an SDA leaderboard would work, my preference would be for it to have a bit more control than the RTA wiki (some of the game pages on the wiki are pretty chaotic with a large number of specialized run categories), and maybe say that to get onto a leaderboard a run should meet the SDA submission requirements except for audio/video quality (so no unofficial emulators/controllers or game/console modifications, low%/100% runs need to follow the definitions in the master low%/100% forum thread, but Twitch highlights are perfectly acceptable for video proof).

In my opinion, most of the changes to the speedrunning scene since SDA's launch stem from new technologies/services that improve speedrunners' ability to collaborate/compete with each other over the Internet (Youtube, TwitchTV/UStream, Skype, Twitter/Facebook, etc); and I think better integrating those services into SDA's site would be a huge step towards making SDA more of a Web 2.0 site/community.  The main idea I've had on how to do that is to have a runner "contact card" of some sorts attached to runs published on the site, which would have links to the runner's stream, Youtube, Twitter, website, or anything else that he/she wants to share with viewers of their published runs (a lot of runners already include these links in their run comments, but having them more front & center and in a standardized format should lead to more clicks/follows).

I also like the idea of a leaderboard system for personal bests similar to the Japanese Nico RTA wiki (http://bit.ly/RN1dGi).  This seems to me like a natural extension to the Casual Speedrunning forum, which was originally started to foster competitive speedrunning among runners that aren't interested in competing for the SDA record at a particular game, along with giving runners more feeling of accomplishment at getting new PBs.  A leaderboard could also be a useful resource for people who are just getting started at running a game, helping them find other runners to collaborate with and saved videos to use for strat research.

As far as how an SDA leaderboard would work, my preference would be for it to have a bit more control than the RTA wiki (some of the game pages on the wiki are pretty chaotic with a large number of specialized run categories), and maybe say that to get onto a leaderboard a run should meet the SDA submission requirements except for audio/video quality (so no unofficial emulators/controllers or game/console modifications, low%/100% runs need to follow the definitions in the master low%/100% forum thread, but Twitch highlights are perfectly acceptable for video proof).

UraniumAnchor

2012-11-26 02:50:44 pm

Not a walrus

Trying to make more work for me, huh?

tjp7154

2012-11-26 03:47:56 pm

#Casual

One issue I see is that Cosmo is working on a leaderboard already. We can't have competing leaderboards.

Omnigamer

Edit history:

Omnigamer: 2012-11-26 04:14:48 pm

2012-11-26 04:10:06 pm

All the things

Quote from tjp7154:

One issue I see is that Cosmo is working on a leaderboard already. We can't have competing leaderboards.

This. As I said earlier, I don't feel like SDA needs to go towards a leaderboard route, just so long as that capacity lies somewhere. Rather than try to graft something like that into the way the site currently works, I would rather see more interaction between the unique speedrunning entities. For example, links or cross-referencing between a SDA run and the equivalent leaderboard, and maybe even a short list of recent SRL races for that game. I don't think the goal should be to become an all-in-one solution, but to have each of the speedrunning entities interact at some level.

puwexil

2012-11-27 03:26:17 pm

Professional Second Banana

UA: Always Tongue

tjp/Omnigamer: That sounds OK by me as long as Cosmo's leaderboard can include speedrun times from PB/SDA record attempts in addition to SRL races

mikwuyma

2012-11-27 03:31:08 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I honestly think that if Cosmo follows through with his leaderboard idea (and I'm 99% sure he will), then we should just have Cosmo include SDA times on his leaderboard rather than trying to come up with our own. It would save us work and have more cross-interaction between SDA and SRL. Smiley

Miles

2012-11-27 05:16:06 pm

What timing methods will these leaderboards use? Would it use in-game timers for some games or would it be strictly real time for everything?

sinister1

2012-11-27 05:17:23 pm

sinister1

so pro u don't even know

Quote from Miles:

What timing methods will these leaderboards use? Would it use in-game timers for some games or would it be strictly real time for everything?

I think mostly RTA, which will of course cause issues with converting SDA times but w/e. I am sure there will be some exceptions that use game time, but hopefully Cosmo or someone else can answer this more definitively.

Paraxade

2012-11-27 06:04:47 pm

Judging by this picture he tweeted, separate leaderboards for both: https://twitter.com/cosmowright/status/272092762755719169/photo/1

Joshkaz

2012-11-27 06:06:18 pm

King Wabasami

That Looks pretty good. Allows people to go by w/e they prefer.

CosmoWright

2012-11-27 09:43:59 pm

The idea behind it is whatever the community for the game uses as a standard could be the standard for a leaderboard. For example I know for the 2D sonic games you have use game time because of the time bonus issue, while for PC games loading times are often cut out to get rid of inconsistency. One single timing method for all games doesn't really work from what I can tell.

SDA uses game timers if they exist in most cases but there's been sort of a shift towards realtime for a lot of games like Super Metroid and Mega Man 9/10 (I think gametime/realtime are separate categories in MM9??). So depending on the game / what people decide to do I can see arguments for using the game timer, ignoring the game timer, or making 2 categories for both.

mikwuyma

2012-11-27 09:50:36 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Yes, real-time and game-time are separate categories for MM9 because the strategies and routes in both runs are way different.

Lag.Com

2012-11-28 03:27:40 am

sda loyalist

So now there's been another marathon where blatant bullying has been allowed and encouraged by the community. Can we put a stop to this hateful behaviour? It only encouraged this split.

mike89

Edit history:

mike89: 2012-11-28 04:24:02 am

2012-11-28 04:23:50 am

SEGA Junkie

Alright, I didn't watch much of said marathon so for me, and anyone else who didn't watch, examples would be good.

bangerra

2012-11-28 06:37:25 am

I didn't notice much of hateful behaviour and I watched a good part of the marathon?
Maybe this was during some select runs? There was some sarcasm going around, but I think that was mostly due to the restreamers getting rather tired over time.

Caracarn

2012-11-28 07:53:34 am

I didn't see enough of the marathon to catch any specific instances of bullying. However, I did see enough to know that spamming was once again being tolerated and even encouraged. I hope people realize that this is not going to be the standard for AGDQ, especially since we won't be using twitch chat, meaning no twitch faces.