For full game runs (any%, any% NG+) EMU offers considerable advantage due to load times vs original hardware PS2, so comparing the runs isn't really possible in my mind. My personal preference would be toward promoting original hardware but don't want to put any barriers to entry up to new runners. I think we can all agree the more runners the better.
EMU might fit better on xbox boards? I haven't tested but my hypothesis would be the load times are comparable. Or maybe add a standard amount of time to compensate for loading advantage on ps2? Not sure what the best way to approach this or if the current way even needs to be changed but I've been thinking about this for a while now and wanted to pose it to the community.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
I agree, emu load times do offer a significant advantage based on the way the boards are organized, and I think that the times between emu and hardware should not be compared within the same board.
I believe that the cleanest solution is to split boards between hardware and emu.
Yes, the amount of runs in each category would be slashed. I don't think that its really something that we can control though. People who want to run the game will do so, and those who don't want to wont. Question is, would we rather keep up the appearance of more visible runs or would we rather create an even, clean cut playing field for runners.
I can see that more runs in each category may lead to greater competition, but is it really true competition if some runners are at a predisposed disadvantage?
Is another option to use the run time without the load times? I see this being done in this game for example: https://www.speedrun.com/rac2.
That is also a good option scoom. there are online tools available to help with taking out load times, such as ytframetimer https://slashinfty.github.io/yt-frame-timer/
After reading into what has currently been said I think Exposure's idea between splitting hardware and emu up seems like a straight forward idea and whilst it will split the runs in half essentially it does allow a level playing field and comparisons can be made appropriately. Also IMO if the run isn't being done on hardware via Disk/DVD then it should go under Emu as it doesn't fit anywhere and being honest there's only going to be one run on the leaderboard that is HDD if that got it's own leaderboards too.
I know that loads of people probably modify their PS2 to use a HDD rather than disk so that they have faster load times but what about those that don't want to modify hardware and just want to play on a disk? IMO
Emu + HDD --> Emulator Disk/DVD --> Original Hardware
I feel like removing load times could be better though. Then you can have everyone compete on the same list, and it becomes a competition in skill between everyone in the category.
But anyway, I'm not planning to run that category, those are just my thoughts.
Nice to see this topic being discussed. I love running Burnout 3 but the fact that disc and emu runs are in the same leaderboard takes out a bit of the fun.
I'd be absolutely down for a leaderboard split or, even better, a loadless comparison.
If a leaderboard split has to be made then I'd just ban HDD altogether as it's way too niche and even faster than emu (saves roughly one second per load).
Loadless would basically solve this issue and make a fairer competition for everyone: disc, emu & HDD :)
Hi, thanks for the feedback on this (and sorry for the late response)!
I split PS2 disc and PS2 EMU / HDD into their own categories which should make the competition between these platforms more fair.
As for now loadless times are not being taken into use as the load times are inconsistent and there is no efficient way to take them out of a time with loads.
