Jump to content

guillavoie

Events Team
  • Posts

    986
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9
  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by guillavoie

  1. 19 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

    That's why I figured the progress still mattered.  3-2 is further than 3-1, and should be treated as such.  The tie-breaker is then the time. Otherwise, what's the point of putting a 3-2 finish in if the guy that died at the start of 3-1 is gonna have a better time overall than the one who actually made it further into the game?

    Yes, that's what I think too, I just think Bea forgot to mention the sub-stages in the rules, hence why I'm not taking any chance for now and asked NesFiend to post both of his runs.

  2. 1 hour ago, NESfiend said:

    @BeaIank @guillavoie

    Does 3-1 vs 3-2 make any difference in scoring? I don't want to update to a lower score. Also, 3 is stupidly difficult. I have really enjoyed the game though. 

    The way the rules are worded, I would say that there's no difference between a 3-1 and 3-2 run, you have to add 10:00 minutes for not beating stage 3. But, just in case, post both of your runs so we can decide which of them is the best.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 33 minutes ago, 0xDEAFC0DE said:

    I don't think that matters much for the actual fight if you don't care about losing a second. All it adds is an extra jump to the start. The key to the rest of the fight seems to be avoiding damage and manipulating jokers position.

    25 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

    Yeah, I'm not worrying about a single second - that'll be moot if I can't no-death the game.

    You guys are summing up, what I do think, is essential to tackle this challenge correctly!

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Dr. Morbis said:

    @BeaIank I just recorded a test video for Batman with my shitty old digital camera, but it looks like it's going to be 80 mb per minute.  Can I post my final submission on another site (like youtube, unless someone has a better idea) and then link to it here?  This is the only way you'll be able to see that my run is legit; failing that, I'd have to do the separate picture of a timer on the honour system rigamarole...

     

    Yes, you can upload it on youtube (or any other video hosting sites) and post the link here!

    This is actually the best way to check your time.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  5. 10 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

    @guillavoie I for one am pleased with that resolution.  However, I still stand by my voluntary withdrawal from the competition.  While I wouldn't have been able to respond to @bertsampson's score with the remaining time, I also likely wouldn't have bothered even if I had the time, as the prospect of playing through the game again was, frankly, a thought I did not relish.  If his score is considered valid, then I lost fair and square.  Thank you for stepping in, as I really only wanted a fair resolution to this whole debacle.  And I do want to reiterate as well that, despite my tone, I have no ill feelings toward you OR @BeaIank.  I look forward to next year's competition!

    Man, it is totally up to you to participate or not in the round 2 competition, and I will respect your decision whatever you decide. But, by principle, we will leave the opportunity open for you to join in all week long, only because it is what was judged as the best resolution for the situation. If you don't post a score, then the result will be that you accepted the first round elimination and nothing will be affected for the other players.

    But, you sure know that I wish you'd play, haha!

  6. 2 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

    @guillavoie: just for clarification's sake, am I to understand that the 1 v 1 bracketing is over and we are strictly going with top 4 overall scores go to the final round (including your caveat for bert and wiz)?  I just want to make sure I'm 100% on that...

    Yes, no more brackets, for two reasons : 1. It allows us to make this 9 players second round exception possible. 2. In all honesty, the setup with 3 games and the fancy rules for points Bea came up with fits better in a pool elimination style round than a brackets round.

    I'm very happy to hear that you are satisfied with my arbitration, and I now thank you for weighting your opinion prior in the thread as it did gave me some good points to consider.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. I also take the time to add that while this whole situation brought up some heated arguments and posts from some of the players, both Bea and I aren't taking it on a personal level. While there was indeed some abrasiveness in the tone of some of the posts, I can 100 % guarantee that a lot of the criticism and constructive comments will be taken in account when we will prepare and host next year's season. We value every players and their contribution to the contest, and this incident is something that we should construct upon to try to work for the contest in a constant betterment pattern, adjusting to what the players want and propose.

    In short, you guys still all rock!

    • Like 3
  8. Okay ladies and gentlemen, I just reviewed the whole situation and I'm ready to give what I think is the most fair arbitration I could think of to solve the situation in the best interest of everyone involved here.

    First, about @the_wizard_666 not having his full screen in his pictures : ALL his scores are still valid, including his scores in the tournament that got called out. While the writing of the rules are made to be hyper strict, common sense always guided the arbitration of this contest in a case to case manner. We accepted tons of partial screenshots in the past based on the common sense knowledge that the submission setup was easily recognizable. The Wiz's 195,900 score stands.

    Now let's get on the most complicated problem of this whole situation. The end time of this year's contests being set by Brazil time. First off, I know for sure Bea did this for some reasons, but mainly because it is part of her host personality to make things to her image, and we all appreciate that. We know for sure it was mainly for fun as the time set at first was midnight in Brazil, so it could fit with our usual 11:00 PM EST time (which IS the official VGS time) which have been our contests' end time standard for more than a decade.

    Now, I'll be plainly frank here, I personally think that the idea of the end time of the contests doesn't follow with DST and suddenly change to 10:00 EST because of that is absolutely nonsensical, especially since the contests have ended on 11:00 PM EST for so LONG!

    But let's play the game that this was in the rules so if you don't read them correctly every week (despite being the same piece of writing every damn week that shouldn't account for any major changes) than you can be in the wrong.

    For one, the change of the contest ending time from 11:00 EST to 10:00 EST was such an important change that it should have been mentioned in a totally exaggerated fashion. This thing warranted a special treatment in the rules, like using 72 pt font in red, underlined in bold characters with a million exclamation points following. This change being not given any kind of advertising puts any mistake made regarding it on us, 100 %. Not only that, but we have a history of being very reasonable on accepting slightly late submissions in the past.

    The times that we were highly strict on the ending for submission was when the late submission in question would land in the top positions on the leaderboard, which brings me to reevaluate the Holy Diver week's rankings. @PIIand @NESfiend both made late submission within the 10:00-11:00 EST frame, cause they thought that the ending was still 11:00 EST. They were basically just told 'Brasilia time doesn't follow DST so your score is invalid'. I take the liberty here to weight in on this, even weeks after the fact, to accept these scores as valid for two main reasons, and that, even if it gives that week's victory to Pii. 1. The complete lack of warning from us that the ending time was affected by the DST not being applied in Brasilia time. 2. Because it is, without a doubt, the most excusable error I have ever seen in the history of the contest to make a late submission. We will do whatever changes needed to rectify this on the geral leaderboard, the good news being that it wouldn't have affected the rankings for the tournament's spots.

    Now, you guys and gals probably understand what this means for the arbitration of @bertsampson's score in this first week of the tournament, right? Given that bert was truly unaware of the ending time change (in EST, which was not highlighted in any shape or form by us), we will accept his 7 minutes late submission since it was posted before the 'old standard' ending time of 11:00 EST. So, bert's 200,830 score is valid.

    One would think that since both The Wiz and bert's scores are valid, bert is the one advancing to next round and Mike gets eliminated. But this is not what I will propose, for the following reason. As I have reasonable doubt that The Wiz could have hypothetically reacted to bert's 200,850 score posted at 10:07 EST, and would have the chance to make a higher score given some plausible circumstances, I just cannot eliminating him on these premises as it would be unfair.

    So exceptionally, and because of these very unusual circumstances adding up to one another, both bert and The Wiz are permitted to play in the second round of the tournament along with the other 7 winners of round 1. But, there's a twist in order to not make it unfair to those 7 other players. Only one of them will be able to advance to the final round, which means that round 2 will also play as an extension of round 1 for them. If both of them end up being in the 4 best scores for round 2, only the best ranked of them will pass and the 5th rank player will earn the 4th spot for the final.

    I hope this solution will make everyone happy and willing to resume the competition for the 2021 tournament, despite these unusual circumstances.

     

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
    • Haha 1
  9. 1 hour ago, OptOut said:

    Whereas, purchasing a raw game at an inflated price with the intention of getting it graded as quickly as possible to shove into the next HA auction would be the actions of an "investor".

    What if it is someone who bought something for a good deal and then flip it immediately to HA in order to have more money to buy games he wants for his collection?

     

    1 hour ago, OptOut said:

    Or, only buying games that are already graded because you assume they will appreciate in value and holding on to them for an unspecified period of time, with the expectation of selling them at a later date, again would be the actions of an investor rather than a collector.

    What about someone that bought sealed games for decades as a hobby, and that now decide to sell off his games for life changing money?

     

     

  10. 5 minutes ago, spacepup said:

    That message looks too ridiculous to be real, IMO.  I suppose it's possible, but idk, I'm a bit skeptical.

    Indeed, it does sound over the top too stupid to be true, and I do hope it is, lol. But on the other hand you never know how ridiculous people can be about prices on eBay sometimes.

    • Agree 1
  11. 23 minutes ago, karljobst said:

    I would like to find out what expired. All websites need to be maintained, if you purchase it you'll also need to consistently renew licences, hosting etc. Not doing so and just letting something lapse so the website goes offline would be seen as terminating it. I'd genuinely like to know what actually happened there.

    @Gloves, can you please provide our good pal Karl here with all the info you have on this?

    Jeff and gocollect have certainly been careless about preserving the forum and database in the shape it was. Was it a conscious hit at hiding knowledge about the video game market is something possible, though harder to prove. IMO, if this was the goal, he kind of failed, as there was nothing in the database that could be really useful to know how the sealed market was going and unfolding.

    • Agree 1
  12. 1 hour ago, jonebone said:

    Well Nintendoage was a forum, that's the main reason people went there.  

    However, through the forum participation, databases were created.  Forum members scanned in manuals and boxes.  A rarity guide was there but more or less a swag and not something updated continually.  There was an eZine that was popular but not enough participation to keep going more than quarterly by the end.

    And to be fair, Nintendo age was mostly a centralized location of stuff.  Checklists of "sets" for collecting, scans of items, etc.  Most of that information could be found elsewhere, so it's not like Jeff bought NA and instantly has executive power to delete all info from the internet.  People were also given enough warning that they could backup whatever they deemed was important to them. 

    Indeed, the idea that NA was nuked instantly from the moment it was bought by Jeff is nonsensical. It took well over a year for the forum to disappear, and it wasn't because Jeff deleted it, the server tech expired by a precise date (something like that, Gloves could explain further). His plan to preserve the forum was a joke, but still, all the threads are still searchable somehow in the gocollect version of it, though largely chaotic to navigate.

    The database was a very useful tool, but honestly, it had absolutely no utility regarding gathering any info on the sealed market.

    • Agree 1
  13. 1 minute ago, DefaultGen said:

    AqjBOjS.png

    Did Karl actually say Jim Halperin bought the $100k Mario off HA listing? Because obviously that game was never listed on HA. RGT 85 made the same mistake in his video, not that I think RGT 85 actually cares about the situation. Minor inaccuracies like this that get added to the story as it telephones through the internet make it easier to rebut any legit claims by just focusing on the actual BS. Jim certainly made a press release pumping his own purchase, but he wasn't listing and buying his own game from his own platform.

    I don't think Karl said that, and personally I thought that the cliff note you're highlighting was referring to the part about the guy explaining how his father (I think it was his father, not sure) used to rebuy some of his collectibles just to have a new higher price sale data point in time (but I might certainly be wrong here).

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...