@Fouks Using elapsed ticks is less accurate than the method used in-game, which is able of sub-ticks precision by interpolating the time of crossing based on the position on track on the tick before and after the crossing.

Usually this estimate and the ghost time are within 2ms of each other, I don't recall the specifics behind this occasional difference.

The main things causing issues is that the distance over track has a "zero band" that can cause some weird things when the kart's center happens to be precisely inside the band during a tick. This needs fixing but would need some serious changes.

As for Wax using the git version : right now, the git version is pretty much gameplay-compatible with 1.0 at least for time-trials (some UI changes affecting story mode make this more debatable there), barring some very small things like the XR591 checkline fix. It'll probably include some story-mode bugfixes for cases where points weren't properly awarded, but those bugs can be avoided already, it's just a random run-killer bug that would go out. Ideally, 1.0 and 1.1 should be a single category for IL and full run purpose, to avoid cluttering the leaderboard for insignificant differences.

Because of this compatibility, I think using current git is not an issue. Though personally, I kept using a fixed 1.0 compile for running purposes.

However, once other things begin to change in preparation for the 2.0 release, there will be a number of compatibility differences that will arise. Hence, git version should be avoided after 1.1. In any case, the version used should be disclosed, because if the verifier catches something amiss that indicates a wrong version (git, gameplay mod, or whatever), the run must be rejected.

They aren't available on the addons site and through the in-game addons downloader, which is the main issue for new players.

You and me still have copies of the track versions used so we could upload them for use by other players, but this is clumsy.

I agree with @Fouks ; I prefer not having to deal with addons in the main game, and the subgames for the addons track is a nice trick.

It doesn't solve the issue of different addons version. Some of the old addons version used in submitted runs are unavailable now, so a "community modded version with addons" could be interesting.

The IL system of SRC doesn't fit well our use case : we have a set of levels for each version, and each main release have some tracks added/removed while others stay, so we get tracks that are "official" for one version and "addon" (or don't exist) for another.

We'd need to make some request to SRC to improve this.

@Andet don't self-verify even when it looks alright, you'll get dumb mistakes slipping through... I'm personally against self-verification even though I trust others here to be honest, mistakes happen.

I'm ok with the All tracks GP category. I'm fine with in game time, I'm not a fan of button mashing between tracks either.

I've been less around about verifying runs and such in recent times, but considering my history of speedrunning STK and my role in STK's development, I think I still have good legitimacy to stay as SuperMod.

I probably won't try another serious run until I get a beefier system though.

I have to agree that there are some more serious potential issues with fake ghost times and other methods. We may need to think of ways to improve reliability there, though I don't think we've had real issues there for now.

But a stuttering video makes basic verification painful. If there has been some slight gameplay tweak to boost the kart, I feel I'm much less likely to catch it if there is a lot of stutter because of how distracting that is.

In the end, we need to draw the line somewhere, and having decently smooth video is imho a good standard to have moving forward. Thanks Andet for recording proper smooth videos for WaxPro.

I updated the rankings. I've lost points because WRs have been improved on tracks I did. Meanwhile, Andet and Theodore completed all ILs with competitive times, but Theodore ends up significantly ahead because he has not a single PB far from the WR. If he improved his Hacienda time to be a WR, he would end up at 821 out of 840 possible points.

The maximum score with all 21 WR is 840 points.

Rankings for 1.0 ILs (29/10/2019) :

• #1 Theodore with 816 points (21/21 tracks)
• #2 Andet with 727 points (21/21 tracks)
• #3 myself with 186 points (12/21 tracks)
• #4 Wax with 99 points (7/21 tracks)

I did not bother counting points for FabianF and Alistair has they have very little and rather poor runs.

Rankings for 1.0 ILs (17/07/2019) :

• #1 Theodore with 812 points (21/21 tracks)
• #2 Andet with 698 points (21/21 tracks)
• #3 myself with 259 points (12/21 tracks)
• #4 Alistair with 6 points (1/21 tracks)

09/05/2019 with new formula :

• #1 myself with 438 points (12/21 tracks)
• #2 Andet with 429 points (11/21 tracks)
• #3 Theodore with 84 points (3/21 tracks)
• #4 Alistair with 8 points (1/21 tracks)

It's nice to compete across the various tracks to try and get as many records as possible, and when it isn't in reach, at least get close to the best time.

But who has the best overall times across the ILs ?

Total time isn't that great because people who haven't posted a time for every single IL (even with the restriction to official tracks from a version) can't be compared at all to the others. A single poor time can also make a big difference.

Hence this alternative : points awarded by IL. It also gives some more incentive to post PBs which aren't WRs :)

Update : The previous formula dropped from 20 points for WR to 13 points for a time 1% slower to 10 points for a time 2% slower. It appears to me now this is too harsh. The fight between theodore and Andet has shown well that several % of improvements can happen, and while we don't have a lot of players submitting times right now, the points would be meaningless except at the very top.

New formula :

• WR gets 40 points.
• A time <0.1% longer than the WR gets 39 points.

• = 0.1% and < 0.2% gets 38 points.

• = 0.2% and < 0.3% gets 37 points.

• = 0.3% and < 0.4% gets 36 points.

• = 0.4% and < 0.5% gets 35 points.

• = 0.5% and < 0.6% gets 34 points.

• = 0.6% and < 0.7% gets 33 points.

• = 0.7% and < 0.8% gets 32 points

• = 0.8% and < 0.9% gets 31 points.

• = 0.9% and < 1.0% gets 30 points

• = 1.0% and < 1.15% gets 29 points

• = 1.15% and < 1.3% gets 28 points

• = 1.3% and < 1.45% gets 27 points

• = 1.45% and < 1.6% gets 26 points

• = 1.6% and < 1.8% gets 25 points

• = 1.8% and < 2.0% gets 24 points

• = 2.0% and < 2.2% gets 23 points

• = 2.2% and < 2.4% gets 22 points

• = 2.4% and < 2.6% gets 21 points

• = 2.6% and < 2.8% gets 20 points

• = 2.8% and < 3.0% gets 19 points

• = 3.0% and < 3.3% gets 18 points

• = 3.3% and < 3.6% gets 17 points

• = 3.6% and < 3.9% gets 16 points

• = 3.9% and < 4.2% gets 15 points

• = 4.2% and < 4.5% gets 14 points

• = 4.5% and < 4.9% gets 13 points

• = 4.9% and < 5.3% gets 12 points

• = 5.3% and < 5.7% gets 11 points

• = 5.7% and < 6.1% gets 10 points

• = 6.1% and < 6.5% gets 9 points

• = 6.5% and < 7.0% gets 8 points

• = 7.0% and < 7.5% gets 7 points

• = 7.5% and < 8.1% gets 6 points

• = 8.1% and < 8.8% gets 5 points

• = 8.8% and < 9.6% gets 4 points

• = 9.6% and < 10.5% gets 3 points

• = 10.5% and < 12.0% gets 2 points

• = 12.0% and < 15.0% gets 1 point

We'll see how it holds with time.

I'm a SuperMod for the board of the game I run the most. My account will never ever be compromised because of a bad password issue, I'm not a dummy, I can use a password manager and long secure passwords (with some cursing towards forced password changes thrown in for extra entropy).

There are talks here of forcing 2FA on everybody, or at least on all mods, because some careless users got their accounts compromised and boards were vandalized. 2FA is a big inconvenience and I'd really prefer to avoid it. I can connect to my github account with push access on a 1K star repository without 2FA. I can connect to my gmail account without 2FA. If those don't think they should enforce 2FA on me I don't think SR should either.

However, SR.com should have much more robust recoveries mechanism. It should not need a site-wide database rollback when the vast majority of boards are unaffected. At the november rollback I had to search for the videos of users who had submitted runs the rollback removed, in order to resubmit the runs for them. Effectively, the compromise didn't hurt our board but the rollback did.

Even outside of an account being compromised, what if a mod goes rogue and damages the leaderboard ? This is thankfully rare, as runners invested in a community don't want to forsake it, but it's not unheard of either. Currently, fixing the damages is a very difficult task. It should not be.

With proper per-board restore mechanisms, the site's staff having to do a lot of extra work after a compromise wouldn't be the concern it is now.

I have identified the source of the nasty bug I talked about in my first post.

    if (player != NULL && (getName() == player->getName()));
        is_current_player = true;

The faulty ; at the end of the line with the if made each player during the saving process be marked as the current player so each of them loaded the current times from the speedrun timer and saved them, which propagated junk times.

The code of the functional speedrun timer can be found here : https://github.com/STK-helper/stk-code/tree/Official1.0SpeedrunTimer

EDIT: I think there is something wrong hurting framerates during races. I'll have to investigate further.

EDIT2: I've found nothing wrong so far... Let me know if you notice something weird when testing it or not.

The speedrun timer is not included in the main release so we'll need separate modded binaries with it.

I have ported back my code to a recent version but there are a few nasty bugs to fix.

It may take a few days to get both linux and windows binaries after I publish the code.

I suggest to avoid doing full-game runs without the timer mod in the meantime, so all the runs can be timed consistently.

SupertTuxKart has a small but nice speedrunning community : https://www.speedrun.com/stk/

Racing games often have many ILs. One game I run : https://www.speedrun.com/stk/individual_levels

@ShikenNuggets Your spreadsheet list recent records for a game I run, but also has records listed for two game versions where there is no time I can find when looking in the leaderboard. How is that possible ?

I don't like this idea of putting the year into the version numbering.

But it could be nice to put the version and its release date in some visible place in the main menu so that people become more likely to search for a newer version when the one they are using becomes old.

I don't have Google Drive and don't want to use anything like that. And I wouldn't want to share every single ghost replay I do, that would be too much :)

This also doesn't solve the concern about stability over time.

We recently asked @coolperson to submit replays for his times in order to confirm their legitimacy. He submitted the files, we checked, and we could confirm that things were in order.

However, if someone wants to check one of the times done by me, @Fouks and others, there is still only the video (which proves things, but it can be harder to detect something amiss).

Similarly, if someone wants to train having those replays on hand could be useful to better understand where time is lost.

However, having each player host his replay files is impractical. Sure, the same is true of videos, but this adds a layer of complication and increases the risk that some will be lost.

Is there some way we could make replay file sharing easier and more reliable ?

I'd like to share some of my own, but I don't fancy having to setup some "cloud" storage thingy to get it done;

SR had its own issue and seems to have rolled a backup.

The runs validated yesterday have been deleted and have to be resubmitted.