The Lion King (Genesis/MegaDrive) Forum  /  Adding milliseconds in Top runs?
  BronkelBronkel

The wall is broken, sub 12:30 was achieved. That raises the question to me: Should we include milliseconds into new runs in the top segment (Top 5 or Top 10). Maybe for times below certain limits? Like sub 12:26?

What's your feeling/opnion about this? Any pro and/or cons?

SsssorySsssory and InsomnimaticInsomnimatic like this. 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise

I’m all for it, maybe add it to all top 5 times on the leaderboard. Would help distinguish the top 3 ‘podium’ places and would still look clean if only the top 5 runs went to milliseconds. I know if I tied with someone for a position I’d be checking milliseconds myself and always correcting people if the tied position was actually faster than mine as really that should be the placements. Especially atm where there’s more people at similar skill.

InsomnimaticInsomnimatic likes this. 
  InsomnimaticInsomnimatic

I think that we should start to use milliseconds for run times. We're getting fairly close to optimization and it will definitely help distinguish placements. I don't really see any cons with this, at the moment.

I agree that the lower times (5th to 10th placements) should be the ones to have the Milliseconds added however, it might be beneficial for every run to have milliseconds added. I'm fine with either, though.

 
  SarabiSarabi

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Not sure why there'd be any cons for this. As Insom says I think milliseconds would be beneficial to all placements and not only the top 5-10 runners.

 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise

If a mod is up to going though all runs and adding the milliseconds that would be the best. Other wise top 10 would align with the forced input rule so that would be something too. My OCD side just isn’t keen to have mixed timings throughout the board haha but no big deal really. And yeah no cons I can see.

 
  Akiteru_archivedAkiteru_archived
(edited: )

I'm not a fan of milliseconds. There's still a lot of time (many seconds) to save.

If milliseconds were to theoretically be done, they would have to be done right. Downloading the video, finding the exact start and end frames of the run, calculating them based on the video frame rate. These will never be 100% accurate, as a stream can be at 30fps, 60fps, in any case different from the console's frame rate. Just a point.

EIGHT, AlfredoSalzaAlfredoSalza and BronkelBronkel like this. 
  EstacacoEstacaco

I'm on board for milliseconds., top 5.

 
  BronkelBronkel

@AkiteruAkiteru
Is see your point, but we are heading in a time segment where improvement gets harder and harder. It's not that unrealistic that we will have 3 or maybe 4 runs with the same time. Let's take the current 12:29 as an example.
Yes, the game isn't maxed out yet but we should find a way for not having many peoples on the same position one day. Maybe we need to. Especially with the current rate on 1 or 2 new runner every month.
So, ms is the ususal way to avoid that. At least the one I know.

But that was just a suggestion. Maybe someone has an even better option? I'm open to everything.

And for time measurements: it works for IL. How did you check(ed) the times there? I mean, you stated an interested point but we already have these cases. Maybe not as important but still.
Also we already are in need to do this in the light version of it. To check if a time is a XX:48 or XX:49 with a split right on the edge.

InsomnimaticInsomnimatic likes this. 
  Akiteru_archivedAkiteru_archived

I'm not sure if the ILs are timed to the frame for the millisconds, I've never checked. Those are shorter, so it's more appropriate there. In any case, if people want milliseconds I'd be willing to time top 5 verifications in the way I described, it's not really a big deal. I would just like if that level of rigour with the millisecond timing was maintained.

BronkelBronkel and InsomnimaticInsomnimatic like this. 
  BronkelBronkel

From IL rules:
"Timing
Run starts when selecting "START" on the main menu.
Run ends on the frame that the screen begins to fade out."

But you checked that, right? Not that I understand you wrong here. Why should we bother then. In some case extra adding an additional timer aligned to the start/end frame as mentioned above.
Yeah, that might be an "inaccurate" way as you already said. But I would be fine this "easier" method. Also less work for mods. But I also understand the point: do it right or not at all.

 
  8BitsOfJoy8BitsOfJoy

I like to think that when runs pass a certain threshold of feeling well optimized, and you have top times tied, that's when it seems appropriate to add milliseconds. What that threshold means is subjective of course, but maybe sub 12:30 is a good point to start considering it. However, I don't see any tied times on the board (as of this very moment), so it doesn't seem like there is an immediate need. I would certainly support the addition of milliseconds when those top runs start to become tied up again. That's just my opinion though, but I would be fine with whatever the final decision is.

Also, it shouldn't matter what framerate a video is encoded at. You can still use a program like AVIDEMUX as a standard for frame counting runs across the board and it will tell you the times for starting and ending frames pretty accurately. As in, within a couple of milliseconds at most, whereas a single frame on an actual console is 17ms (16.6881523809523ms specifically). If you wanted to be super accurate, you could even round off to the nearest frame, but that more complicated and shouldn't be necessary unless you find two runs literally tied to the exact same frame.

BronkelBronkel likes this. 
  Akiteru_archivedAkiteru_archived

@8BitsOfJoy8BitsOfJoy Right, that's the case with all speedgames so there's definitely a level of leniency there with regards to video frames rates compared to console frame rate. As long as the milliseconds are counted as accurately as possible using a program like you said. I agree with there being no immediate need, but fine either way.

@BronkelBronkel Yes, I just meant frame counting the video using a video tool. The IL(s? I think I've only done one so far) were timed using the timing scheme in the rules. Sorry for the confusion.

InsomnimaticInsomnimatic and BronkelBronkel like this. 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise

Will just say we don’t need to get carried away with getting so exact with any% it would be much extra effort. Really rounding to a tenth of a second (x.200 vs x.300) would lessen the chance of having dual positions by 90% and still have increased accuracy when flicking though. Just another thought.

 
  Akiteru_archivedAkiteru_archived

The runs still have to retimed anyway cause the timer start might be off, so it's no more effort to do milliseconds vs tenths.

EIGHT likes this. 
  EstacacoEstacaco
(edited: )

so is it of reason to believe if you think ms timing isn't necessary we shouldn't split the board over ms timing of emu vs hardware? @AkiteruAkiteru?

 
  Akiteru_archivedAkiteru_archived
(edited: )

No reason to believe that. These are two completely unrelated issues, one is about how times are displayed (not changed or adjusted, the milliseconds are still part of the run even if they aren't shown on the submission) as they exist with the current rules and the other is about dealing with a time advantage one platform gives other another. That advantage can still cut full-second barriers. I only think milliseconds are unnecessary with the current level of optimization, not forever. Let's not derail the thread with an unrelated topic.

 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise

This topic came up again the other day and I thought I'd share another thought on it.
- Only show milliseconds if times are equal (I'd also say this could just be applied to Top 3 (5 or 10 would be fine too))
Then if one of the tied players PB again and there's no longer a tie, just convert the timed run back to seconds.

 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise

Hello, it's me.
This has been a really long time.
Seems like overall everybody seemed up for the inclusion of milliseconds on tied runs at least?
Moddy mod mods wanna discuss or something to conclude?

SaveTheWorld_JGSaveTheWorld_JG likes this. 
  EstacacoEstacaco

With us adding .5s to emulator runs, I think it would be reasonable for new submissions to have ms listed in the time, it will also prevent any ties int he future.

SaveTheWorld_JGSaveTheWorld_JG likes this. 
  DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise
(edited: )

Moddy Mod mods, I agree with old me, can we revisit.

I would propose to only show milliseconds if times are equal, we only have 1 tied time now but previously Bronkel and I where tied for WR which technically should have been his. We where talking about this before hand but nothing got finalized. Also its come to my attention that if someone ties/doesn't move up a place it can discourage them from not submitting.
So I think it would be good to add to the rules something along the lines "If an uploaded run ties with a current run, mods will retime both runs to milliseconds, If I run later moves up the solo time will be converted back to seconds" (but written better)

SaveTheWorld_JGSaveTheWorld_JG likes this. 
Latest News
View all
No news
Recent Threads
View all
Thread Author
Discussion regarding 'No Exploits'
Last post
DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise
16 replies
Adding milliseconds in Top runs?
Last post
BronkelBronkel
29 replies
Rule change: Timers
Last post
SarabiSarabi
0 replies
Archive of retired "No Exploits" category
Last post
DickInDisguiseDickInDisguise
0 replies
Save State start on Emulator
Last post
EstacacoEstacaco
8 replies