Game request got rejected without being looked at
Deleted
3 years ago
Aberdeen, Scotland

"It should be explained further in the submission rules because the rules are vague."

I mean, its not like it explicitly states in the rules that "PvP-Related Activities" are not allowed...

Shiinyu, SpikyLlama and 5 others like this
Israel

@goadiroth everything that you said does not relate directly to PvP games, but any other game types that will not be accepted as well. (like short/trivial games, generic puzzles, etc...) The rules are not vague.

Gaming_64 likes this
New York, USA

I haven't looked at the game submission form for a while but doesn't it say somewhere on there something to the effect of "The rules here have gotten more strict overtime and were not retroactively applied to games already on the site" or have I just heard that so many times from site staff that I assume everyone knows it?

Israel

The rules, as they currently stand, state that PvP related activities and games will not be accepted. How more clear can it be?

The reasons might not be clear, true, but I don't think that a site-rules page is the right place to list all the reasons and processes that led to those rules.

Gaming_64, Hako and 2 others like this
Oregon, USA

This is not a one-off mistake. A lot of people have submitted Among Us thinking that it would be accepted for the same reason Solid said. If so many people are not understanding this, then it is a problem with how the rules are stated. Even if the rules seem clear to you, they aren't clear to everyone. Something in the rules should be rephrased to make this clearer.

cordeyr and 6oliath like this
Ontario, Canada

I don't think it is so much people are not understanding this, more of people look at the games that have been accepted before the rule change and assume that they have a chance even though the game request says the site will not be taking these types of games anymore

ckellyspeedruns, Hako and 2 others like this
California, USA

"I mean, its not like it explicitly states in the rules that "PvP-Related Activities" are not allowed..." -Lonne

I think you failed to read the rest of what I wrote. People still keep submitting and posting because the detailed reasons for rejection and details over why other pvp games are still on the site are not mentioned in the rules.

"PVP-related activities" is generic and vague and will continue to cause confusion, especially when specific runs (for pvp-based games) are done solo or against bots, not against other players. PVP = player vs player. If you wanna argue that it prepares you for PVP, then speedrunning in itself is pvp since you are directly competing against other players for a top time.

Also, Overwatch was mentioned, saying that we have pvp categories, but in fact none of our categories are pvp. They are all done solo or as a group. Never in actual pvp matches. Shooting a bot does not necessarily make it pvp-related, seeing as there are other shooting games that are PvE (you vs bots) - for example Doom, Resident Evil (not a shooter, but you shoot zombies from time to time), etc.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
FireStriker likes this
Canada

[quote=goadiroth]then speedrunning in itself is pvp since you are directly competing against other players for a top time[/quote]

Are you hearing yourself right now?

TrenttheN642, SpikyLlama and 2 others like this
California, USA

"Are you hearing yourself right now?"

Are people not competing against other people? That's what the leaderboards imply? Or do speedrunners not compete against other speedruners for a better time (PVP / player vs player)?

And to be honest, kinda petty to choose that small bit, since we're trying to bring to light that the current rules regarding this subject could be slightly modified to be better understood, especially since current reasons and rules are not mentioned there.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
FireStriker likes this
Canada

I'm not even going to dignify that with a counter-argument. I think you're smart enough to know why that comparison is ridiculous, and I honestly feel like you're just arguing in bad faith here.

Back on topic, I really don't know what people are expecting from us whenever something like this comes up. We can't possibly account for every possible edge case of every item on the rules page (and even if we could, nobody would bloody read them). We do pay attention to this stuff and try to improve our rules and rejection reasons when possible (in fact we're having an internal discussion about this right now), but if we just added an extra line or paragraph to the page every time somebody got confused about something it would become unwieldy very quickly (frankly I think they're already too long, a significant number of users who request games clearly have not read them).

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Hako and Pear like this
United States

Speedrunning is inherently a solo activity. A player, a game, console, and controller. No other people, no other outside factors. You vs the game, trying to beat it as fast as you can, and this is how it was before recording runs came out. Over time, recording setups introduced themselves into the picture, but this was not something to affect the game itself, simply a way to record the game to either view later or to share with others. You might recognize SDA around this time. As time has gone on, we started uploading to video hosting sites directly such as YT and others, and then started simply streaming attempts to sites such as Twitch (yes, there are others, these are the most popular ones).

Note that in all of that above, there is no PvP element. There is no direct, in-game competition with another player. You can argue that leaderboards are PvP but that is honestly so flawed it isn't even funny. The leaderboard is not in my copy of the game actively playing against me. The leaderboard is not playing with the game trying to make me lose. The leaderboard is sitting there, a collection of times, dates, videos, and names. It couldn't care less how many people were playing the game it is tracking. It's non-sentient data.

And even if we go beyond and go to races, where two people are directly competing for a faster time, that still isn't PvP, since neither player can do anything about the other's progress. It's not like I can go into your copy of the game and lay down landmines for you to dodge, or attack you back as one of the bosses. My run has zero impact on your run directly, and vice-versa. I finish that doesn't give you a game over screen - you might have lost the race, sure, but your run still goes on just the same anyway.

So no, speedrunning itself is absolutely not PvP in any way. It's a hobby done by people by themselves, and honestly, an interesting one at that. A person, a copy of the game, console, controller, and some screen to view it on. That's... all you need. No PvP. No competition is required. That's it.

Now, Amoung Us. Amoung Us is 100% PvP. The game is a directly-competitive game where you play with and against other people to find out who is an impostor and who is crew. This is in the style of group games that have existed for decades, such as Mafia and various themed versions (I myself played Werewolf in college, which is simply a themed version of Mafia). These games are PvP at their core. This is why most of the submissions for this game will fail. Fastest X win is directly in the PvP space. As for the freeplay area that some have attempted to submit, this is an endless game mode with no defined ending, as the game will simply continually give you new task sets after you complete the existing set.

In short, speedrunning as a hobby is not PvP. Amoung Us is either PvP, taking it at face value and playing the intended game, or an endless game, if you take the freeplay mode intended for learning/training. Neither of these are things we are accepting, and while this has gotten popular, there is still no argument to be had for us making some form of exception. We have seen them all, your idea is not going to be the one that we change our minds about.

Walgrey, ckellyspeedruns and 2 others like this
Oregon, USA

[quote]Are you hearing yourself right now?[/quote] [quote]I honestly feel like you're just arguing in bad faith here.[/quote] This is not the kind of behavior I would expect from a mod. Even if goadiroth is saying things you disagree with (and I agree that they're wrong about speedrunning being pvp), they also made a lot of other points that you've chosen to ignore by claiming that they're just arguing in bad faith. We all want what's best for the site, but I feel like some of the mods don't believe that based on how they talk to people on these forums.

[quote]I really don't know what people are expecting from us whenever something like this comes up.[/quote] [quote]We do pay attention to this stuff and try to improve our rules and rejection reasons when possible (in fact we're having an internal discussion about this right now)[/quote] This is what we want, but this is the first time I'm hearing that the mods are discussing this! Threads like this aren't happening because people are demanding the rules should change regarding what is and is not accepted (or at least most people aren't arguing for that, even if a lot of people want that). Threads like this are happening because of how little transparency there is in the rejection process and in the evolution of site policies. Threads like this get big because people feel like they're not even being heard. If the first post from a mod in this thread had included that comment that the mods are paying attention and are discussing how to improve rules and communication, I think this thread would have ended very quickly.

Winter_Doggo, gravefruit and 7 others like this
California, USA

@Habreno you made lots of great points! I stand down on my remark that speedrunning is an indirect form of pvp. But tbh that wasn't really what I was trying to get across, or the main thing I was talking about.

"PVP-based games will not be accepted" - I am totally cool with this rule. The only issue is that the rules (regarding pvp) are too short, vague, and lack some sort of clear reasoning/explanation. It doesn't have to be a paragraph, it could possibly even be condensed down to 1 sentence. Mention that pvp-based games need a story/campaign mode, and/or that these rules will not be applied to pvp games already on the site.

I see a lot of sass and sarcasm from people responding to runners who've had their games rejected and wanted some clear reasoning as to why, rather than just "no pvp." There's no need for that, and although some people still might not read the rules, I feel that it would help and reduce spam.

United States

Rejected as either trivial and short (if it's just four tasks once) or no defined ending (since tasks repeat indefinitely).

Hako, Pear, and Walgrey like this
Canada

Yes.

Edit: Yes as in it isn't enough.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Pear likes this