Speedrunner Roundtable July 10 at 9 PM EDT [locked]

2013-07-07 10:46:19 pm

1-Up!

Quote from Romi:

Halo 1 has so much skips though ... the guy must've been really bad. And skulls nowadays help a lot to go fast.

Cut some slack. This was back when the marathons were just gaining steam. Part of the learning process. He didn't know what he was getting in to iirc.

Romi

2013-07-07 10:47:24 pm

My apologies then, thanks for the details Smiley

But it was just to add that if learned efficiently, even in Legendary, it doesn't take long.

AlecK47

2013-07-07 10:49:27 pm

I'm pretty sure that grenade damage is more of a factor in Halo 1. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that it was all but necessary to do it on legendary.

Reed

2013-07-07 10:50:04 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from Flip:

Quote from Reed:

has one guy ruined that possibility for the whole community?

Short answer is definitely not. If somebody with the skills puts Halo 2 or 3 forward as an option, I'm sure it'll get a fair chance of being in a marathon.

Good to know, I've heard rumblings otherwise.

Reed

2013-07-07 10:50:52 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from AlecK47:

I'm pretty sure that grenade damage is more of a factor in Halo 1. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that it was all but necessary to do it on legendary.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 11:20:09 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 11:00:54 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 10:59:49 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 10:54:02 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 10:53:55 pm

2013-07-07 10:53:20 pm

Weegee Time

Matty & DW: This is such a vitriolic back and forth of "but people with 6 games!" and "but people with watchable games!" Which is where I go back to:

Quote from Me:

Have we tried suggesting alternative games when someone's suggestion gets shot down?

To which Poxnor noted:

Quote from Poxnor:

One problem is that it's often hard to learn a game between when the game thread goes up and when the marathon happens.

To which I now say: There will be more marathons.

I think it would be good to try to offer people alternatives whenever possible. Then it appears less like "we don't want you to run" and more like "we want you to run but not that game." Not that we intend that message, but it sounds like that's what's coming across to some people.

This is what we call low hanging fruit where I work. It's easy to do and can have positive returns. I would love a marathon where a variety of people participate and they only bring one or two games each. Nudging people in the right direction when it comes to game choice can get you there, but it will not happen over night. Until that time comes, you're going to have people playing multiple games because they're the ones playing the good games.

Quote from Reed:

Good to know, I've heard rumblings otherwise.

Don't believe everything you hear, especially when it comes to gossip. Smiley

Matty & DW: This is [i]such[/i] a vitriolic back and forth of "but people with 6 games!" and "but people with watchable games!"  Which is where I go back to:
[quote="Me"]Have we tried suggesting alternative games when someone's suggestion gets shot down?[/quote]
To which Poxnor noted:
[quote="Poxnor"]One problem is that it's often hard to learn a game between when the game thread goes up and when the marathon happens.[/quote]
To which I now say: There will be [i]more[/i] marathons.

I think it would be good to try to offer people alternatives whenever possible.  Then it appears less like "we don't want you to run" and more like "we want you to run but not [i]that[/i] game."  Not that we [i]intend[/i] that message, but it sounds like that's what's coming across to some people.

This is what we call low hanging fruit where I work.  It's easy to do and can have positive returns.  I would love a marathon where a variety of people participate and they only bring one or two games each.  Nudging people in the right direction when it comes to game choice can get you there, but it will not happen over night.  Until that time comes, you're going to have people playing multiple games because they're the ones playing the good games.

[quote="Reed"]Good to know, I've heard rumblings otherwise.[/quote]
Don't believe everything you hear, especially when it comes to gossip. :)

romscout

2013-07-07 10:56:51 pm

that Metroidvania guy

I don't think we need to discuss Halo in much detail in this thread. Basically, the bad response to the runs was mostly because of the runner, although in Reach it was also because the whole room was dead during the run and no one was bringing any commentary/hype. It doesn't mean that Halo games done by a different runner will never be able to happen in a marathon again.

As for the rest of the thread, it's devolved pretty hard and I'd say as far as the marathon discussion is concerned, it has pretty much lost its purpose. I gave my piece on all of this on previous pages and I don't think addressing any of the current bickering will help, but I will gladly answer any additional questions about the future of marathons or SGDQ organization on Wednesday. There were some good points brought up earlier and I'm glad we were able to discuss them, but that's just not happening right now. Peace.

Breakdown

2013-07-07 10:59:39 pm

Haters gonna hate

This line of discussion got messy in a hurry. I had no plans of posting in this thread prior to Wednesday, intending more to just read and soak up what the community wants to hear about, but this is just circular and stupid. All I promise at this point, is I'm not responding to everything that's been said in the last two pages or so. If that gets interpreted as an SDA green name evading questions, so be it. You can't please all the people all the time, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

RE: The PURPOSE of AGDQ vs SGDQ: SGDQ is getting bigger, in fact the set up this year is remarkably similar to AGDQ's. I really think the perceived difference of feel will much less pronounced going forward as it gets bigger and more people come. Also, with more people, the runner pool grows, more of the main stream games can have representation, and less of the super obscure stuff gets. Happened with C/AGDQ, will likely at SGDQ as it grows. It was SGDQ's smaller size and attendance that drove the more eclectic schedule, not some sort of mission statement as is being suggested. That said, to say AGDQ is strictly about bringing in the big dollars and forget about any game that didn't sit at the cool kids table at lunch and has zero focus on community just shows a viewer's bias. Talking entirely to DW and Poxnor here, both of you have only been to SGDQ, both at Essentia's house, and you probably have good memories of stuff that happened off camera. Practice room shenanigans, random conversations in hallways, food run adventures, etc. AGDQ is the same thing, it's a community event. Yes, it's based around the marathon itself, but the EVENT is much, much more. That's what is easily missed by people who only know it through the stream and videos, and I would argue the environment of the event itself is the most important thing from a community standpoint. The marathon proper is about raising money for charity and promoting SDA, and it should be run in a way to do that as effectively as possible, but AGDQ/SGDQ is way, way more than what happens on stream. I've been calling AGDQ a mini-convention for years now, and all that's really changed as of late is the mini part is feeling less appropriate. It's a chance for the community to meet and for about a weekshare in their amazingly niche hobby with likeminded individuals from across the world. I stayed 9 nights this January, my game was on night 3. If having a game was the only thing worth staying for, I'd have saved the vacation days and the money.

Now some of you read that last paragraph and think I need to pull my Kumbayah singing head out of my ass and address what people are driving at. Amazing inequity! Games for everyone! Stick up for the little guy! Loud noises! Yes, everybody getting a game sounds great on paper, but when trying to construct the strongest schedule possible (because remember the marathon itself is about raising money charity), popular games with strong fan bases are going to trump random games with small devoted fan bases every time. Since cygher seems to a common example brought up for "dude who got too many games," let's take a look at what he ran, LttP (slam dunk game), Mario RPG (not quite the slam dunk, but super strong), Gimmick (weaker in relation to the first 2, but still strong, well known even in the US, and impressive as hell), Goof Troop (co-op with Blechy, who had no other games). I'm not going to dig through the game request thread, but I'm not thinking much is going to trump LttP or SMRPG. Gimmick was replacable, but was very short. Cutting Goof Troop cut Blechy out of the marathon, so there's no case for lack of inclusion there. It's already been said that transparency will be upped on the game selection process, but really, the prime factors would be game popularity (a given, but popularity has a scope outside of SDA/speedrunning, very important to remember and commonly forgotten), entertainment value (random games can get in, but they better have a HELL of a hook, boring popular games are cut on the basis of being boring [apologies to Poxnor, but anyone stumping for DW1 would have to have quite the bias]), and lastly, and not really addressed to this point here, reliability of the runner. That last one is more important than you think, and is likely a large contributing factor to this "good old boys" club impression that apparently is a thing. Simple fact, people who have done well in past marathons give us confidence that they will do well again, and that's pretty damn important when your trying to put out the best product possible to the stream. Now, as has already been said, new players can break in, but generally those new players are active in the community and/or stream a ton. Even still, they are ultimately an unknown quantity and therefore a risk, but those factors let us decide they're a good risk. Not everybody who suggests a game to run meets the criteria of a good risk, and saying we should take bad risks instead of letting tried and true individuals play games we know the stream will love simply because they had a game at a past event is, quite frankly, idiotic.

Now after that paragraph no one will accuse me of singing Kumbayah (head still in ass, maybe), and it probably reads harsher than I mean it. We have new players and games every year, and the overwhelming majority of the time they do fine, and when they don't we learn from it and have a better idea what to do next year. Further transparency in why games don't get in should also give a better idea on how games do get in, and for people who, really, really want to play on stream, that can be valuable information, but I don't see SDA marathons getting back to a point where we're adding games we don't love the idea of having on the stream to fill time or letting the 2nd, 3rd, Nth best runner of a game play when the 1st is available and willing. People should have a better idea how the system we have in place works after this year (and that system is sound, no matter what cries of dissent are coming from the peanut gallery, results don't lie, and we've got them), so people can learn how to work in it.

That post got rambly as my posts often do. Think I'm done. I will not reply again, even after the semantic dissection I'm sure to have two posts down from here (and to the dissector, I ask 1. Do you pick semantics for a living? and 2. Does a well picked over post leave you feeling good about ignoring the overall sentiment of what I just wrote?). I'm going back to thread lurking til Wednesday. We'll talk about this I'm sure, should be a good time.

Lastly, don't forget the purpose of this thread. We've plenty of talking points, but if there's more any of you (currently many) people viewing this thread want us to talk about, post em up, we'll be sure to fish them out.

This line of discussion got messy in a hurry.  I had no plans of posting in this thread prior to Wednesday, intending more to just read and soak up what the community wants to hear about, but this is just circular and stupid.  All I promise at this point, is I'm not responding to everything that's been said in the last two pages or so.  If that gets interpreted as an SDA green name evading questions, so be it.  You can't please all the people all the time, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

RE: The PURPOSE of AGDQ vs SGDQ:  SGDQ is getting bigger, in fact the set up this year is remarkably similar to AGDQ's.  I really think the perceived difference of feel will much less pronounced going forward as it gets bigger and more people come.  Also, with more people, the runner pool grows, more of the main stream games can have representation, and less of the super obscure stuff gets.  Happened with C/AGDQ, will likely at SGDQ as it grows.  It was SGDQ's smaller size and attendance that drove the more eclectic schedule, not some sort of mission statement as is being suggested.  That said, to say AGDQ is strictly about bringing in the big dollars and forget about any game that didn't sit at the cool kids table at lunch and has zero focus on community just shows a viewer's bias.  Talking entirely to DW and Poxnor here, both of you have only been to SGDQ, both at Essentia's house, and you probably have good memories of stuff that happened off camera.  Practice room shenanigans, random conversations in hallways, food run adventures, etc.  AGDQ is the same thing, it's a community event.  Yes, it's based around the marathon itself, but the EVENT is much, much more.  That's what is easily missed by people who only know it through the stream and videos, and I would argue the environment of the event itself is the most important thing from a community standpoint.  The marathon proper is about raising money for charity and promoting SDA, and it should be run in a way to do that as effectively as possible, but AGDQ/SGDQ is way, way more than what happens on stream.  I've been calling AGDQ a mini-convention for years now, and all that's really changed as of late is the mini part is feeling less appropriate.  It's a chance for the community to meet and for about a weekshare in their amazingly niche hobby with likeminded individuals from across the world.  I stayed 9 nights this January, my game was on night 3.  If having a game was the only thing worth staying for, I'd have saved the vacation days and the money.

Now some of you read that last paragraph and think I need to pull my Kumbayah singing head out of my ass and address what people are driving at.  Amazing inequity!  Games for everyone!  Stick up for the little guy!  Loud noises!  Yes, everybody getting a game sounds great on paper, but when trying to construct the strongest schedule possible (because remember the marathon itself is about raising money charity), popular games with strong fan bases are going to trump random games with small devoted fan bases every time.  Since cygher seems to a common example brought up for "dude who got too many games," let's take a look at what he ran, LttP (slam dunk game), Mario RPG (not quite the slam dunk, but super strong), Gimmick (weaker in relation to the first 2, but still strong, well known even in the US, and impressive as hell), Goof Troop (co-op with Blechy, who had no other games).  I'm not going to dig through the game request thread, but I'm not thinking much is going to trump LttP or SMRPG.  Gimmick was replacable, but was very short.  Cutting Goof Troop cut Blechy out of the marathon, so there's no case for lack of inclusion there.  It's already been said that transparency will be upped on the game selection process, but really, the prime factors would be game popularity (a given, but popularity has a scope outside of SDA/speedrunning, very important to remember and commonly forgotten), entertainment value (random games can get in, but they better have a HELL of a hook, boring popular games are cut on the basis of being boring [apologies to Poxnor, but anyone stumping for DW1 would have to have quite the bias]), and lastly, and not really addressed to this point here, reliability of the runner.  That last one is more important than you think, and is likely a large contributing factor to this "good old boys" club impression that apparently is a thing.  Simple fact, people who have done well in past marathons give us confidence that they will do well again, and that's pretty damn important when your trying to put out the best product possible to the stream.  Now, as has already been said, new players can break in, but generally those new players are active in the community and/or stream a ton.  Even still, they are ultimately an unknown quantity and therefore a risk, but those factors let us decide they're a good risk.  Not everybody who suggests a game to run meets the criteria of a good risk, and saying we should take bad risks instead of letting tried and true individuals play games we know the stream will love simply because they had a game at a past event is, quite frankly, idiotic.

Now after that paragraph no one will accuse me of singing Kumbayah (head still in ass, maybe), and it probably reads harsher than I mean it.  We have new players and games every year, and the overwhelming majority of the time they do fine, and when they don't we learn from it and have a better idea what to do next year.  Further transparency in why games don't get in should also give a better idea on how games do get in, and for people who, really, really want to play on stream, that can be valuable information, but I don't see SDA marathons getting back to a point where we're adding games we don't love the idea of having on the stream to fill time or letting the 2nd, 3rd, Nth best runner of a game play when the 1st is available and willing.  People should have a better idea how the system we have in place works after this year (and that system is sound, no matter what cries of dissent are coming from the peanut gallery, results don't lie, and we've got them), so people can learn how to work in it.

That post got rambly as my posts often do.  Think I'm done.  I will not reply again, even after the semantic dissection I'm sure to have two posts down from here (and to the dissector, I ask 1.  Do you pick semantics for a living? and 2. Does a well picked over post leave you feeling good about ignoring the overall sentiment of what I just wrote?).  I'm going back to thread lurking til Wednesday.  We'll talk about this I'm sure, should be a good time.

Lastly, don't forget the purpose of this thread.  We've plenty of talking points, but if there's more any of you (currently many) people viewing this thread want us to talk about, post em up, we'll be sure to fish them out.

Rakuen

2013-07-07 11:15:32 pm

Weegee Time

Is there any updates on the marathon tracker app? I know there's a thread for this but I figure the roundtable would reach a larger audience than that thread. We've had problems with slowness in the past. I think it might be good to spend a few minutes talking about why it happens and what progress (if any, folks are busy) has been made to remedy it for future events.

Might be too technical for the round table though.

Sir VG

2013-07-07 11:17:41 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from Essentia:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.

I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).

That's what I did for SGDQ. I was planning on going (since I was already in the area and was gonna just extend my vacation for a few days to attend a bit), but since my one game got canned, I pulled out, mostly for financial reasons. I understand Breakdown's "convention" aspect, but since I'm not Poxnor rich and can just throw money around, plus I'm not one for giant crowds (like AGDQ appeared to be this year), I might stick more to doing the smaller events, like C4L. I will undoubtably miss my friends that will only attend the bigger, more primary events. And it's not like I didn't enjoy myself when I attended AGDQ/SGDQ in 2011/2012. But I noticed I was more active during the times they were smaller. I think this stems from my more introverted nature.

I'm not saying that AGDQ/SGDQ getting large is a bad thing. More people being involved, while leading to more expenses, can lead to a bigger donation drive. I mean, look at how much AGDQ has grown in donations over the few years its run. But still having smaller events is a great thing too, if not for the more personal feeling they provide.

And now I'm just rambling...

[quote="Essentia"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.[/quote]
I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).[/quote]

That's what I did for SGDQ. I was planning on going (since I was already in the area and was gonna just extend my vacation for a few days to attend a bit), but since my one game got canned, I pulled out, mostly for financial reasons. I understand Breakdown's "convention" aspect, but since I'm not Poxnor rich and can just throw money around, plus I'm not one for giant crowds (like AGDQ appeared to be this year), I might stick more to doing the smaller events, like C4L. I will undoubtably miss my friends that will only attend the bigger, more primary events. And it's not like I didn't enjoy myself when I attended AGDQ/SGDQ in 2011/2012. But I noticed I was more active during the times they were smaller. I think this stems from my more introverted nature.

I'm not saying that AGDQ/SGDQ getting large is a bad thing. More people being involved, while leading to more expenses, can lead to a bigger donation drive. I mean, look at how much AGDQ has grown in donations over the few years its run. But still having smaller events is a great thing too, if not for the more personal feeling they provide.

And now I'm just rambling...

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 11:18:06 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Essentia:

I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).

That's fine, but I prefer to give back more directly. Money's money, but the way I look at it is, there's already going to be a LOT of people donating. The money I'd put into the trip, although not inconsequential, is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the total we'd bring in. If I can go there, and make it a better event, I will, regardless of whether it's via speedrunning, tech, support, food, or anything else. Making it a better event potentially means a much larger return than just dumping my funds into the marathon, and I don't feel the only way to do that is to speedrun a game.

[quote="Essentia"]
I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).[/quote]

That's fine, but I prefer to give back more directly. Money's money, but the way I look at it is, there's already going to be a LOT of people donating. The money I'd put into the trip, although not inconsequential, is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the total we'd bring in. If I can go there, and make it a better event, I will, regardless of whether it's via speedrunning, tech, support, food, or anything else. Making it a better event potentially means a much larger return than just dumping my funds into the marathon, and I don't feel the only way to do that is to speedrun a game.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 11:33:28 pm

2013-07-07 11:32:44 pm

Weegee Time

Is it possible the Newer/Older Console forum hierarchy may change in the future? Right now it's pretty well split at the advent of PS2, but it looks to me that N64 and PSX used to be considered "Newer" before my time. I say this from the smattering of threads I see at the bottom of the thread list. Now we've got Wii U and will soon have PS4 and Xbox One entering the ranks.

Sifting through 5k threads for a reorg is non-trivial. On the other hand, splitting them up a bit more finely might be a good idea, if for no other reason than better and more consistent organization going forward.

Lenophis

Edit history:

Lenophis: 2013-07-07 11:36:48 pm

2013-07-07 11:36:04 pm

0-10

Hey, finally off work, I can comment on stuff now. I had something I wanted to add to a point DW brought up.

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?

Let's expand this for a moment. Turn the clock back so you're (the general you) between 8 and 13 years old. You want to play ball with the guys at the park. It's getting to the end selection, and it's just two of you left to be picked for teams. The other kid gets picked, then the "captains" both decide and flatly say to go home. That is how the marathon game selection process has felt to me since it started. I'm not sure how many others here feel that way, but judging by some reactions I'd say I'm not alone here.

Quote:

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same!

Please consider this, then.

Quote:

It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon

Forgive me, but this extremely egotistical of you to say. In my case, it would take at least 15% of my yearly income to even attend an event like this, and you want me to sit behind a desk, make sure the stream is still working, look through donations/comments, and other such trivial tech support duties, for nothing, when I don't even get a game in the first place? Why should I, or anyone else be put through that? Because it's what you guys want? There's talk about how people should be proud about giving up a game or all their games so they could go and get "the experience." In three years, I've seen a grand total of 1 person admit publicly that they would do just that: Rane. I had hoped that the "big wigs" would practice what they preach in this case, so they would at least appear not to be hypocrites.

Also, Essentia and Poxnor are quick to confirm basically what I spent an hour trying to type up here. =\

I do hope that cooler heads prevail, and everyone, be it at the marathon, those watching, those donating, all benefit from this. Nothing is perfect, after all.

Hey, finally off work, I can comment on stuff now. I had something I wanted to add to a point DW brought up.

[quote="Darkwing Duck"]Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?[/quote]
Let's expand this for a moment. Turn the clock back so you're (the general you) between 8 and 13 years old. You want to play ball with the guys at the park. It's getting to the end selection, and it's just two of you left to be picked for teams. The other kid gets picked, then the "captains" both decide and flatly say to go home. [b]That[/b] is how the marathon game selection process has felt to me since it started. I'm not sure how many others here feel that way, but judging by some reactions I'd say I'm not alone here.

[quote]Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same![/quote]
Please consider this, then.
[quote]It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon[/quote]
Forgive me, but this extremely egotistical of you to say. In my case, it would take at least 15% of my yearly income to even attend an event like this, and you want me to sit behind a desk, make sure the stream is still working, look through donations/comments, and other such trivial tech support duties, for nothing, when I don't even get a game in the first place? Why should I, or anyone else be put through that? Because it's what you guys want? There's talk about how people should be proud about giving up a game or all their games so they could go and get "the experience." In three years, I've seen a grand total of 1 person admit publicly that they would do just that: Rane. I had hoped that the "big wigs" would practice what they preach in this case, so they would at least appear not to be hypocrites.

Also, Essentia and Poxnor are quick to confirm basically what I spent an hour trying to type up here. =\

I do hope that cooler heads prevail, and everyone, be it at the marathon, those watching, those donating, all benefit from this. Nothing is perfect, after all.

PJ

2013-07-07 11:39:24 pm

Is PJ

Quote from Lenophis:

There's talk about how people should be proud about giving up a game or all their games so they could go and get "the experience." In three years, I've seen a grand total of 1 person admit publicly that they would do just that: Rane. I had hoped that the "big wigs" would practice what they preach in this case, so they would at least appear not to be hypocrites.

Just a quick response to this. Mike has no games in this marathon. There isn't a "bigger wig" I don't think.

Lenophis

2013-07-07 11:40:05 pm

0-10

I take it "this marathon" is SGDQ?

PJ

2013-07-07 11:40:18 pm

Is PJ

Correct.

Dragondarch

2013-07-07 11:40:45 pm

Pudding%

Mike offered The Demon Rush, and that was it. He cut it later on.

Sir VG

2013-07-07 11:42:39 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from Lenophis:

Quote:

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same!

Please consider this, then.

Quote:

It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon

Forgive me, but this extremely egotistical of you to say. In my case, it would take at least 15% of my yearly income to even attend an event like this, and you want me to sit behind a desk, make sure the stream is still working, look through donations/comments, and other such trivial tech support duties, for nothing, when I don't even get a game in the first place? Why should I, or anyone else be put through that? Because it's what you guys want? There's talk about how people should be proud about giving up a game or all their games so they could go and get "the experience." In three years, I've seen a grand total of 1 person admit publicly that they would do just that: Rane. I had hoped that the "big wigs" would practice what they preach in this case, so they would at least appear not to be hypocrites.

Idea flip. In order to spread the work out and make sure one or two people don't feel that they have to carry all the load, make it that everybody who runs a game HAS to work the donation tracker for some period of time. Doesn't need to be long - but at least an hour or two during the marathon. Many hands make light work. I've worked the donation trackers before, but I was OK with it, because I knew that at some point, I was gonna get a chance to play. I considered it a fair trade.

Is handling the donation tracker fun? Not really. But I know it's necessary and I think the idea is a fair trade, but that's just one man's opinion.

[quote="Lenophis"][quote]Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same![/quote]
Please consider this, then.
[quote]It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon[/quote]
Forgive me, but this extremely egotistical of you to say. In my case, it would take at least 15% of my yearly income to even attend an event like this, and you want me to sit behind a desk, make sure the stream is still working, look through donations/comments, and other such trivial tech support duties, for nothing, when I don't even get a game in the first place? Why should I, or anyone else be put through that? Because it's what you guys want? There's talk about how people should be proud about giving up a game or all their games so they could go and get "the experience." In three years, I've seen a grand total of 1 person admit publicly that they would do just that: Rane. I had hoped that the "big wigs" would practice what they preach in this case, so they would at least appear not to be hypocrites.[/quote]

Idea flip. In order to spread the work out and make sure one or two people don't feel that they have to carry all the load, make it that everybody who runs a game HAS to work the donation tracker for some period of time. Doesn't need to be long - but at least an hour or two during the marathon. Many hands make light work. I've worked the donation trackers before, but I was OK with it, because I knew that at some point, I was gonna get a chance to play. I considered it a fair trade.

Is handling the donation tracker fun? Not really. But I know it's necessary and I think the idea is a fair trade, but that's just one man's opinion.

Flip

2013-07-07 11:45:09 pm

1-Up!

The point is not that we have a "tech problem" or a shortage in that department. The point is that having people to man the tech station is equally vital to the success of the marathon as competent runners. Forcing every runner to man the tech station just increases the need for more organization, planning, schedule fitting, etc. We aren't hurting for manpower in that department, so I don't see an immediate need to complicate the issue.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-08 12:01:02 am

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 11:51:34 pm

2013-07-07 11:50:35 pm

Weegee Time

A better way to approach it for each attendee to try to have some awareness of how long people have sat at a station. If you realize someone's been working at a desk for a few hours and you're qualified to take their place, don't wait for someone else to do it, offer them a break yourself. Having a proactive mentality of wanting to relieve people is more sustainable and enjoyable than forcing people to do it.

Edit: It's late, as evidenced by me editing everything I post. I'm reverting this to the way Flip quoted it and going to bed so we don't look insane. :p

Flip

2013-07-07 11:51:58 pm

1-Up!

Quote from Rakuen:

A better way to approach it for each attendee to try to have some awareness of how long people have sat at a station. If you realize someone's been working at a desk for a few hours and you're qualified to take their place, don't wait for someone else to do it, offer them a break yourself. Having a proactive mentality of wanting to relieve people is more sustainable and enjoyable than forcing people to do it.

Yes, from my somewhat limited experience, if everybody has the attitude that they're there to help, then nobody gets (horribly) overworked.

Reed

2013-07-07 11:55:02 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from Rakuen:

Is it possible the Newer/Older Console forum hierarchy may change in the future? Right now it's pretty well split at the advent of PS2, but it looks to me that N64 and PSX used to be considered "Newer" before my time. I say this from the smattering of threads I see at the bottom of the thread list. Now we've got Wii U and will soon have PS4 and Xbox One entering the ranks.

Sifting through 5k threads for a reorg is non-trivial. On the other hand, splitting them up a bit more finely might be a good idea, if for no other reason than better and more consistent organization going forward.

I think listing these things by console generations would be more clear cut. Sure, you'd get the occasional edge case, but otherwise it would be fairly obvious. Changing the names of the forums would help, so people see "Fourth gen and before" instead of seeing "Older" and thinking "Hey, the Gamecube's old..." Just a thought

presjpolk

2013-07-07 11:56:32 pm

HELLO!

I still think it's weird to have 2d and 3d mixed. Putting Playstation and Nintendo 64 as 'old' seems wrong to me. We need 3 tiers Kappa

AlecK47

Edit history:

AlecK47: 2013-07-08 12:00:08 am

AlecK47: 2013-07-07 11:59:50 pm

2013-07-07 11:58:15 pm

Quote from Reed:

I think listing these things by console generations would be more clear cut. Sure, you'd get the occasional edge case, but otherwise it would be fairly obvious. Changing the names of the forums would help, so people see "Fourth gen and before" instead of seeing "Older" and thinking "Hey, the Gamecube's old..." Just a thought

I thought of that myself, but how would handhelds fit in then? The best way I can think of is something along the lines of "GBA connects to Gamecube, so they are together," but that methodology isn't quite airtight, imo.

Edit: and would that separate gameboy and gameboy color because of chronology?

Dragondarch

2013-07-07 11:59:58 pm

Pudding%

Quote from presjpolk:

I still think it's weird to have 2d and 3d mixed. Putting Playstation and Nintendo 64 as 'old' seems wrong to me. We need 3 tiers Kappa

Probably a good idea. SNES/Genesis and before, PS1/PS2 and others for that generation, and PS3/Wii/360 onwards would probably be a good split.

Quote:

I thought of that myself, but how would handhelds fit in then? The best way I can think of is something along the lines of "GBA connects to Gamecube, so they are together," but that methodology isn't quite airtight, imo.

Maybe GB/GBC with oldest, GBA with old, DS/PSP onwards with new?