Forums  /  Quest series  /  Quest 64  /  Category and Variable Change Discussion

1: As discussed on Discord due to the recent run, Low% is kind of a bad label, and the rules are a bit ambiguous. Since people seem to like both misc categories, I think we could add "minimum collection" and "minimum level" It's a bit of category bloat, but there aren't exactly a ton of ways to run this game, so I tend to think it's fine.

2: I'd like to see "Uses OoB" and "Uses Spirit Dupe" combined into either "Uses Glitches" or "Glitchless". I don't think having both indepdently adds much value to the board. I'm probably biased by having a glitchless run, but I feel like that's something viewers would still want to see.

3: There will probably be a "Uses RNG Manip" Flag eventually. Theoretically most of the early game for a spirit dupe and possibly through Solvaring could be maintained with RNG manip. Additional, crazy things could probably be done from a save in Brannoch, though I haven't investigated that much yet.

RiaSkiesRiaSkies, BingchangBingchang and colincolin like this. 

I can't really give much feedback because I don't run Quest and haven't honestly played in since I was probably like 5 or 10 or something when it was new, but I really like the suggestions, and from a speedrun stand point, what you are saying about the leader-boards in terms of organization I think that you bring up very valid points.

I had thought hard about No2 for a bit, and I feel that myself personally like the idea of knowing more detail of the run, but I can see someone outside of the community Spectators, viewers, or just who ever is watching without the intent of running, or maybe even potentially new runners liking the idea of a glitchless vs True Any% run.

As I said again... I don't want to act like I know a lot about the game but I think that you have some very good points.


1.) Yes agreed
2.) Yes agreed. Glitchless and Glitches
3.) Neat. I'd also like to point out my US runs now technically attempt rng manip, considering I know more or less what's going to happen with consistent rng.

4.) I think we should remove save corruption as a category at all. At this point using that glitch won't save time for any run anywhere and it wouldn't make a run using it distinct in any way.

5.) Also also, I'd like to bring up the idea of just starting time at selecting new game instead of having the -5.5 seconds. Thoughts?


I agree to the "glitched and glitchless" catagories, even if it's just for more clarity on leaderboards


I'm not a runner (yet), but I very much agree with Bing's #5.

colincolin and BingchangBingchang like this. 

Sorry to double-post.

Another idea for the leaderboards is to make US and JP leaderboards sub-categories under each real category (i.e. having US and JP under a single 'Any% ' tab). Would just help reduce clutter on the page and keep things organized.

Would also be nice on the Quest RPG page 😉


I feel the differences between US and JP are too extreme to have them both share a catagory, especially in terms of "glitchless", US glitchless is easily 15-20 minutes longer just by virtue of needing to grind


I don't mean for them to share a category; they would still have their own leaderboards. It's just an oraganizational thing.

Here are some examples of sub-categories (pokemon being closer to the situation here):

colincolin likes this. 

As the biggest advocate for Save Corruption, I agree that as of now it is basically pointless as doing the glitch would actually slow down the run. If anyone ever actually does a run of it, we can add it back so they may display their time, but I doubt that will ever happen. (I always intended to do one and still never did myself, so I don't see why anyone else would do it)

As for combining OoO and SD into 1 Uses Glitches/No Glitches option, I am okay with too. I believe we originally chose to separate them because of the difficulty of OoB when we first started incorporating it into runs, and obviously that isn't the same situation now.

I like Bing's point about just having the official time start when selecting new game. We could retroactively add 5 seconds to each run that either started the time at movement or started their timer at -5.5, adding only 5 seconds as a small cushion. What are all your thoughts on that?

I don't like the subcategories that Spiraster is mentioning because I think it's too divided up having another button after selecting the tab. It's just not good in terms of UX I think.

Lastly, I don't really like the idea of splitting up low% and if there's confusion about the rules we can just define them better. I think I may have an idea. Low% to me should always include never picking up any items unless it is REQUIRED. So for this game that means no chests, ever. The next one obviously is having the lowest level possible. Well, our way of defining that until now was to only exclude world spirits and allow level-ups from enemies, because defining what spirit level you can beat the game at isn't feasible.

Now I don't know if the website supports this, but if everyone is set on reducing stats as much as possible, my solution would be:
A text box that you submit with the time of your run for the level you ended up beating the game at. (level being the sum of the 4 elements and all your stats, like HP, Agility, etc). Runs are ordered by sum first, then time. So, a 12 hour run with a total level of 200 is ranked higher than a 9 hour run with a total level of 210.

I don't actually like that idea though. As you can imagine, this would get pretty ridiculous and messy. I wouldn't expect most reasonable speedgame communities to define 100% as maxing out all stats and as such low% shouldn't explicitly be minimum stats either. If we formally define it as minimum stats, then the route becomes running straight to every boss and having to have every single attack an enemy ever casts at you be a Miss.

The way I look at 100% and low% is defining all the things in the game that can be reduced down to a True or False.
Collected spirit in hay at monastery: True/False
Opened chest in the monastery: True/False
Collected spirit on cliff in Melrode: True/False
Opened chest in the house in Melrode: True/False

A list of all possible flags like this in the game would be all False in low% and all True in 100%. Things like getting wings or bread from an NPC aren't included because they can be infinitely collected. There's no "progression" to it.

colincolin and BingchangBingchang like this. 

It's so frustrating because of how arbitrary speedrunning and specific category's for each run are, although to a large extent I agree with what hobo has said. I am still personally quiet on the fence about what a true Low% or 100% run should be defined as, because I kind of believe that no additional items should be grabbed (in absolutely any given video game) unless absolutely necessary or vise versa for a 100% run. So this would include (but not limited to) any key items, armor, weapons, or even perishable items/items you would use in your inventory.

However I also kind of think it should be the opposite for what he mentioned (one side of my mind anyways). If what I had mentioned earlier were to be true, would that mean you only need one of each item, or the max amount you are allowed to hold? It wouldn't make sense to have only one of each... as you are not completely filling your inventory as much as possible, but then it would make the point of whether or not you need to have the highest in game level relevant which I think is pretty silly.

I have actually been thinking about this a lot myself as I would like to make my own Low% category for a game but have been on the fence as to what I define the category by, this conversation has however made me lean much further towards the idea of only defining key items/armor and other stuff as an actual percentage of completion.

This could of course bring into play the idea of additional bosses and side quests and stuff, but as long as they don't reward the player with some type of bonus like an additional power-up or piece of a equipment, I don't think it really matters in terms of game completion personally.

Of course every community is different, this is my outlook however, in terms of gaming and speedrunning as a whole.

EDIT: This would of course possibly make certain things like skipping chests or exploring certain area's of the game irrelevant (100% map completion) and not to say I don't think they deserve their own place in speedrunning... Maybe just in a different (again arbitrary) category.

You could always of course, define it TRUE 100% or TRUE Low%.
For example, there are many communities that choose to use the term Any% for their main category, I personally find Any% to be the most easily defined category in all of speedrunning how ever... Just the fastest way possible of beating the game, of course there a lot of communities that don't like this.

I hope that my input has shed some good light on the topic, I really like the discussion and how well this community works together. Hopefully one day I will get my N64 running or a new one, as well as find or get a new copy of Quest.


I am late, as per usual...

Low% can be separated into 'minimum collection' and 'minimum level' (and I suppose both, if someone wanted to do both simultaneously) I am fine with that. With that said, how does one determine what the 'minimum level' or 'minimum stats' or whatever is. At some point, one should have a good definition of what is 'possible'. I think the 'no chests, no overworld spirits' definition is fairly clear-cut and well-defined. Similarly, all overworld spirits is another 'well-defined' category, even if one might say 'all chests' or 'all stats' or whatever other definition. In most games, 100% means '100% of some things defined by the category rules', and similarly Low% means 'The minimum collection among an arbitrarily-defined subset of 'anything you might pick up''. So, I don't agree that 100% needs to be 'every last thing possible' nor low% needs to be 'nothing at all whatsoever' The idea of 'no chests and overworld spirits' is what sits well as a good definition of low% to me.

Given no one has done Save Corruption and it's not looking like anyone is really attempting the category (if indeed it can even save time over regular any% at this point), I think it can be scrapped as a category after 4+ years. If it had had even one run up to this point, I would think differently about it.

Glitches vs. Glitchless is fine. However, I worry about a certain arbitrariness with regard to AGL glitching. If someone accidentally an initiative glitch or overmashes into an AGL glitch on the US version, should the whole run be invalidated? If there's leeway, what is the cutoff, and who decides?

I'm also fine with moving to 'start time at New Game'; it's consistent with every other game I run to start the timing when starting the file; the -5.5 stuff is a relic of SDA timing and I think we've outgrown that. The only point of order is how to deal with "legacy" times.

colincolin likes this. 

Just curious where we stand on this atm, I see many people in favor of the glitched vs glitchless catagories, but haven't seen much in the way of incorporating it...not saying admins aren't doing their job mind you, just seems almost...forgotten 😕

CleverLeviathanCleverLeviathan and BingchangBingchang like this. 

I made changes.

I set the "Glitched" variable as a subcategory. If people don't like it it's easy to change back.

Someone also mentioned potentially switching US/JP to subcategories. It's like another hour or so of changes. I don't have a strong preference on that right now.