Forums  /  Mario Kart series  /  Mario Kart 8 Deluxe  /  In Game Time vs. Real Time
  orangeisfastorangeisfast

I'm knew to the speedrun scene, and jumped in to Mario Kart because it's what I have that I can enjoy running. I've seen discussion here as to cartridge vs. digital and, perhaps this has been answered before, but why don't we use in game time to mitigate the difference between cartridge and digital forms of the game.

 
  OBSIDIAUSOBSIDIAUS

I know a lot of people would disagree with me when I say there should be some sort of calculator so the times between cartridge and digital are the same. As a guy who gets top 10 in cartridge for what I run, I don't think I get the credit i deserve. But orange is fast i feel you bro, there should totally be a fix to the leaderboards.

Rocco175Rocco175 likes this. 
  orangeisfastorangeisfast

Yeah I understand that there isn't any real in game timer, but yeah a way to remove load times from runs would be a huge factor in getting a lot of cartridge runs on par with digital. Either way I know it's all in how the rules get set up.

OBSIDIAUSOBSIDIAUS likes this. 
  blueYOSHIblueYOSHI

Calculator wouldn't exactly be the best idea as loading times could vary a bit which would make it inaccurate. And removing them would take a lot of time as you would need to time every video to the frame for every single loading screen and for every run. I doubt that it's actually worth all the effort.

 
  OBSIDIAUSOBSIDIAUS

I know that this is a problem. Another solution is making digital and cartridge two different categories. I know there is filters but my problem is it says that the person who is on digital is number one so if I have the fastest cartridge time it doesn't say I'm number one. Plus they sorta treat cartridge like the same thing as digital. Proof: the rules were top 5 runs needed video proof. But there is runs of the top time for cartridge who is number 7 on the leaderboard with no video. I just want a way of fixing it I don't care how I just want it to happen.

 
  MystwalkerMX7MystwalkerMX7

So you're saying that having 140 categories is better than a Digital/Cartridge filter? As if the game isn't already swimming in a plethora of categories, lets duplicate them all and make things even more of a mess. Sure.

Top 5 video validation not being properly applied to Cartridge runs is an interesting concern though. I can say that at least.

---

Anyway, for loading times, recently I've read that a few Speedrun.com game communities do something along the likes of allowing submission of IGT/Loadless times based on average loading differences between mediums. For example, once we were to obtain more load timings and determine the average, we'd assume first track as a difference of 3 seconds, each subsequent track as 1 to 1.5 seconds, and so on.

Naturally, if the submitted run falls within top X or becomes the record, the user or staff would have to manually time the loads out of their runs to determine the final IGT/Loadless time.

The question is, would a system like this be ever worth it? It'd do at least two things:

- The verification process would slow down. Runs will take longer to get verified since another factor is thrown in.
- Users would have to fill in more requirements to submit their runs to the leaderboard, hampering down MK8's quality as a simple to pick speedrun for everybody.

---

Should note that I'm just adding to the discussion. What other game communities do may not work well enough here, but I feel like the idea fits the topic somewhat and could hopefully share some insight as to why some changes aren't as easy as it might seem to be.

If only Nintendo added IGT to the game by themselves, or alternatively, if more players gained the habit of inputting their loadless times in the run's description, then comparison between Cartridge and Digital would become a whole lot easier.

 
  orangeisfastorangeisfast

I do think there are interesting points on both sides. I'm of the opinion that it really doesn't matter until you get to WR runs. Eventually someone with a cartridge may get a time close enough to WR that it's worth a look. Not saying every run needs it, but at some point it may become necessary at the top level.

 
  MystwalkerMX7MystwalkerMX7

It's a fair assessment. Currently there's a few cases in 200cc categories where the best Cartridge time is technically triumphing over the best Digital (and current #1) time on the leaderboard. And while some players acknowledge that the Cartridge run is leading the fray, others are content with the #1 run on the leaderboard despite the run having room of improvement over the Cartridge run. Not saying one mindset is better than the other, but I have noticed this divide a few times before. So yeah, it'd definitely be helpful among top runs.

I don't see IGT/Loadless replacing RTA as the main timing method anytime soon, with some of the reasons being hinted in my previous post, but I wouldn't mind adding a Loadless time for top X Cartridge/Digital runs for each category at some point (these could be edited into the runs' descriptions or so). It could be a fun community project at the very least, and could definitely help with gathering data for loading times if people are willing to research further into it. 😛

 
  OBSIDIAUSOBSIDIAUS

Mystwalker on Mario kart 64 there is a calculator for pal and ntsc because ntsc runs 1/6 faster. We could do some similar to that. I would be glad to help to any solution.

 
  Pianist15Pianist15

I like the idea of having IGT in the description of top runs (maybe top 3, or else top cartridge and top digital, and I think I’ll start trying to put my IGT in my own submissions), but like Mystwalker I don’t think we’ll ever have a fully IGT leaderboard unless it gets patched into the game by Nintendo (which is, unfortunately, completely implausible).

Especially for the longer categories, there’s too much potential for human error, and having the mods check each run’s IGT would be way too much to ask of them, and it would slow down the verification process even if they were willing to do it.

 
  orangeisfastorangeisfast

All of that may be true, but it still feels wrong that you expect someone to spend an extra $60 if they want to truly be competitive with everyone as the WR gets pushed further down.

OBSIDIAUSOBSIDIAUS likes this.