Faithpath's run didn't complete the game to 100%, so why was it put in the 100% category? Also, it should be noted their time is not 2:25, it's 2:26.53 (even though the title of the video says otherwise, but according to the leaderboard timing, it shouldn't be 2:25).
Salut both of you,
well let me assure you, that there was no intention to trick you guys whatsoever.
--> The Timer: Well you cannot really rely on the bottom right timer to tell you the current time accurately, because if you watch it very closely or even with slowed replay speed, then you will see that the numbers sometimes jump back and forth. So instead of relying on a glitchy timedisplay, on might assume that the official Leaderboard-numbers of the actual game should be taken as evidence. So the Exit Path Leaderboards are only accurate to the seconds, and by no means beyond that. And its screenshot should show it that even if its in between, it gets rounded anyways: https://imgur.com/a/omf5A on https://armorgames.com/play/5917/exit-path
Mulitplayer suffered from the same issue, and would often show you different in the bottem right compared to the "global time". It was host and ping depnendant.
To apply times into the tenth and hundreds of seconds is likely not accurate.
--> the not 100%: I have 30 of 30 flags in the bottem right dont I ;). Well they are not displayed once you have them collected, so I forgot about them and assumed since every stage is played, it was 100%. My bad.
kind regards
Ya, I don't think anyone thought you were trying to trick them, just didn't understand the rules. I watched the in game timer at 1/4 speed and personally couldn't see the timer jumping back and forth. As for the armorgames leaderboard, there is no way to tell if there person used the pause glitch (or even the refresh glitch) to get those times, and for the top level times I think video proof should be required (almost every game on this site requires video just to submit a time). Also since the times are so close milliseconds do matter in this game, a 2:26.53 and a 2:25.01 could both show up as 2:25 on the leaderboard, and when one of those runs is clearly faster one should be ahead of the other.
Just curious though, would you ever try to do a 100% run? There's a lot of room for improvement on it, I'm sure sub 4 is possible.
