Forum posts

Forum: The Site

Thread: Thread 3000

Started by: 11

Staff did do something here recently, they closed the thread that was discussing competitor sites.

I'm sure they are reading 🙂

ShiinyuShiinyu and PASRCPASRC like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Sites Similar

Started by: Zer0z

Pahaha yeah sounds about right


Forum: The Site

Thread: Sites Similar

Started by: Zer0z

(edited: )

There's HowLongToBeat, their speedrun section for each game is usually very very empty, with an old unoprimized run listed as "wr", if I'm not mistaken, for the vast majority of games.

And there's always Google Sheets if you want to back up your game times outside of SRC.

dhadha and PearPear like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Sorting by Custom Value

Started by: iycewyndiycewynd

I too would prefer to see the site support this feature.
For the time being you can do this off-site on something like Google Sheets, until the feature comes to this site if ever.
(Bonus, you get to back up your own leaderboard data instead of having all the run info in one place.)
Sorry I don't have any other suggestions to help. 🙁


Forum: The Site

Thread: Leaderboard entries without Videos

Started by: MurrayMurray

No it's not common but it does happen. Runners are generally responsible for their run videos being accessible on an indeterminate basis, and moderators should try to make sure the run is not an expiring vod. Things slip through, people delete their old videos, mods allow runs without checking for expiry, etc, this is all stuff that comes with a site such as this that simply links to other video hosting sites.

It would be nice if src could automatically check whether a submitted run's video is set to expire after 14 days. I believe that's been suggested before, and recently.

I recommend contacting the game mod and/or top runner to see what they plan to do about the WR not having any video evidence linked, because that's a big problem for competition. (There are potentially a few different options for them.)

AlexisDRAlexisDR, IvoryIvory and 4 others like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Report accounts feature?

Started by: SlevanasSlevanas

Not much to talk about really. Likely they used Google to search "how to report accounts", got this thread as a result and didn't catch that it was old.

There is etiquette about necroposting but I don't think I remember seeing anything about it in the site rules.

And it's doubtful the site will implement any automated system to lock old threads but you can always suggest it in the feedback lol thread and maybe the powers that be will take lol notice.

HakoHako, IvoryIvory and 6 others like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Report a site bug

Started by: ZephilesZephiles

When browsing the site on mobile, IGT will be shown as the default time value even if you have RTA set as the default for that game!

This seems to be the result of a recent back-end change.

Please fix this as a priority. It directly misleads users because the site no longer displays the correct time values on mobile browsers for, I guess, the thousands of established leaderboards that use RTA as default.

QuivicoQuivico, MrMonshMrMonsh and 2 others like this. 


Thread: Run Timing Issue

Started by: ishkabishkab

If I understand correctly, you’re saying the in game timer lists frames and goes from .00 to .59, instead of using centiseconds from .00 to .99?

ishkabishkab likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

Please allow leaderboard mods to set the specificity of time measurements to 0.1 or 0.01 or 0.001 seconds, for each leaderboard.

Right now the only two options are seconds or milliseconds. Most games run at 30 or 60fps. By far most video evidence of runs is recorded at 30 or 60fps. Why the is millisecond timing the default and only subsecond timing method on the site?

1. It causes a significant number of inaccurate submissions because users will VERY often write two digits in the ms field thinking centiseconds can be accepted in that field.
2. It also causes misleading time display on many leaderboards, because the site automatically adds a 0 or two as a significant figure(s) to times that are only specific to deciseconds or centiseconds when, in reality, the time should show only two decimal places.

A game uses centisecond in-game-time to rank runs.
A run is completed with a time of 1:23:45.67.
The submitter has to avoid the ridiculous pitfall of typing 1, 23, 45, and 67 because that will show up on the board as 1:23:45.067.
The runner needs to add a 0 after the 67. This is basic math but the way it's presented by the site is very unintuitive, submitters have to know the proper definition of a millisecond and why that means they need to add a 0 to the right of their field entry. It could be so much easier for the runner if, when they type 67 in the field, it populates the field box visibly as 067 so they can fix it. Or if the leaderboard could be set up so that only two digits can be entered and the "millisecond" label is removed, since the game in this example is measured by two decimal places.
And continuing the example, even if the submitter correctly completed the run submission with 67 centiseconds converted into 670 milliseconds, the other problem remains. All the runs on the leaderboard show up with a trailing 0 in the third decimal place. To anyone who knows about significant figures, this is one too many. It implies the runs are measured with an order of magnitude more precision than they actually are.

PearPear, skyweissskyweiss and 9 others like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

(edited: )

"100%" is a set number, not a mere objective, so I'm afraid your comparison is a bit silly too.

Submitting a 99% run to a 100% category is wrong. It would be like submitting a 1% run to a 0% category.

Low% works differently.

What you describe would probably be called max% or something similar, (maybe you can coin it high%), where runners try to get the most completion they can while trying to go fast, and with certain rng heavy games or games where there's an emphasis on the trade-off between speed and collectables, that could work great as a category.

How about the rest of the my post? I tried to be thorough 🙂

ckellyeditsckellyedits likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Filter Suggestion

Started by: YoopiculYoopicul

(edited: )

If users want to be dishonest about their country that's on them... I think another problem would be users who don't list their country for various reasons like if they live in multiple countries, like me. Another problem is that a user may honestly put their country of origin but not their country of residence, or vice versa, and there's no real standard. Edit: thought of one more, sometimes there isn't an agreement on country borders, to put it very mildly. A lot of these are edge cases, but they are honest ones.

Still, if someone wants to know "hey how close am I to a national record?" they can already figure that out the long way, but a site feature could make it easier. The info is there, why not make it more accessible info?

@YoopiculYoopicul don't forget to post your idea, if you haven't already, and any future suggestions in the site feedback thread here:

@TimmiluvsTimmiluvs I hear it's nice down there this time of year!

QuivicoQuivico and Merl_Merl_ like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

(edited: )

I didn't mean to be condescending, I apologize. My "two stated ways" post was as mentioned an attempt at being more conciliatory, but for sure my tone might not have come across that way.

I really did mean that I think the pseudo-authority of this site's boards and the architecture of the leaderboard ordering system (that can only be ranked on time and nothing else) has had the effect of promoting the approach where all other runs are invalidated, and diminishing the approach where runs are sorted first by completion and second by time. That's a more general impression and I shouldn't have imputed it to Liv or Laxxus personally, clearly.

"Are there games already on here that run Low% under which lowest percentage / item attainment, etc isn't required, then?"

YES! Absolutely. Several were already mentioned in this topic. A lot of them, er, "appropriate" the time (hours) value to force the board to rank runs in two stages.

I'm not going to out games that use time this way, last thing I want is for some site mod to see the list and deem it an inappropriate use of the leaderboards, I don't think they would but I don't know the new admins very well. Nevertheless, I did already know of a few games, and I did find more just by searching, including some pretty big games with over nine hundred runners. Moreover, my search led me to a small handful of other forum threads like this one where low% is explained with the comparative completion definition I'm going by. Many of those threads concluded the same, that the site isn't set up for low% like that. So don't go thinking I'm some lone radical low% truther lol.

Anyway I liked Liv's idea of sending the list to the OP to actually help, so I went to DM them, found a user with a similar name and location, and the game they run already has this implemented. I'm not sure if it was added as a result of this topic, but I think so. Which would mean the OP got the info they needed.

By the way, for those who are still arguing that low% should invalidate all previous and future runs, I want to be clear that this is fine and normal when the game rules specify explicitly that their low% category is a restricted, specified list of items, and they have every right to exclude the runs that don't meet such specific criteria. Like for instance Super Metroid. Their low% categories seem to have galvanized into certain laid out routes to follow and which items to get. No one should submit a any% run to the low% board and try to claim last place there. That's just against what the community has agreed to compete on. I'm not so silly as to argue that and I hope you don't think that's my stance.

Game boards here have the advantage of defining what low% means for each game just like they do for any% and 100% and every other category. It remains, however, that low%'s has a two-stage ranking method is quite different from any% and 100% and it's still a shame the site isn't set up for that.

Again, just because the point of low% is minimum completion, by definition, that doesn't always automatically mean that any run that fails to reach the theoretical minimum is invalid. The point of an any% speedrun, for instance, is to complete the game as fast as possible, that doesn't mean you reject all the times that don't reach the theoretical fastest time!

For your reference, an infamous low% run is TP, where there's a glitch that lets you clip through things but that takes hours just to advance a few pixels. The first 3-4 minutes of this video (funny YouTube username, LowestPercent) explain the two-stage ranking for low%.

I don't really want to argue over semantics and definitions and I'm willing to accept that both approaches can work great. Please be open minded about the two-prong definition, it goes back years and works for lots of games, including some big ones, though I wish the site helped those categories display better.

tldr: sorry i sounded like a jerk, games setting their own clear category rules is a good thing of course, two-stage ranking of low% runs is still a correct definition even if it doesn't match yours, and it works for plenty of games. and op got what they needed.

ckellyeditsckellyedits likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Detect non-highlighted Twitch VODs

Started by: ThueThue

If it's a recurring problem, you could consider putting a reminder in the game rules.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

I explained my understanding of low%. "That's not how low% is supposed to work... At least, that's my understanding."
You repeated your different understanding.
I then expanded on our two different approaches in a more conciliatory way. "There are two stated ways to rank low%".

Don't be confused 🙂

diggitydiggity likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

I think my point stands, and I think you just repeated yours @LivLiv and we might just need to agree to disagree.

Nonetheless, there are two stated ways to rank low%.

One is to accept only the lowest theoretical percentage and invalidate all other runs. This is the method best supported by SRC. "Lowest%", if you will. Superlative ranking method.

The other is to just rank them first by lower completion, then second by time. This is clunky to do on SRC. "Lower%", if I may. Comparative ranking method.

It really doesn't matter in the end if we have different opinions in this topic on what the true ranking method for low% is. Different games can work better with one or the other. Obviously the OP is asking for the two-stage sorting method for their game, based on the variability of percent completion from run to run. Other games probably do just fine with having a lowest% completion number set in stone.

It's the whole reason different games have different rules, which is the strength of this site. Still, it's a shame that low% comparative is not supported by the site while low% superlative isn't ideal for some games. Resorting to artificial time "penalties" by adding units to the hour value so the runs sort properly is a sorry arrangement.

diggitydiggity likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

That's not how low% is supposed to work though. @LivLiv @Laxxus

Suppose you complete a game in 2 mins getting 10 collectibles and claim WR.
Then someone comes and beats the game in 2 hours getting 9 items.
They have the new WR.
Your run doesn't become invalidated. It becomes 2nd place.

The site really doesn't have a built-in method for this two-pronged sorting method so I understand why some game boards may just invalidate or obsolete those runs. This limitation is probably what led to how you said low% works.

At least, that's my understanding.

diggitydiggity likes this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Making Low% categories in games

Started by: Piggyking99Piggyking99

Unfortunately there is no good way to sort runs primarily by % completion and secondarily by time. The way this site has its boards set up is not conducive to how low% works.
There are ways around it but it's messy and ugly. There might be a way with variables and filters, I'm not sure.
Many of the boards that do include a low% category basically don't allow various % completions, and only accept the lowest number instead of sorting like they should.

I believe you might have misinterpreted what is being asked.

SpikyLlamaSpikyLlama, ckellyeditsckellyedits and 2 others like this. 

Forum: Speedrunning

Thread: "Split up" splits mid-run?

Started by: Laika_the_SpacedogLaika_the_Spacedog

I used to split my runs in a way similar to what you described.

In my case, any% and 100% are the same for the first 6 mins. Then the routes diverge, and any% ends after another 6mins, 100% takes another 14mins.

I ran any% competitively, so if I had a great start for the first 6 mins, I would continue with any% route and try to pb.

For me, 100% was less competitive, but I still wanted to improve. So if the first 6 mins of the run were going okay but not perfect, I would continue the run as a 100% run.

I very much second the desire to have a branching function in livesplit, but I never found a way. I ended up just making segments for the first part of the run, then after the paths diverge I just had one split that said "end". I had to mentally keep track of my times, it was not ideal.

Another method I tried was running two instances of LiveSplit. It was messy for me, but you could probably manage something like that with an OBS scene switching hotkey?

Laika_the_SpacedogLaika_the_Spacedog and QuivicoQuivico like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: What it means?

Started by: HollywoodHollywood

This is only tangentially related, but if I'm not mistaken the site has a long-time glitch in how it displays runs that were submitted on the same day. When this bug gets brought up, if my memory serves, there's usually a few voices that declare that runners should only submit one run per session/day/stream anyway, which would also avoid the glitch.

So @TimmiluvsTimmiluvs it's not exactly unheard of, nor is it a new idea that runners should limit themselves to one PB submission per day or whatever.

(I don't really agree, and my personal opinion is that runners should submit every run they are proud of. Even slower times, if they do something new or interesting in that run. I'm happy to verify. But that's just me, and I welcome any little bit of legit speedrun activity on my small leaderboards.)

ckellyeditsckellyedits, PearPear and Merl_Merl_ like this.