Can we finally declare that /qst/ has failed, and just became a second /tg/
>>47603688
10% is too much! We need more space for pointless threads like
>>47587900
>>47592844
>>47589323
>>47593444
>>47598935
>>47590029
>>47589885
>>47579533
>>47602195
>>47603023
>>47598727
>>47591283
>>47599603
>>47603111
>>47591911
>>47600984
>>47595105
>>47569618
and other fun stuff that is /tg/ unrelated that the board police think is more important than quests!
No seriously, this is what anti-questers honestly believe.
>>551757
Decent try but you forgot to put the third > and the /tg/ in there.
>>551790
>implying I care that much
There's a lot more non /tg/ related threads up constantly and quests literally take up no more than 10% of board space at their absolute worst (which happens almost never).
/qst/ was made by people who hate fun that they personally don't like, using literal lies and exaggeration to convince the mods to make the board. The only reason they haven't shitposted quests to death is because they can't create fake quest threads because they have no imagination or writing skill.
>>551810
Well it's not like they'd be able to actually accomplish anything by spamming the board. Well over half of /qst/ is dead threads just waiting to drop off. Hell, probably two thirds.
Go check, it takes a week to slide off the board, and I don't think a single thread has actually hit its natural bump limit. They just get bumped for three days and then autos sage. There's nowhere near enough content being made, and nowhere close to enough players to make any content actually capable of surviving.
>>551813
Good, maybe you and the rest of the trash will fuck off to a roleplay forum where you belong
>>551838
You mean /tg/? Not our fault your grand plan to create a containment board backfired because you had to piss off the mods by proclaiming your victory to the public.
What's wrong with /qst/?
>>552386
Quests are like shops, and putting them in /qst/ is like putting them into a secret back alley with a puzzle door. People who are explicitly looking for them will find them, but that's not nearly as many people as if they're allowed to advertise their wares on the main street.
>>552392
Advertisements like the /tg/ sticky saying "Take your quests to /qst/"? Here, read it again if you need a refresher>>>46961511
Your arguments are contradictory. You say that quests are small, are given a board specifically designed with special tools so you can run quests well and create a community, then complain that no one is on /qst/.
If your roleplay forum is shit, that means you should do something to fix it, not insist that the shit be dragged into someone else's house and demand they fix it.
>>552459
No one is on /qst/ because quests are small. How is that contradictory? No sane quest player ever said the quest community could ever fill a whole board. It would be like making an entire board dedicated to Everyone is John.
/qst/ players are /tg/ posters. Only the anti-questfags have ever tried to make the claim they are isolated and separate communities, and it could not be further from the truth. The quest players are still on /tg/, they never left and they never will, because they are just /tg/ posters. When you post a quest on /wst/, you'll be lucky to get a post in under an hour. On /tg/, most will typically get around 5 within the same span of time.
>>551673
I don't care anymore.
It's clear quests will never be banned from /tg/.
/qst/ was obviously made to contain the most popular quests, and it's doing its job on that front. /tg/ related quests are still allowed in /tg/.
It's the best of both worlds. I think we should just keep it that way.
>>552648
This.
It's actually fine as it is. Literally the only people who find the current situation bad are rabid haters.
If a quest isn't particularly /tg/, just take it to /qst/. If it is more in line with /tg/ (With stats and a game system), then leave it on /tg/.
>>552657
It would be nice if quest discussion was allowed back on tg though, since, you know, it's actually following the rules that way and according to anti-quest arguments the QTG is more tg than the quests themselves.
Plus the obvious issue of all the players being on tg, so nobody shows up to the general anymore. It's been a graveyard since /qst/ was made.
>>552660
I might go for it, if the discussion was kept to the weekends. Just remove all the non quest threads from /qst/, and leave a general that only pops up for 3 days each week as a stage to talk about them on /tg/. It's not like there are enough anons posting in the current general to justify keeping it open all the time.
>>551810
>>implying I care that much
Why are you proud of being lazy and pathetic?
>>552392
What do you have against malls?
>>552459
Decent try but you forgot to put the third > and the /tg/ in there.
>>552734
Malls aren't kept to back alleys, dumas.
>>552740
I disagree that your analogy is apt, jacawse.
>>552734
It was already a mall. It's more like someone took all the arts and crafts stores in the mall, and moved them to a special dedicated mall that nobody remembers to visit.
>>551673
I just desperately want them to take away the 72 hour rule. I spend a lot of time constructing the images for my quest threads, and don't exactly want 4chan to be my full time job just to have a fun interactive storytelling thread. I mean, say what you want about their quality, I know they look like shit, but at least I'm trying.
Right now, with that 72 hour autosage rule, the only quests you get are writefag quests, and stupid 5-minute-per-drawing ironic memequests. Just take a look at the catalog. If the image looks like it has any care put into it at all, you can guarantee that it's going to be a writefag thread with next to no pictures.
Without that rule, you could have BOTH ironic memequests, and also longform ones like the ones you see on TGChan. All of the best _drawfag_ questers ended up moving to TGChan for one reason or other. I'm not trying to say that drawfags are better or worse than other quest authors, but they're just the ones that I identify with, and I feel a little left out and ignore the board as a result.
http://old.newrem.com/adventures/heatherQuest/0001-heatherQuest.html
http://old.newrem.com/adventures/heatherQuest/0002-worbyQuest.html
If you'll take a look at the timestamps on these saved archives of the two threads I did on /qa/, they were up for a MONTH each. This was achievable because /qa/ is so slow, everybody who disliked the thread basically ignored it, and everybody who was having fun enjoyed checking it once a day like it was some kind of webcomic.
AGAIN, I am NOT saying that my style of questing is better, or worse, I'm just saying that it's impossible, and I don't understand what the reasoning is behind arbitrarily removing one kind of quest from the board.
TGChan has Weaver, the person who did Rubyquest on /tg/, they have MT, the person who originally did NewtQuest on /trash/, and they have me as a reader, preparing a large story to tell there.
Wish I could tell it on /qst/ but I can't.
>>552753
Oh... I'm an idiot and should have linked to TGChan threads I'm talking about.
MT: https://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/res/722742.html#722742
Weaver: https://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/res/712785.html
Some other notable quests with art I like:
https://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/res/716306.html
https://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/res/637478.html
They also have a quest DISCUSSION board so that meta analysis garbage doesn't flood the quest thread itself: https://tgchan.org/kusaba/questdis/
And finally, they allow NSFW so long as you click a checkbox. Make of that what you will.
4chan's /qst/ could have all of these features AND be a board with a large audience. I don't understand why they don't want to be.
/qst/ is a young board. Give it time.
Why aren't quest-threads moved to /qst/ or deleted?
>>552766
Traffic has been decreasing since launch, not increasing. Exactly when do you expect this trend to suddenly and miraculously reverse?
>>552781
It doesn't need to be fast
>>552779
Because when you touch yourself it causes God to cry.
>>552783
I'm confused. So you're telling me that I actually don't need players to run a quest? All I need is to sit in a thread that doesn't move because nobody is making threads, and stair at a blank page pretending things are happening?
I honestly am wondering what your train of thought actually involves here.
>>552789
It wouldn't need to be fast if they got rid of the 72 hour rule.
>>552753
it's obvious that drawfags just gotta learn to draw faster. it's a good motivation.
>>552789
Players come if they want to come, not at your beck and call
>>552795
Yea, that is my point, thank you for reinforcing it.
So then I assume we are both in agreement that /qst/ has failed by the only metric you can really use to judge it, and /tg/ is still the best place for quests to go.
>>552797
Whatever you say buddy
>>552786
lucky me, crying deities happen to be my fetish.
>>552792
It's a motivation to go ELSEWHERE is what it is.
>>552813
Not for me it isn't. I'm putting in the effort RIGHT NOW. It's cool.
>>552816
Draw quickly, or draw well. If you could draw well, quickly, then you could draw quickly, well, and then spend that extra time you saved revising and polishing.
You're holding yourself back by shitting things out at the seat of your pants.
>>552817
Well fine then, I agree. Lets get rid of the 72-hour time limit. It is dumb.
>>552821
...that wasn't the reply I was expecting...
Anyway, any bitching and moaning I might do will not be heard. I only do it when somebody else makes a thread about how or why /qa/ is a failure. I wouldn't make my own /q/ thread about it. I'm just trying to be a reasonable roman.
