FranceThe removal of objects in low geometry levels is not consistently working in 1.4, and probably in several previous versions. The easiest test is to launch Black Forest in the lowest geometry detail. If trees are there, the game is bugged. It does sometimes work, and I'm not sure why.
This option provides a massive FPS boost, and since it can technically be used in other 1.x versions if the game cooperate, it will also be present in 1.5, but fixed to consistently work.
It is impossible to collide with track objects that get removed, which affects gameplay on some tracks. Although I'm not aware of tracks where it helps to get the record, it at least makes it easier to get a better time on some tracks.
The question is not whether the time is achievable (obviously it is since it's worse than WR) or if it is achievable by that person (it may or may not be, likely it is but it might require a long grind), but whether it has been achieved. I firmly believe that 10% is too low to be comfortable with this.
If there are multiple instances of very good players with published times that are worse than the threshold, the threshold is not good.
And yes, my own time was accepted with only a short video of the final screen result, but besides online play and other TT performances supporting the notion that I could do it, it's under the provision of replacing it with a new video-recorded performance later. I have been more focused on training individual tracks than doing the all-tracks GP so I have a couple of recordings but not something I want to share yet, but I think this provision is important.
Should the 10% rule be changed ?
I don't think we've had problems with it yet, but getting within 10% of some ILs, such as theodore's Maths Class time, is already very demanding (my improved PB is still not within 10%). While on some tracks it's relatively straightforward to be within 10%, it's not so in general.
Also because of the consistency required, while reaching within 10% of the WR in most of the tracks of a full-game run is not too difficult, doing so across a full-run is. With the current rule, an Any% beating Andet's time could be submitted without video.
Of course if someone came out of nowhere with such a time, we'd ask for verification, but it's probably better to make the rule consistent with how we'd handle individual cases.
I would keep the principle of not requiring a video for weak times, but I would change the threshold.
"is it possible for you to view a replay if I send a link to the file?"
It's not the most practical but it's possible yes.
I have been refraining from trying to do times on some track because of stutter issues. As anyone here knows, stutters make it much harder to do a great time and much less fun to try too.
So without a good PC, advanced pipeline off is a good help.
But if that's still not enough, force enabling the legacy renderer in config.xml can reduce stutters significantly compared to advanced lighting off.
2.x is dependent on many things (including new tracks) so there is no timeline at this point. I wanted to go from 1.3 to 2.x but Benau is partisan of 1.4 and I don't contribute much these days so there will probably be some stopgap 1.4.
What I can tell you is that there will be balance changes in 2.x. Some will only affect normal races (items, AI), but some will affect all modes (kart characteristics, physics and the like, and actual track changes). 1.x was a vast improvement over 0.9.3 in this regard, but there is room to make it even better, and it would be a wasted opportunity to not do so for 2.x.
I've collected the updated data and run it through my spreadsheet.
I used a snapshot of PBs on 05/05/20, 05/11/20, 05/05/21 to have an evolution of points. The October 2019 update was done on the 29th.
I didn't bother to include some players who only have one mediocre time. Players with multiple times or one really good time are ranked.
- #1 Theodore (816)
- #2 Andet (727)
- #3 Alayan (186)
- #4 Wax (99)
- #1 Theodore (825)
- #2 Andet (632)
- #3 Wax (310)
- #4 Alayan (162)
- #5 FabianF (27)
- #6 Mimiz (5)
- #1 Theodore (816)
- #2 Andet (611)
- #3 Wax (357)
- #4 Alayan (154)
- #5 Fouks (40)
- #6 FabianF (24)
- #7 RareBeeph (22)
- #8 Mimiz (11)
- #1 Theodore (806)
- #2 Andet (537)
- #3 Wax (458)
- #4 Alayan (139)
- #5 SerpentS (89)
- #6 Haenschen (40)
- #7 Mimiz (40)
- #8 Fouks (33)
- #9 FabianF (21)
- #10 RareBeeph (18)
- #11 Bauju (4)
- #1 Theodore (825)
- ~ Theodore's October 2019 PBs (551)
- #2 Andet (502)
- #3 Wax (450)
- #4 Alayan (209)
- #5 SerpentS (77)
- #6 TheZilag (70)
- #7 Haenschen (59)
- #8 Mimiz (39)
- #9 Bubblee (37)
- #10 Fouks (21)
- #11 FabianF (16)
- #12 RareBeeph (13)
- #13 Bauju (4)
My points go back up in the last update because I have counted some new PBs not yet submitted for verification. I'm going to submit those and update the November 2021 snapshot with any new record done before the 6th to be consistent with the previous snapshots.
The fight between Wax and Theodore is evident. The improved WRs have steadily made Andet's points go down. Some new runners popping this year but with only submitted times on a few tracks.
Of note, even if Theodore hadn't improved a single PB in 2 years, he would still have the best overall record.
I would avoid accepting runs that finish off-track missing a lapline.
Sure, this might get fixed for 1.3, and this might make some tracks faster (like XR591 became faster when the checkline was extended), but validating runs where the game itself doesn't say the race has been completed is weird and a bad precedent, beyond requiring significant work.
About this :
" Normally, I should have rejected your ghost as well, but chose to accept it anyway as there is no way to know if Debug was enabled or not in the actual run (which is also yet another reason to ban Ghosts as it is really prone to loopholes like that)."
One thing ghosts have over the pure video is that they are auditable in-game. The downside of ghosts is that one could try and edit the file to produce a sort of TAS, but on video alone it can be hard to differentiate stuff like "trajectory optimization" and cheated speed, if the cheater is not too greedy. I remember when some WR from a new runner (Andet ?) came out, I asked for replay files because I had real doubts. But testing them in game, I got convinced that it was indeed perfectly feasible to achieve what he did. More advanced tools that detect impossible trajectory/speed changes within the game's physics could be built (the main issue would be collisions, but if the tool flagged instances as "impossible unless collisions", manual review would make it work).
Basically, an available ghost replay file makes it easier to detect attempts at altering the game rules, while a live replay is better at preventing "TAS-ing" attempts.
In the end, in normal operations, runs won't be subject to such scrutiny, as it requires time and energy. But if doubt arises, having the tools available would be helpful. And if rules required runners to submit a replay file for ILs upon demand by the game's moderators, it would cover all bases.
These bugs are making it messy, but I think it would be good to stick to this principle : actions made before the run should not allow to make the run faster.
My idea was to keep 1.0 and 1.1 compatible for story mode and time-trials, to avoid getting new categories too often. That way, runners don't have to redo again and again almost the same runs. There has been a few subtle changes (some expanded checklines mostly) and the "show items" feature, but I think it's ok.
"the Challenge Completed Skip from the previous canceled run was in effect and used before the first Gp Skips, which also gives a save of a few s."
Mind explaining a bit ? (I haven't watched his run)
"It is reasonable to think that this should not be allowed, and I am going to add a line in the 1.0 Story Mode rules."
I agree. Getting an advantage from a previous run should be forbidden, because 1) it's impossible to get this when starting normally 2) it forces runners to go through a long and annoying set-up process before being able to start runs, in order to not miss out on the saved seconds.
I'd be ok with a small penalty time, just make sure it's bigger than the saved time. If it saves say 5 seconds, put 10s penalty ?
Rankings updated as of today.
I created an automatic function so I now "only" have to input all the PB times in a doc to get the point results.
I did not submit any new time since may, so one can see the progress of the WRs in the decay of my points. My OMC time, which average STK players would be unable to match, is only worth one meager point now.
@Fouks Using elapsed ticks is less accurate than the method used in-game, which is able of sub-ticks precision by interpolating the time of crossing based on the position on track on the tick before and after the crossing.
Usually this estimate and the ghost time are within 2ms of each other, I don't recall the specifics behind this occasional difference.
The main things causing issues is that the distance over track has a "zero band" that can cause some weird things when the kart's center happens to be precisely inside the band during a tick. This needs fixing but would need some serious changes.
As for Wax using the git version : right now, the git version is pretty much gameplay-compatible with 1.0 at least for time-trials (some UI changes affecting story mode make this more debatable there), barring some very small things like the XR591 checkline fix. It'll probably include some story-mode bugfixes for cases where points weren't properly awarded, but those bugs can be avoided already, it's just a random run-killer bug that would go out. Ideally, 1.0 and 1.1 should be a single category for IL and full run purpose, to avoid cluttering the leaderboard for insignificant differences.
Because of this compatibility, I think using current git is not an issue. Though personally, I kept using a fixed 1.0 compile for running purposes.
However, once other things begin to change in preparation for the 2.0 release, there will be a number of compatibility differences that will arise. Hence, git version should be avoided after 1.1. In any case, the version used should be disclosed, because if the verifier catches something amiss that indicates a wrong version (git, gameplay mod, or whatever), the run must be rejected.
They aren't available on the addons site and through the in-game addons downloader, which is the main issue for new players.
You and me still have copies of the track versions used so we could upload them for use by other players, but this is clumsy.
I agree with @Fouks ; I prefer not having to deal with addons in the main game, and the subgames for the addons track is a nice trick.
It doesn't solve the issue of different addons version. Some of the old addons version used in submitted runs are unavailable now, so a "community modded version with addons" could be interesting.
The IL system of SRC doesn't fit well our use case : we have a set of levels for each version, and each main release have some tracks added/removed while others stay, so we get tracks that are "official" for one version and "addon" (or don't exist) for another.
We'd need to make some request to SRC to improve this.
@Andet don't self-verify even when it looks alright, you'll get dumb mistakes slipping through... I'm personally against self-verification even though I trust others here to be honest, mistakes happen.
I'm ok with the All tracks GP category. I'm fine with in game time, I'm not a fan of button mashing between tracks either.
I've been less around about verifying runs and such in recent times, but considering my history of speedrunning STK and my role in STK's development, I think I still have good legitimacy to stay as SuperMod.
I probably won't try another serious run until I get a beefier system though.
I have to agree that there are some more serious potential issues with fake ghost times and other methods. We may need to think of ways to improve reliability there, though I don't think we've had real issues there for now.
But a stuttering video makes basic verification painful. If there has been some slight gameplay tweak to boost the kart, I feel I'm much less likely to catch it if there is a lot of stutter because of how distracting that is.
In the end, we need to draw the line somewhere, and having decently smooth video is imho a good standard to have moving forward. Thanks Andet for recording proper smooth videos for WaxPro.
I updated the rankings. I've lost points because WRs have been improved on tracks I did. Meanwhile, Andet and Theodore completed all ILs with competitive times, but Theodore ends up significantly ahead because he has not a single PB far from the WR. If he improved his Hacienda time to be a WR, he would end up at 821 out of 840 possible points.
