SGDQ 2014 Feedback Thread

2014-07-10 09:48:02 am

Quote from Questor:

Personally I don't have a problem with the swearing. I understand that not getting a trick can be frustrating. I appreciate it's not to everyone's taste, but calling people out for a little bit of swearing seems a bit rough - after all, the runners are all under pressure in the middle of a run, things slip out!

I don't think this is the right attitude to have. GDQs are done for charity. We all represent the charity to some degree, especially those who are on camera and doubly especially those who have a microphone. We should all act accordingly and try to put our best foot forward. One or two accidental slips of swearing are understandable, it is a live event and playing games is not always easy. The real problem with swearing is people that swear continually. It looks bad on our point of view and reflects poorly on the charity.
Imagine if MSF were to pull up a random VOD to showcase our fundraising at some sort of event and the runner is swearing every few sentences. It would be pretty embarrassing for them.

I think language could be more lax in the earlier GDQs, but now they are serious money raising events. We all should strive to present ourselves in a way that would make the charity proud, or at the very least not embarrassed that we are associating ourselves with them.

[quote="Questor"]
Personally I don't have a problem with the swearing. I understand that not getting a trick can be frustrating. I appreciate it's not to everyone's taste, but calling people out for a little bit of swearing seems a bit rough - after all, the runners are all under pressure in the middle of a run, things slip out!
[/quote]

I don't think this is the right attitude to have. GDQs are done for charity. We all represent the charity to some degree, especially those who are on camera and doubly especially those who have a microphone. We should all act accordingly and try to put our best foot forward. One or two accidental slips of swearing are understandable, it is a live event and playing games is not always easy. The real problem with swearing is people that swear continually. It looks bad on our point of view and reflects poorly on the charity.
Imagine if MSF were to pull up a random VOD to showcase our fundraising at some sort of event and the runner is swearing every few sentences. It would be pretty embarrassing for them.

I think language could be more lax in the earlier GDQs, but now they are serious money raising events. We all should strive to present ourselves in a way that would make the charity proud, or at the very least not embarrassed that we are associating ourselves with them.

TheMG2

2014-07-10 09:52:20 am

My problem with the swears thing is that its listed as a rule, but treated as a joke. It would be nice if you choose one or the other.

DarkAries

2014-07-10 09:53:58 am

The language thing is weird. Sure don't swear because OMG the children..but then you have games like Bioshock, Meat Boy etc with absurd amounts of blood and violence, and that's magically fine? The marathon is assumed PG-13, just keep the swearing levels in line with that and I don't think anybody will have an issue.

Deuceler

Edit history:

Deuceler: 2014-07-10 10:50:24 am

2014-07-10 09:54:53 am

SPEEDruns not SAFEruns

edit

boredeathly

2014-07-10 09:54:57 am

I don't think it should be treated as a joke anymore and people who treat it as a joke should get some sort of actual punishment (not on camera, not in stream room, not welcome at GDQs, something like this)

kirbymastah

2014-07-10 09:56:25 am

<(^_^)>

Quote from Deuceler:

I definitely don't want to call anyone out on this (we all know when it happened this marathon, and when it has in the past), but I think if runner uses a "debug" menu or they put in a code to skip levels due to deaths or anything along those lines there should be some sort of penalty for that, same as excessive swearing in a run should. In my opinion it really cheapens what we do as a community and makes all of us look bad. Maybe it could be a penalty along the lines of not being able to have a run in the following GDQ, so people will take these kind of actions a little more seriously.

No, I don't think that penalty would be over the top. This event is raising money for a notable charity and should be an event someone of all ages can enjoy. If you've seen my stream you know I don't have a problem letting words fly, but there is a time and a place.

Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"

[quote="Deuceler"]I definitely don't want to call anyone out on this (we all know when it happened this marathon, and when it has in the past), but I think if  runner uses a "debug" menu or they put in a code to skip levels due to deaths or anything along those lines there should be some sort of penalty for that, same as excessive swearing in a run should. In my opinion it really cheapens what we do as a community and makes all of us look bad. Maybe it could be a penalty along the lines of not being able to have a run in the following GDQ, so people will take these kind of actions a little more seriously.

No, I don't think that penalty would be over the top. This event is raising money for a notable charity and should be an event someone of all ages can enjoy. If you've seen my stream you know I don't have a problem letting words fly, but there is a time and a place.[/quote]

Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"

TheMG2

2014-07-10 10:00:16 am

I don't see as big of a deal with not necessarily going by regular speedrunning rules if you explain yourself. Like things like backup saves prepared in advance and using debug menu if you would have to go back through a huge autoscroller or something should be allowed as long as you explain that it wouldn't be allowed in a normal run. Basically they should be fine as long as they're used with discretion.

Theworm826

2014-07-10 10:01:02 am

Quote from boredeathly:

I don't think it should be treated as a joke anymore and people who treat it as a joke should get some sort of actual punishment (not on camera, not in stream room, not welcome at GDQs, something like this)

This. You don't see the *GDQ veterens (Spike, Golden, Sinister, etc.) swear during their runs, even if they might do it on their own stream. This is for a reason, we're representing a well known charity and having somewhat of a professional attitude to it should be required. Sometimes things do slip out and that happens, whatever, but cursing in excess is unnecessary and unprofessional.

Quote from kirbymastah:

Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"

The penalty is basically looking like a fool (if you didn't practice that is, most people can tell). Also, possibly losing a submission to a future GDQ.

[quote="boredeathly"]I don't think it should be treated as a joke anymore and people who treat it as a joke should get some sort of actual punishment (not on camera, not in stream room, not welcome at GDQs, something like this)[/quote]
This. You don't see the *GDQ veterens (Spike, Golden, Sinister, etc.) swear during their runs, even if they might do it on their own stream. This is for a reason, we're representing a well known charity and having somewhat of a professional attitude to it should be required. Sometimes things do slip out and that happens, whatever, but cursing in excess is unnecessary and unprofessional.

[quote="kirbymastah"]
Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"[/quote]

The penalty is basically looking like a fool (if you didn't practice that is, most people can tell). Also, possibly losing a submission to a future GDQ.

kirbymastah

Edit history:

kirbymastah: 2014-07-10 10:03:06 am

2014-07-10 10:02:39 am

<(^_^)>

Quote from Theworm826:

Quote from kirbymastah:

Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"

The penalty is basically looking like a fool (if you didn't practice that is, most people can tell). Also, possibly losing a submission to a future GDQ.

Well obviously yeah. But deuceler seems to suggest some sort of actual punishment for people making mistakes and having to use backup saves / debug menu. If it's such a bad run, then yeah that person'll find it harder to submit games, but a "penalty system" is just honestly really dumb and unnecessary. People make big mistakes whether they've practiced a lot or not.

Theworm826

2014-07-10 10:04:15 am

Quote from kirbymastah:

Quote from Theworm826:

Quote from kirbymastah:

Why should a penalty happen? Crap happens in marathons, they don't go perfectly. It sometimes is necessary. Obviously for serious attempts they aren't used. This just seems arbitrary and basically sounds like "if you made a big mistake in your run, you should be penalized"

The penalty is basically looking like a fool (if you didn't practice that is, most people can tell). Also, possibly losing a submission to a future GDQ.

Well obviously yeah. But deuceler seems to suggest some sort of actual punishment for people making mistakes and having to use backup saves / debug menu. If it's such a bad run, then yeah that person'll find it harder to submit games, but a "penalty system" is just honestly really dumb and unnecessary. People make big mistakes whether they've practiced a lot or not.

Agreed

Loerwyn

2014-07-10 10:04:19 am

Quote from DarkAries:

The language thing is weird. Sure don't swear because OMG the children..but then you have games like Bioshock, Meat Boy etc with absurd amounts of blood and violence, and that's magically fine? The marathon is assumed PG-13, just keep the swearing levels in line with that and I don't think anybody will have an issue.

Well, it's a funny thing with violence and language. We're okay socially with one but not the other. But I don't think that's quite the point - the vast majority of runners swear maybe once a run at most. Actually, it's easy to find numerous runs without swearing or questionable content in them. That's what makes it such a problem when a minority of runners do swear in their runs - it stands out a lot more. I also think it's important to make a distinction between casual swearing and swearing made out of frustration - we all have outbursts where we concentrate and then make a mistake and it's "Oh, dang!", but if a runner (or the couch) is liberally using swear words then they need to be pulled up on it.

As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.

[quote="DarkAries"]The language thing is weird. Sure don't swear because OMG the children..but then you have games like Bioshock, Meat Boy etc with absurd amounts of blood and violence, and that's magically fine? The marathon is assumed PG-13, just keep the swearing levels in line with that and I don't think anybody will have an issue.[/quote]
Well, it's a funny thing with violence and language. We're okay socially with one but not the other. But I don't think that's quite the point - the vast majority of runners swear maybe once a run at most. Actually, it's easy to find numerous runs without swearing or questionable content in them. That's what makes it such a problem when a minority of runners do swear in their runs - it stands out a lot more. I also think it's important to make a distinction between casual swearing and swearing made out of frustration - we all have outbursts where we concentrate and then make a mistake and it's "Oh, dang!", but if a runner (or the couch) is liberally using swear words then they need to be pulled up on it.

As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.

Cenze

2014-07-10 10:07:49 am

This is from the perspective of a first-time GDQ viewer who got into speedrunning from streams beforehand.

On the current topic of showing PB/WR/whatever on stream, I think if it were up to me and I were having my own personal marathon run, I'd have something like 3 estimates:

Gold: A pretty great time that I could reasonably get using the strategies I'd be using in the run. Probably not PB, unless I want it to be.
Silver: My "target time" so to speak, i.e. as long as I beat this time I'll be happy with the run. I heard runners talk about this sort of time a lot.
Bronze: The same as the current "estimate" that was used for SGDQ. Basically worst-case scenario.

Maybe it could be tweaked or cut to two times, but either way I think this would work out decently well since none of them seems particularly negative, and there wouldn't be many runs below silver. I guess you could also have the option of only giving one time, which would probably be ideal for a short game where the difference would be by seconds anyway. Plus, chat can get excited about golds.

It was said earlier that giving only a worst-case estimate softens the blow on bad runs, but as a viewer I feel like it's already fairly apparent when a run isn't going well - mistakes are pointed out by the runner, and the estimate is probably getting close. So you already have an idea of when that's happening. On the other hand, you don't really know just how well a good run is going unless you're familiar with the game.

The other thing I felt like noting was that I agree with some others who have said that the game feed should take precedence over the live camera. Personally I'd also say the camera is less important to me than information about the run, so I'd also sacrifice camera screen space for more details. I'm sure there are people who complain when you can't see the full couch, but as is visible by the thread they also complain when the game feed is too small or when there isn't enough information onscreen. If a sacrifice had to be made, that's where I'd put it.

This is from the perspective of a first-time GDQ viewer who got into speedrunning from streams beforehand.

On the current topic of showing PB/WR/whatever on stream, I think if it were up to me and I were having my own personal marathon run, I'd have something like 3 estimates:

Gold: A pretty great time that I could reasonably get using the strategies I'd be using in the run. Probably not PB, unless I want it to be.
Silver: My "target time" so to speak, i.e. as long as I beat this time I'll be happy with the run. I heard runners talk about this sort of time a lot.
Bronze: The same as the current "estimate" that was used for SGDQ. Basically worst-case scenario.

Maybe it could be tweaked or cut to two times, but either way I think this would work out decently well since none of them seems particularly negative, and there wouldn't be many runs below silver. I guess you could also have the option of only giving one time, which would probably be ideal for a short game where the difference would be by seconds anyway. Plus, chat can get excited about golds.

It was said earlier that giving only a worst-case estimate softens the blow on bad runs, but as a viewer I feel like it's already fairly apparent when a run isn't going well - mistakes are pointed out by the runner, and the estimate is probably getting close. So you already have an idea of when that's happening. On the other hand, you don't really know just how well a good run is going unless you're familiar with the game.

The other thing I felt like noting was that I agree with some others who have said that the game feed should take precedence over the live camera. Personally I'd also say the camera is less important to me than information about the run, so I'd also sacrifice camera screen space for more details. I'm sure there are people who complain when you can't see the full couch, but as is visible by the thread they also complain when the game feed is too small or when there isn't enough information onscreen. If a sacrifice had to be made, that's where I'd put it.

jape

2014-07-10 10:11:36 am

feedback to the feedback: please do not have pb/wr on stream, or in fact any time besides the estimate, which naturally will be refined coz of the other stuff said in this thread. i think i would appreciate that a lot.

Theworm826

2014-07-10 10:12:34 am

Quote from jape:

feedback to the feedback: please do not have pb/wr on stream, or in fact any time besides the estimate, which naturally will be refined coz of the other stuff said in this thread. i think i would appreciate that a lot.

I feel the same as a speedrunner and not just a speedwatcher.

btrim

2014-07-10 10:13:18 am

Quote from Reafexus:

Everybody is REALLY hung up on this number being the World Record. I know I started with that myself but in that same post I mentioned it being a PB or whatever time they would LIKE to do (or do better than). Marathon times are different has been mentioned 100 times. Then make it a number that is marathon appropriate. Runner's choice is perfectly reasonable.

I agree. My run had a major RNG point which could waste anywhere from 0-40 seconds, coupled with a few seconds wasted due to safe strats.

My estimate: 20 Minutes. My PB: 13:49. My Marathon Goal? 14:30

I'm guessing a lot of people had a goal of where they wanted to finish, and that would be a reasonable thing to make available. That's basically the definition of "runner explaining what a good time would be." The main problem I see with it is that someone would have to maintain this list as I definitely didn't know my goal until a few months after submission.

Regarding how this relates the viewing experience, what I recall seeing in the chat is they see a 5 minute discrepancy between the run time and estimate, and spam "Is that WR??" (usually without an accompanying Kappa)

[quote="Reafexus"]
Everybody is REALLY hung up on this number being the World Record. I know I started with that myself but in that same post I mentioned it being a PB or whatever time they would LIKE to do (or do better than). Marathon times are different has been mentioned 100 times. Then make it a number that is marathon appropriate. Runner's choice is perfectly reasonable.[/quote]

I agree.   My run had a major RNG point which could waste anywhere from 0-40 seconds, coupled with a few seconds wasted due to safe strats.

My estimate: 20 Minutes.  My PB: 13:49.  My Marathon Goal?  14:30

I'm guessing a lot of people had a goal of where they wanted to finish, and that would be a reasonable thing to make available.  That's basically the definition of "runner explaining what a good time would be."   The main problem I see with it is that someone would have to maintain this list as I definitely didn't know my goal until a few months after submission.

Regarding how this relates the viewing experience, what I recall seeing in the chat is they see a 5 minute discrepancy between the run time and estimate, and spam "Is that WR??" (usually without an accompanying Kappa)

Kotti

2014-07-10 10:13:26 am

About showing PB/WR/estimate from the schedule on the layout, how about instead of showing any of those show a goal time given by the runner? For example, if the estimate is 3 hours that includes the setup and a lot of buffer for bad luck it gives a pretty poor idea of the run's lenght when the runner on can finish in under 2:30 most of the time.

jape

2014-07-10 10:15:38 am

if the estimate refinements (i.e. setup time not being incorporated in the on-screen estimate) then there is no need for a "marathon goal" or w/e thing. because the marathon goal will be the estimate. do not do goals, or other times. no need to have some poor schmuck miss his goal thats for some reason 5 minutes below estimate or w/e. The hounds of twitch are not kind and will say like, "Nice time gaywad" and that aint necessary. things are fine the way they are now, with what times are on the screen for people to look at. just a little different next 'thon and hell i think everyone will be happy

TheMG2

2014-07-10 10:16:31 am

Quote from Cenze:

This is from the perspective of a first-time GDQ viewer who got into speedrunning from streams beforehand.

On the current topic of showing PB/WR/whatever on stream, I think if it were up to me and I were having my own personal marathon run, I'd have something like 3 estimates:

Gold: A pretty great time that I could reasonably get using the strategies I'd be using in the run. Probably not PB, unless I want it to be.
Silver: My "target time" so to speak, i.e. as long as I beat this time I'll be happy with the run. I heard runners talk about this sort of time a lot.
Bronze: The same as the current "estimate" that was used for SGDQ. Basically worst-case scenario.

Maybe it could be tweaked or cut to two times, but either way I think this would work out decently well since none of them seems particularly negative, and there wouldn't be many runs below silver. I guess you could also have the option of only giving one time, which would probably be ideal for a short game where the difference would be by seconds anyway. Plus, chat can get excited about golds.

It was said earlier that giving only a worst-case estimate softens the blow on bad runs, but as a viewer I feel like it's already fairly apparent when a run isn't going well - mistakes are pointed out by the runner, and the estimate is probably getting close. So you already have an idea of when that's happening. On the other hand, you don't really know just how well a good run is going unless you're familiar with the game.

Runners should actively avoid pointing out too many mistakes. This is not good commentary. If the run is getting close to the estimate, this is a different issue, this means that you gave a bad estimate. Also I really don't see the benefit of having 3 estimates, this just sounds confusing and would need to be explained to a lot of people.

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

Quote from Kotti:

About showing PB/WR/estimate from the schedule on the layout, how about instead of showing any of those show a goal time given by the runner? For example, if the estimate is 3 hours that includes the setup and a lot of buffer for bad luck it gives a pretty poor idea of the run's lenght when the runner on can finish in under 2:30 most of the time.

However, I do agree in general that setup should be included separately from the estimate.

[quote="Cenze"]This is from the perspective of a first-time GDQ viewer who got into speedrunning from streams beforehand.

On the current topic of showing PB/WR/whatever on stream, I think if it were up to me and I were having my own personal marathon run, I'd have something like 3 estimates:

Gold: A pretty great time that I could reasonably get using the strategies I'd be using in the run. Probably not PB, unless I want it to be.
Silver: My "target time" so to speak, i.e. as long as I beat this time I'll be happy with the run. I heard runners talk about this sort of time a lot.
Bronze: The same as the current "estimate" that was used for SGDQ. Basically worst-case scenario.

Maybe it could be tweaked or cut to two times, but either way I think this would work out decently well since none of them seems particularly negative, and there wouldn't be many runs below silver. I guess you could also have the option of only giving one time, which would probably be ideal for a short game where the difference would be by seconds anyway. Plus, chat can get excited about golds.

It was said earlier that giving only a worst-case estimate softens the blow on bad runs, but as a viewer I feel like it's already fairly apparent when a run isn't going well - mistakes are pointed out by the runner, and the estimate is probably getting close. So you already have an idea of when that's happening. On the other hand, you don't really know just how well a good run is going unless you're familiar with the game.

[/quote]
Runners should actively avoid pointing out too many mistakes. This is not good commentary. If the run is getting close to the estimate, this is a different issue, this means that you gave a bad estimate. Also I really don't see the benefit of having 3 estimates, this just sounds confusing and would need to be explained to a lot of people.

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.[quote="Kotti"]About showing PB/WR/estimate from the schedule on the layout, how about instead of showing any of those show a goal time given by the runner? For example, if the estimate is 3 hours that includes the setup and a lot of buffer for bad luck it gives a pretty poor idea of the run's lenght when the runner on can finish in under 2:30 most of the time.[/quote]
However, I do agree in general that setup should be included separately from the estimate.

Countdown42

2014-07-10 10:17:07 am

I don't want to call out spike here but spike cusses quite a bit on his stream and at times rather profane (and I love it)

But despite that look at how he carries himself on camera. And not even just on camera but at the event, it's (mostly) exemplary.

Also how is this even a discussion lol no way should PB/WR be on the stream at any point unless the runner chooses say them aloud. Anyone that had a less than stellar run, or anyone who has a time that isn't very close to the record (like mine) is going to look awful to the viewers. And then they might say to themselves "why is SDA allowing such a scrub blah blah blah". It serves absolutely no one.

doicm

2014-07-10 10:17:58 am

I agree with jape.

WR times are fairly arbitrary to begin with, especially on less popular games and more obscure categories. Estimates are safe. If people want to know the runner's pb or goal, then they can go to the runner's Twitch page linked in the schedule.

boredeathly

2014-07-10 10:18:31 am

One more reason WR time would be silly is a lot of people adopt marathon safe strats and take less risk during marathon runs. I wouldn't want to compete against a WR time on camera.

Also countdown just made a really good post so go read his again and pretend I wrote it.

Suidt

2014-07-10 10:19:35 am

I feel like adding pb/wr time on screen during runs would add pressure to the already nervous runner

zastbat

2014-07-10 10:22:47 am

Lord Of The Beards

Quote from Loerwyn:

As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.

The idea of a penalty is by far the worst thing to come up in this thread. Voiding out someones run because they broke sda rules would be the stupidest shit anyone could have ever think of considering the fact that there are quite a few parts of the community that do not care about sda rules and this would also mean you are not allowed to use backup saves made before hand or risk being punished for it. Also everyone is going to make mistakes in their runs and if you fuck up hard enough your run is mercy killed that is enough imo. Also no one is going to lose viewers in their stream because of one marathon run they may not gain any but they wont lose any. As for you not wanting to research people because of a bad marathon performance that really is a shame since that might not have been in their control.

So basically what im saying is screw penalties and if a run is going to go over estimate just stick to mercy killing it no reason to try to shame the damn runner for no reason.

[quote="Loerwyn"]As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.[/quote]

The idea of a penalty is by far the worst thing to come up in this thread.  Voiding out someones run because they broke sda rules would be the stupidest shit anyone could have ever think of considering the fact that there are quite a few parts of the community that do not care about sda rules and this would also mean you are not allowed to use backup saves made before hand or risk being punished for it.  Also everyone is going to make mistakes in their runs and if you fuck up hard enough your run is mercy killed that is enough imo.  Also no one is going to lose viewers in their stream because of one marathon run they may not gain any but they wont lose any.  As for you not wanting to research people because of a bad marathon performance that really is a shame since that might not have been in their control.

So basically what im saying is screw penalties and if a run is going to go over estimate just stick to mercy killing it no reason to try to shame the damn runner for no reason.

jape

2014-07-10 10:25:10 am

dont do any penalty stuff, and also dont say bad words on stream its really easy to control what you say. if its not easy for you, idk, stream from home and when youd normally say bad stuff, dont, and then when its time to perform you will be up for the extreme challenge of not saying "shit" when you miss the trick. event staff can handle talking to the people afterwards if they have to. i hoep my feedback is okay

Reafexus

Edit history:

Reafexus: 2014-07-10 10:33:15 am

2014-07-10 10:31:13 am

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

Because they are not explaining. That is the entire point. When a run is finished a massive wall comes down in front of viewers. "You are not allowed to be here to celebrate a good run with us because we refuse to tell you how good/bad of a run this was compared to the arbitrary, nowhere near the estimate on screen, time we are comparing to."

I guess splitting up the estimate and the setup time would make a significant difference especially is setup is padded as much as mentioned but something about the number we are given has to change.