GermanyAlso you can do the bonus time skip on every level, you can't do it on every level in a run. It is really easy, you just need to have 0 bonus at the end of the level. I specifically collect enough gems to get to 0 at the end of level 14. There are not enough gems that can be easily collected without a time loss to do it again. Maybe you could take an intentional death to get back to 0, but i never tested if that makes sense in any level, as you would lose all your power ups. That is the main reason why i like the skip, the time save happens between the levels, but the work you have to do for it, is during the first 14 levels, you have to plan which jumps to take for which gems you get. Cutting out the skip would also eliminate the need to do that.
Emulation would allow that, but I think it should always be possible to compare times for players on actual hardware. Since the Amiga has very different setups that is not easy to do. A faster processor seems to improve loading times, but comparing someone playing on a floppy vs. someone using WHDLoad (which is on actual hardware and no emulation) is almost impossible.
The only problem I have with the current removal of all time between levels is that is cuts out one of the tricks you can do to save time in RTA. There is not really much going on in this game except playing perfectly, only the warp glitch and the bonus time skip. So I would not want to remove that from timing.
Maybe I'll check when the game is actually accessing the disk between levels and if it is possible to remove only that time without too much trouble and keep the bonus time in.
If the time can not be compared with the Amiga version then I will split the versions into different categories. So don't worry that it will not accepted because of that.
Well, basically I'm currently the whole community, so I'm open for arguments. Most games that I run don't have individual levels. For now I think that it only makes sense if the game has an option to play levels individually.
I will make sure the runs will be organized into categories that make sense, when you submit a run.
I think using any form of trainer or cheat code is not something that should be used to play a game for speedrunning even if it has no effect on the actual time. Someone who owns the original and plays on original hardware should be able to do runs too without some ridiculous setup. That would not allow using trainers or save states for runs. The cheat code would work on the original version, but you would have to play up to that level every time before you can do level runs using the code. For the Amiga there are different official versions of the game, one which has the level select built in.
I think it is not needed to make it it's own game, you can just split the leaderboard by platform, like it was done for Paperboy, if the versions are so different, that you can not compare the times.
I know it is a hard game and I have only finished a few runs myself, but I think that is not a good enough reason to setup IL leaderboards. Otherwise you could make IL leaderboard for almost every game that has levels.
It seems you can not start on each individual level, like it is possible in some of the Amiga versions. I don't know if individual level runs make sense without this. You would still have to start from the beginning every time or use a save state for a later levels.
I'm using FS-UAE. So far I don't know any version of it that would not be accepted.
[quote=MightyMike9001] In Reboot's original video there was no Timer-Countdown between stage 14 and 15. Looks like a glitch but i never encountered that in my attempts before. [/quote]
Yes, that is a glitch in the game. And it is not random, you can do it every time. Which is actually a reason why cutting out the loading and bonus screen might not be a good idea. If you can do the trick, you get a better time. Also if you time your button press to start the next level better. It is not just a loading screen, it has some interaction which affect your overall time.
Yes, also I'm not a moderator, I would say the most basic setup is the best to compare times for now and even if someone will do a run on actual hardware a standard Amiga 500 is probably the most common system people will have.
If you play with loading times you will notice that you can only press the button to advance to the next level after loading has finished, if you mash to early it sometimes doesn't work, so having the right timing is relevant for the overall time and removing loading time is not as easy as it sounds.
You are probably running the game with either turbo mode floppy emulation or you are running a version of game that uses WHDLoad which basically removes all loading times. The current WR time is using normal floppy disk emulation.
I would guess that it is WHDLoad, because it requires Kickstart 2.0, which would explain why you can not run your version of the game on an Amiga 500, which only has Kickstart 1.3.
WHDLoad should work on an Amiga 500+, which has Kickstart 2.0 and the same 68000 processor as the normal Amiga 500. Using WHDLoad on an Amiga 1200 with the faster 68020 processor could also reduce the loading time, because the time needed to copy the floppy content in RAM would be shorter. But that should only make a small different compared to actual floppy speed.
I'm not sure how to handle this. The Amiga is basically a PC and there is no fixed speed. There are different CPU speeds available and for games that run from harddisk it would also matter how fast the harddisk is. For actual hardware that would be a problem, but as long as all runs are done on emulator it should not be a problem to have the same settings for everyone. I would recommend that you just try to get an ADF disk image to run the game. That should not be too hard to find. Otherwise runs would have to be retimed to remove the loading times.
Yes, the run is on emulator. Amiga emulation is usually pretty solid and if you pick one of the preconfigured Amiga models it should be pretty accurate to compare times.
But just like DOS even on actual hardware the system speed can vary a lot. I think this game has no loading times, so at least this should not be an issue. The game speed is also locked to the framerate and so the CPU speed should not make a difference. But if you have any questions regarding Amiga hardware or emulation feel free to contact me on Twitch.
Hi,
I did a run of the Amiga version of Paperboy yesterday and thought I would submit it. Currently the leaderboard only has MS-DOS as a category, so I would like to ask if you would add an Amiga category. Thanks.
Third-party emulators often have the goal to be as accurate as possible to the original hardware. That makes them interesting for speedrunning. VC and NES classic are made by Nintendo for nostalgia and I doubt they care much about accuracy. They just need to be playable as good as possible, so they my even remove lag on purpose to improve the game experience.
I guess it is up to the game community, but if you don't share how it works, how is anyone able to tell if it is a legit skip and not some hack or modification of the game? So if your run needs to be verified, then you probably would have to share it after you submit your run anyway.
The DOS game was released 11 years after the original. I think making different versions of a game as categories only makes sense if these versions are actual ports of the original, or the original was already intentionally developed for multiple systems. In this case it is a fan game which is just loosely based on the original.
When a game runs in full screen mode the desktop is no longer rendered. So it is not possible to capture anything on it. You would either need a second monitor, or you can try a program that forces the game into a windowed or fullscreen windowed mode. Also window capture is then the better option because display capture can not capture programs that are under your game. Just make sure Aero in Windows is enabled, otherwise window capture can not do it either and you would have to layout the game and the other programs, so that they are all visible on the desktop.
I thought a bit about the tournament format. The current idea is to do 3 loops, but i think that can screw over the faster racer if he has just bad luck in one loop. For example:
Player 1 Loop 1: 7min Loop 2: 11min (Bad luck, maybe death, loss of power up) Loop 3: 7min Total Time: 25min
Player 2 Loop 1: 8min Loop 2: 8min Loop 3: 8min Total Time: 24min
With 3 loops player 2 would win the race, even if player 1 had 2 faster loops. If you do best of 3 individual races with the normal speedrun goal, then player 1 would win. Not sure what is better. 3 loops favors the more consistent runner who maybe plays safer. Best of 3 favors the faster racer, in my opinion, because a mistake in one race can not cost you the overall match.
I think he wants to record and stream at the same time and stream with overlays but record only the game footage without overlays, to have a clean video for upload to YouTube or something like that. OBS Multiplatform can already render multiple scenes at the same time, so it would probably be possible to add a feature to render different scenes for recording and streaming, but what he wants is not yet possible. You can however record and stream at the same time with different encoder settings (bitrate, quality etc.), if your PC is fast enough to handle 2 separate encoding processes.
OBS Multiplatform 0.12.0 (not yet released) will add stream delay with a new feature "Preserve cutoff point" which will make sure no video is lost, when you have a disconnect.
[quote=jp9000] Additionally, a new option was added to preserve stream cutoff point on disconnections/reconnections, so that if you get disconnected while streaming, when it reconnects, it will reconnect right at the point where it left off. This will probably be quite useful for a number of applications ... for example, a critical stream such as a tournament stream from getting any of its stream data cut off. [/quote]
