EnglandCome on Joka, he was online 18 hours ago. Just ask him directly, that's not what this thread is for.
I don't know how nobody has yet pointed out that it depends on the game you're broadcasting.
If you're playing a PC game that's natively at 1080p then yeah it's not gonna look great.
If you're playing a NES/SNES game with a capture card, though, 360p is already above the native resolution and 720p wouldn't offer any real benefits.
Video settings always need to be tailored to the task, somewhat.
Sounds like a very reasonable middle ground to me, will look forward to the upcoming changes
-
The majority of cases in which a game has a single moderator is when a user requests a game board. In this case, the user becomes a Super Mod by default, and Super Mods are not affected by the site change.
-
Obviously if it is the case that a board only has one moderator and it absolutely cannot have more moderators, then that mod will have no choice but to verify their own runs. My point, and the sentiment I've expressed for a long time, is that self-verification should be avoided when possible as it is generally a bad practice that leads to cases such as the one this thread is talking about. I would rather that self-verification was not possible at all but you're right that in certain cases there is currently no good alternative. Ideally game boards should just have more than one moderator so as to avoid this problem; there is at least one board I've requested on which I've ensured that another moderator was added so that I didn't have to verify my own runs, as I'm not above the standard I expect from everyone else.
If you guys kept up to date with site development, you'd know this has already been partially implemented in the form of regular moderators having the "Automatically verify run" checkbox unticked by default, preventing accidental self-verification.
Self-verification IS a problem whether you see it as such or not, and it is being addressed.
This is why I've been pushing for the longest time to have self-verification removed. Glad it's finally making progress.
Seriously when is stupid shit like this going to be removed from the site?
This is a joke.
When the thread title is marked as [IMPORTANT] but isn't actually very important.
What makes you think it's appropriate to just bypass asking them whether you can be part of the moderation group?
I'm legit curious about what your thought process was here, as this seems to indicate to me that you don't have a close relationship with the moderation team, and therefore shouldn't be part of it.
Good idea, register an account to immediately make a post linking to a website that provides absolutely no context, after we've had a long spat with spam accounts.
^ What Nim said. It fundamentally boils down to "IGT is only an accurate measurement if the run isn't strewn with deaths and restarts, which a >50 minute run is not likely to have". It's basically our cutoff threshold for where the "serious" runs start. It may be an arbitrary limit, but it serves its intended purpose well, which is to keep an accurate record of the qualitatively stronger runs, and the people who've put some serious time into getting a good run.
I couldn't help but notice that you did SADX runs to get 'high' ranks on the board purely because that's how that board is sorted now, so you may see my point here; we don't do it the same way here. RTA sorting until a 'good' time, then IGT from thereon out. It's also impractical to use IGT for historical runs as they may not all be on PC or otherwise captured in high quality, there have been runs before where it's legitimately difficult to determine what the IGT is.
@weather368
Your joke of a previous request was noticed and laughed off in the mod group before you deleted it yourself.
Don't hold your breath on this one.
The majority of the time it's completely unnecessary if it's RTA timing rather than IGT.
Some games, such as Super Mario Bros. are optimised enough to require timing to the RTA frame, but this is not the case in most games, and many runners just submit whatever their splits say with no thought to whether it's actually accurate. Yeah, I'm sure that "xx:xx:xx.342" is totally accurate in a centisecond game that doesn't even time to thousandths.
The only real exception in this case is when two runners are tied to the second and are adamant that they want to know which run is faster. In all other cases, I don't see it as especially important if the RTA is not analogous to the IGT.
