YOUR Desire Index

  • Spidey makin' me proud.

  • I can't go as in depth as I want right this moment, but I'll clarify in a few hours. However, some quick responses:

    @Sentinel-Beach The point will be completely scrapped. I won't be using points at all. I don't want to give away how I'm doing things until a decision is reached. And thank you for the kind words! Yes it does concern me a little, but at the end of the day, I would much rather the majority direct how this is curated.

    @bennysce Dependent on how the situation turns out, I'll add your list and do a typical update OR you'll just have what you're interested.

    @smoothrunes Again, I'll be using a different system, and there isn't a cut-off point.

  • @brannox

    Since the podcast version of the Desire Index seems to be only on temporary hiatus, I lean towards waiting a week. We can always go nuts later. (I also think one should endeavor to word straw poll options neutrally, but I appreciate the desire for levity.)

    I've been withholding myself from raising @Sentinel-Beach 's exact concern for a long time (simply because I figured no one would care until the day came). But I have silently been putting a fair amount of thought into it. To repeat his concern:

    If and when we move to "all games allowed", how are we going to deal with each list varying in length?

    I think putting a maximum size on each person's submitted list is one reasonable solution to this problem (whether that number be 10, 20, or 30, etc I have no opinion, but I can offer suggestions that will allow us to experimentally converge on a good number), because it allows the current system of awarding points on a linear scale to be preserved. Most people would use most of the available votes they are allowed, while others (as evidenced by previous posts in this very thread) would only post their top 5 because they sincerely don't care about anything else beyond those. And that's fine, as their votes wouldn't be punished for not filling up an entire list.

    While it is perfectly possible to use a linear scale point system without imposing a "maximum list size restriction", such a system might begin to feel silly if most people are doing lists of 20 and one or two people post a list of 100.

    There doesn't, of course, need to be a size restriction on the aggregated, master index (the length of the master index would equal the number of distinct games that posters have voted for).

    Finally, there are also other systems we could consider, this is just what appeared to me to be the simplest system.

  • @brannox said in YOUR Desire Index:

    @Sentinel-Beach The points will be completely scrapped. I won't be using points at all. I don't want to give away how I'm doing things [the replacement for assigning points] until a decision is reached.

    I'm against this, and I think the reason is self-evident: Why are we voting or discussing the options without knowing what we are voting on or the options we are trying to choose between?

    Second, you are also leaving me and many other people excitedly curious about what the new system is, but we aren't allowed to ask you about it?? I don't like that, I want to know and have my curiosity be saited or at bare minimum have a broad, low resolution outline of the new system.

    Finally, the quoted portion also leaves the unintended impression that you aren't going to change the system after the switch over should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked.

  • @chocobop While I was initially going to only respond to a couple of points without repeating myself while reading your above posts, I decided to stop part way through and I'm going re-read and respond to each point as I read in hopes that I don't miss anything. If I DO, please let me know! With that said, allow me to start.

    Thank you for the feedback!

    For your observation about word choice in the poll, I believe that's just personal preference. As long as the options are clear to what they mean, I, personally, don't think it matters one way or the other.

    " are 'WE' going to deal with each list varying in length?"..... My response to this is two-fold, first in the most literal sense, the other in the sense of curation: I'M the only one who should be.... concerned?..... with list length. Opening it up to everyone's desires means ALL desires for EVERY person. Everyone is different. Maybe someone only cares for... I don't know... seven games. Someone else has ten games on their list. Me? I have 18. And half of them haven't been covered by the Allies as of yet. That diversity is why I wanted to go along with the podcast initially because it allows me to keep track of each entry from each person in the most detailed fashion while simultaneously giving games a chance to be represented like one person really being into Call of Duty, or perhaps a reminder to some of, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Not the top of my list, but I want to give that a shot."

    Putting a cap on lists AFTER opening it up for all lists to include (and drop) anything is out of the question. That limits people's desires, and it is my absolute ardent belief that all desires should and will be represented, following both formats. I like the concept of a cap if this was something like GOTY deliberations, but all this thread is, is a Most Anticipated Games list. Also, the cap suggestion you brought forth is still based off a points system. If all lists are opened up, NO POINT SYSTEM OF ANY KIND will be used. It STILL will be numbers based, and tiebreakers will be handled slightly differently.

    You are correct that no matter what, a size restriction will NEVER be implemented to the Master Index for any reason.

    What may be simple to some may be complex to others and our discussion is a perfect microcosm of this. How I've been doing things may be the most confusing thing on Earth while the system you've provided is more hassle for me both in terms of understanding and in execution.

    starting your second post

    The options up for vote are clear: Do we continue to follow the podcast in how games are introduced to the Index; waiting for games we care about while taking games we may not care for, but others are hyped on, or do we NOT follow the podcast, allow everyone to have their desires, no matter few or many that may be, editing games that have been introduced yet they aren't into out, and pretty much ending any continual life to the thread. That's ANOTHER thing I forgot to add when I initially brought it to everyone's attention: Following the podcast allows this thread to continuously be commented in and allows it to live. Opening it up means people will come in, post one list, and have absolutely no other reason to visit unless someone decides to come in for the first time to give their list and it fluctuates the Master Index.

    "Excitedly curious"? While that wasn't my intention, I must say that's an unintended boost of morale to me because it implies I generate more interest than I should. Regardless, thank you very much for the compliment!

    Of course you can ask about it (Which you've done) and as I said to Sentinel Beach, I don't really want to spoil it and this is for two reasons. 1.) If I propose this new system, but the majority selects the other option and I don't use it, what then? 2.) As I've stated multiple times, the new system still factors in all games presented and yet-to-be presented, but it does away with points entirely because as yourself and others have pointed out, having list length variation throws a point system out of whack. If I explain the new system, and a majority doesn't care for it, what do I do once it opens up? Does the option of list variation still exist at that point? Does the thread just stop because the upkeep is convoluted.

    And that brings me to what I believe is my most important point. The curation of the Master Index is MY SELF-IMPOSED challenge. I decided to take this on because it had support in another thread as an idea, it seemed like a fun thing to do, and it was something I felt I could do as a means to interact with others. Did I underestimate how many would participate, or how lengthy the curation would become the more games were added? Sure, a little bit. But it's something I chose to do, and I don't mind doing. My hope for this thread was people could come, leave their desires and discuss with others about how we, collectively, hold the games where we do. Not once did I want to pass any burden of maintaining this thread on anyone. At the end of it all, the calculation is all on me.

    I can completely understand you don't like not knowing what you're voting for/getting out of something, hell, ANYTHING, not just in this thread, but in practically anything in life. Again, the purpose of the poll wasn't to choose HOW the method chosen would be kept, but the how everyone would give their lists.

    Could you clarify your last sentence? By stating "you aren't going to change the system after the switch over should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked." is a little confusing for me, as I'm reading that as I'm sticking with the current system, even after the switch. While THAT may not be what YOU are intending, I just want to be clear and avoid any confusion. If it IS the intention, please allow me to reiterate: If we do switch over, the current system used is not viable for that option. At all. Period.

    Three hours. That's how long I'm still waiting from the time of this post to call the vote. That's all I ask in terms of patience to determine what the consensus is.

    If we wait a week, we wait a week.
    If we switch over, I WILL make a post TONIGHT detailing the new method, in its entirety, and I'm looking forward to curating and publishing a new list no later than tomorrow night.

    If we wait a week, and the Allies DON'T revisit the index the second option will go into effect, regardless.

    Thanks again. If you've gotten this fall, I appreciate you taking the time to get through this exhaustive manuscript. I really do hope I was able to get everything.

  • @brannox said in YOUR Desire Index:

    I don't really want to spoil it and this is for two reasons. 1.) If I propose this new system, but the majority selects the other option and I don't use it, what then?

    re: "what then". In all likelihood, your new system would still be used, but just not immediately. i.e., in all likelihood the Allies are not going to keep updating their desire index forever (as stated by Kyle Bosman during one of the episodes, I think), so barring a change of hearts on their part, the current thread poll is only about the short term future of the thread.

    (I'll postpone responding to your 'reason 2)' that I didn't quote, since it falls under the umbrella of a larger sentiment that I will end my post with.)

    Could you clarify your last sentence? [...] as I'm reading that as: ____

    Sure. The meaning was not what you had read in what followed. The meaning was merely this: let's suppose the poll will vote to "switch over" from the current status quo of following the podcast to a new protocol of allowing all games. By keeping the new ranking system a secret instead of being open about it and thus allowing people to comment on the new system and offer suggestions, it creates an unintended impression that you are resistant to changing the new ranking algorithm should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked. That was a lot of words so just to be clear: this was not particularly of concern to me (I was much more concerned with everything preceding the last sentence of that comment), but I didn't know whether or not it was of particular concern to you so I thought I would mention it.

    Finally, more than anything else I've said in this post I feel there is something I want to reply to in your comment, but it is a reply to something too intangible and dispersed that I can't simply quote a sentence or passage and reply to that part. So I will just say this:

    You do carry the burden of maintaining the master index and have the ultimate say on every decision, but remember that people on the outside still often want to offer suggestions for you to consider because they want to help you. If you ever find yourself with a new problem, people on the outside will want to brainstorm solutions, again because they want to help you. You're not alone.

  • Ok everybody. I gave the vote 24 hours and with a 4-2 decision...

    We're waiting a week.

    This means I'm going to take the one list added from a while back since the last update, factor it in accordingly, and leave one last general post. Then unless anyone else wants to chat here, we're not going to see much more activity until we know if the Allies revisit the Index. A reminder: If they do, we continue on as normal. If not... we're opening it up. See you here next week.

    @Chocobop (I want to let you know I saw your most recent reply, but wanted to hold off until I called off the vote before responding to condense both posts into one.)

    The poll was always a short term future. It just either would be wait and see or permanently jump. Also, I was figuring the thread would die off naturally around the end of September (with me striking off the games that would've released by that point), and then I would come back at the end of January and February taking more games off. I've always felt the Allies would stop with the Desire Index until what I hoped would be another two or three weeks (this of course is predicated on them having at least four or five additions as opposed to three, but hey, cest la vie.)

    Ok! Thank you for the clarification. I see where you're coming from now. All I can say is I think it would be received well and more people might enjoy what I have in mind more. I DO promise: If/when we make the jump, I WILL go into great detail about how everything will change or just be adjusted a little bit.

    I totally understand and am grateful feedback. It helps me get an idea the various ways people see this endeavor. Sometimes, its obvious, "Yeah, that's so much better than what's now," and other times its, "Uhhhhh.... what do you mean?" I really try to make sure if anyone has anything to critique, I want to listen and not be, "MYAH! MY THREAD!" And much like this instance, I do elicit everyone's thoughts. This change was proposed by me to start with after all. Thanks again!

  • Unless anyone new adds their list for the first time, or someone who has lapsed on this thread comes back to update their list, Update 5.8 will be the last one for a while.
    The distance from Ghost of Tsushima to Spiderman is only 0.2 while The Last of Us Part II is only just behind them by a half point.

    From Sekiro to Control is only just more than half a point. Sekiro sits ahead of Death Stranding (which moved up two spots) by 0.2. Death Stranding is only ahead of Devil May Cry 5 by 0.1, the same amount for which its ahead of Kingdom Hearts III. Behind all of that is a tie between Smash and Control. Smash has a highest desire, so it wins the battle, but loses the war that is this update, falling four spots and out of the top 10 entirely.

    Fallout 76 and Halo: Infinite trade spots again, this time with 0.3 between them.

    Forza Horizons 4 races ahead of Darksiders III by a grand total of 0.1.

    Another group of games has a separation of just over a half point, this time the range being from Shadow of the Tomb Raider to Skull & Bones. Shadow jumped up three places and back into the top 20. It holds the smallest advantage in this update with a 0.05 lead on Babylon’s Fall. The Elder Scrolls VI is behind Babylon’s Fall by just under a half point and has a 0.05 difference and it being on Skulls & Bones. Sadly for TES VI, it fell three positions to be out of the top 20.

    Gears 5 is only able to stay ahead of Anthem by 0.4.

  • The point of this thread is to compare the Allies list with ours, i don't see the point of adding games that are not in the Allies index.

  • Need to see Doom Eternal on the desire index. Maybe when they show gameplay (August 10th?) that will be it's time to shine.

  • So since the upcoming change seems inevitable, can we have some pointers on how to structure our lists according to the new system? I would really like to try and stay ahead of the curve if possible and get to work on the new list.

  • @A7X458 Initially, yes, the point was to coincide with the Allies, but nothing prevents a comparison between our list and theirs. So our's may include games theirs do not. It just goes to show there is desire here as opposed to them and vice versa.

    @DeimosClay Agreed ;-)

    @smoothrunes Just having a list of all the games you desire, in the order you desire them, will be required (though, again, if the Allies revisit the Index, we'll still be following along).

  • @deimosclay It will skyrocket to top 5 when they show gameplay, for sure.

  • So I'm working on my new list and am at 32 games, perhaps stopping here. I've definitely got a few on here that will probably be only repped by myself.

  • @smoothrunes And that's totally fine! I'm looking forward to seeing it!

  • Stay as it is. Using the Allies for structure helps. I wanna have fun, but don't have time to arbitrarily make lists.

  • @dipset I mean, you'd be making a list of games you want and you'd be able to make it as short as you want, so I'm going to say it wouldn't be very time consuming.

    Just putting this out there - I really don't think the Allies are going to return to the index any time soon. It was made pretty clear that it was created to fill time with the slow news weeks after E3 and each podcast since the inception of the segment has seen less and less games added. I've been outvoted so we're obviously waiting to see what happens but I'm going to put a hex on those that chose to make us wait if it ends up not appearing next week.

  • @sabotagethetruth A pox! A pox upon all thee that deem we not get on with it! A POX I SAY!!! X-D

  • @sabotagethetruth I'll throw hands if you want to throw hands.
    alt text

  • @Brannox I'm curious how you are scoring the new system. Given that a person could end up with a 50+ long list.