I'm not saying that it won't work for everyone eventually/later. The issue it that it doesn't now when it could easily have been avoided.

I'm sure there wouldn't be as much issue if the site still worked the way it used to: the new layout has a lot of bugs and a lot of just poorly thought out components. It really should have been tested without "surprise new layout!", as this would have revealed many, if not all of the valid issues raised against it.

Just in terms of bugs there's the notification bug, maybe a couple others too.

Then you step back to the inconveniences of everything being sub-menu based when there's plenty of space- do we really need more clicks for every step? This goes double for the time inputs ¤¤still being drop-down instead of typed¤¤ (excepting milliseconds, which shows the functionality is there. Why isn't it used?)

THEN you step back again for the general flow/usable space/whatever you want to call it, and it's just... borderline unusable on some layouts. The amount of visible information at any given time is much less.

So yeah, it's understandable people want the old layout back while the new layout gets fixed. The old layout at least worked for everyone.

I have very little to add that hasn't already been said.

BAD THINGS

1. Top bar takes up way too much space, and some custom speedrun.com logos for leaderboards look pretty bad now.
2. Way too much dead space between boxes.
3. Filter now goes into a drop-down menu. That's not too bad, until you realize there's no easy way to see what filters are currently applied.
4. "View Rules" now removes the vertical scrollbar, resulting in some jitter on the page. Also, the pop-up is ugly and there's no way to view by default.
5. Comments are now functionally useless as there's no way to see them from the main board itself, only the run page: and there's no way to know what runs have them.
6. Miscellaneous Categories... why wasn't this left as a "show" option? It's the same amount of clicks to reach one misc. category (2) but it's another 2 for each additional, instead of just 1.
7. Edit profile: look at the green! http://prntscr.com/bod41u It's literally getting truncated! Look at how much unused space there is here! Why the hell does a sentence that would fit on one line get stretched to have, with huge space between paragraphs???
8. On User Profiles, show misc/show obsolete are now on the same line. With no space between them.
9. Game names are no longer bold, which makes them blend in more on user profiles. This is admittedly a personal nitpick but I really don't like it.
10. All this wasted space on user info: http://prntscr.com/bod67k
11. Leaderboards waste space too: the top bar, dead space and category headings now result in... 9 runs being visible at the start. Before, I would see around 18 without having to scroll down. That's half as many!
12. The forums waste space exactly the same way, showing half the information in the same amount of space.
13. Finally: the front page. I used to see somewhere between 10 and 20 runs on the front page (usually around 13 or 14) depending on how many duplicate games there were. Right now I see 7. From 3 games. Even after scrolling down a decent bit, I STILL ONLY SEE SEVEN RUNS: http://prntscr.com/bod7t1
14. Oh and the messages system is still coming soon (but that's not a layout thing)

GOOD THINGS

1. Notifications and pending actions now take up less space and are more readable, especially in bulk.
2. Resources page looks a little nicer, though the resource names should still be bold.

Overall: 2 good things, 13 bad things. This layout change is awful, at least on my screen. Maybe it's not so bad for mobile devices, but in that case why not make a whole separate mobile layout and keep the original desktop layout for desktop? My max resolution is 1366x768 and with the header bar, there's just not enough space on the screen to be wasting this much with empty space.

So yeah, the absolute biggest complaint is wasted space absolutely everywhere. I don't care if the site works better on mobile if, to accomplish this, you had to nearly ruin it for PCs. I don't care if it works fine on your high-end gaming rig with three monitors and 4k resolution, the layout is barely usable on my laptop. And that's terrible.

I died in the menuing and completely skipped an attack in the struggle phase of Asriel...or something like that. Not sure if this is known, but it's pretty cool :P

If the load times vary that much, you really should just manually retime without the loads, even though it is such a huge pain to do. However, the video itself should have the loads in so that everything can be independently checked, should anyone care to.

Version differences suck, but that's just the way things go sometimes. Loadless comparisons help, but then what about lag differences/etc.?

PS1 games are a bit of a mess between PS1 / Emulator / PS2 (slim/fat models and FDS/SDS) / PS3 (download/disc, SSD/not?) / PSP / PSVita. When PS2 was the fastest at least the fastest option was common hardware. Now, it's not. iQue is and always was silly, especially with "not allowed not allowed I GOT ONE IT'S ALLOWED", especially because it's so uncommon.

There are 3 runs currently on the boards that use emulator. All 3 of those runs were done before the rule standardization and changes about a year ago, so they were grandfathered in.

So I checked out his run to see if there were any strategies I might have missed...and was quite surprised to see Rumia taken down over 6 seconds faster! So I looked a little further, first to see if my game was lagging, but then I noticed that his game was running at 62.50 FPS instead of the usual 60.

Running some numbers, his game is running a little over 4% faster than mine. 2:01 Rumia vs. 2:07 is 121 seconds vs. 127, but 121¤62.5 (7562 frames) vs. 127¤60 (7620 frames). This is without taking into account decimals, variances in split timing, or any potential improvements, but it still shows that for every minute of gameplay, he gains 2.5 seconds. That's...kind of an unacceptable disparity. There's three options here:

1. Force 60 FPS. This is the easiest and best option. Alternatively, if he can't get the game to run at 60 FPS, a framerate adjustment could be done (20:31 = 1,231 seconds, 1,231 seconds ¤ 62.5 frames per second = 76,937 frames, and 76,937 frames at 60 per second = ~1,282.3 seconds, which is 51 additional seconds. 20:31 + 0:51 = 21:22).
2. Allow any framerate. This is a bad call since the vpatch can set the framerate to literally anything: I would grind out a 120 FPS clear, and that would be unassailable without also clearing at 120 FPS, or close to it.
3. Leave the boards as is. This is also a fairly bad call since so much of the game autoscrolls for free timesave just by running the game incorrectly.

These sorts of framerate decisions would likely end up applying to every game, so choose wisely (hint: option 1 with faster runs disallowed is the easiest for moderation, option 1 with the adjustment is the easiest for the players, options 2 and 3 are both very flawed)

Okay so I'm just going to say two things here.

1. "And no, in the TS2 and 102D community the dreamcast and playstation versions are the farthest thing from viable. And as I've said I doubt this problem is exclusive to those games." You're right, bad moderation isn't a problem exclusive to those games. But ranting about how 1 or 2 moderators aren't splitting off categories in a logical manner to the entire speedrunning community, and then continuing to rant about how things should be a certain way even though these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, and THEN continuing to ignore any points that don't agree with your worldview is not the way to go about it. Just mention to the mods that the versions can't really be compared and should be split off, done.

2. "A common theme among human reasoning is that you only make an effort to understand something ¤if it confirms your already pre-established bias. You don't take an equal effort to understand points that contradict your bias¤. It just doesn't work like that. So tell me? Did you actually make an attempt to understand my points or did your human bias take over? " I don't know about anyone else, but I've actually acknowledged your points whether they're valid or not. I've agreed when I agree, and pointed out the things you've overlooked and explained why I disagree in a lot of places. You've brushed off everything and continued with "this is how I think it should be WHY IS EVERYONE NOT DOING IT THIS WAY".

You're the one not taking an effort to understand why in general, categories are defined a certain way. You're the one not taking the effort to think about it and realize "you know, just because 2 games are doing it wrong doesn't mean that's the only way to run leaderboards and people have been running them fine for years before this, maybe I should bring it up to those specific mods".

Nice hypocrisy.

Feature request: the ability to put a run on the leaderboards, but not have it count towards the rankings. This can already be done somewhat with obsolete runs showing as a dash, but a manual means of applying this could be a useful feature to have.

1. 1:00 Player 1
2. 2:00 Player 2

• 2:01 Player 2 (alternate route, worth showing for reliability)

3. 3:00 Player 3

...and so on

This is a bit of an inversion, but I noticed my Ty runs weren't linked to my account but were on the leaderboards under a slightly different name (which is why they weren't linked). Since site PMs aren't a thing and I didn't know how active the mods for the game were (I know one hasn't been around in over a year), I submitted my runs from 2013 to have them linked to my account, figuring that one way or the other the situation would get resolved.

Then the runs were put up without the unlinked runs being taken down, so my times are on twice. I sent a twitch PM to MHFsilver a few days ago but haven't gotten a response, so I figured I'd ask here if the unlinked runs could be removed form the board.

Runs in question: http://prntscr.com/a58xb1 http://www.speedrun.com/run/9megv2y7 http://www.speedrun.com/run/9yoxv5yx

I've never heard of anything like this being allowed as it falls under hardware manipulation. And no, console resets don't count as hardware manipulation it gets handled by software :P

There might be a misc. category that allows these sorts of things though.

Your rhetoric lacks logic because it's based on game-specific points that you're extrapolating to speedrunning in general, and then demanding that everyone run leaderboards to align with your vision.

That's the same as going:

1. Emulators are inaccurate
2. Leaderboards should be accurate
3. All emulators should be banned
4. Everyone go ban emulator now I will go on a tirade about it and ignore all refutations and only respond to the few responses that I can exploit logical fallacies on.

A bit of a strawman argument, but not by much.

Since all this has gotten is troll responses I'll give some actual responses.

Point number 1 sounds like bad moderation- if two versions can't be fairly compared, they shouldn't be. You don't ban the slower versions or the faster versions, you compare together if the game is the same and if not, you separate. This changes somewhat based on game, but for the most part you get the fastest hardware or retime every run without loads, if that's the concern. Version specific tricks fall into version specific and platform specific: version specific usually just says "go get the fastest version" (see: Banjo Kazooie) while platform specific will usually result in separate categories. The other main difference between platforms is load times which can either be left in or removed. Usually they'll be left in for console games since those are supposedly consistent. It's not perfect, but then again neither is slaving over every run submitted to get an accurate loadless time. Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex has wildly differing loads by platform and runs get adjusted because of this, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger has XBox over a minute faster but everything is compared together.

tl;dr on point 1: platform specific tricks should not be put into the same category, version (1.0/1.1) can if all versions are accessible, load time variations suck but they exist.

Point 2 ALSO sounds like bad moderation for the same reason as above. I don't need to go any further than that.

Point 3 has a very simple explanation: consoles are standardized. PCs aren't. If you have a PS2 with the SCPH-79001 BIOS, it's going to run the same as another with the same bios. (barring hardware deterioration but once you go to that level, you're arguing everyone's times can only be compared with their own times) With a PC, you could have 2 machines running the same OS but with wildly different specs. Because of this PC games have traditionally been timed without loads, though not every game does this now since it is a lot of effort. However, modern consoles aren't as standardized, with SSDs and other official hardware. Again though, there's a simple line to draw: is it official? It's fine. If load times/whatever get really out of hand, you just retime without the loads.

[quote]1.People say that speedrunning is to go fast. 2.Generally, the PC version is the fastest version. 3.So why include any other version on the leaderboards? [/quote]

1. Correct.
2. Also correct.
3. Because in many cases you can compare directly, and so those without the PC version of a given game can compete as well. If you can't comapre directly, you split up the category by platform. Shrek 2 is a completely different game on PS2/PC to the point where, well, on the site it's a completely different game!

[quote]1.Multiple versions are merged 2.Some versions have version exclusive glitches 3.Creates an innacurate leadboard [/quote]

1. Correct.
2. Also correct depending on game.
3. Incorrect. The leaderboard is still accurate (as long as it's not comparing across platforms), it just adds that you have to get the best version to go for the best time. Which, to be honest, is a bit annoying but it's not too different from many other hobbies and it's still cheaper than said other hobbies.

[quote]1.PC can be modded to be the best version of any game 2.Consoles can't even compete because you can't mod them 3.Why even include any other version if A)The point of speedrunning is to go fast B)PC is the fastest version [/quote]

1. Incorrect, as your own point about the dalmatian game said. But aside from that point, the main difference is load times for current gen games, not exclusive tricks. Load times can be removed from comparisons.
2. Also incorrect, for the reason outlined just above. Softmodding consoles to get around region locking has also been allowed since the beginning.
3. Decent conclusion from faulty points.

So your final point is to ban everything but PC or separate everything to the extreme. The actual best solution lies somewhere in the middle with case by case decisions, as sometimes you do want to compare everything together, while in many other cases you won't.

Three points:

1. Inputting times via dropdown menus is awkward and much slower than typing. This ties into the below point as well.

2. Setting up leaderboards, especially those with a large amount of ILs is incredibly clunky with the "You can not submit runs this quickly" message. Would there be a way to turn this off for moderators of the game, as they would have legitimate reasons to submit a large amount of runs in a short timeframe.

3. I was thinking about what happens when websites and such inevitably shut down, and that led to realizing that the leaderboards here don't really have any easy way to back up the data elsewhere. An option to download a local copy in a text file/mirror the data on a google spreadsheet would be a good protection against future data loss: more redundancy is never a bad thing.

That solution is a little unwieldy but as you said, back-end only. I hadn't actually realized that a subcategory could be made to only apply to a single main category, so I'll definitely keep that in mind. Optimally though there'd be checkboxes for each main category the subcategory applies to (or something like that) but this works well on the small scale as a stopgap measure until a further update.

Is it currently possible to make a subcategory only apply to some of the categories?

http://www.speedrun.com/cc1#CC11

In this case, the Steam engine subcategory only applies to the one set (currently) and it's a little weird to have it as a subcategory option for the other sets.

Personally I start new games by making notes and then doing runs (it's really important that these get finished if at all possible) with the notes, no practice. Then I practice what went wrong and do more runs.

It depends on the game, though, some games absolutely demand certain sections be practiced, while others all the practice you need is playing the game.

He recently uploaded them to youtube. What was previously thought to be the in-game time was actually his real time!

'any%': 108 scene: 99 scene:

Might as well.

An official feature for that would be nice- I've taken to editing the comment field with "mod note: contents of message" at the start. Actually had a back and forth with the runner that way once.