CanadaIf it's a recurring problem, you could consider putting a reminder in the game rules.
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 :)
I think my point stands, and I think you just repeated yours @Liv 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.
That's not how low% is supposed to work though. @Liv @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.
@Piggyking99 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.
@michaelatheswag I believe you might have misinterpreted what is being asked.
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?
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 @Timmiluvs 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.)
I value having a designated place on user profiles where I can easily refer to see what specific words to use when addressing a user I don't already know.
While we're at it... If we the site is open to a user-input field, I would love a lot more flexibility for that field other than just pronouns.
For instance, short-paragraph "bio" text box where I can put whatever I want. Pronouns, yes, but also how best to reach me, a couple of my interests, occupation, languages spoken, whatever other parts of my identity I would like to share.
Edit: I'm on desktop now and just noticed the pronouns appear on the forums under the posters' usernames. It makes a lot of sense, but it's definitely missed on mobile. This also means that my suggestion above in this post doesn't make as much sense, as I was thinking in terms of how it appears on the profile page and not the forums next to each post.
Pear is correct. The game was added to the site just three days ago. https://www.speedrun.com/game_inside_a_game/gamestats
@Saori Why don't you reach out to the mod via PM or social media and offer to help set up the board?
See this thread linked below for more info on why Category Extension boards exist and why there are stringent criteria for allowing them in exceptional cases.
https://www.speedrun.com/strike_force_heroes_2
They even have an open thread on the game forum asking for category suggestions. https://www.speedrun.com/strike_force_heroes_2/thread/n1hdf
Edit: Looks like the OP deleted their first two posts. For posterity: @Mushtendo was asking about adding a game that already here, and suggesting which categories they would add if they were the moderator.
Same solution. Click the link in the first post of this topic. Make sure you then go on to read the first post of that topic.
Agreed, in general no one should reject a run because of some comfort level thing, I have no idea where that idea came from.
Conversely, a mod's discretion to reject a run that shows a clear lack of effort is unequivocally called for.
...By the sitewide moderation rules.
...Twice.
@ckellyedits You are arguing against stuff that you put in quotation marks, but those are your own words. Nobody here saying runs should be rejected because "it is too slow" as you put it.
In fact, throughout this topic you have kept pressing on the idea that runs might be rejected for being too slow, whereas others are trying to explain the standard set out in the site's moderation rules, which is about effort, not speed.
You've conflated the two, which perhaps why you've also incorrectly conflated a mod's job with gatekeeping.
There is either a clear lack of effort or there is not a clear lack of effort.
A moderator of a game is one of the most qualified people to tell whether a submission is made as a speedrun attempt in good faith, or a video in which no reasonable effort is made to go fast.
In cases where you can't tell the difference, (some games may be less obvious, like racing games e.g.), then give submission the benefit of the doubt and reach out to the runner to welcome them and show them the resources available to help them improve their time if that's their plan.
If someone wishes to argue that no distinction should ever be made, then I invite that person to go seek out lets-plays on YouTube and add any that are verifiable to their moderated boards as guest "runs" if they wish to back up such an argument.
I know this isn't exactly what you asked, but there is a factor that might give you pause. There is a glitch in the way runs are sorted if you submit two runs in the same category that were completed on the same date; there is a variable for the the run's time of day but this point of data is set for all runs to the same default time of day, and this means the sort order gets mixed up. It's not a big deal if you do submit multiple PBs that were run in a single day--as long as the mods are happy to have the activity--it just looks weird on your profile if you look closely. If that bothers you, you could limit your submissions to one pb per day of running. Unless that's been fixed.
