I'd agree that the run should be considered a TAS.

The game was modded and a script was used. It may not have been used on the "timed portion" of the run but it was still used and the game was altered by an outside tool. Guess you could think of it as a sort of "setup" or "preparation" for the run which in this case shouldn't be considered entirely separate from the run itself.

If this type of run were considered valid then I think it'd trivialize every other run we've done up to now. If you're allowed to use the script on a single run then what's the difference between using it on every character in a multi-character run? And then the runs would just be dumbed down to whoever gets all the 6 minute OP start runs in a row, right? (slightly oversimplified)

It's a drastic change in the way the game is played/the runs are done by using external tools. So that seems, to me, to clearly be a TAS.

If you're going to use co-op babies, then you might as well be allowed to use them throughout your run normally however you want.

The duping inputs using a program could be considered tool-assisted I guess, since that's not a function you can replicate within the game using just the game?

So it looks like the consensus/best compromise is the leaderboard variable thing. Is that right, Hyphen?

Well I pretty much lumped all co-op stuff together into the "co-op allowed" category idea since I think the best way to make a rule for it would be "You are not allowed to spawn a co-op baby." like you suggested Hyphen.

And yes, Dea1h, I think we should have both sets of categories be their own tab on the leaderboard and not have them in Misc. Although, Hyphen, is it possible to create two drop-down tabs like the Misc. ones? For organizational purposes it might be better to have a "Co-op" and "No co-op" tab and then just nest 7,11,13 runs under each of them?

P.S. Sorry for the long post, wanted to respond to everyone individually and I just got back from TwitchCon and had a moment to sit down and type this out. I'm still very busy and about to go cast, so I'll read what you all have to say when I next get a moment to sit down and do so. Thank you for listening.

First off, sorry it took me so long to reply but I was really busy at TwitchCon and didn't really have time to focus on much else.

@Hyphen, I would disagree that it is that minor of an issue. If there isn't a rule against spawning co-op babies then the run can drastically change. For an oversimplified example, we have the co-op baby being out all the time and giving you a "150%" dps up. That's akin to the run being 1.5x faster. Not exactly of course, but a significant enough difference in my opinion.

@Dea1h The argument that "we can't have another category because you don't think someone wants to review them" isn't really valid. Like the currently (correct me if I'm wrong) the only active mod is Hyphen. We also don't currently have things set to require verification of the run first before it shows up on the leaderboard which means that the mods don't review every single video before they show up. Instead what happens is things get posted, then people see it and if they see something wrong with it they bring it up. Adding another category doesn't seem like it would affect anything the way things are being handled currently.

Secondly, I don't see any reason to make a category the "main" category. I don't know if any other games with multiple categories have one that is designated the "main" one. There might be categories that are more popular than others and so more people run them, but it's not our job to decide which category they would want to run. That's the decision, and calling something the "main" category would just make them feel like that's the one they're "supposed" to run.

Finally, I never asked you to like me nor did I ask you to create a label for me. You're free to whatever opinion you want to have but don't push your opinions onto others. What I do ask, and what I think people deserve unless otherwise proven that they don't, is that you respect mine and other people's opinion as opposed to trying to dismiss them as unreasonable because they don't align with your own beliefs. It is also not your job to decide what is or is not "for me". That's my job. And what I'm currently trying to do is to have a civil discussion with other members of a community about something I think is important in said community. You saying "this isn't for you" is you essentially saying, "I don't care what you have to say, get out of here, this is mine and you're not welcome". So if that's what you're saying, then I'm sorry but I think that's wrong and incredibly disrespectful. I do understand that there is a language barrier however, so I'm trying not to assume anything. I'm just letting you know how it sounds to me.

@Warshoty, First of all, I would like to thank you for apologizing. I figured that could be the case but I wanted to make sure I pointed out to you how you were coming off to me. I understand that communication can be quite difficult and the whole everything is in text thing doesn't make anything easier. As well as the fact that it can be easy to get riled up over things and lose your main points in the unintentional heated-ness of the conversation. In regard to the point you were trying to defend, I agree that that is a valid point. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. To me that's one way of doing things, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of doing things that aren't equally valid. I don't think I agree with the sentiment that "because it's only one mechanic, it's not that important". Whether it be one mechanic or a dozen, what I think is important here is the magnitude of impact it has on the run. And in this case I feel it can have a very large impact on the run as we have been given examples of. Which is why I am backing the idea of separate categories so profusely. Having "co-op babies are allowed" & "you cannot spawn a co-op baby" as two categories pinpoints the thing that can cause such a difference in the way the game is run. Which to me, seems like a perfectly reasonable separation.

@Cyber_1 I don't think I have much else to respond to your comments that I haven't already touched on. So, uh, hi? o/

But to actually, respond to what you said, the whole "main" category thing was covered where I responded to Dea1h. In terms of the "player mode" thing, I think that there's a clear difference between the run being single player and the run being multiplayer. That being whether or not a co-op baby was spawned. Just because the game doesn't have a separate mode for it, doesn't change the fact that the game is being played in a single player manner or a multiplayer manner in terms of game mechanics, right?

@Warshoty To clarify, when I said multi-player run I meant a run using the game's multi-player mechanic. I don't see anything wrong with making that distinction.

And if I'm understanding you correctly you think that people expressing their opinions and wanting to have a reasonable discussion about said opinions is a joke because it's "taking things too seriously". How is having a discussion about something we care about "taking things to seriously".

First of all, I don't think you should belittle other people's opinions so easily. I feel like your manner of speech during this discussion has been condescending and dismissive, which is counterproductive.

Secondly, I really don't see what the big issue you have with making different categories is. I admit that your suggestion for adding the extra detail to runs saying co-op or not isn't a bad compromise, but I also don't see what the need for that compromise is. What exactly is so wrong with having multiple categories?

If it's a clutter issue then why not move 1-character to misc. since I don't know anyone who actually specifically runs that and then have 7, 11, 13 single player and multi-player categories. This doesn't take away anything that's already been done because the current leader boards would just be the multi-player categories.

From my perspective, the use of co-op babies creates enough of a distinction between runs to warrant a separate category. That distinction being that it changes the run from a single player run to a multi-player run.

The game recognizes a second player and therefore the run becomes a multi-player run according to the game. To me that seems like reason enough to separate the two categories.

I fail to see how wanting to make this distinction clear has anything to do with making Isaac more of a meme. I also don't really understand what you mean by Isaac being a meme in this instance.

Okay, the effect on the community is a valid discussion point.

But I don't think it'd be fair to say "it's too late, it already happened". Some people started using it yes, other people decided to continue not using it and voiced their opinions on the matter. No proper discussion was ever had within the community. So wouldn't it then be unfair to those of us that opposed the use of co-op babies from the beginning?

And no I don't want people's efforts so far to just be completely abolished, which is why I'm in favor of just creating separate categories. While I don't want to be like no, sorry your run is invalid because we as a community never had a proper discussion about a controversial ruling, I also don't want to have to run a category using all the co-op gimmicks that have been brought up in this thread because the run would no longer feel like playing Isaac to me. And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way.

If other people want to run a category that takes advantage of all the co-op baby exploits/gimmicks then they should be able to. I don't want to run that category personally and I feel that there are other people who don't want to either. That's why my recommendation is to just have separate categories. Something as simple as Co-op% and No Co-op% would be fine.

And on your point of there being less competition and records feeling less rewarding, having only the one category that some people don't want to run discourages people from running because they either have to do something they don't want to, or accept the fact that they need to do even more work in order to get those records. Both of which could be deterrents to people. So wouldn't having more categories encourage community growth as a whole where there are more options and people are more likely to find a category they want to run?

@Warshoty, To me the tone from your previous post felt fairly confrontational all the way through. If that's not the case, then I'm sorry for misreading it.

Changing the current categories would only happen if we decided to ban co-op babies altogether. That would in fact invalidate some runs. Which I don't think is something that's never happened before with speedruns. I still however think the better option is having multiple categories, in which case I'd think we would leave the current categories as they are and then add a no co-op baby or glitchless category for people to submit runs to.

And I mean, we have categories because people wanted to run them, no? We have 7 because that's what's been around from basically the beginning if I'm not mistaken and it's a fun run that people like to do. 11 was made because Rebirth added those characters and is what it is now because people requested it. All the miscellaneous categories are there because people wanted to run them and started doing so (Dark room, jud9s now, etc.)

We've made a bunch of different categories changing mostly number of characters and endings run to and have had them all be under a sort of Any% blanket. Why not have different categories that aren't just Any% with different endings and lengths if people want to run non-Any% categories?

@Warshoty, Is it really necessary to make assumptions of other people and to call others morons for no apparent reason? Self-deprecate all you want but insulting others and throwing out accusations out of nowhere is uncalled for.

The argument that "it's too late, people already do it" doesn't hold any weight I feel. It doesn't give any reason for or against the validity of using co-op babies nor any reason for or against having separate categories.

For those of us that don't have much experience with other speedruns, does it really matter? We speedrun this game, we should be able to voice our opinions on the game we run and have a discussion about it.

In addition, if you want to "shut up and speedrun an RNG based game" then why do you even care about something that's sole purpose is to reduce the RNG to an extent. It's RNG anyways, right?

The point is that there are people who don't want to do a run using co-op babies and there are people who do, I don't see what the problem is with just making separate categories so that people can do the run they want. Pretty sure that's exactly how every other category we run gets made. Having both categories doesn't stop you from doing one or the other. You just have more options now.

Also, Anti, I respect your right to free speech but I'd appreciate it if you kept what I see as distasteful jokes to yourself in a public forum like this.

The rule should definitely be added. Also we might want to note that the preferred method is the tracker and give a link to it that's easily visible/accessible. Can you put the link to it in the rules too?

Wouldn't make much sense not to use the item tracker honestly since the other way just costs you time.

Hm, I don't really see how getting a devil deal you otherwise wouldn't be able to take has any risk involved. It seems exclusively a reward to me. Also if I'm not mistaken you get a full heart from the co-op baby as long as it had a full heart and not half of one, right?

Not sure if I'd run a 2-player category if it were a thing right now, however a run submitted to the category where co-op babies are banned would still be valid in the other category I would think and you could just submit it to both if you wanted to.

I feel like the having a co-op baby out all the time and syncing it with your movements supports the separation of the categories even more so because the gameplay seems vastly different at that point and it's a completely different run. It's also not really that far from just having 2 people playing at once, right?

Lobster, I'm not sure where the "risk vs. reward" of using co-op babies comes into play. Mind clarifying?

The separate categories thing is about it being a 1-player/controller vs. 2-player/controller thing. To me that seems like a clear enough and large enough difference in runs that it might warrant a second category.

I'm not sure what you were getting at with the keyboard vs. controller topic. Karol was talking about not having a controller and therefore being at the disadvantage of not even being able to use co-op babies. Which I actually hadn't even thought of admittedly.

I don't know why you think it would put a damper on the community, could you explain that? And I'm not sure what you mean by degrading the competition. As a runner you could run either category or both categories, right?

About them being "interesting" I don't see what's interesting about them other than that they're just an exploit you can use to get extra health/steal a devil deal with.

I honestly don't have much experience with speedrunning since Isaac is the first game I'd ever ran. My first instinct though is that it should be a separate category. A 2-player/controller category I guess?

The co-op baby discussion got brought up again in a recent thread so I thought I'd make a new one to talk about it some more. I'm not sure if we ever had a dedicated discussion for it. I think we touched on it back when we talked about donation machine overflow but never had a discussion directly about the co-op baby usage.

I personally still don't agree with the 2-player mechanic being used for the single player run but I know there are those of you that think it's just another in-game mechanic and should be allowed.

Elad I think actually pointed out to me the other day that he thinks a speedrun is about using all the mechanics and exploits you can find in order to go as fast as possible, which seems like a perfectly reasonable perspective.

However, I don't run the game simple to go as fast as possible. I do it because I have fun with the challenge in a game that I enjoy playing and to me the co-op baby thing isn't really a part of the game I enjoy and instead takes away from it because it feels like I'd be exploiting the game in a way that, for lack of a better term, "feels cheaty".

This is a personal opinion though and I'd say is in direct contradiction to the speedrunner mentality of do everything possible to go as fast as you can.

I don't however, feel like there's anything wrong with wanting to speedrun a game for fun instead of needing to do absolutely everything to go as fast as possible. And it is a bit strange submitting runs to a category where I purposefully don't use a mechanic.

So I'd like to pose the question of whether or not the majority of runners think co-op babies should be allowed or not? If they do, then co-op babies for everyone. If not, then maybe we ban it? If it's split, we could create a new category perhaps?

Dea1h, I get your frustration for feeling like you wasted you wasted your time if the consensus is that using task manager to end task the game isn't allowed. In response to your "Nobody cares" comment though, I did post my concerns with it 6 days ago as well but nobody really addressed my concern about using an outside tool to enable it. Drunkenshoe did answer my question about other games actually using console shut offs though which was nice of him and helpful insight. The issue with it being an outside tool was never discussed any further though.

I don't think that many people actually check these forums on a regular basis (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), so it's sort of understandable that the thread wasn't really noticed until people brought attention to it after seeing you use it on a run. I'd say that using something that you think might not be allowed but haven't had any confirmation/consensus on the matter is a risk I guess? If you want to avoid that risk then you'd have to get more of the community together to discuss things somehow. I'm always open to PMs via Twitch or Discord so if you want you can always contact me there to discuss things too.

I wouldn't think using an outside tool (task manager) to affect the game should be allowed. If it's not something you can produce using just the game then that doesn't seem valid to me.

Also does anyone know if actually closing the game client in the middle of a run is valid in speedruns of any other game because I honestly don't know and would be curious if it is.

Also I agree with Cyber about it likely not being worth since no B2 DD is already really bad if you're trying to get really good times, but it could help with consistency I guess if it were valid.

I mean yeah, pretty much what starg09 said. I'd say the "first input" happened when the script closed the game and so the timer starts from there. And technically that'd be a "tool assisted speedrun" too since that input was made by the script and not him.

So that makes it either a really really long 1 character run including all that practice time, or a 4:11 seeded run. Don't really see how anyone would interpret it differently honestly.

Okay, so the main issue here is the read-only file being used, right? I don't think banning the in-game mechanic of donation machine overflow makes sense honestly, but banning the use of a read-only file that sets the machine to 999 for every run without exiting the game makes sense since that seems counter-intuitive to the games intended mechanics.

Also, to clarify, am I right in believing that it is against the rules to exit the actual game client mid run? In other words, having to reload a new save file in the middle of a run is not allowed. I personally use two separate save files so I don't have to do that although I can see arguments against swapping files mid-run as well. The reason I ask if this is already against the rules is because the read-only file thing would basically just be replicating this but with less time investment.

And in case I was long-winded because I know I tend to do that sometimes, my short answer is I don't think it makes sense to have the read-only file be allowed and that I'm against banning overflow.