Current LRT situation (IMPORTANT)
2 years ago
Argentina

Hello everyone. I will try to keep this as short yet as informative as possible, presenting all the facts. To put it on simple terms, the way the current LRT works is it pauses on each loading screen, it pauses when you pause the game with the options menu, and it pauses when you open and close the inventory (while the duration of that short blackscreen). It also has a feature called framecounter that counts the amount of frames (FPS) you dropped in-game and then converts those to time rewinding the timer backwards. As most active runners know by now, this current LRT we use has had and still has several issues which I will list below, along with proof/examples of them.

  1. The load removal feature is inaccurate due to the timer un-pausing before the loading has even finished. This happens on every single loading/blackscreen of the run including each inventory open/close blackscreen (there’s several hundreds of both of these combined during the whole run) and we strongly suspect it is related to the in-game memory address for the loading screens/blackscreens being unreliable, so we are unsure if it can be fixed. Examples: I specifically chose myself cause I’ve a “bad” PC (should be more than good enough for this game but we all know the Steam port is a special kind of unoptimized) and Derek because he has a really good PC and also records at 30fps just like me so the comparison is as accurate as possible. As you can see on the last clip, the framecounter counteracts this problem to some degree due to the fact that it counts frames during loadings as well, and as you can see it rewinds roughly a similar amount to the amount you lost after each loading when you pause/open the inventory. You should also consider that Derek might very well not have the fastest loading times possible, so the differences could be even bigger. Or,. if I didn’t have an SSD, the difference would be bigger. You might be thinking losing 0.1, 0.2, or potentially more because of hardware limitations isn’t a big deal, but when you consider that there’s literally hundreds of loadings in the game, it becomes incredibly significant.
  2. The framecounter feature of the timer is inaccurate which causes discrepancies of frames randomly (you can either lose or save a few frames). However, since the load removal feature is also inaccurate, this can counteract it by giving you “fake timesave” which balances out the time you lost from inaccurate load removal as explained in point 1). Example:
  3. The timer can go backwards for no reason when reloading checkpoints (this is a bug related to the framecounter). Examples: This, although annoying, is easily fixable since the timer pauses during the options menu so all we have to do is manually add that fake timesave to the final time when submitting the run which is what we’ve been doing for a while.

One of the main theories that arised from the issues with the timer is the theory that since bad PCs drop a lot of frames, bad PC = free fake timesave. However, we could not find any reliable proof of this. We have a google sheet specifically dedicated to record each and every gold segment of each top runner for analysis-purposes. If this theory was true I (since I have enough skill and unfortunately the worst PC out of all the top runners) would have the best gold by far on many splits, specially laggy ones where I would drop a lot of frames, and similarly, anyone with a bad PC would have the fastest segment on segments that are nothing but a straight line, but neither of these were the case. In fact, nearly every split where I have the best gold can easily be attributed to the fact that those segments are FAR more optimal on KBM, and would be unmatchable on controller no matter the skill (for example all merchants, or splits that require fast shots and quickturns, like village treasures). Moreover, Derek (current 4th place runner) has the majority of the best golds DESPITE playing on controller AND having a good PC AND never dropping a single frame, which again disproves this theory. Currently, the timer is inaccurate (by frames) for everyone, and not just for bad PCs. The only thing related to good PCs being at a disadvantage we strongly suspect of is that getting 61fps (we don’t know why this happens) equals timeloss, which would explain why for example Shimarisu seems to get worse times on many segments (he gets 61fps very often).

In order to fix this messy situation, recently Wipe (the developer of the current timer) developed a new script which modifies how the autosplitter detects/splits on doors, and therefore making it universal for any category you run which is a big positive, but at the same time it straight up removes the framecounter which, although it fixes problem number 3, it massively exacerbates the issue of the inaccurate load remover and it also makes dropping frames in-game a huge issue again. Just a few days ago we tested this new timer with success, however, we quickly realized the massive time differences between good and bad computers, with bad computers losing 20-40s compared to the current timer, and good computers only losing about 10-12s.

The main reason why the LRT came to be in the first place was to eliminate the pay to win aspect of the IGT, and therefore expanding the competition fairly, since not everyone has the possibility to afford a good computer. Not only that, but if we consider the fact that the Steam port of the game is incredibly poorly optimized, with some people with good to amazing PCs having performance issues and also small yet noticeable discrepancies in loading times between good VS top-tier computers, this makes it so on the new script even a GOOD PC won’t be able to compete with a TOP-TIER PC. Someone could bring up the argument that losing 30-40s for example to hardware limitations would not affect someone with a non-top time which is most of the leaderboard, but I personally heavily disagree because 1) this assumes these people will never reach the top which we simply cannot say for sure (in which case this time difference would make them unable to keep competing at that point) 2) it is very unenjoyable to lose time to things you can’t control, in this case hardware limitations, which I believe would make many runners quit the game and 3) the leaderboard was and is made for everyone that runs the game, not just for the top 5 or 10, therefore I believe the logical course of action is to do what benefits the most amount of people in the community.

We think that although the current timer is quite flawed and not exactly accurate, the issues with switching to the new one would heavily outweigh the benefits, and we believe moving back to a timer that is very hardware-reliant and that would only benefit a small amount of people (if we look at the leaderboard and the differences between IGT and LRT it is clear that runners having a top-pc is the exception, not the norm) while screwing over the rest is a huge step-back. However, we are still analyzing what to do with the current situation, and since we have not come to an agreement yet, we want to know what active/former runners of the Steam version of the game think of all this, and if you have any reasonable suggestions, feel free to leave them down below.

MagnaZero, nIVwer and 21 others like this
Brazil

I don't have much to add since I agree with what was said by Sawken and Aiden. Obviously the best option would be to fix the LRT issues while making it fair to all runners, but since we don't have this option, maybe (if possible), we could focus on what can be fixed with the current timer.

Even though it has its issues, the current timer makes it so everyone can run the game more or less fairly, so for now I think the best option is to keep the current LRT and, in the future, we could check whether the issues can or cannot be fixed.

As was said, the LRT isn't just for the top runners, but for the whole community, cause we don't know if one player will reach the top in the near future. I'm sure that a lot of runners could come to compete at the top level and I could even give some examples.

I hope the community as a whole comes to an agreement and we can keep the game fair to everyone running.

Leokennedy007, XodaRapX and 7 others like this
Scotland

There's some obvious disadvantages to the current LRT as listed above but I don't feel that the proposed new timer offers enough advantages to use it over the current one.

The biggest problem I have with it is the hardware ceiling that the new timer would effectively put on someone with a bad/midrange PC. IMO, having a good or incredible PC shouldn't be a requirement to get a good time/PB.

Also can't help but feel that the new LRT would only demoralise old/current and new runners, if they know going in to it that there is a hard cap placed on their potential PB when it has nothing to do with their individual skill level in the game/route.

SiaoMuleki, nIVwer and 8 others like this
Hungary

I would say stick to the old LRT for now and see what advancements Wipe can still make to the old or new load removal timers. I don't know how far the rabbithole he went with developing and tinkering with the timer, but perhaps give the man what he needs and time/motivation, help him test stuff if he says so, and maybe some new results or findings can arise from it that could potentially fix existing or new problems.

OnlyPabloS, XodaRapX and 6 others like this
Brazil

So, I think the best solution would be continue with the current LRT and try to solve this in a way would be beneficial to everyone. Is not everyone can afford a better PC, even more here in America Latina. I don't have much to say since Sawkenn pretty much said everything but i know this timer have issues BUT changing to this new one would even be worse imo.

Leokennedy007, XodaRapX and 7 others like this
Paraíba, Brazil

The situation is to keep the LRT current. If we use the new LRT you can be sure that all runners with good computers will take advantage of people with very weak computers. Sawken can lose the top 1 pro yuushi in a run, and this may not be due to his skill, but rather to the disadvantage of the high end pc he has. Not everyone on the site can afford to buy a high-end or average PC that doesn't have excessive FPS drop rates. So at least 70% of the people who run this game would be harmed.

clumbooo, XodaRapX and 3 others like this
Shiga, Japan

I'm against continuing the current LRT. Sawken has already expleined the problems with the current LRT, but that's not all:

  1. There are low-spec PC runners who are advantaged by the current LRT and high-spec PC runners who are disadvantaged. It's common to need a high-spec PC for a speedrun of a PC games, as was the case when we were using IGT, but If you intentionally cause frame drops, the time will be even more inaccurate because "fake time save" are more likely to give. "LRT bug gives high-spec PC runners an disadvantage." This is an unusual situation not only for us, but for new runners as well. Because most of them will be preparing a high-spec PC to run this game, but as it is, it's pointless.

  2. Current LRT can be easily cheated by anyone. Since we are now using a frame counter, asl (timer script) is doing the time calculation. Look at the following image.

https://gyazo.com/f65aab8b3ed1c15a9bfb05be6bd3590b

As you can see, formulas are written. (frameCount * 16.6666) What do you think would happen if you rewrote these numbers? As you may have guessed, that would mean rewriting the timer method itself. Even a non-programmer like me can manipulate time by just rewriting a few of the numbers. The biggest problem is, this is hard to find out, and I think it's worse than any of the cheating with trainers. And the only way to remove this formula is to remove the frame counter feature. I heard this from Wipe (the developer of the current LRT). And he said that the frame counter should be removed because the current LRT bugs are difficult to fix.

Next, I would like to share my opinion about the new LRT. When several people were asked to compare the current LRT with the new LRT, the difference was about 10-12 seconds for 3 out of the 5 people tested in the Main Game category. From this, I thought that if you don't have dropped frames (Except for load time), there is a difference of about 10 seconds. And I think you should make sure that frame drop don't happening when there's more time loss than this. Without wanting to sound rude but just like in any other sport if you can't compete you need to upgrade your rig.

You all think that using the new LRT will be a pay to win and that's true, but it's better than IGT and it's not that difficult to create an environment where frame drops don't cause. Most importantly, the current LRT bug has so many uncertainties that it's not even clear when it will happen or what will cause it. So I would recommend the new LRT, which is fairer than the current LRT with it's unstable bugs, as long as frame drops don't cause.

Thank you very much for reading my opinion through to the end.

Shiga, Japan

Why are you so angry? Calm down, Let's have a constructive discuss. We are not attacking your country, and now we are talking about the re4 timers.

First of all, the new LRT and IGT are two completely different things. Since the new LRT removes load time, the difference in time between the new LRT and the current LRT is caused by the presence of frame drops. In short, just don't frame drop.

And you said that the leaderboard is for everyone, then why can you say that our proposal is bad when there are so few tests? I talked about the test results, but that was only to clarify what the reference time would be if frame drop didn't cause, not to say that the new LRT is correct. And I don't think that all our tests are correct. So can we at least run more tests before we talk about it? As sawken has shown us, we know the problem with the current LRT. If you really want everyone to be happy, then I think you should.

MagnaZero, Amawolf and 4 others like this
São Paulo, Brazil

The fact that this was even considered is insane.

First of all, if the solution is "have a better rig", why use a LRT tho? The whole point of it is for the game attract more people to run, make the game more acessible. With this nem LRT you can put this on the trash, i know it's really different than IGT, but if the solution is to upgrade your rig, why not use IGT at all?

I have a high-spec pc, but i also have COMMON SENSE. The Re4 UHD is terribly optimised, is terrible to make it run properly + stream/record take even more of it.

There is absolutely no need to make the board elitist (because that is what the new lrt is, everyone knows it), there's no such a thing like "you should pay more to have a fair competition like any other sport", Brazil have a lot awards on footbal and A LOT of the player came FROM FUCKING SLUMS.

Sorry for the words, is a really dum discussion, i really can't see the need. Keep the old LRT.

Ninetails, Hikee and 8 others like this
Argentina

[Yuushi] - There are low-spec PC runners who are advantaged by the current LRT and high-spec PC runners who are disadvantaged.

Can you show examples with video proof of this? As I mentioned previously, we have received no proof of this whatsoever. The only "proof" we've seen is a canyon comparison clip which was totally inaccurate because 1. Canyon is a long, execution based and rng based section 2. the rng wasnt the same in the two clips shown 3. the videos were edited 4. canyon is optimal on KBM which also makes the comparison inaccurate already

[Yuushi] - but If you intentionally cause frame drops, the time will be even more inaccurate because "fake time save" are more likely to give. "LRT bug gives high-spec PC runners an disadvantage." This is an unusual situation not only for us, but for new runners as well. Because most of them will be preparing a high-spec PC to run this game, but as it is, it's pointless.

I don't know where you get the idea from that new runners would be preparing a high spec PC to run a 2014 port of a 2005 game? It is the opposite actually. This game should NOT require you to have a good PC to run it properly. Conversely to what I said before, we also don't have proof of high spec PCs being at a disadvantage, EXCEPT potentially the 61fps thing. Derek has a better PC than Shimarisu and almost as good of a PC as you and not only did he not report feeling at a disadvantage, he also has the fastest segments nearly everywhere, AND on controller (which is generally not 100% optimal). How do you explain that?

[Yuushi] - As you can see, formulas are written. (frameCount * 16.6666) What do you think would happen if you rewrote these numbers? As you may have guessed, that would mean rewriting the timer method itself. Even a non-programmer like me can manipulate time by just rewriting a few of the numbers. The biggest problem is, this is hard to find out, and I think it's worse than any of the cheating with trainers.

Anyone can change that value if they want, that's true. However, as mentioned above, it would be incredibly easy to detect because 1. we now require framerate to be showing throughout the whole run which lets us corroborate the framecounter rewinds if necessary 2. this would give a consistent time advantage everywhere, including splits that are nothing but a straight line, which would be incredibly blatant. We have enough experience to know what times can be achieved and what times CANNOT be achieved on nearly any split at this point. Getting for example 7.07 on split 61 or 1.20 on split 59 is impossible.

[Yuushi] - When several people were asked to compare the current LRT with the new LRT, the difference was about 10-12 seconds for 3 out of the 5 people tested in the Main Game category. From this, I thought that if you don't have dropped frames (Except for load time), there is a difference of about 10 seconds.

The sample is not big enough to draw conclusions, however, as I said in my post, it is obvious that runners having a top-PC is the exception here, not the norm. The difference of 20-30s (from 10-12 to 30-40) was actually not from framedrops (for the most part) it was from bad load removal, which I explained in my post, in point number 1. Since the timer barely stops at loadings, the good PCs were not disadvantaged nearly as much as the bad PCs. I might have forgotten to mention, but Wipe's new script didn't fix this load removal issue at all. If it did, we would have actually seen how much time is lost from framedrops, which in theory, shouldn't be much.

[Yuushi] - Without wanting to sound rude but just like in any other sport if you can't compete you need to upgrade your rig. You all think that using the new LRT will be a pay to win and that's true, but it's better than IGT and it's not that difficult to create an environment where frame drops don't cause.

I do not support the pay to win argument in any way and I know most people here don't either. You cannot just assume that people will have the opportunity to upgrade their PC to be able to compete, and even if they did have the chance to do it, there's no reason why they should be forced to spend money to compete. As I said before, framedrops are not the biggest issue here, it's the loads. Even if you don't drop a single frame, if your loading times are bad, you will be at a huge disadvantage with the new script. (which is my case for example, I don't drop to more than 58 almost ever)

[Yuushi] - Since the new LRT removes load time, the difference in time between the new LRT and the current LRT is caused by the presence of frame drops. In short, just don't frame drop.

This is incorrect again. The new LRT DOES NOT remove loads properly, just like the current one. The difference is with the current one you at least get some of that time back with framecounter rewinds.

If Wipe or Mysterion come up with a new method for load removal that removes loads ACCURATELY we can discuss removing the framecounter. In my opinion, as it stands right now it is unviable to remove it due to this problem.

Edited by the author 2 years ago
XodaRapX, OtakuXD and 4 others like this
Brazil

[quote=Yuushi]You all think that using the new LRT will be a pay to win and that's true.[/quote]

1 Paragraph later...

[quote=Yuushi]So I would recommend the new LRT, which is fairer than the current LRT.[/quote]

If that's not the sr.com forum contradiction% WR then i don't know what it is.

Jokes aside, my individual opinion on this, and i want you guys to understand that i'm speaking without any moderation power or influence, is simply that P2W is not good in any shape or form, the LRT has many utilities and a few flaws but the whole purpose of it since day 1 was to allow fair play. Having a good condition to afford the best PC rig you can while telling other people "bruh just spend rivers of money if you want to compete with me" is beyond 5Head .

P2W demotivates people, phase out the interest of many beginners who could become WR Holder material and kill speedrun communities, keep the old LRT.

janopachano, Sawken and 9 others like this
São Paulo, Brazil

my opinion on this post is near irrelevant cuz i barely played this game enough i just gotta say that i started on this game because of the current LRT and i probably wouldnt run it if wasnt for that just keep in mind that something that is pay to win gets even more pay to win every time new hardwares comes out

Edited by the author 2 years ago
XodaRapX, SiaoMuleki and 6 others like this
Paraíba, Brazil

The guy didn't have a PC before to play, he only played on ps4 and he ended up contradicting himself.

"GUYS IF YOU ARE POOR YOU CANNOT PLAY RESIDENT EVIL 4, YOU MUST HAVE A HIGH END PC EVEN IF THE REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY AT 60 FPS WITHOUT FPS DRAPPING ARE (Phenom II X4 3GHZ, 4GB AND A GTX 560 Or one higher)."

Okay, enough irony and let's get to the facts.

  1. I had a setup where resident evil 4 shouldn't suffer frame drops (FX 6300 OC 4 GHZ, RX 550 4GB, 6GB RAM and SSD). Even so, the game crashed in the military area (5-4), this due to a bad capcom optimization on AMD hardware and on windows 10 itself, I had to migrate to windows 7 to get rid of this problem.

  2. The leaderboard is for all players who want to run Resident Evil 4 EQUALLY. Moderators check the runs if there are any bugs in the LRT and they just fix it and that's it. The problem now is to use the NEW LRT, which would practically restrict Resident Evil 4 to people who are practically rich compared to the vast majority of people who live in poor countries, where a high end graphics card costs 5 minimum wages.

  3. Those who are in favor of this new LRT only think about themselves, and want to take advantage to get WR from without making much effort. This is notable in our community post, where a small minority wants this new LRT and the vast majority prefers to continue with the current one which is much fairer for all runners.

  4. Moderators will definitely not approve of this, not least because many of them themselves would be harmed by the new LRT, as well as harming future new runners in the community.

nIVwer likes this
Hesse, Germany

I guess its about time to share my opinion on all of this. (As someone who has been running for 5 years and its a coder for 3 years and a livesplit timer creator for over 1 year and 100% understands the current re4 script)

First of all, I can understand that you all dont want to go back to a timer, that is more pay2win than the current one, especially for the fact we've been using this one for such a long time. I can also understand that many of you all come from a country that have a bad economy, therefore you all cant afford good computers. (I was also in that situation, where I ran this game with a shit pc). But there is one important thing everyone is missing, the CURRENT timer is in fact NOT fair, rather its actually more unfair than a timer that removes the framecounter. How? Let me explain: The current LRT was created by Wipe and Pitted, the idea of the Framecounter comes from Pitted, which he hadnt finished and Wipe was pushed by the mods to bring out the script faster, even though the script wasnt fully done (Framecounter). That was the first problem. The 2nd problem is that the Framecounter is inaccurate, lots of runners have encountered problems where you received time, because your fps was 61 or you have saved time because you had less fps or not even had less fps, but just resetted the checkpoint and saved time (Which is obviously inaccurate and unfair, for EVERYONE, both bad and good computers). The 3rd problem is that the maths behind the framecounter is much more difficult and is so much more complicated than you all think and the maths that was put behind the framecounter is logically correct, AT FIRST, but from the way that the memory/pointer for the counted frames throughout the run are counted in such a different way, that it requires way more maths in the script than a human can possibly put in it. In conclusion you could say that the current timer is unfair and just pure gamble, which Wipe and I can both confirm, cuz we actually understand the logic behind the Framecounter. I would also prefer an actual WORKING Framecounter, but we can only provide what is humanly possible. So what does all of this mean? Every time that was put onto the leaderboards with the current timer is FALSE, its up to you all if you want an unfair and gamble timer and have an UNHONEST time and possibly a false world record at the end of the day or rather have a timer that isnt broken and actually provides an honest time. Also comparisions saying I lose 15sec more than another runner with a better pc without the framecounter, its unfair isnt a believable exhibit we can follow, because the Framecounter, as I said, is broken and doesnt provide the correct time at the end of the run and causes, that the runner believes he had a better time and the framecounter works, even though that isnt the case.

So I beg you all, please rethink your choices and reread my text 2-3 times to actually understand it, I tried to hold it short and if you all have any further questions, feel free to ask me about the Framecounter or anything related about it, I will happily answer them. This community poll is important and re4 is literally the only community that uses a Framecounter (And its not even a working one at the end of the day), so what do you all want: A broken timer that returns an unhonest time and causes a false world record or a timer that works properly, is more fair than a broken timer and actually returns more fair time? Because to this day, we dont know if the Framecounter is actually useful in cases where you drop below 60fps, cause if you keep running at 59fps, you would also save time and just from 1 fps less you should save time? Thats now how frames work in games.

Yuushi, Bluefoxjp and 6 others like this
Distrito Federal, Brazil

i cant agree change the lrt, re4 steam is not a optimized game, to most entry and medium gpu, cpu[ 1050ti, rx570, 1060 3gb] has alot of frame drop in game, that you were never supposed to drop even so much frames in any cases let your game in slowmotion and u'll lost about 6s-8s in some splits(without lrt frame rescue) (1440x900) ( stops adding 0.43 in time because the unstable framegame >> that makes the game slowmotion < lost time in execution(frame perfect), just u guys get a expansive pay2win without this lrt. finaly frame rescue is not an option, the game need this.

Edited by the author 2 years ago
Hikee, XodaRapX and 3 others like this
Japan

Hello everyone.

The options we have right now are to move to a new LRT or continue using the current LRT, but new options and solutions may come up depending on your opinions.

In fact, this is a topic that has been discussed for a long time. As sawken mentioned, the current LRT has some bugs, and the new LRT does not have any bugs, but it does have some drawbacks. I am also concerned that the extent of these bugs may vary depending on your PC.

  current LRT

In my case, it turned out that my time was being added extra. There were sections where the new LRT times were faster than the current LRT. It is not usual for this to happen with timers that just have the frame counter removed. The topic of 61FPS was brought up earlier, and it seems that on my PC the FPS stays at 61FPS relatively often, which may be the reason. In fact, the time difference between LRT and IGT in my records is the smallest among players who have optimized NGPRO. My PC is not low spec, but it is not high spec either. However, we found out a few hours ago that this may be solvable. I was able to use a tool to prevent the FPS from going above 60FPS, so this could be a possible solution. We also found that setting an upper limit for the frame rate reduces the blur of the frame rate during loading. As for the "fake timesave", I'm not going to discuss it here because I'm not a proofreader or a programmer. I think it would be better to have the timer developers and luis, who has done a lot of verification, discuss the problems of the current LRT including this problem objectively. I think it is very important for everyone to listen to and consider their opinions as well.

   new LRT

As sawken already mentioned, this is a "pay to win" situation because the difference in your PC load time will be reflected in your time.

This is a much more difficult issue than you might think. There is still a lot of testing and verification to be done. The more you help test, the better chance we have of making it better.

teu_biohazard4, Yuushi and 10 others like this
Brazil

I don't think anyone disagrees that the current LRT has its issues, but those are for EVERYONE, both with bad and good PCs. I can say for myself that in some splits I get huge FPS drops and in other splits I just stick to 59, 60 and even 61, having a really shitty PC (shouldn't be shit for this game). Obviously the current timer isn't perfectly precise, but I don't think it is far from that since most of the top runners on the sheet have similar golds. The biggest differences could also be due to execution, since KBM should be more optimal. And even with that, Derek is the one with the most golds while playing on controller.

That being said, with the new LRT, the time difference for the runners with really good PCs is about 10-12 secs, while for runners with "bad" PCs is about 30-33 secs. This means that, just because they can't afford a better rig, they'll be penalized by about 20 secs for having a "bad" PC. How's that not broken as well? The only situation in which I can say the new LRT is more fair than the current one, is if all runners have PCs with similar specs and that's never gonna happen.

Mysterion said in his post that the current LRT gives "fake" WRs. I agree with that to some degree, most of the runs on the board have innacurate times. So let's take Sawken as an example since his PC isn't all that good for this game. His WR would have an increase of about 30 secs, but if he had a PC as good as Yuushi or Shimarisu, it would have an increase of "just" 10 secs.

As I said in my previous post, we have to be realistic. If it isn't possible to fix the issues with the current LRT and the only other option is to use a P2W timer, I don't think we should be even considering this. The current one might be unfair to runners by about 1 sec (for example, two runners at a similar level could have two similar runs and still a small time difference due to LRT not being accurate). Even with the final time being "fake", this is currently the most fair way runners can compete.

Again, I hope the mods make the best decision for the community as whole, so we can keep competing at a similar level. This new LRT would make a lot of runners leave this game and eliminate most of the competition. I also hope that in a near future we can have a timer that's precise AND fair to everyone, regardless of their rigs.

Sawken, XodaRapX and 2 others like this
Hesse, Germany

Alright,

Let me try to make it clear for you all. The huge problem with the current LRT is that the timing is wrong, as everyone has noticed so far. Even though you all know that the timer is broken, yet you all use it as a comparision and that is wrong. Saying "Sawken lost 30 sec with new LRT, while Yuushi only loses 10 sec (as an example)" would be a false comparision, because the using the current LRT as a comparision on how much time is lost with the new LRT is wrong, for the fact that the current LRT is not timing the times properly. Sawken saving 30 sec with FrameCounter is a wrong, gambled and random number, while Yuushis Framecounted saved time is ALSO wrong. The whole FrameCounter is a mistake, because its an unfinished product, which has been released onto the market (And you all can see where it lead to). Having the new LRT as a our timing method is far more fair than the current one; the new one removes EVERY load in the game (Which destroys the P2W gap and only leaves the frame dropping open (like EVERY other speedgame also has)(So they unfair and P2W too??)), while the current one just returns a broken time and its still questionable how so many of you can support a timer that returns a false pb and then also be proud of that. (Its like running in a marathon, but finding a shortcut and abusing that, even though its not allowed)

In conclusion, current LRT is mad broken, any comparision to that LRT is FALSE, unfair pbs for EVERYONE and that "20sec timeloss with new LRT cuz bad pc" is also false, it wouldnt even be any timeloss unless you like for real drop under 50fps for a longer period of time, cause losing time on less fps is only then inefficient when your game literally freezes OR when you notice a slowdown of your game and that wont happen unless you are like below 50fps even less maybe (Ive ran myself on a shitty pc so I know).

TeemoClown, luis_sera and 5 others like this
Argentina

As I was saying to Mysterion on Discord and since I wanna avoid misinformation as much as possible, I'll correct something.

[Mysterion_06_] Having the new LRT as a our timing method is far more fair than the current one; the new one removes EVERY load in the game (Which destroys the P2W gap and only leaves the frame dropping open (like EVERY other speedgame also has)(So they unfair and P2W too??)), while the current one just returns a broken time and its still questionable how so many of you can support a timer that returns a false pb and then also be proud of that. (Its like running in a marathon, but finding a shortcut and abusing that, even though its not allowed).

As I said before, the first statement is wrong, since neither of the two timers we have stop until where they should, and even though this wouldn't be a big problem in most games, IT IS on this game due to how optimized the speedrun is and the ridiculous amount of loadings everywhere, creating the big gap between hardware (20-40s). This also explains why the IGT difference between good and bad PCs is usually 1 minute or more, cause you have those 20-40s PLUS the other half of the loading that IS removed on both LRTs we have. The reason people are "happy" with this timer is simple, it gives VERY similar times to EVERYONE using it with a difference of frames, while also allowing people with bad loadings to still compete. Despite how flawed it is, it's still the closest thing we've had to the game not being pay to win. We can be discussing this forever, but it really boils down to this: the main reason the framecounter is still relevant is a direct cause of our load removal method/memory address being bad and inaccurate.

[Mysterion_06_] "20sec timeloss with new LRT cuz bad pc" is also false, it wouldnt even be any timeloss unless you like for real drop under 50fps for a longer period of time, cause losing time on less fps is only then inefficient when your game literally freezes OR when you notice a slowdown of your game and that wont happen unless you are like below 50fps even less maybe (Ive ran myself on a shitty pc so I know).

This is not true, even if you don't drop a single frame during GAMEPLAY, if you drop frames during/right after loadings your loading times will be slow or rather slower than on a top-pc, and you WILL lose time on the new timer on each loading and that WILL add up to the crazy differences we have seen. The argument that ALL or the MAJORITY of the time that you lose using the new script vs old one is due to framecounter rewinds OUTSIDE of the loading time rewinds is completely false. Again, if this were true anyone that drops a lot of frames would have by far the fastest gold splits.

Take this clip and compare it to this one I lose literally half a second to the new LRT while shima loses .16, all because of the loadings. Since FPS drop during/right after loadings, the current LRT gives me back most of the stupid time I lost on those loadings due to the load remover being inaccurate, while this gets completely ignored on the new LRT.

Here's another comparison, this time with a split that is literally a straight line to make it more noticeable: no framedrops whatsoever except for the ones that always happen after loadings, yet I lose time. You can also consider the fact that Shima got 61fps there, which means his current LRT time should've been faster, in which case he probably would've been +-0.00 compared to the new LRT.

Basically the point is.. loading times are tied to framerate, and everybody drops frames during/after loadings, except the bad PCs drop way more, so even if you don't drop any frames during GAMEPLAY, you will still be at a massive disadvantage with the new LRT if you drop more frames during/right after a loading (which translates to a longer loading) than someone else. Meaning that the new LRT isn't accurate either unless EVERYONE has the EXACT same loading times (which unless everyone has an i9 and 3080 is never gonna happen), and even then it probably still wouldn't be accurate, due to the fact that the timer starts counting even before the top-pcs finish the loading, AND the fact that even the inventory load removal itself is inaccurate/doesn't start and stop at the right times, which, considering we open and close the inventory hundreds of times during the run, already creates time differences. It is the same issue the IGT always had, it's "accurate" IF and ONLY IF everyone in the comparison has the fastest hardware. The only way a timer we use would be "accurate" since we use this word so much, would be a timer that stops on EVERY single blackscreen during the ENTIRE duration of it, from its first frame to its last.

I'm also still waiting for Yuushi to provide proof for his claims.

Edited by the author 2 years ago
mikunodisappear, Croneus and 7 others like this
Argentina

Quick update since this is a very important situation for the board and the community.

Our plan right now is to first of all make our load remover truly remove 100% of the loads in any hardware, and once we have that, removing the framecounter, since it is clear it is too random, causes too many issues, and we cannot make it work properly and make it fair for everyone. By removing this but fixing all the loads, the times should be a bit faster than what they are right now with the current timer, instead of slower as it was going to be with the initial new LRT, which is a big positive. However, we will need to have a serious discussion as to what to do with actual framedrop lag (for example dropping to 58, 57, or even lower FPS for several seconds which slows down the game significantly thus creating a disadvantage) specially for high level runs from here on out since we won't have the FC.

I appreciate everyone that shared their thoughts here by the way, and I'm sorry if I came across as too stubborn.

Saddler46, janopachano and 12 others like this
Game stats
Followers
2,015
Runs
2,119
Players
499
Latest news
Submission time limits rule removal

. On top of that, offtopic, clearly rude and/or jokey replies on the rules forum post have been deleted. This post will remain locked for a while until things calm down.

Any

1 year ago
Latest threads
Posted 1 year ago
30 replies
Posted 18 days ago
0 replies
Posted 2 months ago
Posted 4 months ago
13 replies
Posted 4 months ago
1 reply