General Rules
4 years ago
Switzerland

Ah Ok, makes sense, I am confusing myself with all my 3 digits Mods... I should make a Pull Request to have ms everywhere Lol

Edit: Pull Request Opened: https://github.com/supertuxkart/stk-code/pull/4177 Let's see what Alayan will say...

Edited by the author 4 years ago
theodorepringle and Andet like this
Switzerland

Should we remove the Difficulty field? Nobody is going to try a Novice or Intermediate Wr, and the goal is just to have the best times, regardless to the Difficulty...

Wax-stk and Andet like this
United States

That'd be fine with me

Fouks and Wax-stk like this
Switzerland

Removed! It will now take 5 s less to submit new runs here now :p !

Wax-stk and Andet like this
France

I'm fine with removing runs from tracks that are not in the main game in the version they were played in (like black forest 0.9.3).

But they should be added back to the STK addons subgame.

Wax-stk and Andet like this
United States

Would the newest versions of those add-ons be used then or would the versions they were originally run on be used?

Wax-stk likes this
Switzerland

Personally, I am not in favor to keep these runs. Addons submitted here for 1.0 like Blackhill Mansion and Bovine Barnyard used track versions that were broken and are fixed now, and they should not be restored. Their current versions are playable for Stkao and new runs for these tracks were already submitted. A Green Valley 1.0 run was still kept in Stkao as it used a compatible version. I think that 0.9.3 Addons runs should also not be restored in Stkao. It would require the creation of a whole 0.9.3 category there just to support a few tracks, and go against the idea of this Subgame, which is to have a Leaderboard tied to a reference game (the Mod), and not just additional IL categories, in order to solve the versions updates headaches. Restoring them here would also require to deal again with these track version differences, and we could even start asking if Black Forest 0.8.1 (if that were possible) or Shiny SubUrbs 1.0 could also be submitted here, etc. We should really stick to "Official Only" here and "From Mod Only" for Stkao. And not all runs have to be on Speedrun.com...

Wax-stk likes this
Switzerland

Currently, 0.9.3 Gps are using the In Game Time in order to time these runs... I think that something should be changed as people can lose a lot of time doing the Double Skip while not getting a worse total time. We could either forbid that Skip or use Rta instead (or create a Timer for Gps)...

Edited by the author 4 years ago
Andet and Wax-stk like this
Limousin, France

But it's luck that makes the skip slower or faster...

Andet likes this
Switzerland

That is not a reason to not count the time used for these Skips... Else, I am going to beat your record while doing all laps on purpose for each Skip... I think that these runs should use Rta and the existing ones be retimed...

Andet likes this
United States

The GP categories are a big mess lol. But yeah, RTA makes more sense. It's weird that 0.9.3 and 1.0 have completely different rules in the first place, but I get that it would be hard to change that now.

Also, it seems that Alayan is in agreement. https://www.speedrun.com/stk/thread/duwxm

Edited by the author 4 years ago
Alayan and Fouks like this
Switzerland

Lol I somehow never saw that discussion... I was not the one that made the main Gp Rules, but probably that was simply changed to avoid the issue we are currently talking about, and kept for 0.9.3 because what is done is done... Also it was logical to use Igt when the Double Skip was not discovered... But yeah, it is a bit late now :p

Back to the issue, another good solution could be to compute an adjusted Igt: we can take the last frame just before the menu appears when finishing the Skip for the skipped tracks. In YouTube, that is easy with the 1/4 speed... Adjusted times of Penguin Playground would be for example: 3:28.47 + 1:25.92 + 7.42 = 5:01.81 for Waxpro and 3:31.04 + 19.23 + 1:01.54 = 4:51.81 for Alistair Findlay... At worst we lose a few 1/100 s of precision, which is honestly negligible... I would even not apply the 4 ms rule in this case...

Edited by the author 4 years ago
Andet likes this
United States

I would be a fan of that

Fouks likes this
Limousin, France

This is stupid Fouks, it's not a competition of luck, it's a competition of speed and precision. If these rules are approved, I'll remove my run.

Limousin, France

I just did 1:48 on " Shifting Sands," and then I got destroyed instantly by a cake from Amanda...

Switzerland

Speedrunning is a competition to do something the fastest possible. Regardless whether luck is involved or not. And here, with the current timing rules, we are clearly not measuring who is the fastest to complete a 0.9.3 Gp. If you don't have fun in running the categories with luck factor, then just stick to ILs or start TASing... There are categories for everyone... And if you have the skill, precision and determination, luck becomes a less important or even minor factor. I even know a game where you need something that has 1/300 chance of happening in order to beat some Wrs... But some people like that similarly to people that hunt Pokémon Shinies.

If Andet and I agree then that is enough to update the rule, I will do that and retime the existing runs later.

Edited by the author 4 years ago
Alayan likes this
Limousin, France

I have a 3:49 but this Gp is now 100% luck and not 50-50 :/

Switzerland

Rules updated and runs retimed.

Alayan likes this
Limousin, France

The current git version has a big gameplay modification, the race restart bug disappeared, so this should save more than 40s on an Any% run. So I assume that we can't use git currently ?

Switzerland

Can you explain further? I don't see anything changed and am not sure to understand (if the bug disappeared then you would lose time, not save)...

Game stats
Followers
77
Runs
940
Players
61
Latest threads
Posted 2 months ago
108 replies
Posted 4 months ago
2 replies
Posted 1 year ago
6 replies
Posted 2 years ago
0 replies
Posted 2 years ago
2 replies