If we need something rigorous regarding documenting the checkpoint system, it should be possible to RAM-watch in an N64 emulator and figure out the hex values that change whenever a checkpoint flag is activated, thus also allowing us to map out specifically where each checkpoint is located - various racing games do this in various ways but this should be more or less feasible in an emulator
For Detroit I don't really want to see a future where everyone who wants to set a top time has to optimize the "skip" I found. It's only possible with the skills I built from other skips using the Bounce; learning this trick is essentially outside of the basic skills used traditionally.
If someone wanted to learn this trick I might suggest they practice the Toyko or Long Island skips it wouldn't have even been possible without understanding gained from them.
I don't know what's right but forcing someone like Pancakes to learn this after he stated he doesn't want to spend much time on skips just to get the record back seems wrong. He shouldn't have to exploit the game just to get the record back; it's impossible or close to impossible to set a 1'08 without it I expect. I wanna see faster times on this course and I fear making this skip legal basically destroys competition on it for the foreseeable future. It's not a hard skip for me but it would be if I wanted to avoid learning the larger skips I imagine; if this and houston were the only times I used those skills.
It's not as simple as just hitting the side of the finish line at the right angle. Landing -> bounce -> hold precise downleft and the perfect positioning and momentum pushes you into the next lap. If you don't land and bounce properly you get the reset onto the course skipping part of the course using the Reset(like my lap 2)
If you hold a strong position on either side I would challenge you to spend 20 minutes trying to get the skip to work; should be pretty easy to try in a way that will give you insight as to what this actually is.
Under no circumstances would Pancakes or anyone else be "forced" to do anything or use any strategy
If a new strategy is faster, it follows that players seeking competitive times will need to make use of that strategy to optimize their times - I just object to framing this as "forcing" anything. Clearly, some players will benefit from the availability of strategies on certain tracks while others will not - this is normal and expected. I do not think it is particularly appropriate to consider a single top player's predilection for strategies when considering the best ruleset for the game.
If the skip is not hard for Ghillie and they are concerned about competition on this track should the shortcut become legal in No-Skips, the best thing they can do is help others learn how to perform the shortcut with consistency.
The skip is hard to optimize; my run doesn't even do it twice properly I just mean in comparison to the more difficult skips not that I have an easy time pulling it off
Point taken though
Ultimately if it is legal i get another couple WRs not gonna complain
Let's consider a hypothetical - let's say Ghillie's Detroit trick as it is today requires you to hit a bounce into a precise analog stick angle to not get reset back onto the track. Let's consider that we vote and it gets decided that this Detroit shortcut should be considered a skip because of this.
If someone is then able to come along and do the trick without needing to use the bounce+stick angle but rather just land differently, but still shave off the time, would it still need to be a skip? If another one of these is found that at first seems to require this technique, but then later is revealed to not require it? Is the bounce+stick angle thing sufficient on its own to make something a "skip"?
And doesn't the Detroit trick still save time, even if you get reset back onto the track?
What I want to know is whether or not this bounce+angle technique is more like a glitch or not. Is the game doing something differently than expected here? Is this just a normal mechanic that can be exploited in this case?
There's nothing about this that's glitchy it's just exploiting the reset mechanics
The landing is only necessary to cancel the reset, Resetting still saves time if done correctly(landing slightly to the right will have you land on the slope before the finish which is likely slower than just driving normally). There is a potential with enough momentum/the right angle that you just land on the finish line essentially bypassing ever landing off the track and still skipping the corner. I suspect the technique I use on the first lap is the best use of momentum.
It's not a glitch but does exploit the Reset mechanic whether you are talking about my lap 1 or 2. If I avoided using these exploits I think I can still skip the corner by landing on the finish line from the off the course it's just slower and harder. Not sure there's any way to truly ban this shortcut just ways to make it arbitrarily limited to avoid using the Reset mechanic.
Made this
First example uses the off course area to skip part of the course without landing off the course at all
Second uses the Reset mechanic to skip driving on part of the track; this is one of the mistakes you can make on this course and it works exactly like the end of my houston laps
I think everyone agrees the first video is a skip; the other 2 are things we are looking at potentially calling a skip but in contexts where they actually lose time over current records without skips.
I suppose that the way I would like to change the rules would create a whole new set of issues. So maybe the current definition of a skip is actually a good one.
I have however thought of something that I think could be kinda interesting. We keep the categories as they are, and allow these shortcuts that aren't glitches in the normal category. And then we add a whole new category with the criteria that you have to follow the normal track, meaning no skips, and no shortcuts (even the intended ones). Intentionally going to the side of jumps, like the first ones in Gravel Pit, would not be allowed. Unless you actually screw up, you have to stick to the regular course. Maybe even a screw-up that makes you go off to the side of the "intended track" would invalidate the run. Tracks that have split lanes would be okey to pick either one, for example Canyon Chasm.
Not sure how to phrase the rules of a category like that, but you basically have to go the long way around every track, on every lap. Not sure if that's appealing to anyone else, but I would love something like that as it would encourage endurance and consistencey on a whole new level.
I spent some time with the Detroit trick, and I sympathize with the concerns expressed here about legalizing such a shortcut. It definitely changes the feel of the track, and it is by no means trivial to pull off, particularly the really fast version where you don't get reset at all.
Still, I think I'm still leaning toward allowing it, as I am in favor of a consistent, logical ruleset unless we absolutely have to get case-by-case. I still feel like the truly game-breaking shortcuts are the five mentioned in one of my previous posts.
To erru's point above, perhaps we can create a flag for runs which are done in this "intended" style so people who are interested in this can see only those runs - others can be filtered out using speedun.com's built-in filtering tool. This is a sort of compromise that has the benefit of not "creating new WRs" for each stage as well as not cluttering the leaderboard with two more columns, with the downside that it's a little less clean to view and there is sort of inherently less recognition given to a good run in this style if they are grouped with other runs on the leaderboard. Worth considering...
I think it's worth generally avoiding the use of new category distinctions to keep up playing with each other and competing directly; this isn't a large community.
I think ultimately some of the skips need to be separated but I do want to stress that these skips ARE NOT shortcuts to improvement or false recognition; All of them utilize exploits of the base mechanics and learning the skips makes you a better player in non-skips runs. Beating any of my shortcut runs would require you to be good enough at the core gameplay to match my lines.
Most of the designed shortcuts in the game like on Gravel Pit, Mountain Quarry, Construction Yard ect. are more specifically difficult than the longest routes; playing specifically to avoid using shortcuts is functionally a way to avoid difficulty in this game not a challenge to endurance or consistency. I would advise against this if you want to improve consistency and endurance; ultimately these are skills best built in time trials testing; refining routes through repetition, taking risks, and experimentation.
I feel if we did and another category, it will cause way more confusion than what's it worth.
With trying to understand everyone's points, this is a definition I have come up with "A skip is when a runner abuses the Out of Bounds Reset System, to cause a lap to be counted, and/or skipping 50% or more of the track." I think this is a fair way to describe the common way each of the big five are done, and if we were to look at Houston and Detroit, they would not be applied since they do not skip more than 50% of the track. I think why I don't think the Goldmine and Detroit "skips" are skips because they are getting reset at a reasonable area to where you landed, Detroit by the finish line, and Goldmine parallel to where the rider landed out of bounds. If they were to get reset by a large margin, say at the 5th turn on the track, then I would say that they are skips.
When we first made the skips category, is was to allow people to still play the tracks while not having to try and perform the necessary techniques to perform a skip. When Meauxdal decided to start playing this game, I feel he would have been uninterested, if to be competitive, he had to go for the skip.
Fair points guys. Honestly, I kinda just want us to settle on something so I can start doing some minor runs with the "correct" ruleset as a baseline.
To me it seems as if I'm the only one not really liking the use of Detroit etc, so I'll follow along with what the community wants. And the most common opinion on here is to allow all of these tricks that don't skip major parts of a track. So I say we just go with that.
I did leave a comment on one of Kyman's runs to see if I could get them to come and comment on this debate, but no idea if they've seen it or care to comment
I think there's a real potential for runs that utilize multiple smaller skips in a way that cuts off around or near 50% skipped but I can't prove it. I'm honestly hopeful that further pushes to the skips meta make it clearer what should and should not be considered a skip.
I'll try to stop calling detroit/houston techniques a skip and change titles of videos etc. as appropriate; they follows the same exploits and techniques as the big skips so I will probably always think of them as skips.
Thanks to everyone for a good discussion so far
Seems like discussion has settled down with the consensus being something along these lines:
A skip is defined as a shortcut which, by use of glitched checkpoint abuse and track reset mechanic exploitation, gains credit for a lap or laps which are not completed.
We should, then, move Houston and Detroit's "Skips" runs back into their main categories. We should also consider an additional implication.
If finishing a lap on Kyoto is faster when cutting the corner out of bounds than taking the last turn, then doing so but not actually getting credit for a skipped lap should also be legal; i.e. running laps 1 and 2 normally, but finishing lap 3 by jumping toward the finish line as in the Skips run, and doing a buffered wheelie to pass through the final checkpoint and finish the race. No one has done this in a run yet, but its legality is an implication of the above.
While making these changes
There's a skip version of Japanese Challenge Round and Japanese Challenge Round is longer(3 laps to every track) and no possible skips on NTSC-U challenge round
So technically there's these 3 challenge categories AFAIK under the current rulings(however you want to word them): Challenge Round Challenge Round JP Challenge Round JP Skips
All Rounds should probably have a (JP) version as well since Challenge Round is significantly longer in JP.
Can you perform a skip on the Japanese version of Challenge round? What tracks are on there?
Same tracks as the other versions, they just have 3 laps instead of 1.
Orlando, FL Phoenix, AZ Nashville, TN Las Vegas, NV Kyoto, Japan
