SMB1

1. Should Wii VC, Wii U VC, 3DS VC and GBA times be converted, if it's possible?

SMB2j

1. Should Wii VC times for SNES be converted?
2. How should runs that use a savestate for faster resets be treated? Pedantically it's against the rules, but there are several relevant SNES runs that use it on the leaderboards right now. Should we remove them and disregard their current WR status or do a grandfather clause and reject future runs that do it or allow it?

General questions

1. Should emulator times at 60fps (or 59.94fps for snes9x) be converted to the correct framerate?
2. Should versions other than the original release (Famicom cartridge for SMB1, Famicom disk for SMB2j, Super Famicom for All-Stars categories) become a seperate category, if they turn out to be faster and not convertable? (e.g. a 3DS-only glitch being found that makes it faster than the original release)
3. Should there be cutoff points for how much proof is required? Right now all runs are pretty much judged the same, the only exception being the rejected 4:57.58 run that would probably have been accepted had it been a minute slower. We could say that a video is only required from like 5:20 down and from sub5 down it's required to stream attempts (and similiar cutoffs for other categories).

Depending on the decisions, we need to know the relevant differences for Wii U VC, 3DS VC and GBA versions. I would really appreciate if someone recorded a few loops of the title screen autoplay and a playthrough of any of these versions (preferably uploaded at the original framerate of the recording), so we can check stuff like the framerate and lag.

My personal views on these matters: SMB1

1. Yes, it's better for inclusiveness as long as the difference remains small.

SMB2j

1. Yes, it's better for inclusiveness as long as the difference remains small.
2. This is a really tricky subject. I would feel silly whether I use a savestate myself or whether I disregard a better time on a technicality. An important factor is that holding Start while loading the savestate would make the RNG much more predictable, which would make it more enjoyable to run but also increases the advantage of using a savestate a lot.

General

1. Yes, although I prefer them to run at the correct framerate.
2. Imho a time improvement that comes from playing a slightly different game with the same title is no improvement at all and it's silly that runs could be obsoleted for the sole reason that a future release is faster. This is obviously a controversial topic in the speedrun community with Zelda runners mostly saying anything goes and going as far as importing consoles from China and using specific memory cards for faster saving and SM64 having seperate leaderboards and only N64 WRs being respected and a bunch of other communities being on either side of the issue.
3. Yes, if someone submits a fake good time or fake WR that is not too obvious but also doesn't really have much proof to it, there is really nothing that can be done about it. Though I see that people with weak PCs or slow/no internet would have reason to dislike it.

I just got a notification today that this was posted, but I'll go ahead and give my two cents.

SMB1

1. I'm torn between "yes" and "I don't care." The 5:03.6 on VC I got a while back would have been a 5:02.2 converted to NES, which would beat two people that were ahead of my time who played on NES and emulator. When I informed them of this, they generally seemed to accept that my time was "better." I don't know if they actually thought that though, since I never asked them directly. I guess I feel like the unconverted time should be the "official" time, but the converted time should also be made known.

SMB2j

1. For NES/FDS, the "time without loads" pretty much takes care of that problem. For SNES, I can't make a decision because I have a lack of knowledge... but as far as I know, Super Mario All-Stars was never released on the Wii Shop. It is not an official VC game. "Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition," which is just SMAS ported for the Wii, was released in 2010. Since it's an actual Wii game, I have no idea if it actually runs at the same VC frame rate (~59.824fps) or an entirely different frame rate altogether. I use an injected wad on my Wii that has a rom of SMAS+SMW, so I'm 90% sure that that actually runs at the VC frame rate.
2. I'd keep it allowed. It's only for convenience. Even if someone savestated to manipulate what frame rule they started on, I see no difference in that and using a delay on a timer to know if the game started on the correct frame rule.

General

1. No. There are emulators that emulate at the correct frame rate (FCEUX, Bizhawk, I think higan does too?, etc.) and those emulators should be used. If they choose to use an emulator that runs at a slower frame rate, they should accept the time loss. Unlike the physical consoles, emulators are available to download on the internet and the choice of which one you use is free.
2. We've technically already figured this out. FDS Minus World is a separate category, but it's not taken seriously as it seemingly doesn't really "beat the game." I feel like we should address that issue when/if it actually becomes a problem.
3. There definitely should be cutoff points. I feel like exceptions could be made for people who have a reputation built up already and are trustworthy, but I like the guidelines you suggest. I think it should be sub 5:10 should be streamed while sub 5:30 requires video proof (However for this game on speedrun.com, it's set so you can't submit a time unless you provide a video, so idk)

I thought the GBA version's frame rate was known - it's on the SDA Knowledgebase. I can still take video of the GBA version if needed, but it would have to be using a camcorder @ 30 fps or something. I only own the original GBA, so lighting would most likely be bad as well. I think in the GBA version the physics are slightly different as well, like you fall slightly slower or something. I dunno, it just feels slightly different. Slightly.

[quote]2) We've technically already figured this out. FDS Minus World is a separate category, but it's not taken seriously as it seemingly doesn't really "beat the game." I feel like we should address that issue when/if it actually becomes a problem. [/quote] There are reasons that I'd rather figure this out before than after:

1. A runner should know, if his run will count before he puts in the effort. Nobody likes to put in a thousand attempts to be then told that the run doesn't count, when it says nothing like that in the rules.
2. It's a common accusation in cases like these that the people rejecting the run are trying to protect their WR or are clinging to old routes. I wasn't thinking so much about big glitches like the Minus World Ending as slight differences in say the GBA version adding up to a second of time save over the NES version.

SMB1 1. I'm torn about the decision regarding converting virtual console times: on the one hand allowing virtual console time corrections would encourage people who normally wouldn't run, to run (and that's a good thing!). On the other hand it takes away some authenticity of the videos (and that's a bad thing). I have an toaster-loader NES and Nestopia (with acceptable lag) so it doesn't affect me, but we do NEED a decision on this.

It also brings up another question. Seeing as how emulators are allowed and how WiiVC is allowed, what about emulating Wii VC ? I prefer Dolphin over Nestopia for running SMB1 and if I get a PB on Dolphin's emulated Wii VC, I would be very upset if it didn't count. I suppose, for now, I will emulate using Nestopia and a ROM (my NES capture hardware is at my other residence until I go back there in 2 weeks).

General:

1. yes AND no Any emulation that doesn't emulate at the correct framerate should be converted, accept after a certain cutoff. I propose that any sub 5:00 time need be RUN on an NES or an emulator that runs at the correct frame rate (btw does Nestopia do this?). Times between 5:20.xx and 5:00.xx get converted (if and only if they can be converted accurately and precisely). Times of 5:21.00 and slower should not get converted. I hope this makes sense. I think this is the ideal solution...maybe it would be hard to enforce/monitor/correct.

It may seem harsh that I think sub 5's need to be run on an NES or an accurate emulator, but I think part of the beauty of speedrunning is seeing a video (someone elses or one's own) that runs the game quickly in real time. Some of that is lost if the real-time of the video is 5:00 and the converted time is 4:58 or whatever. Allowing Wii VC for certain cutoffs lets people who haven't played the game and want to try it start running, but if you want a WR or something you better run at the correct frame rate! IMHO

3. Cutoff points: YES I think there should be standards of proof for anything faster than 5:21.00 . I agree with i_o_l and nickj109 .

@JWILD [quote]It also brings up another question. Seeing as how emulators are allowed and how WiiVC is allowed, what about emulating Wii VC ? I prefer Dolphin over Nestopia for running SMB1 and if I get a PB on Dolphin's emulated Wii VC, I would be very upset if it didn't count.[/quote] It would just be listed under WiiVC[EMU] (and converted accordingly, if conversion happens). Emulation accuracy would be unlikely to be an issue, since it's just emulating software and stuff like the Wii lagging is unlikely to happen.

[quote](btw does Nestopia do this?)[/quote] Yes as far as I know.

[quote][...] Allowing Wii VC for certain cutoffs lets people who haven't played the game and want to try it start running, but if you want a WR or something you better run at the correct frame rate! IMHO[/quote] Well I don't really see the point of what you are proposing. It's only a few seconds anyway, so it would only really matter for optimized times, which you think should not be converted.

@nickj109 (replying to a 6 months old post lol) [quote]No. There are emulators that emulate at the correct frame rate (FCEUX, Bizhawk, I think higan does too?, etc.) and those emulators should be used. If they choose to use an emulator that runs at a slower frame rate, they should accept the time loss. Unlike the physical consoles, emulators are available to download on the internet and the choice of which one you use is free.[/quote] agwawaf's SMB2j times without loads were already converted from 60fps when I added them. Since I pretty much agree with you and the rules don't really say that, I've reverted it to the 60fps times.

[quote]There definitely should be cutoff points. I feel like exceptions could be made for people who have a reputation built up already and are trustworthy, but I like the guidelines you suggest. I think it should be sub 5:10 should be streamed while sub 5:30 requires video proof (However for this game on speedrun.com, it's set so you can't submit a time unless you provide a video, so idk) [/quote] [quote]I think there should be standards of proof for anything faster than 5:21.00 . I agree with i_o_l and nickj109 .[/quote] So I'll add it to the rules then since nobody disagrees.

I realized the rule about stream-proof was added the other day.I don't think it's BAD rule, but there are some problems on this.

1.Low-spec PC For Low-spec PC users, it's hard to stream speedrun. Or, their streams stutter so often to be proof. Is that OK?

2.Problems when streaming For example, if the stream become offline for some trouble during the run, the record will be rejected? That's a little bit nonsense. However, if it is accepted, do you think stream-proof system works well? (we may be able to overcome this by judging flexibly)

3. other problem Those who doesn't have streaming-tool can't get WR forever.(Or those who really dislike streaming ?????) There is no (large enough) website I know accepting no-stream-record.

(4. highlight of cavetube disappear in 3 days and nico in 7 days)

Up to here, I showed opposing opinions. But I don't mean stream-proof is a completely bad rule (I think I have to emphasize this!) I'm sure it prevent speedrunners from cheating to some extend. And I really understand skeptical feeling when seeing new-comer's great record without streaming.

Then,what I want to say is that there may be people who have trouble about this rule and that whether pros - "stream-proof" is a little bit better than "video-proof only" - are proper considering cons (shown above) is somewhat controversial.

-Y/N? Personally, I think there's no need for stream-proof "for now".

"1.Low-spec PC For Low-spec PC users, it's hard to stream speedrun. Or, their streams stutter so often to be proof. Is that OK? " I totally agree with this. My computer can barely endure 144p stream + BizHawk :/

"2.Problems when streaming For example, if the stream become offline for some trouble during the run, the record will be rejected? That's a little bit nonsense. However, if it is accepted, do you think stream-proof system works well? (we may be able to overcome this by judging flexibly) " I don't agree with this, panicBaskets exist since forever and speedrunners must manage that.

" 3. other problem Those who doesn't have streaming-tool can't get WR forever.(Or those who really dislike streaming ?????) There is no (large enough) website I know accepting no-stream-record. " They have to get something, streaming helps to realize the level of the player. If a good time is made by a totally unknown person, it's probably that it's a spliced/TAS run. Streaming helps the community to know each other.

"(4. highlight of cavetube disappear in 3 days and nico in 7 days) " I am actually not knowing enough on this, I never used Cavetube or Niconicovideo. Wouldn't there be a way to download a highlight ?

"-Y/N? Personally, I think there's no need for stream-proof "for now"." I am personally not for neither against. I am a medium runner and I rarely do SMB1 Any% unless I am grinding or something. On this, I have no real opinion.

Thank you for your valuable comments for my post. I understood them.

Then, I added some info about 4(highlight) On nico and cavetube, there's no way to upload and download highlight. Only way to save the video is recording it after streaming with amareco or something. (There's almost no difference from video-proof only! lol)

However, for nico, there is "Niconama RTA wiki", which collecting record achieved on nicolive, and Live only. I found it can be used, even after 7 days, to prove his or her play was streamed. (still no way for cavetube,but it may not make difference now. I don't know any runner there...)

About 2(Problems when streaming) I want to add this question. This specify the problem, I think: On nico, there is some inconvenience specification that others, like twitch, doesn't have. One particular thing is that streaming finishes every 30 minutes, and then we have (at least 10s or so) blank between them. We never avoid this unless we pay 100JPY($1) for 1 time (silly system!) Addition to it, to get the "30 minutes frame", we have to use auto-getter, or take some troublesome steps. That's why blank sometimes become 30s or longer for some people.(Cuz press start is not allowed on speedrun of this game, of course!) Then, the stream-proof is valid even with such a long blank? At "Niconama RTA wiki", it is often allowed except for some games. I think the video-proof will fill the blank...probably...

¤Even if we pay 100JPY, another problem (I don't explain the detail, but the same kind of problems) will happen. So we can't avoid the blank! In short, this is the REAL problem for nico user.

The streaming rule is good against cheaters who put in low effort. For example this run: Is it legitimate? We don't have anything but this single recording to base our decision on. Maybe it is real, but maybe he made this video in a few hours with savestates. When you see someone streaming you know that he actually does the attempts he claims to do. Maybe tomorrow darbian streams a cheated 4:57.2X because he got frustrated after 10000 attempts and we most likely would not find it out, but he still put in a lot of legitimate effort before and he would lose all respect in the community, if we found out. If a newcomer says he got the record after 15000 attempts offline, it's not possible to tell if it's real or if he only put in a few hours of savestating a record and he also loses nothing, if he is found out.

nicovideo, cavetube, stream down during run: The technical problems during livestreams that you describe have to be accepted imho, because you can't avoid them. But the submitted video has to be complete.

low spec PC, no stream tool: I see the problem here, but how usual is a PC/internet that can't upload ~300 kb/s? @PackSciences: What about Nestopia?

In short I agree with i_o_l As previously stated, at the sub 5:00 level and and especially at 4:57.xx level, we have to protect the integrity of the game and do so with caution. SMB1 is not just any game. The only way to protect the integrity of the top of the leaderboard without streaming attempts is to have the individual submit an attempt along with gigs upon gigs and hours upon hours of failed attempts to TRY to verify authenticity. I think reviewing such large amount of video footage is too burdensome to be realistic. If I have a vote, it's streams necessary for sub 5 runs.

Thanks for your comments! I understood what i_o_l and JWILD are saying.

In fact, there were some reason why I suggested these problems. First of them: nico live's system. The answer to this was reasonable, I think. Second:I realized low-spec PC and low-speed net-line problems may happen more often I thought. But I understand about this point, too.

Last:There was a really skillful game player in 2D-STG (I don't know this English is correct. I mean games like TOHO or Dodonpachi). He had no streaming tools, but finally beated the game, and he became the only one player who could beat the game. Then, he submitted the video to game-maker. In fact, the game had anti-cheating system (People can know whether he cheated or not easily. Of course he knew it.) So his video was considered to be legitimate. [¤He had a blog and wrote his strategies on 2D-STG] Things like this also happened: In Super Mario 64 speedrun, a player's video was rejected. It proved to be cheat because there was something wrong with periodic noise which recorded video has. [¤There were also those who streamed TAS-WR-patched video on nico-live...]

Considering these things, I thought there is necessity to ask how mods and runners think about these points.

Now, I really understand how mods and other runners think about stream-proof and I have no objection to it. Thank you so much, and I'm sorry to bother you.

I like them. The only issue I have is that I suck at streaming. I'm awful if anyone is watching me. Which sucks because you need to stream for sub 5 attempts. I've had multiple occasions where I get to 8-4 on a sub 5 pace, then when I fail I start streaming. After that it's consistent deaths in 1-2 for an hour and a half or so. If I stop streaming I go back to actually playing decent again.

I guess this can't really be resolved because I'm just nervous all the time and definitely necessary. But I'm still not a fan of it.

I came up with an alternative to streaming. It just popped into my head and I'm not sure of all the repercussions to it, but it's similar to how i_o_l made a highlight of the entire stream of his 4:57.69 and how darbian did the same for 4:57.42.

What do you guys think about someone recording all their attempts, and uploading the entire thing to youtube or something, included with the time they're claiming to have?

the only thing I can think of that would be dumb with this method is the longer the attempt session is, the more of a pain it becomes to upload, especially if your upload speed is garbage like mine is.

Thoughts?

I won't respond to all the questions as I don't have time right now, but I'll share some of the thoughts I have at this point:

1. re-timing runs on other consoles: imo this should not be done. I don't know of any cases where people play english instead of japanese and then simply convert their time to what it would've been if they had faster text. The time difference in that case is likely much larger than in this game, but I see it as a similar situation. I personally played on Wii VC and got a 5:01 or something at which point I figured the console must be slower so I switched to NES. When I got the warpless wr (19:34/19:36 idk how accurate my timing was back then) that was also on the Wii but if that was still my pb I wouldn't feel comfortable converting it. I'm not familiar with emulator frame rates, though, so I can't give much feedback on that. I am, however, fully in support of converting a run if you can determine the time based on bowser patterns and whatnot.

2. This doesn't correlate to any #2 from the post so I hope it's not confusing, but as far as that claimed 4:57.58 by Kenneth Moser it looks tool assisted to me. The way he jumps at times doesn't look like natural human play. The way he bounces on the koopas in 8-2 and the way he handles the hammer bros. in 8-3 is very strange as well. Based on their patterns he clearly didn't start on the same frame rule as is common practice. Also, putting "Goal: 4:58.10" seems like a device to make the run more believable. 4:58.1X seems like a very strange time to shoot for for anyone that skilled, and you don't generally go for every frame rule but fast 4-2 when your goal is 4:58.10. I'd call it sketchy even if he streamed attempts prior to this submission. Are these fair points?

3. As far as being required to stream attempts goes, I agree with mav in that I feel that I play better offline. I've done offline attempts at times and sometimes gotten close to pb'ing (in warps and warpless). They weren't world record pace but I still have wondered how the submissions would be viewed. Sometimes I've opted to stream on an alt account so I could have a live recording. I feel that if you want to record all of your attempts that is a fair option if you're willing to deal with the hassle it may be. We may simply need a case by case basis. For example, if mav didn't stream and uploaded a sub 5 I would totally believe him, but if it was a 4:57 that would be more questionable.

I quickly wrote this up so hopefully it comes across with sound logic and doesn't seem abrasive.

no, because the time got changed due to a lag frame in 8-2: https://www.speedrun.com/run/7z0qq24m

How would one go about an official request to review/remove MagicScrumpy's time on the leaderboard (currently 16th place). If Kenneth Moser's was removed due to speculation of being tool assisted, this one should be a no brainer.

This is all coming to light due to some tool assisted work he's done with other games (as well as submitting a Smash Bros combo video into a contest with a cash prize, claiming it was all done by a human, but with heavy speculation that it was also tool assisted). There has been a ton of discussion on Reddit/Discord and I think it's time for a re-review and ruling.

Ultimately, having this run stay approved diminishes the integrity of the leaderboard.

EDIT: Thank you, Mav! The time has been removed.