Jason Covenant

Hey, just a few little discrepancies in the score. In the vote tallies, Neblix's vote is shown as: 1. Far From Home 2. The Root of All Things 3. Wily's Inferno The vote in the voting thread is: Neblix 1. Far From Home 2. Wily's Inferno 3. Shadows of Wily And also cobaltstarfire's vote. In the vote tallies, his vote is displayed as: 1. Attracted to Power 2. Shadows of Wily 3. No Ticket! But his vote in the thread is: cobaltstarfire 1. Attracted to Power 2. Willy's Inferno 3. No Ticket! Also, Geoffio is in Cold Steel and did vote, so Mr. X was Wily the WHOLE TIME needs another 3 points. Geoffio's team is currently blank. Normally little discrepancies like this wouldn't change anything. But in this case, it may affect some rankings. It would affect Shadows of Wily and Light Your Way. It would also mean that Mr. X was Wily the WHOLE TIME is not tied with whatever.jpg. Oh, and here's the result of the popular vote: http://jasoncovenant.com/wcrg-scores

I like that theme. =) Let me talk to my team and we'll see who's up this week.

:( :( :( Can't blame you for having to drop out. Still sad to see you go.

Another game I felt had a good story was IceWind Dale 2. Come to think of it, it's probably my favorite rpg. I liked the optional back story you could delve into with the tomes you'd find in the game.

I realize mine is a minority view. That doesn't render it invalid.

It's not? Well I'm confused then. Oh hold on, just googled it. So Mario was a communist. Guess that makes more sense than how I interpreted it. I haven't gotten into many games with an in-depth story. There are a few exceptions, like FF8 which I thought had a great story.

Except for Stabby McFlutters of course.

How about Super Mario Brothers? It's a game that takes place within the twisted mind of an Italian plumber as he battles bizarre creatures and sexual frustration. His fantasies include his other personality, Luigi, a taller, thinner version of himself, and an evil turtle king. Like in many dreams, the plumber imagines himself capable of great power, able to throw fire and slaughter countless enemies. And even though he dies, he is able to return and keep fighting many times as though nothing happened. As the game progresses, you delve deeper into his perverse psyche as you try to make sense of the surreal world inhabiting his mind. He conquers castle after castle, only to be told that the "princess is in another castle," symbolizing his real life struggles with impotence and rejection.

Try this: Take a bottle hit sound and add some very wet, medium-length, bright reverb on it. Then compress the hell out of it. You will have a new flute. Example: http://jasoncovenant.com/dream-an-eastern-shore

I would do it. But Darkesword has already chosen his system. I'm ready to move on and just keep my own tallies.

I disagree. Voter participation levels can affect in results in any compo, not just multi-round compos. That's not something you can eliminate or normalize without seriously distorting results in a different direction. Case in point, making half the entries automatically tie. I still believe that getting the points you actually get is fairest. And I don't think we should think only of the feelings of remixers, what about voters? What if they vote for the bottom 50%, shouldn't their votes still count? However, as I said before, you are the final arbiter of the rules and I will still participate in the compo enthusiastically. But, I will be keeping my own tally. Thank you for weighing in on this.

Is that little green light next to the fx volume on?

I am SOOO sending a zergling rush in round 4.

And I don't play games with level scaling. I like to improve and eventually be better than my enemies in the game, so I play games with rules that lead to the funnest experience. If this compo is a game, we should definitely go for the fairest rules in order to have the most fun.

You can send monopoly money over paypal, right?

Darnit Brandon, now I owe Willrock $10.

There will always be biases. But this system makes that worse. Your votes don't count unless you vote for someone that ends up in the top 3. So people, wanting their votes to have some impact, have an incentive to vote for people that are popular or they think will win, instead of who they really think should win. Don't you think a fun competition should have some basis in merit? If your goal is to end this conversation, I'm curious to know what you expected to accomplish just now by adding to it. You don't need to read any more posts about this discussion. You can ignore it and focus on other things if you wish.

Np. I've been thinking of ways to do it in as clear a manner as possible. I'm open to suggestions. Ok. Expect a pm from me in the near future. Bug me if I forget.

I think that's one of the best and most important parts of these compos. Both written reviews and votes are great forms of feedback and can help people realize what they are doing wrong and what they're doing right. I'm sorry I didn't post any last round. I started some, but didn't finish before the start of the second round. Seems a little late now. If anyone wants a review on their track, feel free to ask.

That's the point. And those opinions, no matter how subjective should still count. The problem with the current system is that some votes won't count at all.

That may very well be what happens. I don't think it's darkesword's intention to disenfranchise anyone or introduce unfairness. It is my hope that he adopts a system where votes equal points and the person you vote for gets the points you allot to them. And if darke does keep the current system but most people rely on the actual tally, what does that say about the current system? What purpose does it have if no one follows its results? If darkesword doesn't I'll still be keeping a tally. I'll also give individual round rankings. No worries. The info will be available regardless. I suggest you read the thread before responding... Unfortunately for all of us, that is the case. At least second place is still available.

=) I realize a few people have made comments about "venting" or whatever, but I'm of the opinion that people have been very mature about this. Honestly, when I first saw the discussion I expected things to get way out of hand, but I think people have been for the most part very adult and respectful in this discussion. Even if darke decides to go with a system where everyone gets zero points and Stabby Mcflutters the spider monkey gets 35834545 each round round, I'd still eagerly participate in the compo. In that same breath, I'd still keep score so people can track progress and so that I can at least pretend that my 2nd and 3rd place votes counted. (In the current system, they don't. Both Sir Nuts and Lidawg got 1 point.) Either way, everything will work out and people will still have fun. I just think they'd have more fun with a system with a 1:1 ratio of votes to points. 1 vote, 1 point.

Both systems give zero points to those that don't submit. This has no bearing on rounds when they do submit. If getting zero points discourages a team in one system, it'll discourage them in another. Zero is zero.

Tell you what then, let's take the vote totals and divide them by 100. So halc actually got .64 in the first round. That means that even a team with zero points is less than 1 point off from winning. Wouldn't that be even better than what you're suggesting? I mean, everyone's score would be super close. My point is, it doesn't matter that the current system uses smaller values. What matters is proportions.

Darkesword has an account on ocr. He's active in this thread and will probably weigh in at some point. I don't think expressing our opinions in the public competition thread is "talking amongst ourselves" since it's in the public thread. I don't think darkesword would make a change for one person if he thought everyone else was fine with it. This is a public thread and involves discussion of the contest, including its rules. By sharing our opinions here, darkesword can see who thinks what and we can have meaningful discussion. It's not easy to come up with effective rules that everyone will be happy with. But that doesn't mean that all systems are created equally or that we should accept systems that are needlessly divisive. And expressing an opinion is not the same as "venting" which implies we're all just pissed off and taking it out on this compo. Please don't condescend that way. We just have a difference of opinion. If the goal is to keep everyone at the same score, why not just give everyone the same score every round? And it's not true anyways, since the leaders win by a much larger ratio with this system so no, it's not "anyone's contest."