Forums  /  The Site  /  “Speed Points” - A way to tell who is the best speedrunner on this website.
  hungryhyena78hungryhyena78

To encourage more people to get WRs or anywhere on a leaderboard from 1st to 3rd place, “Speed Points” should be given to an account that achieves these placements. 1st place = 3 Speed Points, 2nd = 2, and 3rd = 1. For example, a person who has 3 world records (1st) and a 2nd place speedrun would get 11 Speed Points total. This person would be put on a GLOBAL leaderboard to compete for more speed points against others across the world. Thoughts?

 
  DrakodanDrakodan
(edited: )

"Best speedrunner"

EDIT: Was going to post a more serious response, but the forums now appear to have a relatively short character limit for new posts, for some reason. Good website.

tl;dr such a system is very surface-level and doesn't take into account many factors such as level of competition, effort put into a given game, or percentile weighting on a given leaderboard.

ShikenNuggetsShikenNuggets, MarthSRMarthSR and 7 others like this. 
  Merl_Merl_
(edited: )

this is a terrible idea 😃

MarthSRMarthSR, IvoryIvory and 5 others like this. 
  ShesChardcoreShesChardcore

I would have a ludicrous number of speed points and I'm nowhere near the best speedrunner on the site. It's difficult to quantify skill vs volume using weightless metrics.

ShikenNuggetsShikenNuggets, MarthSRMarthSR and 9 others like this. 
  Merl_Merl_
(edited: )

People grinding to win the title of most games played, most world records, most categories, etc. are already a very annoying problem on this site (for example, otterstone_gamer submits hundreds of short runs at a time to farm categories, often overwhelming moderators). Having something like this would just encourage that behavior even more. Besides, just because I have more world records than you doesn't make me a better runner, for all you know all of them could have been 1 try runs in categories with no other runners at all.

ShikenNuggetsShikenNuggets, nupalinupali and 2 others like this. 
  HiHi

There is and there will be no way of determining who the best speedrunner is.

ShikenNuggetsShikenNuggets, MarthSRMarthSR and 4 others like this. 
  SioNSioN

this has been talked about multiple times trough the years. and its a stupid idea. it will just encourage people making dumb small categories with free wrs.

MarthSRMarthSR, nupalinupali and WalgreyWalgrey like this. 
  11

Originally posted by Hi
There is and there will be no way of determining who the best speedrunner is.

Wrong. I am the best.

IvoryIvory, VapoVapo and 8 others like this. 
  [user deleted]

his user name looks like rec room auto generated it

__, O.D.W.O.D.W. and 3 others like this. 
  __

@11 Only one of us can be "the best". And that's clearly me.

 
  survivalMichisurvivalMichi

i already thought about this once. and this just has as much problems as counting WR.
a way better system is counting people which are below you on leaderboards.
so WR in a LB with 200 people would be worth 200 points.
and a "WR" where there is only one runner is worth 0.
maybe do a ^(2/3) to have a bit of bias to mid sized boards though.

 
  jackzfimljackzfiml

If this was real, someone like @jojoretrogamerjojoretrogamer would have more speed points than an actual speedrunner. He’s literally the slowest speedrunner that I know.

Merl_Merl_ likes this. 
  MrMonshMrMonsh

Something very similar has been discussed here. While it's not exactly the same, I think most of the reasons being pointed out in that thread can be applicable to this discussion.

In essence, these "speed points" would be a meaningless metric, as with the wide variety of available games on this site you can't really compare the level of complexity of 1 WR vs another. One could be highly optimized run with a lot of top-level competition while the other could easily be a random miscellanous category the mod created just to get a free WR, but both would get the same amount of "speed points", implying they are equal.

There's also the matter of game genres, length of games, platforms (PC/Console), main vs miscellanous categories, etc. Attempting to unify them all under one leaderboard is nuts and doesn't really tell us anything about the runners themselves or their level of commitment to their respective games. So why bother?

MarthSRMarthSR, HiHi and 3 others like this. 
  LivLiv
(edited: )

Quote

so WR in a LB with 200 people would be worth 200 points.
and a "WR" where there is only one runner is worth 0.

But then why should a WR in a "fastest death" category in some meme game have more points than a niche game that's better optimized, with simply less runners cause it's niche? To add onto this also, a WR doesn't stop being a WR simply because no one else has attempted to beat it. It's impressive if it's optimized and has had effort put into it. I'll value a run of an actual game that has 2 runners in which the runner has put a lot of effort into routing, glitch hunting and optimizing than a 1st Place time on Minesweeper.

The answer is there is no good way to do this, because like Drakodan said essentially it's too complex to apply to a simple metric. Trying to find out who is the "best speedrunner" is about as possible as trying to find out who is the best gamer here, and they'd amount to the same thing basically.

IvoryIvory, O.D.W.O.D.W. and 7 others like this. 
  survivalMichisurvivalMichi

@LivLiv a shit forgot: i would only count the main category of any game. no easy way to sort memes from serios runs.

 
  Ihavenoname248Ihavenoname248

A decent amount of games have their meme categories on the main boards, and another decent amount of games have serious, competitive categories with slightly arbitrary goals under misc., so even that correction doesn't solve the proposed issue. Even if you tried to limit things to just any% or 100%, it still falls short as some games have their main any% named something like "any% no S+Q" and their 100% "120 star" or "117%".

 
  Oreo321Oreo321
(edited: )

I disagree about the number of runners in a leaderboard having any weight on "speed points" for a WR.
Let's say I got a WR in a leaderboard of 10 runners. And over time 90 more runners came and submitted runs, but none of them passed my time.
Why would I get more points because of that? I didn't do anything myself, my WR stayed the same.

If the line of thinking is "more runners means there is a greater chance for at least one of them to pass WR", that is a fallacy. Not all runners try to get world record - some just want to have fun with the game and submit their best attempt, some runners just submit their first ever run and then disappear forever, and some might try to get WR and fail (especially if the WR is close to optimized).

Alternatively - if I want to get a WR in a leaderboard with 100 runners, I don't need to beat 100 runners; I just have to beat one - the current WR holder.

IvoryIvory, O.D.W.O.D.W. and 3 others like this. 
  LivLiv
(edited: )

Adding onto Oreo, majority of runners for a game do little to actually optimize the game / route the game anyways. Most just replicate what they see the WR do.

So in that sense a game having more runners doesn't entirely change how impressive the game's optimization is, as in most games you'll find it's only a handful of people looking deep into strategies/glitches/routing anyway. Most others just run.

IvoryIvory, O.D.W.O.D.W. and 4 others like this. 
  MarthSRMarthSR
(edited: )

That idea is so flawed in so many ways. No matter how you flesh it out, it would be easily cheeseable. Plus, not all speed games are created equal, so you can't measure "the best speedrunner" simply by sheer volume of games/WRs held. Finally, all it'll create in the end is more drama over a metric that, quite frankly, will only serve as an ego boost to the very few that would care about such a title.

I mean, we as a community have always prided ourselves over the fact that we're far more cooperative than competitive. This sort of idea would end up destroying this facet of our community... and for what? For a few people that need a self-esteem boost? Nah, I'll pass.

 
  HiHi

@Ihavenoname248Ihavenoname248 Is that THE Ihavenoname that I know from SM63??