Weapons & Armor Bundle that gives bonus equipment at the start of the game is dlc (costs 5$). I think we should not be able to use as it gives unfair advantage to people who have it. What do you guys think?

If someone is using dlc it should either be banned, or placed under a separate category. It's not equal if other runners do not use dlc and have a disadvantage vs someone that does.

I agree. That is special stuff not in the base game. Adds an unfair advantage if you happened to pay more money

I will try to convince you not to change your mind but to broaden the discussion, and find the best course forward.

I can only assume that the topic has arisen due to a recently submitted and verified run. I have the DLC installed. In either case I'm glad that there are others who still care about the run, no matter whether you have run the game recently or at all.

What do we want for the future of this speedrun? A decision such as this one shouldn't be taken in haste.

@zefferss, you and I both have a stake in this, obviously. I would love to chat it out more with you, just like how we discussed the route before I began running the game. From the timing of your response here as well as Eagle's, I think I assume you watched the run :) I hope you saw all of it. I don't think the DLC made much of a difference if any, but that remains to be examined. My run was very much inspired by yours. I recognize that you put at least as much time into the game as I have, and probably more. @Susan, last we spoke you said you had not had time to watch any runs and that you don't plan on streaming it anymore. I'm glad your interest is rekindled, and if you did end up watching more runs for route ideas, let us know what you think!

I would love to hear from Velcrow_ and Aphox, as they both also have a vested interest.

Here are my thoughts.

I think we should have a discussion and not make assumptions about about what consists of an advantage, and what consists of an unfair advantage. I don’t think anyone has established that there’s a measurable difference, and if so, what that difference is. Maybe we should start with that. [big]Let’s make that a priority[/big].

Then further to that discussion we can come up with a way to proceed.

Here is my position: We should do what’s best for the speedrun. That includes a balancing act between fairness and competitiveness. We should also look at some precedent that has been set in games with similar situations, and assess how it works for them.

[big]On fairness:[/big]

It is obvious that different versions of the same game can offer different advantages over one another. Depending on the game, there can be minor or significant differences that can arise from varying platforms, game version, game region, etc. Here are a few more obscure examples: the resolution you play on, the language, or whether the game is installed on a HDD or an SSD or even a RAMdrive. There are differences we can control, and many that we can’t.

Which of these advantages are fair, and which are unfair? It can be a pretty subjective thing. Even still, some unfair advantages are sometimes permissible. As a direct example, not everyone who wants to run a game can afford the fastest and most optimal platform. Moreover, not everyone who runs a PC game can afford to install it on an SSD. We can all agree that an SSD installation would provide a significant advantage, unfair or otherwise. But we don’t control that, except through rules that are more or less enforceable. Some games ban "unfair" glitches, for instance. Others create their own categories.

Using a mouse and keyboard provides an advantage. Without quantifying how much of a difference it makes, at least I can say that I've tried both. The mouse is definitely faster for leveling up and fast travel. The keyboard is faster for accessing the menu and for using abilities.

There’s a presumption that those who care most about running the game in the fastest possible way have no choice but to pony up. I think this precludes the cost argument. How does an SSD or a mechanical keyboard and laser mouse compare to a readily available inexpensive DLC pack? ($5 Canadian, I think $4 USD? Frankly, I'm surprised that you guys don't already have it, as I know that at some point you were all deeply connected to this game) We can't necessarily know how they compare without actually measuring or at the very least estimating the time difference each makes.

(If you're still not convinced that price should not be a factor, consider this: I bought the game with all DLC on sale for less than the "base" price of the "base" game. I'm not throwing around cash for the sake of an advantage--I spent less. I love this game enough that I'd buy anyone with a completed RTA the DLC just so you guys can play around with it.)

It is obvious that we shouldn't create separate categories for SSD vs. HDD, Mouse+Keys vs. Controller, Steam vs. Origin. There will be hardware and software differences. It's up to the runners to select the fastest way. That's how "any%" works.

[big]...Which brings us to competitiveness.[/big]

I can't speak for all of us, but part of why I speedrun is competition against my own time, as well as competition against others. Therefore, in my opinion, we should keep an emphasis on competitiveness. If our goal is to attract more potential runners to the game, then we can do so by offering a range of competition for people with all versions and all platforms.

As mentioned, no speedrun is absolutely a 100% level playing field. The same goes with any race, really, and any sport. There will always be differences, and that's all part of competition. That's the spirit of it all. It's exciting to watch a taller basketball player get a slam dunk over a shorter one. It's even more exciting to watch an underfunded underdog team like Iceland go so far in their first ever Euro cup appearance. I digress, but I'm just trying to illustrate that competition isn't always about a mirror match. It would be interesting if we calculated the DLC to give, say, an X second advantage, and then watch someone without it beat the DLC record by X seconds.

I speak from experience with my other speedgame, Titan Souls. I held the fastest time on PC for many months, but due to version differences, the PS4 version is faster. After much (much much) discussion before I began running the game there, the leaderboards there are not split. I felt I was able to compete despite not having the fastest version, and I'm now a part of that happy, growing community.

That should be our goal.

In a similar vein, Dark Souls, which is an extremely competitive speedgame, does not separate the boards based on platform (despite there being some key differences) or based on what items they pick up (again, big differences, especially regarding RNG). That game also has close to 150 runners with a submitted time. They have the option to make many many subcategories, but they elected not to. (It does separate out Kiln Skip, as that route is immensely different enough to be considered a different category altogether.)

We don't have that luxury. Although a number of games do this, if we separated the leaderboards into "Any%" and "Any% No DLC" categories, there would be only one run in one category, and two runs in another. That's a big step backwards for healthy competition, I think. Still, it would be a much better solution than outright banning DLC from runs. If we did that, I think you'd be digging the grave for this speedgame. That is not an option.

In conclusion, I just want to reiterate that I have grown to love this speedrun and I want what's best for it. I'm not here to overcast our humble little 3-run leaderboard parade and I'm not here to change the rules of the game and pull an iQue. We all have a horse in this race.

The DLC might be an advantage. That hasn't been shown yet. Still, it might. It's certainly not a [big]big[/big] advantage, if there is one. I don't think it's an "unfair" advantage either. I don't use any of the weapons and I sell the stuff--which made no difference in my gold gain in my posted run.

I know it's a long run and it's the middle of the week, (and a long weekend for us Canadians), and I appreciate that you guys might not have the time to put a lot more thought into it, or to get out timers and calculators and work out exactly what the difference is.

This is a critical moment. Let's support each other through it. I know I've said a lot, just think it through.

Please respond with your thoughts, and if you don't know where to start, then research the DLC, think about how it could measurably affect the run. Or try to find other games with a similar situation that we can look to for examples.

I don't think this should even be a discussion. Weapons and armor in this dlc have better stats that any other items you can get before Gorhart and give an advantage to people who have it. There is no way to obtain these items in the game other than pay 5 dollars. I don't want to encourage people spending money (even be it 1-2$ on sites like g2a.com) to be able to be competitive if we ever will get enough people running this game. It doesn't matter that the advantage you get from these items is not that big, it's the fact that you have to pay real money to have even the slightest advantage in the first place is what matters to me. 6oliath also touched on hardware and software differences that players might have. I think the biggest problem here is that we are currently using RTA for timing purposes. We should think about changing to in-game time instead but we should test it before deciding which to use. I will create another post where everyone can share their thoughts about it.

This post is in general to the topic at hand as a response, but primarily I am replying to @6oliath's post.

@6oliath I appreciate a number of things, your work on the game, the runs you've done and the route changes/ideas you've managed to discover on your own and determine. I haven't finished your run yet, but I've seen a bit of it, and skipped around as well on the vod, and I've taken brief notes for things I noticed, and will probably use or test on my own if/when I come back to KOA. So needless to say, at the very least you've provided life back into the game, thank you. :)

Having a stake in the game is obviously important to some degree, but the concept of allowing DLC or not is an overall issue, not an issue between two runners and a pre-conceived notion based on a subjective bias.

On the basis of DLC, here is the main problem/issue of using DLC, DLC is not part of the core game in and of itself, even on a game such as Lightning Returns on PC, this game has the DLC included when you purchase, it's a menu option to turn it on or off, and there is no need to purchase the DLC at all. Now, on a game like Lightning Returns the argument could be made that the DLC is included on the PC port, so why not allow it? Albeit, the community still does not, because in the spirit of competition you are going to provide a significant advantage that will trivialize the core game and the challenge thereof.

DLC is really an after-thought, if it was meant to be in the core game, it would be. Before DLC and alternative game versions/ports you really never had this issue, say for an NES or SNES game, because the core game was all you had, and will ever have.. so this was never an issue.. now a days with ports, remakes, dlc, add-ons, and a whole slew of other options and various platforms the concept of speed running is vastly complicated. What is allowable, what is not? How do you define a category? What does the community agree on, or disagree on?

Most of the time things sort of evolve in an organic type of way, people just go with the flow, or one runner establishes a basis for a game, and people follow suit, and then an overhaul doesn't really happen until people start to contribute different viewpoints and a decision is forced to be made. For example, in the FF13 community we did timing from start to, "The End" appearing on the screen for a number of years. Then people decided and realized that timing should be last hit/input on the final results screen after the final boss, because that is when you lose control and everything after doesn't change at all. But this wasn't addressed or made a concern for quite some time, until people began to look at it and decide it was not the best method to time on.

My point being is that, while DLC is not intended for the core game, competition cannot exist if people decide to single-handedly define a category for themselves, so if you choose to use DLC, good for you.. nobody can really stop you, nobody can tell you how to play the game, or how to speedrun it, you own the game, do as you please. I've also advocated this, I don't care if you use an ssd, the most top of the line pc to get the best loads and fps, and other advantages.. because it's your pc, nobody can control what you do with it, you own it. However, competition cannot be had solely based on people doing what they want..

Think of professional sports, why are steroids banned, or blood doping which Lance Armstrong lost his titles to? Because it's cheating, because they are doing something to give them an unfair advantage/edge over everybody else, and granted in those situations the impact of using steroids and blood doping could result in death or other health problems, it's very risky. But that is not fair competition, what would be fair is making adjustments or doing something to their bike within the rules and regulations of the organization, or working out and eating a certain way because that makes sense.

You cannot have, "fair competition" if everybody is playing their own game, and defining things by their own rules. Yes, you can do that, but you won't really be competing unless other people follow the same rules and regulations that you do. But at the same time, nobody can stop you from speedrunning KOA with DLC or not, but to argue it is competitive is a bit misleading.

Competition can be a subjective issue however, because many times the community of a speed run tends to grow organic, for example I saw Aphox do his timing when he first moved his character, I didn't say, "this timing is dumb, I prefer to time from new game on the opening menu" but I easily could have done that, and said we should define the RTA Any% with this timing, and maybe people would agree, maybe they would just copy and follow suit.. maybe after seeing my run you would of done the same thing because I did it, and you wanted to be comparable to my timing.

What timing is the right timing? Hard to say sometimes, this is where the community sort of has to just to bite their lip and just go with the flow and follow suit to what previous runners have already established, then it becomes the norm, and that's how the run is timed. But that does not mean it is the be all, end all.. or that it cannot change in the future.

"I think we should have a discussion and not make assumptions about about what consists of an advantage, and what consists of an unfair advantage. I don’t think anyone has established that there’s a measurable difference, and if so, what that difference is. Maybe we should start with that. Let’s make that a priority."

DLC changes the core structure of the internal playability of the game, regardless of how small or large, it changes the state of the game, you cannot suggest DLC has no impact, because that is absurd. And being the one using the DLC, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to provide proof of the impact, lack of impact, advantage, disadvantage, and anything else to justify and suggest DLC should be apart of, and/or define the Any% category thereof. You presented a run with DLC, you must prove why it should be acceptable. You presented it, the burden of proof is on you to prove why it should be acceptable.

Or another way to state this would be, prove that DLC does not provide some measure of advantage vs not using DLC for an Any% run, until then I would stand by my position that DLC should be banned or placed under a different category.

"There’s a presumption that those who care most about running the game in the fastest possible way have no choice but to pony up. I think this precludes the cost argument. How does an SSD or a mechanical keyboard and laser mouse compare to a readily available inexpensive DLC pack? ($5 Canadian, I think $4 USD? Frankly, I'm surprised that you guys don't already have it, as I know that at some point you were all deeply connected to this game) We can't necessarily know how they compare without actually measuring or at the very least estimating the time difference each makes.

(If you're still not convinced that price should not be a factor, consider this: I bought the game with all DLC on sale for less than the "base" price of the "base" game. I'm not throwing around cash for the sake of an advantage--I spent less. I love this game enough that I'd buy anyone with a completed RTA the DLC just so you guys can play around with it.)"

Even if the DLC was .50 cents, the cost is not the issue, even if the DLC was free, or included like the Lightning Returns example I gave, that is not the issue. Cost is not relevant, definition of a fair speedrun for competition is. Cost does not trump this, nor does cost justify a re-definition of a category because it's easily accessible DLC for 4.99. Or on sale you can get the game and DLC for less than the cost of the game.

"It is obvious that we shouldn't create separate categories for SSD vs. HDD, Mouse+Keys vs. Controller, Steam vs. Origin. There will be hardware and software differences. It's up to the runners to select the fastest way. That's how "any%" works."

Incorrect, Any% is defined as completing a game as fast as possible under Any% within the game, meaning you complete the game with less than 100% completion as determined by the game itself internally. Any% is not defined by the peripheral items used, it simply means you beat the game with less than 100% of the in-game requirements for 100% completion, even if the game does not have a 100% completion defined, it is still any% of completion used to beat the game.

"I speak from experience with my other speedgame, Titan Souls. I held the fastest time on PC for many months, but due to version differences, the PS4 version is faster. After much (much much) discussion before I began running the game there, the leaderboards there are not split. I felt I was able to compete despite not having the fastest version, and I'm now a part of that happy, growing community."

Nothing is ever going to be a 1 to 1, let's say two people run on pc, no way in hell it will ever be equal, even if both people do not use an ssd, why? because frame rate, processor speed, and other factors still impact the game, lower frames make it slower, how fast loads are, one system is probably gonna be slightly faster than the other, depending.. it's never 100 percent equal. However the idea is to make it as close as possible with what is in your control, or the control of say the community.

While you might be ok with the leaderboards not being separate, I had a different experience in the FF13 community, all the platforms and consoles are separate in the spirit of fairness, because a PC has significant advantages over a PS3 and XBOX360, it simply doesn't make sense to make a PS3 player compete with a PC player running an SSD and super fast loads, it's not competitive, nor fair. I don't agree with failure to separate the leaderboards, but at the same time if that was the case, I would probably run the faster version if I could. But not without voicing my concerns and asking for a separation. I essentially held a hand in the definition of the 13 leaderboards because it did not make sense to not separate the platforms at all.

"We don't have that luxury. Although a number of games do this, if we separated the leaderboards into "Any%" and "Any% No DLC" categories, there would be only one run in one category, and two runs in another. That's a big step backwards for healthy competition, I think. Still, it would be a much better solution than outright banning DLC from runs. If we did that, I think you'd be digging the grave for this speedgame. That is not an option."

False.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, using a logical fallacy to determine an outcome, or suggest we do not have the luxury, therefore we most not seperate or ban DLC is foolish. This also could be considered a measure of a false dilemma and circular reasoning. Not to be rude here, but you need a better argument, because your conclusion is false, a does not cause b. Avoiding a does not mean b is avoided outright.

"The DLC might be an advantage. That hasn't been shown yet. Still, it might. It's certainly not a big advantage, if there is one. I don't think it's an "unfair" advantage either. I don't use any of the weapons and I sell the stuff--which made no difference in my gold gain in my posted run."

One other point is that the DLC items you equip, "Running Man" have stats on them and provide bonuses, you also sell a lot of the DLC items you do not use, thus providing gold and other advantages the core game does not provide. So how, pray-tell does the DLC not impact the run, or alter the internal definition of what you are able to do in game?

I look forward to your reply.

All the best,

zefferss

I'm a little late to this but I'll weigh in as well with the opinion I've held in other games as I will here. I'm also really bad at structuring these so bear with me on this.

With regards to a "base game" there are certain circumstances that can change what the base game is. In Neverwinter Nights, a game I've spent most of my time running, there are two expansions which add some interesting advantages compared to not having them. However, for the past number of years, Neverwinter Nights Diamond addition is the only version of the game that is available to buy. When my original CD for the game broke and I had to repurchase it, my only choice for the Diamond edition, which includes the two expansions (plus other content that doesn't impact the run). So at the moment, unless the original game is purchasable again in the future, the game with expansions is the baseline-standard we use. However, with regards to KoA, the base game without DLC is still as available as the DLC itself, therefore the base hasn't changed since release and Special Deliveries is an optional addition.

In terms of RAM/keyboard/mouse/controller/etc. None of them are actually included or cared about anywhere in the base game, or any version of the game. It's a factor that just sucks. I can argue that I lost my WR because my processor isn't that great and RTA includes loading times but it's a weak argument because I can't deny that my time was still beaten within the constraints of the rules. DLC on the other hand is a factor in the game itself. It's a 1st-party mod for the game. I'm always in favor of as little modifications as possible because if I make a mod that alters the start location to the final boss, it's a mod just like most DLC. Everyone would not allow it obviously, but the reasoning becomes arbitrary. So I added the filter for Special Deliveries to immediately highlight the difference from the other runs. I didn't add a new category because it still is "Any%". I felt it was the best compromise.

Worst case scenario, DLC becomes a new category. It definitely isn't something that needs to be banned entirely. The filter on this site should be enough to separate them so that anyone looking at the leaderboard can still say "well, DLC is bad", filter it out and take the fastest run without as first. Final Fantasy 9 does the same with whether a runner uses a turbo controller or not (not anymore), Diablo 2 does it with classes, Ocarina of Time does it with the runners platform. Dark Souls could do it with routes but they don't bother. It allows "any%" to stay "any%" while still showing the differences.

End of the day, based Aphox is still faster than all of us, even without DLC but I don't know how to add runs on other people's behalf. I half-think I shouldn't have been the one to verify the run. I'm only a mod because I started running when there wasn't even an SR.com page for this game and so I made it. Still haven't gotten around to streaming runs because of other commitments.It's why I made EagleLiver a mod as well.

@Zeffers: Thank you for taking the time to reply. My arguments are not ironclad, and I think we have some common ground.

First, for the record, I run it on an HDD with a controller. My PC is pretty decent but getting old. It runs smoothly and I have the graphics settings on normal or high. So I'm not seeking any advantage through technical differences, despite the fact that I brought them up.

Also, yes, do come back to this game! If not now, then when you’re less busy with other things. We not only need to keep this rivalry going, but also want more people streaming the game and gathering interest.

[small](Speaking of interest, I find it very interesting that for FFXIII, a downloadable that everyone has (or has access to) is specifically not included in the route. I’m not familiar with Lightning Returns, so thanks for bringing up that interesting precedent. Why is that particular not considered the same as a patch? In almost every game I know, speedrunners use the fastest patch that was ever officially released. The first example I thought of is BL2 (the community provides the optimal patch, version 1.1, because is the fastest). It’s available to everyone. See also OoT (http://zeldaspeedruns.com/oot/generalknowledge/version-differences) – different versions are faster for different categories, but they are NOT available to everyone without some inherent cost. Yet this is acceptable, in one of the biggest speedgames. So that’s why it’s interesting that the DLC available to everyone in Lightning Returns is not considered a patch. I assume you all just came together, talked it out, and agreed. Glad that’s what’s happening here. Anyway, back to our discussion about purchasable DLC.)[/small]

“competition cannot exist if people decide to single-handedly define a category for themselves… competition cannot be had solely based on people doing what they want.” If this is directed at me, I understand your perception, but I find it’s an unfair assumption regarding my intent. I tried to contact the members of the community, including yourself, about the DLC chest. I did not make a solo decision to just disregard the status quo. I cleared it with one of our mods, and the suggestion given to me was to run the game with it to specifically challenge the status quo.

“Think of professional sports, why are steroids banned, or blood doping which Lance Armstrong lost his titles to?” There is no one sole reason why (some) performance enhancing drugs are banned. I see that you’re trying to argue that they are banned because they are not available to everyone. There are also health & safety considerations, and social considerations, like whether role models should be encouraging young children to take performance enhancers. I don’t think the DLC chest is analogous to drugs that are against the rules. First, there were no rules about the DLC – in fact on the run submission page it only asks that I disclose that the DLC was used, so it’s not like they were simply forgotten. Second, performance enhancing drugs are proven to be effective at improving an athlete in at least some aspects. Our infamous DLC chest is not proven to effectively improve the run (at least not in the way I used it – more on that later). I would say it is more akin to a hockey player on a team using a composite stick when everyone else is using wood. It’s a foray into new grounds, not specifically regulated when it was first introduced, and any advantage it gives is unclear (it’s more flexible but not as hard). It’s also more expensive, but not prohibitively so. This, in my opinion, is a much better analogy if we want to think of it as a comparison with sports.

“DLC changes the core structure of the internal playability of the game, regardless of how small or large, it changes the state of the game, you cannot suggest DLC has no impact, because that is absurd.” In fact I can, and do. I acknowledge that there is POTENTIAL impact, I see that clearly, and I think that is where you should focus your arguments. However, on my submitted run that uses DLC, the only measurable impact it had was a negative one, as I will try to demonstrate at the end of this post.

“…One other point is that the DLC items you equip, ‘Running Man’ have stats on them and provide bonuses, you also sell a lot of the DLC items you do not use, thus providing gold and other advantages the core game does not provide. So how, pray-tell does the DLC not impact the run, or alter the internal definition of what you are able to do in game? “ You bring up two points here: The gold gained from selling the DLC items I didn’t use, and the bonus stats given by the armor I use. I will also illustrate this further down.

“And being the one using the DLC, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to provide proof of the impact, lack of impact, advantage, disadvantage, and anything else to justify and suggest DLC should be apart of, and/or define the Any% category thereof. You presented a run with DLC, you must prove why it should be acceptable.” I will include evidence at the bottom of this post.

“…even if the DLC was free, or included like the Lightning Returns example I gave, that is not the issue. Cost is not relevant, definition of a fair speedrun for competition is. Cost does not trump this, nor does cost justify a re-definition of a category because it's easily accessible DLC for 4.99. Or on sale you can get the game and DLC for less than the cost of the game.“ Okay. We agree that the cost is immaterial. Some common ground :)

“Incorrect, Any% is defined as completing a game as fast as possible under Any% within the game, meaning you complete the game with less than 100% completion as determined by the game itself internally. Any% is not defined by the peripheral items used, it simply means you beat the game with less than 100% of the in-game requirements for 100% completion, even if the game does not have a 100% completion defined, it is still any% of completion used to beat the game.“ I believe you are incorrect here. Here are some definitions. Zeldaspeedruns: “This category aims for fastest completion in a single sitting with no restrictions.” Speedsouls: “There are no added restrictions on how the player completes the game, they must simply start a new character and beat the final boss, Gwyn, as quickly as they can.” Speedrunslive: “A run with no additional completion requirements; anything goes. The "default" category for speedrunning a game” There is nothing about it having to be less than 100% -- an any% route can indeed also be 100%, although I can think of no examples where that’s the case except one megaman game. The completion is not determined by the game itself internally, it is most often defined by the community. See the above sources for their 100% definitions and you’ll also see that they are not internally defined but community defined.

“False. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, using a logical fallacy to determine an outcome, or suggest we do not have the luxury, therefore we most not seperate or ban DLC is foolish. This also could be considered a measure of a false dilemma and circular reasoning. Not to be rude here, but you need a better argument, because your conclusion is false, a does not cause b. Avoiding a does not mean b is avoided outright. “ I don’t really follow you here. I’m just saying if we split the boards, they will look even emptier – this would be an unfortunate side-effect. Still, given the choice I prefer separating the boards over banning DLC, because if we ban DLC, you’re excluding my run. Plus, in the future, if someone wants to run the game and they want to use the DLC, why should we try to stomp out their interest in the boards? I used the DLC because it was there for me and it looked cool and it fit with my theme that I’m a running man doing a three hour marathon run through the woods. Sure, before I researched what it did, I thought maybe it would be faster, so I took verifiable steps to contact you and our mods and Aphox and Koinu and Susan for the purpose of asking about the chest items. As it turns out, it’s only potentially faster or potentially safer. My run should not and shall not be disqualified, so the remaining options I can abide by are to split the boards or keep a tag in the run that displays whether or not the DLC was used. On timing, I tried to stick with your timing scheme. Any deviation you see there is accidental. I disagreed with it, as the last required input is about 5 seconds before we complete the A-mash circle (because you don’t have to mash). What I did was verbally call out the time of my last required input, and then I split where you split for the “official” time. Anyway, we can discuss split timing in another topic.

Okay so… Here is my evidence, since you requested some proof:

GOLD GAINED

1. It took 4.5 extra seconds to pick up items from the chest.
2. It took 28 extra seconds to sell the items from the chest to a merchant we stand near anyway, which is required for inventory space.
3. Selling the items at 3 Mercantile, I obtained: (3844weps+426 shields+2811armor) = 7081 gold
4. Had I sold and not equipped The Running Man armor and The Moon shield at that time, they would have gotten me 1955 extra gold, so an “advantage” of 9036 gold. So that’s an investment of 32.5 seconds, for an incidental gain of 7081 gold on my run. The Electrifying Daggers of Precision (EDP) cost is 73,225. On my run, at Mel Senshir, after selling the random stuff I picked up, I end up at 61,237 gold. (It would be 54,156 had I not sold the DLC) I then sell Elund’s Ring for 24,829. Without DLC I would then be at 78,985. That is well above the EDP cost of 73,225. Therefore, the gold I obtained when selling the DLC had no impact on my run. Whether it might have an impact on a future run, well, I can see how we would want to manage that. So there’s a potential for an advantage. In this particular case, however, it cost me 32.5 seconds for no benefit. BONUS STATS The armor I used gives: some defense, some resistances, and critical hit damage (not critical chance, as Eagle was saying). The wiki does not list the correct stats for when you pick it up, as it supposedly scales in Defense based on the level you are when you install the DLC. Since I got the Game of the Year edition or whatever, I was level 0. So yeah, if it scales, I can see a much greater potential for an impact on the run. Maybe it’s worth exploring to see how much it scaled if I were to reinstall the DLC. So, some defense, some crit damage. Those are the bonus stats. This is where it becomes much harder to prove a negative. A fuzzy math approach: The save file for my most recent run (not the one that uses DLC, unfortunately) shows in the stats that I have hit 250 crits. Anecdotally, for most of the run I one-shot or two-shot everything, especially with the greatsword route. So a crit might save a sword swing, and it might not. Assuming every enemy dies in 2 swings (because many die in one swing, and a few die in more than two), then there’s a 50% chance that a crit saves me a sword swing. So that’s 125 time-saving crits. I will arbitrarily subtract 25 time-saving crits for cases when I swing at an enemy’s dead body anyway following a crit. Yeah I know it’s fuzzy, but instead of spending three hours going over my run and counting the number of times a crit saves me a swordswing, let’s say it’s a hundred. Now, how does 12+5+8+5+5+10% crit damage help? Let’s assume they stack additively (a generous assumption in your favor). So 45% bonus crit damage with melee. If I was critting for +400 damage before, then with the 45% bonus I’m critting for +580 damage. If I hit 100 time-saving crits, would 180 bonus damage on a crit significantly decrease my number of sword swings required? I don’t think so. I’m not sure. I could do some more fuzzy math, but honestly I don’t think it would convince you. A more general approach: On regular enemies, a crit is a kill, with or without the armor. On bosses, a crit is a bigger chunk of damage. Suppose I hit two crits on each boss. Over those two crits, the bonus damage probably saves me one swing. Since each swing takes a second or less, and there are fewer than 30 bosses in the game, then I save less than 30 seconds thanks to the increased crit damage. Sure, I’ve made some reasonable assumptions to arrive at this conclusion. But to be sure, I’d have to go over the run in detail. I’d rather spend three hours (or more) doing other things, like running the game. An empirical approach: I’ve run the game without the armor. It was faster. Sure, there are other factors, but even a shallow observation of the run is enough to see that crit damage was not a time-saving factor. The run was just verified by the way.

So where do we go from here? Regardless of whether you accept my evidence, I think we both agree that there is definitely a potential that someone using DLC can gain a time or RNG advantage over someone who is not. I maintain that it was not a clear and present advantage on my DLC run. I am not opposed to creating a separate board for runs that use or require the use of DLC, on that basis.