EnglandI'm not sure I agree with that. Obviously I understand the point you're driving at, but you can certainly still be aiming for a fast completion whilst playing the game blind. What if you're racing with someone? In a blind race you may not have any knowledge of the game mechanics or route, but your objective is still to finish before the other participant(s), and by extension, as fast as you can manage.
I don't subscribe to "The community is always right and it's your job to implement their will". What if the the community wants to implement policies that are just fundamentally opposed to universally accepted rules of speedrunning, such as using a password to skip to the final stage?
Moderators are trusted to be leaders as much as anything else, and sometimes leaders must make executive decisions. It's of course true that a mod shouldn't just be a tyrant running things as they see fit, and so the obvious problem comes with determining when is an appropriate time to exercise your power. In this specific instance, from what you've described you sound totally justified in shutting down a misguided direction that others want to go on, there's nothing wrong with veto'ing an idea when you have a solid basis for doing so.
I'd also like to add that prioritising the desires of the "community" is a fundamentally flawed concept because the people who constitute a "community" are in constant flux. If my game has 5 individual runners with their own opinions and I model the boards based on what they want, what happens in a couple of years' time when those 5 people have moved on, and have been replaced with 5 different people? Suddenly, the boards don't reflect what those people want and the cycle starts anew, with individuals wanting changes to meet their specific preferences.
My interest as a moderator is not to appease specific people, but to create the most fair, equitable and objective leaderboard for EVERYBODY who may use the board in the future, insofar as I'm able to achieve that.
"Obviously games with only one runner is an exception"
I reckon they know that's the exception, because this topic comes up quite frequently and it's the logical answer, but hey you've just gotta be obtuse for the sake of it sometimes right
Multi-client refers to having multiple instances of the game open. It's always been permitted to use multiple input sources, some runners used to opt to run with keyboard + controller.
In purely technical terms even a small board should ideally have at least two, because moderators shouldn't be verifying their own runs. Sometimes there just really isn't anyone else who plays a particular game though.
For larger games with a constant queue of runs, you just add as many moderators as is necessary to manage the volumes. Keeping a coherent, co-operative team where everyone is on the same page and equally invested becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of people increases though.
Hard disagree on the above responses saying this is a negligible problem.
You're looking at framerate differences in specific instances, but it becomes a problem when you look at it for the entire run because you get huge runtime differences. If noticeable framerate differences are occurring enough to point out (laggy sections notwithstanding) then it should be assumed that it occurs very frequently throughout the game.
Sonic Adventure DX for a long time was a NIGHTMARE to standardise because the optimal platform to run on was the 2003 PC Disc release. This version of the game runs anywhere from 60-63FPS, and constantly fluctuates to minor degrees.
Now, this "doesn't matter" for any specific section of the game, but across an entire run you're looking at a potential five percent difference in run length. One runner's 30 minute run is another runner's 31.5 minute run. Nowadays this isn't a concern due to the game using Ingame Time, and this in my opinion is the best way to address variable framerate in regards to run timing; an internal timer will progress at the same rate regardless of visual framerate.
For the specific question at hand, abusing framerate difference to pull off certain tricks and whatnot, I don't think it's something you could easily enforce or really control. There will be many methods in a lot of games to deliberately introduce lag to slow the game down if you need to do something particularly precise, or otherwise just pause buffer it.
There is no v1.00-1.04 on Switch, so that's a placeholder time to make sure nobody can just try to claim a free WR and indicating people are not to submit there.
"There should be absolutely zero expectation that moderators will attempt to find all the runs to populate their leaderboard. It should be up to the users of the community to populate the leaderboards with their runs since it's technically a community leaderboard."
I'm curious what leads you to this conclusion. There's nothing about me speedrunning a given game that necessitates that I be part of whatever community exists around the game, or curate the leaderboard for it.
If, however, I'm a moderator for that game, then I have voluntarily taken up the position of being a community figurehead and maintaining/curating the leaderboard for it. It just seems evidently clear that moderators bear a responsibility in this regard that runners do not.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that as a runner you should submit your times to the boards, I just think that "Mods have no responsibility, it's the community's job to populate the boards" is an odd position.
It's amazing how the claim "Speedrun.com is meant to be the definitive source for speedrunning content, so should therefore be trusted as reliably tracking the best-known times" is somehow interpreted as wrong.
And to be clear, it is the moderators' responsibility to ensure the boards are updated with the best-known times. That's the purpose of the leaderboard. The question of runners "Not wanting their times here" is a different question, and one without a definitive answer, but I personally lean very heavily towards the "That's not your decision" camp. You're a speedrunner, you do speedruns, it's natural that your speedruns end up on a leaderboard whose purpose is to track the best times. Being adamant that you don't want your time hosted on this site is much more of a dick move than being a moderator who adds times for people who don't 'want' them.
Speedrun.com is supposed to be the most comprehensive and authoritative source for known speedruns of the games hosted on the website. The WRs listed on this site should be viewed as the best known times anywhere, and can reliably be viewed as world records for their respective games.
If there are better times elsewhere, then they should be posted on the Speedrun.com leaderboards.
Nobody begins speedrunning by immediately producing WR-tier times. The only time you should ever be worried about beating is your own time. If MK Wii is what you would have the most fun playing, go do that.
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll renew this tonight.
Why do people even respond to these threads when the OP invariably never interacts with it again
Better question is why do you want to delete your own run?
In general terms, people do need to learn some patience and just chill until they hear something back.
I know we're all speedrunners and we're accustomed to doing stuff fast, but it's not like your request is gonna go anywhere. It sits there until it gets addressed, as long as that's not a process that's taking weeks and weeks, it's not a problem. If the request queue was deleted every two weeks and unactioned games needed to be re-submitted, that would be cause for concern, but that's not the case here so welp.
^ This, slowdown is not something to be avoided by utilising an emulator. If slowdown occurs on original hardware, it's the emulator's job to accurately reproduce that slowdown, or else it provides an unfair advantage and should not be used for competition.
As for ways to avoid the slowdown naturally occurring on console, from what little I know of Lemmings it will likely be determined by how many objects are onscreen. Once you have 100 lemmings on the map, the game is likely to run much slower than normal. My first guess on a way to counteract this would be to scroll the camera so that there's as little onscreen as possible, but I'm not an expert on the game so I can't say for certain.
@Liv What you could perhaps consider is carrying on the process as normal, but introducing a 'waitlist' of sorts ie. you make it clear to people posting in the thread that you'll contact the mod in question in 7 days or something of the sort.
This way, people using the thread expecting you to do something about the situation know that their request is being seen and is in the queue to be handled, but they'll get a much faster resolution if they just take it into their own hands. Best way to get people to take responsibility for this sort of thing is to make it their best option.
