I think it’d be cool to do a Disney edition To-Do list with the recent Disney universe exposure through GWG (Brave, Cars 2, Tron Evolution, etc.)
As somebody who doesn’t “curate” my list… Yes, I would be interested in this
I’d be up for the Super Mega RTDL 5000 where it would pull games from Renting or Backlog under play status.
Maybe have 5000 minimum, 50 achievements and a list every other month.
Super RTDL idea seems a little unnecessary, at the moment if people want to have everything then they just don’t curate.
That said, if you mean an extra list of 25 in addition to the current 25 then I’ll be up for it.
I like the concept of a Super RTDL, but:
If we were to use a different game status on TA to develop the Super pool, I’d need API changes to take advantage of that. That said, I don’t particularly like the idea of asking people to go through and use yet another status on their game collection, as we already overload the flags as it is for the current competition.
What I’d propose is an “all in” approach. Basically, anything in your collection is fair game for the Super RTDL, with a minimum pool size of course to make it fair.
Either way requires API changes.
Honestly, there are some beasts here that weren’t members of AHP back in the day… would be curious to see how some do with the old school list.
100 achievements… no DLC (OK, semi-old school), and the full year to do it.
The drive was originally lost in the AHP days because people gave up if 99/100 was the best you could do… mainly because the prize structure after the first month or so required you to finish the entire list.
I just went back to my lists and here were the nails in the coffin:
2013: $50+ in COD DLC (among others I had to buy)
2014: 5 games I legitimately did not own and didn’t want to rebuy
2015: Yea… wasn’t doing this. Bad Excuse, but it is what it is
I think if people wanted a super RTDL, going back to the OG template might give enough of a challenge. Even if it was done in conjunction with the monthly one. Once runs for the year and one month to month.
I’ve been thinking about these changes, and have come to the conclusion that the current contest seems pretty much perfect to everyone. Maybe just keep it as it is ?
If the main issue people have is with curated lists, then maybe increase minimum pool size required (how many people would have genuine not enough games issues with 2000 instead of 1000 minimum?) or even a % minimum in addition to the 1000 pool size, similar to the UHH3
Instead of splitting into two RTDL’s, here’s a suggestion. Just try out any of these ideas for a month and see how it goes. I think it would be interesting to switch it up month to month by changing some of the parameters and see how they play out. I wouldn’t have a problem with a 5K or 10K minimum pool even if it means I can’t participate for a month.
How about you multiply the score gained for each unlocked achievement in a period by the % of games available to be selected from at the start of the period.
So someone with no curation earns a 1000 point achievement, 1000 * 1.00 = 1000 points
Someone who has, say 10% available gets 1000 * 0.10 = 100 points
Exact same rules, only thing altered would be the leaderboard;
That would shake things up a bit!
We initially had some conversations like that - where we normalized the scores based on the pool.
One counter argument to that would be, do we really want to punish people for having games on their tag that they don’t want to play or maybe can’t play anymore?
Of course not, but the difference between a few games people don’t want to play, and people blocking 80% of their collection is pretty dramatic! Perhaps you could have the first 10% blocked with no penalty to the score?
Or even a second column in the leaderboard stats for this weighted score so that both groups are happy.
Good thoughts. There’s no way that everyone will be happy
Extra columns in the spreadsheet seems pretty safe though…maybe.
Another column wouldn’t be ideal, because we can’t sort the leaderboard by both score columns simultaneously (in any way that makes sense). It would need to be a different leaderboard (i.e. another worksheet on the spreadsheet) but certainly doable.
I feel like the contest is pretty fair in all honesty. I’m against people curating their lists but if you don’t allow people to do it then I think participation would suffer. There’s no doubt that a lot of people just wouldn’t be wiling to purchase games that they don’t own any more in order to complete their lists. I think that adding in a Super RTDL is too much, it’s already pretty tough to keep track of everything that needs to be done in a month. Maybe the contest could be changed to quarterly instead of the 4 month period for the ultra combo? The only other thing that I could see is a slight increase in pool size. Maybe 1500 achievements? But if you leave everything as is I think it’s a great contest for people who want to take it seriously but also for casuals.
Hello everyone. Just curious why people care about curating vs not curating. There are no real prizes. If it were a real contest, it wouldn’t be “fair” anyway because tons of 3 ratio achievements in certain games can be easier/faster than a 1.3 in other games.
From most people I’ve talked to, it seems that RTDL is extra motivation to go through the backlog. Picking games you actually want to play has helped tremendously. If there’s no curating, it ultimately leads to a bunch of 1.3 ratio achievements for finishing 20 hour campaigns in AAA games. Not everyone has time for that!
As it stands, it’s not really a contest. It’s mainly for fake bragging rights and to get some games off your physical or virtual shelf.
Thanks as always to @zzUrbanSpaceman for continuing to helm the ship.
I agree with Ell, I think it’s fine the way it is. If you don’t think of it as a competition and more of a motivator for personal achievement goals I don’t think that it needs to be adjusted.
I was thinking that you could possible make each month of the trimester a bracket. Maybe the first month could be used to create matchups for the next three months pitting gamers against each other in a head to head format.
The scoring would be the same but it might add some extra flavor for the hardcores. I’m not exactly sure how you would work it. Maybe months 1 and 2 could be used to create two pools and then 2 more pools to get it down to 8 finalists who would go against each other the last 2 months. Maybe you could work in a wildcard situation to let some people who were knocked out earlier a second chance.
Effective immediately I am enacting a new policy towards zero earners:
Zero earners will no longer be removed at the end of the month; instead they will be removed at the end of a season if they have not unlocked anything in the final month of that season.