LogFAQs > #953385304

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!!
xp1337 04/29/21 10:08:37 PM #259:	All right, so here's my retrospective criticism on how noms went down here. I have two main points here: 30 noms is too much, but the more important point is I think the lock phase really messed things up on several levels. I think the part that's obvious to everyone is that it kinda just brought the momentum to a halt in the second week, with it never really picking up again until the last hour or two for the final rush. I honestly think the lock phase had a really bad impact on the nom phase in general. By creating a "halfway point rush" I think it totally screwed up the standing of the nominations that just loomed over the remaining proceedings. Because it was a rush-type event you had people abandoning songs waaaay too early, both in terms of time and support status, all to chase the locks and for the most part things didn't snap back afterwards so you had a bunch of songs consigned to the graveyard with a decent cluster that tried to boost towards the lock but didn't make it making them all look like lost causes. All this happening in the first week, where we had like 900 songs because of the combination of nom expansion and an influx of new people. My answer, to be honest, is just to get rid of locking. However, since I know that's unpopular, I'll workshop some alternate ideas. I think if you want to retain locking then your goal has to be to try and prevent the target number from being all that obtainable. 6 was far, far too low. In retrospect, I think it should have been 9 or even 10. No way the hosts could know that of course, but that's why I think the answer is get rid of it entirely to remove it from the equation. Heck, even then I feel like all the new participants greatly changed the "meta" so for all I know even those numbers would be chased. tl;dr: I think locking caused most nominations to be abandoned/given up as hopeless way, way earlier than they should have been considered such and is a bad idea in the current environment. I'd get rid of it, but if you really want to keep it you should raise the target number considerably and probably move it closer to the actual end of noms. Like 2-3 days before or something. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:953385304] in [VGMC] Vid... [t:79384337]...</cite> <quote>All right, so here's my retrospective criticism on how noms went down here. I have two main points here: 30 noms is too much, but the more important point is I think the lock phase really messed things up on several levels. I think the part that's obvious to everyone is that it kinda just brought the momentum to a halt in the second week, with it never really picking up again until the last hour or two for the final rush. I honestly think the lock phase had a really bad impact on the nom phase in general. By creating a "halfway point rush" I think it totally screwed up the standing of the nominations that just loomed over the remaining proceedings. Because it was a rush-type event you had people abandoning songs waaaay too early, both in terms of time and support status, all to chase the locks and for the most part things didn't snap back afterwards so you had a bunch of songs consigned to the graveyard with a decent cluster that tried to boost towards the lock but didn't make it making them all look like lost causes. All this happening in the first week, where we had like 900 songs because of the combination of nom expansion and an influx of new people. My answer, to be honest, is just to get rid of locking. However, since I know that's unpopular, I'll workshop some alternate ideas. I think if you want to retain locking then your goal has to be to try and prevent the target number from being all that obtainable. 6 was far, far too low. In retrospect, I think it should have been 9 or even 10. No way the hosts could know that of course, but that's why I think the answer is get rid of it entirely to remove it from the equation. Heck, even then I feel like all the new participants greatly changed the "meta" so for all I know even those numbers would be chased. tl;dr: I think locking caused most nominations to be abandoned/given up as hopeless way, way earlier than they should have been considered such and is a bad idea in the current environment. I'd get rid of it, but if you really want to keep it you should raise the target number considerably and probably move it closer to the actual end of noms. Like 2-3 days before or something. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1