LogFAQs


Board 8 > [VGMC] Video Game Music Contest 17 announcement!! Noms are 4/19!!

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2
banshiryuu
04/12/23 12:12:24 AM
#1:


VGMC 17 nominations will open on Wednesday, April 19th at 7pm Eastern time!! The current plan is to have nominations open for 10 days, and end at the same time on Saturday, April 29th. There's a few big changes to way nominations are structured this year, so let's hop into how this shinding will go down:

Nomination Slot Decrease
The past two years we increased the total amount of nomination/supports that you can use to 30, including 25 single noms and 5 double noms. This year we're scaling it back to 20 total, 15 single and 5 double. We had a clear overabundance of nom slots going around last year with the fact that the entire field was locked so easily, so forcing everyone to be a bit more selective with their slots should help curb the madness a little bit.

Nomination Staggering Changes and the Mid-Nom Freeze
Last year, we elected to stagger the amount of unique, new nominations you could make per day to help make it easier to keep up and listen to all nominations. Despite our efforts, it seemed to be just barely feasible for the most dedicated people to actually do this, and anyone that ended up falling behind struggled to catch back up. To help those that wish to listen to everything, the trickle of nominations will be slowed down just a bit more, and the semi-impromptu nomination/support freeze that happened last year will be pre-planned instead. Here's the current calender of how nominations will be structured:

7pm Wednesday, April 19th - Nominations open, 5 unique nominations allowed with no limit to supports.
7pm Thursday, April 20th (start +24 hours) - Unique nominations raised to 10.
7pm Friday, April 21st (start +48 hours) - ALL nominations AND supports stopped. 48 hours pause enacted to let people listen to everyone's top priority nominations over the weekend.
7pm Sunday, April 23rd (start +96 hours) - Nominations and supports resume, unique nomination cap completely lifted. Go crazy!
7pm Friday, April 28th (end -24 hours) - No more songs will lock past this point if the lock cap has not already been hit.
7pm Saturday, April 29th - Nominations close!

Lock Cap
This year locks will be returning once again, but there will be a cap to the amount of songs that can lock to 128 songs. Again, further safeguard against the complete locking of the field that we had last year. Because of the existence of the cap, there will no longer be a timed deadline for locks. To keep things easier to deal with, locks will no longer happen in the last 24 hours of nominations even if this cap is not actually met by that time.

Bracket: Tiebreaker Safeguards
Last year we passed up on actually implementing any sort of safeguard for if a match went into too many tiebreakers, and we once again had some stubborn matches crop up, so this year there actually will be a plan! Should any match reach a second tiebreaker (or in other words if a match is run for a third time) and that match remains tied when voting ends, rather than the match ending normally, all current votes in the match will be locked in (this includes if you take a vote off and make it a "no vote") and voting will be extended through the next day and anyone that had not yet voted will be allowed to do so. The match will be appended to the next day's matches and new votes will be taken in the new thread. The match will continue to be open for as long as a tie may persist at a match day's rollover. Keeping to a time-based closing was chosen over "the next vote decides it" so as to prevent funny business like someone getting a friend to hop in and decide it.

I know this may be a lot to drop just a week before I'm looking to opening nominations, which... is pretty much all my fault cause it took me a while to iron some details out and then I got sick right before Easter weekend that meant I didn't get it up when I wanted to lol. So sorry if this is super sudden for some people!! But I do want to start earlier rather than later to minimize chances that the contest runs over time in the summer where I will be very, very busy. Hope you all will forgive me when we make this the best VGMC yet!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
-hotdogturtle--
04/12/23 12:13:13 AM
#2:


ooo

---
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC
... Copied to Clipboard!
Chaeix
04/12/23 12:23:22 AM
#3:


helllll yeah

---
we're all buds~jc~
<DeathChicken> you are my hero for being the first person to cite National Geographic in Mercs
... Copied to Clipboard!
TeamRocketElite
04/12/23 12:24:04 AM
#4:


Any chance nominations can close one day later to add an extra weekend day to listen to nominations?

---
My bracket looked like random picks compared to his.
Congrats to azuarc for winning the GotD 2020 Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PIayer_0
04/12/23 12:32:21 AM
#5:


To clarify because people have been confused by this: 15 single and 5 double means you can nominate 20 unique songs.

---
-Abraham Lincoln
... Copied to Clipboard!
azuarc
04/12/23 12:45:54 AM
#6:


I didn't hear you mention the tiebreaker method in chat the other day, so I'm glad to hear you've also worked this out.

---
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Isquen
04/12/23 1:17:01 AM
#7:


Ah, balls, I'll be at work :(

---
[Rock and Stone] <o/
... Copied to Clipboard!
FL81
04/12/23 1:18:33 AM
#8:


Still not a fan of locks, but these changes sound good

---
https://i.imgur.com/TGkNCva.gif
... Copied to Clipboard!
Hbthebattle
04/12/23 1:22:59 AM
#9:


Because of the existence of the cap, there will no longer be a timed deadline for locks. To keep things easier to deal with, locks will no longer happen in the last 24 hours of nominations even if this cap is not actually met by that time.
this kinda just seems like a lock deadline with extra steps

---
:)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Hbthebattle
04/12/23 1:26:59 AM
#10:


Also, is there a reason not to start the new tiebreaker system for all ties instead of just the 2nd?

---
:)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Haste_2
04/12/23 1:40:25 AM
#11:


Very nice!

---
"Ah, a party! We haven't had one of those. It could be fun! So... what is a party?"
"You drink punch and eat CAKE! ...I think."
... Copied to Clipboard!
MacArrowny
04/12/23 1:51:32 AM
#12:


Cool beans, though I actually like all locks ;p

---
All the stars in the sky are waiting for you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/12/23 2:24:15 AM
#13:


i hate the current interpretation of the lock system tbh, the whole point of it was to merely protect songs that were considered """safe""" ie. stuff at the top of the nomcount sheet right off the bat from the inevitable actions of people deciding to drop them for that reason, not for pushing people to support anything they see before they even listen to other noms so it can make the guaranteed in cut in time

if the requirement isn't at least bumped up to a minimum of 8 i'll be mad
... Copied to Clipboard!
andylt
04/12/23 6:26:56 AM
#14:


Ah a 7pm Eastern start time is much more doable for me, I really appreciate that change! Fewer noms is probably wise too, but now I have to work harder at cutting my own noms down to a reasonable size. Gah!

UF8 posted...
i hate the current interpretation of the lock system tbh, the whole point of it was to merely protect songs that were considered """safe""" ie. stuff at the top of the nomcount sheet right off the bat from the inevitable actions of people deciding to drop them for that reason, not for pushing people to support anything they see before they even listen to other noms so it can make the guaranteed in cut in time

if the requirement isn't at least bumped up to a minimum of 8 i'll be mad
A system I stole from lefty for the contest I ran was to disallow people dropping noms for the last 24/48 hours, with the idea it'd stop 'safe' entries collapsing out at the last second. But that has its own drawbacks too. I guess the hope here is that having fewer total noms will encourage people to be more discerning and not jump to lock in songs they know they like, though maybe it'll work the other way and everyone locks stuff in too early. Who knows!

---
Very very slowly becoming a Final Fantasy aficionado.
... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword
04/12/23 6:44:12 AM
#15:


Tag. Probably can't effectively participate in noms this year due to real life stuff but if nothing else I'll be around for the contest itself.

---
I didn't do guru this year but azuarc can be in my sig anyways.
... Copied to Clipboard!
rwlh
04/12/23 12:53:11 PM
#16:


Hooray!
... Copied to Clipboard!
OrangeCrush980
04/12/23 1:31:59 PM
#17:


Sounds good!

---
"You can learn to believe in others... ...even in the final moments of your life!"
- ????, Yakuza 3
... Copied to Clipboard!
Haste_2
04/12/23 10:23:55 PM
#18:


UF8 posted...
i hate the current interpretation of the lock system tbh, the whole point of it was to merely protect songs that were considered """safe""" ie. stuff at the top of the nomcount sheet right off the bat from the inevitable actions of people deciding to drop them for that reason, not for pushing people to support anything they see before they even listen to other noms so it can make the guaranteed in cut in time

if the requirement isn't at least bumped up to a minimum of 8 i'll be mad

I agree, in a nutshell. I think locking nominations should come at a price. That way the music that doesn't lock can get in with fewer noms--a benefit for songs having no security. That way people would hesitate on whether it's actually worth it to lock a song.

If we have, say, 90 nominators (hopefully this is an overestimate) who each have 25 noms, then assuming every available nom gets used and with absolute max efficiency (meaning every nom is used on the 256 qualifiying songs), that's an average of 8.79 noms per qualifying song. Of course, we're not going to be perfectly efficient, and 85.2% is the highest nom usage % we've had. If we assume 90% of noms are used with perfect efficiency considering that (which means 90% efficiency for ALL available), that drops us to about 7.91 noms per qualifying song.

The highest efficiency we've had is 72.7% in VGMC14 (granted, the efficiency % can't explain the rush to get everything locked in VGMC16--and if it weren't for the locks, we would have seen an efficiency much higher than 61.3%). I guess if you took the 8.79 noms and reduced the efficiency to 72.7%, it would suggest....6.39 noms for a song to qualify? (assuming my calculations are correct)

Keeping in mind my suggestion that locking should come at a price, 8 noms to lock sounds good to me! Of course, that may mean it will only take 5 or 6 noms to qualify without locking, but that's how I would like it!

I mean, I wish we could have the ideal setting of being able to lock music fairly easily--it's nice to get something in easily AND secured. This worked in VGMC 14 and 15. But with the large amount of music getting nominated and with nomination efficiency improving every year (plus with people rushing to lock things more and more), it is unfortunately not possible anymore, unless we want a mad rush of noms to lock music like last contest (OR if we had more than 256 songs in the tournament...)

---
"Ah, a party! We haven't had one of those. It could be fun! So... what is a party?"
"You drink punch and eat CAKE! ...I think."
... Copied to Clipboard!
PIayer_0
04/12/23 11:26:29 PM
#19:


Brief thoughts (not locking-specific): Rules sound reasonable enough, I'd feel bad asking deo to shove in a big change 7 days before we start. Again, I suggest waiting until day 2 to decide the lock limit.

It'd be nice to do "pre-announcement" topics in the future, so we could arrange major changes 2-3 months before, if needed. Otherwise ideas just end up forgotten - last year's talks of triple/quadruple nominations were really interesting!

I think 128 locks is a good thing to try, just not a long-term solution. The more nomination phases you add, the more rules you give people to worry about. We have to track locked songs because 128 locks could happen anytime, then we have to track headcounts because the cutoff could end anywhere! Basically my two core principles are straightforward rules (so we're accessible to newcomers) and interesting changes (to keep things fresh for veterans, and create opportunities for new songs in a system where they might be "stronger").

I don't think last year's nominations were necessarily a problem, there's last-minute madness whether you do full locks or full bubbling out, as long as ya put a big-ass warning for people so they're mentally prepared!

---
-Abraham Lincoln
... Copied to Clipboard!
azuarc
04/13/23 12:02:24 AM
#20:


The idea of raising the lock limit was something that was definitely hashed out in discord. I argued it should be higher, deo countered that we're cutting the number of voters-per-person considerably and that there's a hard cap on the number of locked songs, and I acquiesced. I'm willing to see how this rendition turns out.

Deo intended on getting up an announcement topic earlier, but had logistical issues.

The issue with last year wasn't singularly that the field fully locked -- though some will find that objectionable -- but rather than it happened at an unpredictable time when not everyone could be present. And with a fully quantity-oriented lock system, there's no way to make that predictable.

---
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Haste_2
04/13/23 12:56:32 AM
#21:


The highest efficiency we've had is 72.7% in VGMC14

Clarification: that's the % of used noms going toward songs that made the cut. If you divide by all noms it's more like 58%.

---
"Ah, a party! We haven't had one of those. It could be fun! So... what is a party?"
"You drink punch and eat CAKE! ...I think."
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 1:24:41 AM
#22:


thinking about maybe pushing forward a few experimental things next year, if the position is open i might even do it myself but otherwise i'm just going to put this here so i can ideally check archives later on for such a pre-announcement topic

15 nom cap, 3 per day, unlimited supports though and doubles can only be given to supports (and only after the break, max 5 and cannot be dropped so people have to really make them count)

longer "break" period from after day 5 through to about day 10 (may actually allow people to add songs from this point (with daily cap lifted) from here if they haven't used all their nom slots yet and link changes are still allowed, but no drops or supports). not really the same thing as the existing break period that got implemented currently since i'm worried it'll reduce interest if there's just a complete lot of nothing happening for that many days, but should still achieve the intended effect of just giving people sufficient time to simply take note of everything

lock system is replaced with a protection system where every song within the top 16 (first 5 days)/32 (last 5 days) by nomcount (including songs tied with them past that) at the end of each day cannot be dropped by any nominators or supporters. (applies for every day, may only apply to ones at like 3 noms or more so it could be less than 16 on day 1/2)

15 week nom period overall, nom cap lifting still in effect after break for final 5 days

in other words, it'd be a half-month long nom period in 3 key phases for 5 days each
  • first 5 days have max 3 noms per day, unlimited supports, no doubles allowed, and can only drop and replace noms and supports that aren't in the top 16(ish) on the sheet for most noms/supports when tallied at the end of the prior day* (link adjustments can be made at any time though and can also be requested by others)
  • second 5 days have nom caps lifted (still 15 total) so anyone can use the rest of their slots if they didn't already or adjust links, but nobody can support or drop anything. users who nominated at least 1 song with spare slots will be pinged during this time
  • third 5 days still have no limit on noms per day (still 15 total), unlimited supports, doubles allowed only for supports (5 total), nom drop rule from day 1-5 still applies but it's top 32 instead because there will obviously be higher nom and support counts then and also nobody can drop doubles
*i think this is how it is anyway but if the nominator drops it (has to be out of the top 16/32 of course and not during day 6-10) and there's a support left there, will still count as an active nom just without it going toward's the nominator's nomcount (or the supporter's obv, though it would still count towards double support limits in the last 5 days)

maybe lock system could actually exist in this system, just as a fixed "songs in the top (low number) when the break period happens" kind of thing, though i'm still not the biggest fan of doing anything to encourage what i mentioned before

i will admit this is also a rather complicated system compared to the existing one even if i think it reduces stress overall (not having to worry about balancing supports into the total, not having to worry about the impact of the cutoff while still addressing key issues with drops) and i spent extremely little time thinking about it so uhhh WIP?
... Copied to Clipboard!
Chaeix
04/13/23 1:26:06 AM
#23:


UF8 posted...
15 week nom period overall
i think you made a typo here

---
we're all buds~jc~
<DeathChicken> you are my hero for being the first person to cite National Geographic in Mercs
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 5:41:20 AM
#24:


lol oops true i was thinking about putting 2 week and 1 day but then changed it to 15 days and messed up (i had to head out immediately after posting so i'm glad i didn't make any more egregious errors). truthfully the main reason i made it 15 was because i was also spinning an idea in my head to also do 1 lock per day in the third phase but that seemed too inconvenient and really it doesn't actually need to be 5 days
... Copied to Clipboard!
Hbthebattle
04/13/23 8:00:38 AM
#25:


tbh i'd honestly prefer it if we just did away with the old rush entirely and it was just locks

---
:)
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 8:13:14 AM
#26:


i heavily disagree because it again just rewards people for supporting before listening
... Copied to Clipboard!
th3l3fty
04/13/23 8:22:51 AM
#27:


a full lock system just incentivizes people pushing their nominations before they even start, so if your goal is to lock out people who aren't paying full attention to this all the time, that's a great way to go about it

I feel like it's important to remember that nominations should be designed to allow variety into the field, not to make sure the most devoted followers get in as many songs as possible

---
thelefty for analysis crew 2008 imo -transience
I have a third degree burn in flame-o-nomics -Sir Chris
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 8:33:15 AM
#28:


well, i think marketing planned noms (in modest ways, of course, not literal collusion) has always been a vital crutch for vgmc all along, especially now that we're so far distanced from the point where it was possible to just get something in off your own double alone. sharing stuff to put it on other people's radars isn't something i consider a bad thing, when many will avoid giving stuff they haven't already heard even a passing glance

but yeah lock system is rally central lol and truly minimising its effects is what i want to see
... Copied to Clipboard!
Hbthebattle
04/13/23 9:17:27 AM
#29:


yeah well the old system means that you can't have any form of safety - it forces people to act mercenary in a way locks don't. If you hate when popular songs get nommed late, that's worse when locks aren't involved before formerly safe songs can be dropped.

---
:)
... Copied to Clipboard!
NFUN
04/13/23 9:34:54 AM
#30:


Haste_2 posted...
I agree, in a nutshell. I think locking nominations should come at a price. That way the music that doesn't lock can get in with fewer noms--a benefit for songs having no security. That way people would hesitate on whether it's actually worth it to lock a song.

If we have, say, 90 nominators (hopefully this is an overestimate) who each have 25 noms, then assuming every available nom gets used and with absolute max efficiency (meaning every nom is used on the 256 qualifiying songs), that's an average of 8.79 noms per qualifying song. Of course, we're not going to be perfectly efficient, and 85.2% is the highest nom usage % we've had. If we assume 90% of noms are used with perfect efficiency considering that (which means 90% efficiency for ALL available), that drops us to about 7.91 noms per qualifying song.

The highest efficiency we've had is 72.7% in VGMC14 (granted, the efficiency % can't explain the rush to get everything locked in VGMC16--and if it weren't for the locks, we would have seen an efficiency much higher than 61.3%). I guess if you took the 8.79 noms and reduced the efficiency to 72.7%, it would suggest....6.39 noms for a song to qualify? (assuming my calculations are correct)

Keeping in mind my suggestion that locking should come at a price, 8 noms to lock sounds good to me! Of course, that may mean it will only take 5 or 6 noms to qualify without locking, but that's how I would like it!

I mean, I wish we could have the ideal setting of being able to lock music fairly easily--it's nice to get something in easily AND secured. This worked in VGMC 14 and 15. But with the large amount of music getting nominated and with nomination efficiency improving every year (plus with people rushing to lock things more and more), it is unfortunately not possible anymore, unless we want a mad rush of noms to lock music like last contest (OR if we had more than 256 songs in the tournament...)


---
What can the harvest hope for if not for the care of the Reaper Man?
... Copied to Clipboard!
Haste_2
04/13/23 11:03:08 AM
#31:


The highest efficiency we've had is 72.7% in VGMC14 (granted, the efficiency % can't explain the rush to get everything locked in VGMC16--and if it weren't for the locks, we would have seen an efficiency much higher than 61.3%). I guess if you took the 8.79 noms and reduced the efficiency to 72.7%, it would suggest....6.39 noms for a song to qualify? (assuming my calculations are correct)

Whoops! The nom efficiency in VGMC14 was 58.5%. (58.5% of ALL noms, but 72.7% of USED noms) That would suggest 5.14 noms to qualify, not 6.39. So, six noms for locking may not be so low, after all, even after accounting for increased efficiency. If I were in charge I think I'd go with seven noms to lock a song, not eight....

---
"Ah, a party! We haven't had one of those. It could be fun! So... what is a party?"
"You drink punch and eat CAKE! ...I think."
... Copied to Clipboard!
azuarc
04/13/23 11:06:14 AM
#32:


Annual reminder that gamefaqs accounts have to be opened and looked at daily for three days prior to being able to post.

---
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 11:25:10 AM
#33:


Hbthebattle posted...
If you hate when popular songs get nommed late, that's worse when locks aren't involved before formerly safe songs can be dropped.
i think i get what you're maybe saying here, you don't like my current idea of what should be treated as "safe" with just 16+ and 32+ songs each day, and that it'd protect only popular (especially penultimate day bandwagoned) songs rather than actual bubble ones? it's a difficult matter to find a good balance for and as mentioned i hadn't given it considerable thought yet... having said that, lock system is honestly even more vulnerable to mainstream songs getting rallies since the criteria for getting in is literally just "first x number of songs to get bandwagon get in" and wanting the entire field to be done that way (again) is just torture to me. as mentioned by others all it actually achieves is setting it so people can be less prepared for the still completely inevitable late rush, giving agency (over last minute bandwagons and over metagaming the bulk of the field at the most critical point) exclusively to those who happen to be free at the time and at the expense of those denied a realistic way to plan around it. sure it wouldn't be as flat out horrible as last year's situation with people being misled that it still wouldn't lock up to mere hours before it all did (also obligatory shoutouts to those who lied about songs they didn't want in being locked in the end rush so nobody would bother i still can't believe that happened, even if i can sympathise with trying to reduce the agency of those like me who were also around during the end from pushing them it was also super scummy in its own right and can absolutely be abused to further screw over those not present too), but i don't think for even a second that it's any more fair than having an actually set end time that everyone is able to plan around in advance

i'm not opposed to the theoretical "lock" system mind you where there are just several periods where the top say 32 songs each day or so get locked in till it's all filled up, it would also help spread out the rush so it's not all just 1 critical point (it'd probably have to be after an early nom period similar to this one though with a break before things can be locked tbh)
... Copied to Clipboard!
th3l3fty
04/13/23 11:35:25 AM
#34:


I like the idea of having a lock time instead of a lock number, but (without thinking too much about the potential consequences), I'd favor having one big lock time where all locks happen at once and you just lock in whatever's at the top right then and there

I have no doubts this has its own flaws (what system doesn't?), but the concept appeals to me more than setting an arbitrary number that could very easily turn out to be too high/low because it's impossible to perfectly anticipate participation

---
thelefty for analysis crew 2008 imo -transience
I have a third degree burn in flame-o-nomics -Sir Chris
... Copied to Clipboard!
UF8
04/13/23 11:42:39 AM
#35:


yeah lock number is its own problem in its own right (especially in the current contest form where it is only half the field so there's going to be a lot of... unnatural nom placement movements affecting the nom period well before the end) which is why i advocate putting it at an unrealistic value so as to discourage people from metagaming it specifically
... Copied to Clipboard!
-hotdogturtle--
04/13/23 2:29:23 PM
#36:


I also thought that locks made more sense (for their originally intended purpose) when they were a reward for exceptionally popular songs and not "the primary way of getting songs in", but limiting them to 50% of the field somewhat mitigates that problem even if the issues still exist for those 128 songs. A whole other 128 songs nominated by classic votes/bubble is still a fairly large amount. (And for people who participated in the full lock fest last year, having 128 non-locked songs will probably feel even bigger in comparison)

---
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC
... Copied to Clipboard!
Chaeix
04/13/23 2:34:24 PM
#37:


i think having the lock at 7 is fine - then it requires at least 4 independent nominators and 3 really caring to lock

6 is prob still too low

---
we're all buds~jc~
<DeathChicken> you are my hero for being the first person to cite National Geographic in Mercs
... Copied to Clipboard!
-hotdogturtle--
04/13/23 2:50:29 PM
#38:


Does the first post not mention what the lock requirement is?

---
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC
... Copied to Clipboard!
MacArrowny
04/13/23 2:59:55 PM
#39:


What was the number required for locks last year? Going 1 higher than that makes sense I'd think.

---
All the stars in the sky are waiting for you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
barreldragon88
04/13/23 5:43:28 PM
#40:


MacArrowny posted...
What was the number required for locks last year? Going 1 higher than that makes sense I'd think.
It's been 6 for a while, hasn't it?

I had been searching for "vgmc" for the past few days, was just a tad early for this topic. 20 noms means a lot more careful picking needs to happen

---
Long live Saint Seiya!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
azuarc
04/14/23 1:59:50 AM
#41:


-hotdogturtle-- posted...
Does the first post not mention what the lock requirement is?

It is planned for 6, like last year, except with significantly fewer supports per person.

---
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
... Copied to Clipboard!
andylt
04/14/23 1:58:14 PM
#42:


How high does the lock count need to be to stop Best is Yet to Come and Reach for the Moon making the contest? I vote we change it to that.

---
Very very slowly becoming a Final Fantasy aficionado.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Arti
04/14/23 2:07:34 PM
#43:


6 limit should be fine with the reduced amount of nominations.

---
http://backloggery.com/articuno2001/sig.gif
... Copied to Clipboard!
rwlh
04/15/23 10:33:14 AM
#44:


up
... Copied to Clipboard!
Chaeix
04/15/23 10:11:40 PM
#45:


is it possible to get a sample nomination so that we can prepare formatting in advance properly?

i forget the format and i just realized i'm going to be finishing a physio appt right at 7EST on wednesday so i want to be able to c/p lol

---
we're all buds~jc~
<DeathChicken> you are my hero for being the first person to cite National Geographic in Mercs
... Copied to Clipboard!
MaxGalactica
04/15/23 10:27:45 PM
#46:


+ [game] | [song] | [link]

---
Don't trust everything that you read on the Internet.
-Abraham Lincoln
... Copied to Clipboard!
Chaeix
04/15/23 10:46:25 PM
#47:


ty ty

---
we're all buds~jc~
<DeathChicken> you are my hero for being the first person to cite National Geographic in Mercs
... Copied to Clipboard!
rwlh
04/16/23 1:33:16 PM
#48:


up again
... Copied to Clipboard!
banshiryuu
04/17/23 1:15:24 AM
#49:


Three more days!!!

Meant to respond a bit more here earlier but I think other people have pretty much summed up all my reasoning already lol. I was flip-flopping between 6 and 7 for a while and decided sticking at 6 was best when we're slashing everyone's available nominations by a third, and I also don't anticipate that big an influx of new nominators like the past few years. (Also I did forget to state lock cap was sticking at 6 oops lmfao but yes that is correct its still 6)
... Copied to Clipboard!
PIayer_0
04/17/23 11:50:07 AM
#50:


An idea I've been playing with is a "group photo" or "postcard" of this community's favourite VGM, something specifically visual rather than spreadsheets and playlists. So this year's experiment will be using https://topsters.org/ to compile all day 1 nominators using their first-slot song! I tried it on last year (with minimal proofreading) and got a nice 74-sized chart:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/2/4/AAVhdjAAEZCU.jpg
If people are interested enough to care this year, I can let you choose a different nomination and thumbnail to represent yourself (https://topsters.org/ works well because it has a game database, and lets you upload custom thumbnails).

This is really just a proof of concept though, my ultimate vision is a nicely-designed chart (not Topster) with each user's pick of *any* VGM! The idea is to be a visual snapshot of the community, with each song coming together to paint a picture of "Board 8 VGM." Let's see how this year's trial run goes!

---
-Abraham Lincoln
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2