LogFAQs > #952413595

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	[VGMC] Video Game Music Contest 15 announcement!! Noms are 4/15!!
PIayer_0 04/03/21 3:13:29 AM #40:	New eligibility sounds good on paper. "Part of a game's soundtrack" actually makes things easier, because like hell I'm gonna check if my songs actually play in-game instead of just looking them up on VGMdb (I'm assuming "soundtrack" means a soundtrack release here, rather than in-game soundtrack?). "Obviously intended to be for the game" is the one that could get tricky, I think just a ton of example cases would help clear that up. In general, the eligibility document should cover the most important bases, but not be so verbose that it alienates first-time participants. You might have to make some tough exclusions just to get easier-to-follow rules. Locking at 6 seems fine, but could be inaccurate in two directions. If people coordinate their votes together really well, 6 is too low and everything gets locked. It's not a problem on its own, but you get burned if you didn't have time to listen to noms as quickly as everyone else, and were relying on the post-lock days to catch up and start supporting. If people don't coordinate, 6 is too high because the final cutoff will be 4-ish and those who committed to locks feel like they were misled by the initial target. You can make an easy adjustment here by saying that 6 is tentative and subject to change at the end of day 1. Now you can actually tally the number of participants and tweak if needed, and it's not like nominators care about the exact threshold during day 1. I think there's more to play around with in the locking system...maybe it's best considered for next year. Last year had talks of just having a single locking deadline with no post-lock period, and I don't think that necessarily eliminates the thrill of the endgame rush. You're still racing against the shrinking pool of vacancies, or the deadline itself (whichever comes first). We can extend by a day if the bracket doesn't get filled, maybe kill the 1/x and 2/x's if you really want things to get moving. Just feels like a more straightforward system than dealing with a continuously rising cutoff. --- -Abraham Lincoln <cite>PIayer_0 posted [p:952413595] in [VGMC] Vid... [t:79384337]...</cite> <quote>New eligibility sounds good on paper. "Part of a game's soundtrack" actually makes things easier, because like hell I'm gonna check if my songs actually play in-game instead of just looking them up on VGMdb (I'm assuming "soundtrack" means a soundtrack release here, rather than in-game soundtrack?). "Obviously intended to be for the game" is the one that could get tricky, I think just a ton of example cases would help clear that up. In general, the eligibility document should cover the most important bases, but not be so verbose that it alienates first-time participants. You might have to make some tough exclusions just to get easier-to-follow rules. Locking at 6 seems fine, but could be inaccurate in two directions. If people coordinate their votes together really well, 6 is too low and everything gets locked. It's not a problem on its own, but you get burned if you didn't have time to listen to noms as quickly as everyone else, and were relying on the post-lock days to catch up and start supporting. If people don't coordinate, 6 is too high because the final cutoff will be 4-ish and those who committed to locks feel like they were misled by the initial target. You can make an easy adjustment here by saying that 6 is tentative and subject to change at the end of day 1. Now you can actually tally the number of participants and tweak if needed, and it's not like nominators care about the exact threshold during day 1. I think there's more to play around with in the locking system...maybe it's best considered for next year. Last year had talks of just having a single locking deadline with no post-lock period, and I don't think that necessarily eliminates the thrill of the endgame rush. You're still racing against the shrinking pool of vacancies, or the deadline itself (whichever comes first). We can extend by a day if the bracket doesn't get filled, maybe kill the 1/x and 2/x's if you really want things to get moving. Just feels like a more straightforward system than dealing with a continuously rising cutoff. --- -Abraham Lincoln</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1