Speedrunner Roundtable July 10 at 9 PM EDT [locked]

2013-07-06 03:30:05 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I completely missed Alko's post.

Other SDA marathons: This is a good question and something that I have been considering for at least a couple of months now. I think in the future we (SDA) should allow other marathons to become SDA marathons, but that's an idea that needs to be carefully discussed before going forward with it.

Romscout and I have been discussing the guidelines, but we agreed that two big requirements are that it can't be an online marathon (has to be on-site), and how chat and donations are handled is important.

Cool Matty

2013-07-06 03:36:15 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Onin:

Here's another question:

When I browse for runs to watch on SDA, I only end up watching runs that have a working embedded video. I hardly ever bother downloading anything, it's just much less convenient. This means that I generally just gloss over runs without an embedded video and never end up watching them, which is a bit of a shame.

And really, in general the convenience of just watching a run is a lot lower than it could be. So, are there any plans to improve that convenience, even if it's as "simple" as (eventually) adding that embedded video to every run on the site (preferably on the game page)?

Until nate gets embedded players everywhere (and if we do complete a full redesign of game pages, this will change), keep in mind that most modern browsers can actually playback the videos directly. As long as there's an MP4 version of the video, you should be able to play it back at the highest quality your internet connection can manage. It will function identically to the embedded player. I believe IE9+, Chrome and Firefox all support this, as well as modern Android/iOS devices.

To do this, just click on the videos, instead of saving them.

[quote="Onin"]Here's another question:

When I browse for runs to watch on SDA, I only end up watching runs that have a working embedded video. I hardly ever bother downloading anything, it's just much less convenient. This means that I generally just gloss over runs without an embedded video and never end up watching them, which is a bit of a shame.

And really, in general the convenience of just watching a run is a lot lower than it could be. So, are there any plans to improve that convenience, even if it's as "simple" as (eventually) adding that embedded video to every run on the site (preferably on the game page)?[/quote]

Until nate gets embedded players everywhere (and if we do complete a full redesign of game pages, this will change), keep in mind that most modern browsers can actually playback the videos directly. As long as there's an MP4 version of the video, you should be able to play it back at the highest quality your internet connection can manage. It will function identically to the embedded player. I believe IE9+, Chrome and Firefox all support this, as well as modern Android/iOS devices.

To do this, just click on the videos, instead of saving them.

Tiberius

2013-07-06 03:46:34 pm

Make it so.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Text

As I'm sure you know, but just confirming for others, both Safari and RockMelt also support this.

Poxnor

2013-07-06 04:31:47 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from romscout:

Something you should keep in mind is that while the final decision for game cuts/schedule is Uyama's, he never does this with zero input. This is something that has been briefly mentioned before but not elaborated on much. The system is more or less a much more informal version of Poxnor's method; in most cases, he consults with a group of no less than 3 other people and the game choices are openly discussed. I can assure you as one of those people that even when he's been dead set on a decision for something, it's been changed plenty of times because of this.

Maybe the feedback given to Mike about games should be more open for the GDQs (either like I'm planning for C4L, or some other approach where at least the person who suggested a game can see the anonymous feedback)? I know that's untested water for game marathons, so if you want C4L to be the guinea pig for that approach, that makes sense (I'm the one standing by the idea, after all, and C4L is a smaller venue at which to try something new). But, it's a time-tested approach in academia that both (a) dispels the impression that you're making all the decisions yourself at whim; and, (b) allows people suggesting the games to refute anything that they feel is an unfair characterization of their game or point out things that were missed.

Right now, Mike might be soliciting feedback about the game suggestions, but he's not seen to be soliciting feedback about the game suggestions (to paraphrase -- poorly -- R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924]...yes, I am a geek Wink

)

I'm certainly looking forward to trying the approach at C4L, and if nothing else I'll let you know how it goes.

[quote="romscout"]Something you should keep in mind is that while the final decision for game cuts/schedule is Uyama's, he never does this with zero input. This is something that has been briefly mentioned before but not elaborated on much. The system is more or less a much more informal version of Poxnor's method; in most cases, he consults with a group of no less than 3 other people and the game choices are openly discussed. I can assure you as one of those people that even when he's been dead set on a decision for something, it's been changed plenty of times because of this.[/quote]
Maybe the feedback given to Mike about games should be more open for the GDQs (either like I'm planning for C4L, or some other approach where at least the person who suggested a game can see the anonymous feedback)? I know that's untested water for game marathons, so if you want C4L to be the guinea pig for that approach, that makes sense (I'm the one standing by the idea, after all, and C4L is a smaller venue at which to try something new). But, it's a time-tested approach in academia that both (a) dispels the impression that you're making all the decisions yourself at whim; and, (b) allows people suggesting the games to refute anything that they feel is an unfair characterization of their game or point out things that were missed.

Right now, Mike might be soliciting feedback about the game suggestions, but he's not [i]seen[/i] to be soliciting feedback about the game suggestions (to paraphrase -- poorly -- R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924]...yes, I am a geek ;) )

I'm certainly looking forward to trying the approach at C4L, and if nothing else I'll let you know how it goes.

romscout

2013-07-06 04:42:56 pm

that Metroidvania guy

I agree that it should be more open. Hopefully when Mike is making his blog entries or whatever, it naturally becomes more open. I was planning on having it be more open for next SGDQ when I'm doing it anyway. Your idea seems pretty good, though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to categorize everyone (at least as far as "game expertise" went). There will definitely be a diverse group of people involved though.

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-06 04:56:38 pm

2013-07-06 04:56:22 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from romscout:

(T)hough I'm not sure I'd go so far as to categorize everyone (at least as far as "game expertise" went). There will definitely be a diverse group of people involved though.

Oh, of course. Allow me to clarify what I meant. When I meant saying something about the gamer, I just meant along the lines of:

1. "Person X is an active member of the community and a regular streamer" ( == Yay);

2. "Person X is active in on the boards and hangs out in streams, but no one has ever seen him/her play" ( == We can accept the game, on the condition that you give status updates / stream / post to Youtube / something); or,

3. "Who the heck is Person X? SDA account was created yesterday, never seen hanging in streams before, not active at all in any game planning" ( == Not to be too big a jerk, but please try again next year).

It just goes back to me being an FF guy, so I have a good idea if who's involved at SDA in FF stuff. For other games, I'll probably need people to tell me that (to avoid situation #3). That's all I had meant by it Smiley

[quote="romscout"](T)hough I'm not sure I'd go so far as to categorize everyone (at least as far as "game expertise" went). There will definitely be a diverse group of people involved though.[/quote]
Oh, of course.  Allow me to clarify what I meant.  When I meant saying something about the gamer, I just meant along the lines of:

1. "Person X is an active member of the community and a regular streamer" ( == Yay);

2. "Person X is active in on the boards and hangs out in streams, but no one has ever seen him/her play" ( == We can accept the game, on the condition that you give status updates / stream / post to Youtube / something); or,

3. "Who the heck is Person X?  SDA account was created yesterday, never seen hanging in streams before, not active at all in any game planning" ( == Not to be too big a jerk, but please try again next year).

It just goes back to me being an FF guy, so I have a good idea if who's involved at SDA in FF stuff.  For other games, I'll probably need people to tell me that (to avoid situation #3).  That's all I had meant by it :)

nate

Edit history:

nate: 2013-07-06 06:33:07 pm

2013-07-06 06:32:49 pm

Quote from Cool Matty:

Until nate gets embedded players everywhere (and if we do complete a full redesign of game pages, this will change), keep in mind that most modern browsers can actually playback the videos directly ...

... assuming of course that the run in question has h.264 mp4. it was my understanding (hilarious, because i'm the one who deployed the embedded players in the first place ...) that an embedded player exists right now for every run that has h.264 mp4 mq (should be everything back to late summer 2006). if i'm wrong though then this is an important tip. of course if for some reason you have a browser plugin that supports divx/xvid avi then you can also click on .avi links and have them play in the browser, but i doubt this really exists anymore, even on the apple side, due to perian being abandoned and apple switching over to quicktime x.

UraniumAnchor

2013-07-06 06:36:54 pm

Not a walrus

Obviously what you should do is go reencode all of the old xvid/avi files into mp4.

Chrno

Edit history:

Chrno: 2013-07-06 06:53:16 pm

2013-07-06 06:52:27 pm

WOW.

Quote:

How to accommodate for patches in PC games now? Since digital downloads are the norm, using the fastest version is usually an earlier version that isn't publically available.

As I don't know if I'll be able to be in chat for the roundtable, I could maybe address this point of discussion as I have had previous experience of this issue in certain runs that I have done.

As it looks at the moment, Steam is the only digital service that forces the player to update their game to the latest version (at least I think it does, you might be able to turn auto updates off). With services like xbox live and the likes, players are asked if they wish the update, and are able to select at "No" if they wish to stay offline with their current version. With the introduction of "always-on" consoles in the next generation (this could also use some further discussion), I suspect that the console will not prompt the player to download a new patch, yet will just automatically download it anyway. With this, the player has two options:

1. Stay with the current patch
2. Revert to a vanilla game-state by wiping the update data (I know the 360 has this option, this is how I used an earlier version for the Skyrim run at agdq)

In relevance to SDA, and PC games (I realise I went on a tangent with consoles there), if we were to set some ground-rules on patches, I would offer the idea of allowing the player/community to decide on the patch they wish to use, keeping with the 'rules' that SDA currently have, as well as clearly displaying the patch/game-version on the gamepage/the runner's comments. Forcing a player or community to use the latest version of a game could be extremely detrimental to the run itself; a sentiment echoed with Valve's recent Portal update that removes many OOB functions found in earlier versions. Optimal game versions are normally discussed and discovered within specific game communities anyway, so more often than not runs/runners of the same game will be using the same game version.

I'll try and catch the roundtable if I can :).

[quote]How to accommodate for patches in PC games now? Since digital downloads are the norm, using the fastest version is usually an earlier version that isn't publically available.[/quote]
As I don't know if I'll be able to be in chat for the roundtable, I could maybe address this point of discussion as I have had previous experience of this issue in certain runs that I have done.

As it looks at the moment, Steam is the only digital service that forces the player to update their game to the latest version (at least I think it does, you might be able to turn auto updates off). With services like xbox live and the likes, players are asked if they wish the update, and are able to select at "No" if they wish to stay offline with their current version. With the introduction of "always-on" consoles in the next generation (this could also use some further discussion), I suspect that the console will not prompt the player to download a new patch, yet will just automatically download it anyway. With this, the player has two options:

1. Stay with the current patch
2. Revert to a vanilla game-state by wiping the update data (I know the 360 has this option, this is how I used an earlier version for the Skyrim run at agdq)

In relevance to SDA, and PC games (I realise I went on a tangent with consoles there), if we were to set some ground-rules on patches, I would offer the idea of allowing the player/community to decide on the patch they wish to use, keeping with the 'rules' that SDA currently have, as well as clearly displaying the patch/game-version on the gamepage/the runner's comments. Forcing a player or community to use the latest version of a game could be extremely detrimental to the run itself; a sentiment echoed with Valve's recent Portal update that removes many OOB functions found in earlier versions. Optimal game versions are normally discussed and discovered within specific game communities anyway, so more often than not runs/runners of the same game will be using the same game version.

I'll try and catch the roundtable if I can :).

Kiyura

2013-07-06 07:03:04 pm

Wiiaboo

Quote from Chrno:

With the introduction of "always-on" consoles in the next generation (this could also use some further discussion), I suspect that the console will not prompt the player to download a new patch, yet will just automatically download it anyway.

Neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One will require always online except for setting up the console. I don't think this will be an issue.

nate

2013-07-06 07:09:35 pm

Quote from UraniumAnchor:

Obviously what you should do is go reencode all of the old xvid/avi files into mp4.

this is what i was implying in my earlier post. it's just because i don't know which ones they are, and even if i did, i would be editing text files to add the embedded players right now. it's not so urgent that i can't wait for you to help me wang it when you get around to it.

Kiyura

2013-07-06 07:21:30 pm

Wiiaboo

Quote from nate:

i can't wait for you to help me wang it when you get around to it.

Saving this partial quote for dirt.

presjpolk

2013-07-06 07:26:04 pm

HELLO!

Wang it. Wang it good.

Svenne

2013-07-06 07:46:45 pm

Smörgåsbord

Is everything on that what-list open for debate?

AlecK47

2013-07-07 12:34:16 am

I agree with everything romscout said in his previous post, and what mikwuyma said about new vs. old games. The following post is the way I see things, and some of it is repetitive. Feel free to agree or disagree. In either case I will not judge you - I just think that at least some of this should be said.

To start this off, I think old games often provide more fruitful streaming opportunities in large part because they have more entertainment in a shorter timespan. I honestly think that's why so many streamers gravitate towards older games (and for the record I do not see this as a bad thing): because older games are often shorter, there tend to be more tricks and action in a given timeframe. Newer games, on the other hand, tend to be paced so as to extend the game without seeming too obviously "grindy." The fact that so many recent games follow that formula (in one way or another), while so many older games are shorter (if only because of memory constraints and the like, and obviously excluding certain exceptions) tends to skew the balance in favor of older games within the community both for marathons ("official" or not) and even for speedrun attempts in general. If you are thinking of picking up a game, would you choose an older one that took about 20 minutes to complete or a newer one that took 2 hours or more, if you loved both games equally? I personally would be inclined to choose the shorter one, all things being equal (at least in my perception). To be clear, I don't care whether you run a new or old game, or a short or long one, or your preferences in any sense, games are inherently different not just specifically, but also in a general sense. I'm both stating the obvious here and generalizing a great deal, but I feel it's worth discussing, especially because this issue will probably only become more pronounced in the future as more games that take a significant amount of time to complete continue to be released.

In relation to the argument I made in the previous paragraph, downloadable games are an entirely different beast, and I realize this. I pointedly decline to speculate on whether more downloadable or "mainstream" games will be "worthy" of speedruns in the future, as I am as clairvoyant as any of you (in other words not), but I currently equate a great many downloadable titles with older games in large part because they often use similar designs (2D, for instance).

So what is the difference between a new game and an old one? Really, for streaming purposes (or at least attracting viewers) the biggest difference between a new downloadable 2D platformer and an older one for the viewers is the game's popularity - more popular games bring more viewers, new or (usually, in this case) old. But for a "typical" new game vs. a "typical" old game the time difference becomes more pronounced. Such instances tend to favor older, shorter, more intense games. The GTA games (3-SA) are, imo, the biggest current exception to the rule - at least in terms of length, and once again I'm generalizing - because they can attract a great many viewers for a long (or very long) run where little of consequence may happen for quite some time.

Having said all that, it should be obvious that I don't think the issue is simple, and I certainly don't think I have all the answers. I also don't think this issue is a bomb waiting to explode within the community; but I think it's a matter ripe for discussion, if only for philosophical reasons.

Also, much to my chagrin I cannot wang it... my coding is far too weak.

I agree with everything romscout said in his previous post, and what mikwuyma said about new vs. old games.  The following post is the way I see things, and some of it is repetitive.  Feel free to agree or disagree.  In either case I will not judge you - I just think that at least some of this should be said.

To start this off, I think old games often provide more fruitful streaming opportunities in large part because they have more entertainment in a shorter timespan.  I honestly think that's why so many streamers gravitate towards older games (and for the record I do not see this as a bad thing): because older games are often shorter, there tend to be more tricks and action in a given timeframe.  Newer games, on the other hand, tend to be paced so as to extend the game without seeming too obviously "grindy."  The fact that so many recent games follow that formula (in one way or another), while so many older games are shorter (if only because of memory constraints and the like, and obviously excluding certain exceptions) tends to skew the balance in favor of older games within the community both for marathons ("official" or not) and even for speedrun attempts in general.  If you are thinking of picking up a game, would you choose an older one that took about 20 minutes to complete or a newer one that took 2 hours or more, if you loved both games equally?  I personally would be inclined to choose the shorter one, all things being equal (at least in my perception).  To be clear, I don't care whether you run a new or old game, or a short or long one, or your preferences in any sense, games are inherently different not just specifically, but also in a general sense.  I'm both stating the obvious here and generalizing a great deal, but I feel it's worth discussing, especially because this issue will probably only become more pronounced in the future as more games that take a significant amount of time to complete continue to be released.

In relation to the argument I made in the previous paragraph, downloadable games are an entirely different beast, and I realize this.  I pointedly decline to speculate on whether more downloadable or "mainstream" games will be "worthy" of speedruns in the future, as I am as clairvoyant as any of you (in other words not), but I currently equate a great many downloadable titles with older games in large part because they often use similar designs (2D, for instance).

So what is the difference between a new game and an old one?  Really, for streaming purposes (or at least attracting viewers) the biggest difference between a new downloadable 2D platformer and an older one for the viewers is the game's popularity - more popular games bring more viewers, new or (usually, in this case) old.  But for a "typical" new game vs. a "typical" old game the time difference becomes more pronounced.  Such instances tend to favor older, shorter, more intense games.  The GTA games (3-SA) are, imo, the biggest current exception to the rule - at least in terms of length, and once again I'm generalizing - because they can attract a great many viewers for a long (or very long) run where little of consequence may happen for quite some time.

Having said all that, it should be obvious that I don't think the issue is simple, and I certainly don't think I have all the answers.  I also don't think this issue is a bomb waiting to explode within the community; but I think it's a matter ripe for discussion, if only for philosophical reasons.

Also, much to my chagrin I cannot wang it... my coding is far too weak.

Onin

2013-07-07 03:27:48 am

^The biggest counterpoint to your rule is the popularity of Pokemon runs. On the surface you'd assume they'd be utterly impopular, since there's a rather invisible skillset in running them, a lot of resetting for no good reason (gotta get them perfect EVs), and of course they span 2 to 4 hours depending on the version. Yet, Werster. I'm not sure whether it's the nostalgia factor, the schadenfreude of seeing Werster struggle against a random number generator, or just Werster being a cutiepie.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 08:20:49 am

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 08:20:43 am

2013-07-07 08:20:27 am

Weegee Time

Well if I recall, the Pokemon Yellow run SMK did was pretty popular as well. In Pokemon speedruns there is generally a lot going on for the entire game; when there's not there's a tremendous amount of trivia as well. That lends itself to some really good commentary. There are people who look forward to that in a marathon run.

Of course, it helps that most everyone has been exposed to Pokemon in one way or another. It's pretty solidly entrenched in my generation's pop culture, and to a slightly lesser extent the one that followed.

Onin

2013-07-07 08:44:57 am

Just don't let Werster play Gold Glitched% anymore Cheesy

To expand on my embeded flash query: It'd also be great to have those x2/x3/x4 options on the game page, or in the player itself, or something. I prefer watching at x3 size over straight-up fullscreening, and I gotta save that extra click!

ProfessorBroman

2013-07-07 10:08:09 am

Quote from Chrno:

Quote:

How to accommodate for patches in PC games now? Since digital downloads are the norm, using the fastest version is usually an earlier version that isn't publically available.

In relevance to SDA, and PC games (I realise I went on a tangent with consoles there), if we were to set some ground-rules on patches, I would offer the idea of allowing the player/community to decide on the patch they wish to use, keeping with the 'rules' that SDA currently have, as well as clearly displaying the patch/game-version on the gamepage/the runner's comments. Forcing a player or community to use the latest version of a game could be extremely detrimental to the run itself; a sentiment echoed with Valve's recent Portal update that removes many OOB functions found in earlier versions. Optimal game versions are normally discussed and discovered within specific game communities anyway, so more often than not runs/runners of the same game will be using the same game version.

I honestly think this is the best solution to the issue! Letting each game community pick the most "runnable" version of the game places control in the hands of the runners. The alternative of constantly re-routing around patches and occasionally losing all the "fun" elements of speedrunning Game X is pretty miserable. I think having a solid ruleset on what exactly is needed to say "This is our speedrunning version/patch" would be a good idea.

[quote="Chrno"][quote]How to accommodate for patches in PC games now? Since digital downloads are the norm, using the fastest version is usually an earlier version that isn't publically available.[/quote]

In relevance to SDA, and PC games (I realise I went on a tangent with consoles there), if we were to set some ground-rules on patches, I would offer the idea of allowing the player/community to decide on the patch they wish to use, keeping with the 'rules' that SDA currently have, as well as clearly displaying the patch/game-version on the gamepage/the runner's comments. Forcing a player or community to use the latest version of a game could be extremely detrimental to the run itself; a sentiment echoed with Valve's recent Portal update that removes many OOB functions found in earlier versions. Optimal game versions are normally discussed and discovered within specific game communities anyway, so more often than not runs/runners of the same game will be using the same game version.
[/quote]

I honestly think this is the best solution to the issue! Letting each game community pick the most "runnable" version of the game places control in the hands of the runners.  The alternative of constantly re-routing around patches and occasionally losing all the "fun" elements of speedrunning Game X is pretty miserable.  I think having a solid ruleset on what exactly is needed to say "This is our speedrunning version/patch" would be a good idea.

presjpolk

2013-07-07 10:34:03 am

HELLO!

Yeah but if the patch cannot be legally redistributed, how can SDA endorse that?

Blubbler

2013-07-07 11:22:32 am

Quote from Kiyura:

Neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One will require always online except for setting up the console. I don't think this will be an issue.

That's not really that helpful in itself, because the fastest version could very well be an outdated but not the unpatched version, like 1.3 could be faster than 1.0 and 1.7, but you can only either autopatch to 1.7 or keep 1.0.
So the only ways around this (and Steam) that I see are:
- only allow the original or latest version
The problem with the original is that it is sometimes hard to find and DLCs or addons don't work with it. The problem with the latest version is that patches can come years later like in HL2 that recently got an update after almost 9 years and invalidating a run just because a patch came out seems silly.
- chose allowed versions
Runners won't like being told what they can do without good reasons. That there's a community doesn't mean they all agree with each other. See the iQue debate in OoT. And on games without a community it just boils down to whoever runs first decides the rules.
- allow everything
I like it this way, because for me competition is not that important. It's unfair, if you can't get the fastest version or if you can get it, but you have to pirate it. But if you have more of a "scientific" approach at getting the fastest time, it doesn't matter.

[quote="Kiyura"]Neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One will require always online except for setting up the console. I don't think this will be an issue.[/quote]
That's not really that helpful in itself, because the fastest version could very well be an outdated but not the unpatched version, like 1.3 could be faster than 1.0 and 1.7, but you can only either autopatch to 1.7 or keep 1.0.
So the only ways around this (and Steam) that I see are:
- only allow the original or latest version
The problem with the original is that it is sometimes hard to find and DLCs or addons don't work with it. The problem with the latest version is that patches can come years later like in HL2 that recently got an update after almost 9 years and invalidating a run just because a patch came out seems silly.
- chose allowed versions
Runners won't like being told what they can do without good reasons. That there's a community doesn't mean they all agree with each other. See the iQue debate in OoT. And on games without a community it just boils down to whoever runs first decides the rules.
- allow everything
I like it this way, because for me competition is not that important. It's unfair, if you can't get the fastest version or if you can get it, but you have to pirate it. But if you have more of a "scientific" approach at getting the fastest time, it doesn't matter.

Rakuen

2013-07-07 11:23:14 am

Weegee Time

Quote from presjpolk:

Yeah but if the patch cannot be legally redistributed, how can SDA endorse that?

Well the more dubious route is plausible deniability. You can't prove how they're using that version of the game from the run alone.

presjpolk

2013-07-07 11:38:06 am

HELLO!

Is there a reason putting different versions in different categories isn't being considered?

ktwo

2013-07-07 11:53:44 am

Sorry to break in with a different topic...

I should start out by saying that I really like the recent changes to the verification process (public verification, submission form etc). However, I don't think I step on anyone's toes when I say that several popular games are not up-to-date on sda and risk remaining so if nothing changes. There might be many reasons for this, but one could be that the current verification process makes it simply impossible to have a short enough lead time from submission to posting to please some communities (even with the recent improvements). I'd therefore like to ask what you think about creating a "fast-track" for popular games with community leaderboards? Let's say that the X fastest (depending on the game) runs on a specific leaderboard could skip the sda-verification. The play quality of such a run should anyways be ensured by the existing competition on the game and the run is likely legit if it's already accepted by the community. There still needs to be an A/V quality check, but that doesn't require game-specific knowledge and therefore no need to involve any verifiers. Maybe allocate one of the staff members to only take care of these games. That person would then update the game page as quickly as possible and just add a note to be included in the next main page update. Could that bring the time down to a week or two from submission to publication?

The above was just some food for thought. I'm not suggesting that it would have to be exactly like that and I obviously know that there is no guarantee that it would make a significant difference. I also know sda is not a wr site, but hosting an out-of-date speedrun for a popular game does maybe more harm than good for the site as a whole (even if the A/V quality is top notch)? In my very personal opinion, I think that if there is no ambition to reach out and try to accommodate some of the communities (I respect that you are volunteers and don't have the time to please everyone) or if certain communities still show no interest in sda, it'd be better to simply remove the current runs and put a link to the relevant leaderboards on the respective game pages instead. There is of course nothing that would prevent someone from submitting an up-to-date run later on, should they wish to do so.

Sorry to break in with a different topic...

I should start out by saying that I really like the recent changes to the verification process (public verification, submission form etc). However, I don't think I step on anyone's toes when I say that several popular games are not up-to-date on sda and risk remaining so if nothing changes. There might be many reasons for this, but one could be that the current verification process makes it simply impossible to have a short enough lead time from submission to posting to please some communities (even with the recent improvements). I'd therefore like to ask what you think about creating a "fast-track" for popular games with community leaderboards? Let's say that the X fastest (depending on the game) runs on a specific leaderboard could skip the sda-verification. The play quality of such a run should anyways be ensured by the existing competition on the game and the run is likely legit if it's already accepted by the community. There still needs to be an A/V quality check, but that doesn't require game-specific knowledge and therefore no need to involve any verifiers. Maybe allocate one of the staff members to only take care of these games. That person would then update the game page as quickly as possible and just add a note to be included in the next main page update. Could that bring the time down to a week or two from submission to publication?

The above was just some food for thought. I'm not suggesting that it would have to be exactly like that and I obviously know that there is no guarantee that it would make a significant difference. I also know sda is not a wr site, but hosting an out-of-date speedrun for a popular game does maybe more harm than good for the site as a whole (even if the A/V quality is top notch)? In my very personal opinion, I think that if there is no ambition to reach out and try to accommodate some of the communities (I respect that you are volunteers and don't have the time to please everyone) or if certain communities still show no interest in sda, it'd be better to simply remove the current runs and put a link to the relevant leaderboards on the respective game pages instead. There is of course nothing that would prevent someone from submitting an up-to-date run later on, should they wish to do so.

UraniumAnchor

2013-07-07 12:08:32 pm

Not a walrus

I don't personally have a problem with that in principle, but it does open up a can of worms when it comes to the threshold for what's popular enough for the 'fast track'. There's still quite a bit more automation to come (I won't be doing any more significant work on the queue until after SGDQ for reasons I hope are obvious). When the only bottleneck left is actually getting the videos I think my job will be finished.