England"keny's quiet means that i got him and he can't dispute my criticism. "
No, not really, you're just being a dick for no reason.
"never gets emotional very quickly and personal attack"
偽善者
We used to have one and just barely anyone did runs of it so it got the axe. It's in the awkward position of not being the fastest, not being the hardest and otherwise having nothing uniquely interesting about it.
"(It's not mods job to retime) "
i have no interest in running this meme game, but just popping in to say, yes it is, that is literally your responsibility, don't mod games if you're going to carry that attitude.
thank you have a nice day
Download the VOD and use Avidemux or VirtualDub to get an exact framecount, it'll tell you the exact length of the vod to the frame.
" I see it more than fair enough to have several ppl of SRE banned from this leaderboard as these actions are far from acceptable despite being told multiple times to stop provoking and hurting people."
People being assholes does not stop their runs from being valid. That is completely outside the remit and purpose of a leaderboard. Whatever your tension is with SRE, it does not belong on a leaderboard. Removing people based on disagreements makes your leaderboard pointless.
I verify runs all the time from complete cockbags, it's not my place to use my leaderboard mod power to police the behavior of people. And especially not to place a blanket ban on an entire community for the actions of a few.
Shameful display.
Unless they're cheating outright, there is no reason for them to be banned from a leaderboard. And considering that game appears to be exclusively ran on GameCube emulator, I don't think legitimacy is really top of the priority list.
Edit: Like, feel free to ban them from community spaces like Discords or whatever if they really can't control themselves, but leaderboards are not for that.
honestly if you're literally punching shit into a calculator mid-run to improve your route that actually sounds kind of hilarious and cool
But no, it's not TAS. TAS has a very specific definition.
It's apparently been moved under Low%
i guess that's a functional solution
"We don't want problems" ¤creates a problem¤
lacking any context it sounds like they just hate spanish people lmao
P.S That leaderboard is ugly as fuck.
On PS2 it doesn't crash, but you can get as far as the church but you don't have the pendant, so it's a no-go, it seems?
this is what Shunpuk is telling me at any rate
Shunpuk just sent me a message saying it works at the start of the game in the dream lmfaoooooo
doesn't give you the pendant though so unless the game farts it into your inventory at some point you might still be fucked
I did some napkin math:
If you skip going into that shop entirely and don't get the key, you can't get the third ampoule. I don't know if there's any other convenient ampoules to grab, so I just assumed instead that you'd not use the first ampoule you'd normally use. The second ampoule is more worthwhile to use since it covers a longer stretch of travel (back to apartment and then all the way to amusement park) and you do need the Ampoule at the end to not die except maybe on NG+?
The excursion into the shop to get that key takes about 14-15 seconds-ish. Time saved from the first ampoule use is uhhhh...I dunno like 3-5 seconds or something? Either way with the current route its better to drop an Ampoule usage and do this skip instead, and it's a decent chunk of time. Probably about a good 10 seconds saved, total. The full 14-15 seconds on NG+ since you don't need the third ampoule at all.
Haven't tried to replicate it myself on PC yet. I would test PS2 but I put it in storage yesterday. Fine timing. Nevertheless.
I would call it something like "No Invuln Glitch" or something along those lines but yeah, I was gonna bring this up at some point myself as and when I actually got around to doing a run of it.
So, with that in mind, let's review:
1.) Runs that are in multiple chunks literally cannot be verified for accurate timing, on-screen timer or no since LiveSplit has been proven to desync gradually over the course of runs. Even short ones, according to what a Starfox 64 mod LylatR has been telling me.
2.) Even the longer runs that are in one-piece likely have huge inaccuracies in their timing because of this reliance on LiveSplit and other on-screen timers that gradually have desync issues based on the whims of your CPU.
3.) Bad hardware is actually more likely to suffer timer desyncs. Which means verifying solely off the timer means you might gain fake time because your hardware isn't good. It's not exclusive to bad hardware, it just magnifies the effect.
4.) It's impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the desync because of how closely related to one's CPU it is and also might be effected by other arcane nonsense.
In light of this new information, I see no reason timer rule should continue to be a thing.
FurryWulfz just hit me with some solid shit:
Wulfz - Today at 4:48 AM here http://www.speedrun.com/run/jy9q4ovz he starts LS timer at 9 sec timestamp skip ahead to last 1/8 9 sec at start 23 sec difference near end so desync by 14 sec
Edit: According to FurryWulfz this desync is actually by about 39-40 seconds. I'm mixing post logs up a bit here, sorry.
Wulfz - Today at 4:54 AM http://www.speedrun.com/run/8yvrdl6z he starts LS timer at 28 seconds approx if you skip right near end, like... 11:54:28 his LS timer is then 34 seconds approx behind time stamp time so his time should be 11:54:00 at 11:54:28 on time stamps when its actually 11:53:54 if that makes any sense
Wulfz - Today at 4:56 AM in these cases LS is absolutely retarded because the timer itself is saving you time
Wulfz - Today at 4:45 AM short bursts though or if you have a monster CPU it won't happen if your CPU spikes enough LS will actually freeze too like not even desync just totally freeze and not count anymore unless you restart
Wulfz - Today at 4:47 AM i only know that cause i intentionally bottlenecked my CPU to test that
Having worse hardware actually results in time saved off LiveSplit desyncs, and it's a phenomenon more likely to effect longer runs than shorter ones.
新しいＷａｓｔｅｄのシットポスト - Today at 5:03 AM here's something i've been wondering now, how long does the game have to be until the difference is actually noticeable? Wulfz - Today at 5:04 AM no idea it depends on what goes on with your PC i think
Better PCs are less likely to be hit with this problem, which means verifying solely off the timer is actually more likely to cause people with worse hardware to gain "fake time".
Thanks to FurryWulfz for telling me all of this, because this is waaaaaaaay more interesting of a point than anything I've raised so far.
Edit 2: Drakodan has now also pointed out to me that even on good computers, over exceptionally long periods of time it's just prone to drifting off slightly based on nothing in particular. But it's magnified based on one's CPU problems.
Any on-screen timer is going to do this because of how they work. There are probably tons of runs on the KH leaderboards that aren't timed correctly, in light of this new information.
[quote]Just because we can't quite compare to those who consistently have an open srcom tab doesn't mean we're any more or less deserving of the position.[/quote]
Not necessarily, but it does mean that like, at best, it's kind of unnecessary to have that many. Having 11 mods when 2 of them are doing most of the actual workload is...questionable.
There is more to it than just run verification, but run verification is like, most of it. Having nothing/very little verified is not an amazing statement on one's commitment to the position.
[quote]In which case it is best we discuss this on a game by game and category by category as based on your first suggestion I think this really only applying to BBS, 0.2 and ILs right now. [/quote]
Pretty much. Loops back around to that thing about timer rule only making much sense for the really long categories.
[quote]there is a similar rule to the timer rule in the DS games where you must show the emulator's fps and full screen at all times during a run for obvious reasons I hope you understand so I don't have to explain them here.[/quote]
Makes sense to me. I'm all for the more game-specific rules like this. Games are varied and nuanced and a broad policy isn't effective over the sheer number of games KH has.
[quote]I'm sorry but there is nowhere near enough people who have ran the handheld games let alone run them actively (Yes yes I know I slack) to really make more moderators for them.[/quote]
Of course, there are a couple of fairly inactive games in KH. That's why I suggest dropping most of the global mods, not literally all of them. Having nothing but global mods is a bad idea and most larger game series worked this out a while ago.
[quote]Also I would like to add that we do do more stuff than verify, by being a global mod I am able to edit the rules of say KH2 or add a new category that another mod may not be able to do at that time and so on and so forth. [/quote]
True, but I'm unconvinced you need 11 global mods for this, or that game-specific mods wouldn't be a more efficient solution for this.
[quote]However I will say that asking for mod just like in a twitch channel probably isn't the best method to become one.[/quote]
I'm not asking, so I assume you mean everyone else. But really, how else are they supposed to show support for the concept of game-mods without simultaneously demonstrating willingness to take on that responsibility? It shows proactiveness.
It's possibly a bit gauche, but really what other method are they meant to do? Is there a formal application process? Are they supposed to hope they just get picked out of the blue based on the whims of the existing mods?
[quote]I can say that we are discussing the option of bringing in more mods.[/quote]
I also submit that this discussion happening in private is kind of
odd
this is again something i do not really see from other game series, I feel like this is the sort of thing you'd want to conduct openly?
Edit: I missed this because I'm bad
[quote]I find it unfair to them that this rule makes it so you can not stream directly from ps4 because of how often the ps4 skips.[/quote]
You can local record in chunks up to an hour on PS4. You can fit an entire BBS run into that timeframe and it's actually more reliable than ps4 streaming so that might be a good baseline to work off since everyone who owns a PS4 can pull that off.
