Hesse, GermanyConsider that in Return the enemies resets if you go back to previous rooms and if I'm not wrong, there is no way to visit a rooms just once if you go for all. So for that reason alone, you need to be more specific, since there is technically an infinite amount of enemies.
That technicality aside, I don't think it adds anything to the board or elevates the run. I don't see any value from a speedrun perspective since the run would be in fact very much slowed down due to all the hunting you have to do.
It might be a neat challenge run and you can still do that if you want of course. Play the game the way you want. That's what self made challenges are there for.
I tend to agree on this since it's a PAL exclusive and you only get to play it by either a NTSC ROM or with altering your hardware. So, no (official) game release here obvs.
But I don't want to make the call just yet. Might be some valid arguments from either previous mods or the runner themself.
I give it some time till the end of this month. That's only fair. If there is no complaint I would simply remove NTSC from the board as a category as a whole.
I did read the rules for Exploitless. The one thing that caught my eyes was that glitch killing the hyenas in Return isn't mentioned. That level seems to be forgotten in the rules.
But since we had that discussion on Genny side half a year ago or so, maybe you want to take the easier rule set we agreed on there too. Cause yes, it can be very tiresome to conclude what is intended, what an exploit and such. At least, that was one of the main arguments back then.
I hoped for an answer with more informational character about the next step in this matter. A more constructive one. Thought, a more provocative approach would do the trick after the first "bump".
It's a poorly made category which we all agree on and now it's basically dead since no action is happening in renewing it cause there is no point in running it when it's very likely going to change.
A week is more than enough for a poll. It's now 2+ weeks, I think we can at least attempt to initiate the next step. I might not have the needed patience that is required but I think stalling isn't bringing us forward.
So, not a huge amount of votes but the majority of it (66,7%) voted for: "Keep the current No Exploits category with revamped rules and implement the proposed No Major Clips/Glitches categories as another category."
And to be more constructive myself, as a start I suggest we work on implementing the NMC category, because that's seems like a rather simple task now. Revamping the current No Exploit is something we admittedly don't do in a few days, so let's begin with the seemingly much easier part.
So, 75% (9people) said yes and 55,5% of those said "yes, but only ties.".
I think we (you, the officials here) can make it somewhat official, cause it's already being used to determine current WR? There are still other draws to re-count but I get that it can take some time to do that.
How long is "patience"?
First: I'm in for adding ms to make a difference at tied runs/positions (for the top).
The argument that the run isn't fully optimized is a fair argument but misses the point IMO. We're talking about a decision when a tie between runners appear. It's possible that runners stay at their (split) time for months. We've already seen this in the past. The initial proposal was to use ms as a tool to dissolve those ties. That's fair enough.
Just because the run isn't optimized doesn't mean enough people are willing to put in the work to get to this point later on. We know what barrier the 12:30 and 12:20 can be. I'm not surprised if we'll have multiple shared times in that area one day.
The Kirby's Dream Land board (to give another example) doesn't have that too. We've got multiple #3, #5, #7, #11 and the list goes on. But I think it doesn't look nice.
I'm still all in for adjusting the rules cause they're always seemed off to me. That's the main reason I lost my interest quickly. Cause I never understood why we disallowed "health bug jump" for not being the intended path but "Pride Rock fire skip" was just fine although you could apply the same reasoning there.
So, I just throw my proposal in here as well.
Keep it as close to a casual run as possible (imo). In short:
- allow hyena manip
- allow fire manip
- allow swipes (except boulder SKIP)
- rest prohibited
That's easy to remember and might be the closest we come to a casual first time playthrough. Hyena and fire manip allowed because it's difficult to determine if something happend because of an intentional step or not. Especially fire spawns are somewhat easy to avoid that's it often no coincidence if it happens. Same with swipes to avoid a tedious "I just swiped at the vines/monkey" debate. Makes it easier for mods and runners. I just want to avoid difficult discussions like in sports for example NFL (catch/no catch) or soccer (handball) with that.
Or longer version, don't do:
- health bug jump
- super jump/giraffe launch
- I don't care about bone wall tbh
- Exile clips
- Hakuna is fine (it's all pathing, quickness and timing)
- spawner/boulder skips. Ledges are fine I think (up to debate)
- Be Prepared skip
- Return is fine (hyena ledge kill up to debate. I mean, just jump swipe, take the hit and kill him on top)
- Scar Skip, fire shortcut (it's a skip)
Boom, there you have it. I'm also fine if we just create a "no major glitch" (lose rules) and "No Exploits" (with tight rules) for the board.
Also, however the decision will end up, I will contribute runs to this category. But hopefully the rules are more comprehensible in the end.
Like I said on Discord, I'm in for that. An interesting and fun challenge. Nothing crazy, but enough to put it in the Misc. tab. Even with just a few runners. What are even considered "a lot, "enough" or "to less"? I might be wrong, but isn't the Misc. tab for such purposes? I mean, even a main category like Difficult just has 11 runs.
The order is an interesting question from Stormy. I would prefer the defined order like Eight proposed. Why? Cause raising the difficulty makes the run even more intense the longer you are in. I understand the reason to start with the hardest mode, look how Graveyard works out and the rest is somewhat a cake walk. As I mentioned, I sometimes played with the same thought of doing this type of marathon run. So I'm glad others had that too and Eight already did it and propose it to all. In my mind it's a constantly raising challenge. That's what it would make interesting to me. And also more entertaining to watch, since still "everything" can happen till the last part of the run. If you would play Easy% last that would be way less stressful but also way less thrilling since I know how it's gonna end by runners from the top 20.
I for myself wont bother much about a split board. Why? Because a leaderboard is mostly there (for me) to better judge my own time (and to see other fantastic runners, learn new things and get better). How good my time really is I can only ascertain within a context. But to be able to set a run in a context times must be comparable. It seems like it's, unfortunately, not the case with hardware and emulators. So yes, split boards makes sense.
Sure, it looks nicer if all is in the same table, but only aesthetic reasons don't apply much here as an argument I think.
I do have the same question PWD has. Just because I'm curious about if there are notable differences between some emulators as well and that leads me to a wish I want to add: That we at least make emulator runs as comparable as possible. That means to maybe even ban (the most) inaccurate emulator(s). Also that we maybe use the "Resources" tab to guide new runners to emulators that should be used and help them start going (and add that it in the rules of course).
From IL rules: "Timing Run starts when selecting "START" on the main menu. Run ends on the frame that the screen begins to fade out."
But you checked that, right? Not that I understand you wrong here. Why should we bother then. In some case extra adding an additional timer aligned to the start/end frame as mentioned above. Yeah, that might be an "inaccurate" way as you already said. But I would be fine this "easier" method. Also less work for mods. But I also understand the point: do it right or not at all.
@Akiteru Is see your point, but we are heading in a time segment where improvement gets harder and harder. It's not that unrealistic that we will have 3 or maybe 4 runs with the same time. Let's take the current 12:29 as an example. Yes, the game isn't maxed out yet but we should find a way for not having many peoples on the same position one day. Maybe we need to. Especially with the current rate on 1 or 2 new runner every month. So, ms is the ususal way to avoid that. At least the one I know.
But that was just a suggestion. Maybe someone has an even better option? I'm open to everything.
And for time measurements: it works for IL. How did you check(ed) the times there? I mean, you stated an interested point but we already have these cases. Maybe not as important but still. Also we already are in need to do this in the light version of it. To check if a time is a XX:48 or XX:49 with a split right on the edge.
The wall is broken, sub 12:30 was achieved. That raises the question to me: Should we include milliseconds into new runs in the top segment (Top 5 or Top 10). Maybe for times below certain limits? Like sub 12:26?
What's your feeling/opnion about this? Any pro and/or cons?
"Game moderators are generally provided 21 days to handle a run submission. If the game moderators have logged into the site recently, please do not ask site staff prior to this. It is not a requirement for moderators to verify all runs every time they visit the site, we understand people have lives."
That's also a thing why I think Insomnimatics really shouldn't be blamed on the "let piling up" subject as it is stated. Yes, short waiting time for verification is a nice thing but if you submit a run you get this "2-3 weeks" note every time. That as an addition.
Ok, so if I write a scr mod directly I get involved in decisions? Cause that's what I'm taking from that honestly. The sarcasm is intended, because it makes me a bid mad.
"having one mod in a game this active would be odd even if they had nothing but free time to devote to it"
- No one is question that as far as I see. Why would anyone? It's a fair point.
"myself and the full mod came to the conclusion that carter and akiteru would be the best fit for it." "we concluded" I would have loved to contribute something in the decision process. I think others would have liked too. There is no "class representative" or did I just miss that till now? I'm part of this community (an very active one) but not a part of the "we"? That's very interesting to hear and confusing.
"they aren't involved enough in the community have any reason to act on existing biases" I see the point in that, but isn't that a contradiction to the official statement in the rules that already has been quoted?: "Moderators should typically speedrun the game, or at a minimum be heavily involved with the community." Your point is: It's good, because they are not "enough" involved. Confusing again.
I'm for myself not really doubting the skills of Carter and Akiteru. I barely know them if at all. I'm just wondering: If they have such a strong case being the right ones for the job, why not officially suggesting them in a post like this, maybe hear some other (good) considerations and decide as a group? As a "we".
Luckily I know nothing about all these things that happend before. Many other active runners were not a part of this past too. So I can't follow some of these arguments and I don't care about that at all. It's a personal matter but is used as an argument that affects all. Sorry, I simply cannot let that count. That's also not really objective.
That said, the public verification process and the stacking runs to verify are reasonable arguments and concerns and I'm not questioning these concerns at all if anyone has them. It's just the solution that worries me. And now part of the justification.
