Currently no, but I am looking into emulation right now. I think the plan is to allow emulator runs but track them separately, until we can figure out how comparable they are! We are having this same discussion in the Discord if you are interested in chatting at a quicker pace, otherwise, please stay tuned.
Better still: there should be no default. All submitters should have to select the platform.
Your proposed solution of putting the more common platforms as default doesn't address the problem that users can forget to change it, and in some cases could make the problem worse like with runs where the platform is hard to distinguish based on video alone.
I suggest you submit runs under Current Patch subcategory like other glitchless or NMG runners have already been doing, and use the run comment field to elaborate. Actual completed runs make a stronger case for new categories.
Once the tech discoveries slow down more--it has started already--it will be easier to nail down NMG that participating runners agree on, but until then runners have just kinda had to guess. Part of trailblazing a new game.
(ARC and Soul Door Skip probably make the banned list. Clipping through walls, floors, and barriers probably do too. Using enemies to get over short walls or gates... big question mark. Everyone has an opinion, this is just mine, and cue the healthy discussion lol.)
Also, feel free to bring it up in the Discord as well, since it is already very active and you mentioned you're in it, though conversations like this do tend to get lost there... and as least it's not "Under a lot of pressure right now" like this site is --gah I had to retry sending this post 8 times.
https://www.speedrun.com/barneys_hide_and_seek_game
56-way tie for 54th place.
and many other multi-way ties at other ranks.
I'm sorry but what the heck am I supposed to do for the hundreds of "runs at risk" on a game I moderate?
Did I miss some guidance provided by the site? If so can you please direct me?
here's a 3 https://www.speedrun.com/lb
edit: another 3 https://www.speedrun.com/mshvsf
I don't see how you will get them to pay any attention to a petition that's asking them to pay attention to their own website.
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.
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. :(
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.)
Not much to talk about really. Likely they used Google to search "how to report speedrun.com 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.
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.
REQUEST: Please allow leaderboard mods to set the specificity of time measurements to 0.1 or 0.01 or 0.001 seconds, for each leaderboard.
BACKGROUND: 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?
WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM:
- 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.
- 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.
EXAMPLE: 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.
"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 :)
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?
@Yoopicul don't forget to post your idea, if you haven't already, and any future suggestions in the site feedback thread here: https://www.speedrun.com/the_site/thread/g79jt
@Timmiluvs I hear it's nice down there this time of year!
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.
