there is a code of conduct runners are expected to follow when making forum posts, and speedrunning in general. I would ask you read the guidelines before making any further inflammatory and inappropriate posts like this.
on the subject of the racing line rule, the reality is in many years we've only received a few runs. rather than reject an otherwise valid run for using it, racing line use was informally accepted to populate the board.
at the moment runners have the option to use the racing line, as clearly outlined above.
we are here to enjoy the game, add some challenges, and keep a fair board for all. calling into question the integrity of moderators, requesting other runners be removed from the board, and demanding change is not the best way forward.
the rules have been updated to be a little clearer.
submissions must use the 1 lap race setting (not time trial), and the racing line assist is strongly discouraged.
runners should note that runs using racing line may be removed, or moved into their own sub-category, out of respect to those who have followed the no-racing-line rule to date.
the rules have been updated to be a little clearer.
submissions must use the 1 lap race setting (not time trial), and the racing line assist is strongly discouraged but not mandatory.
runners should note that runs using racing line may be removed, or moved into their own sub-category, out of respect to those who have followed the no-racing-line rule to date.
removing initial loading times for shogun 2 runs is certainly an option.
there are practical limits to what we can do to make the playing field completely level, though. a slower pc will have more trouble with the end-turn phase through a whole run than the initial loading time, for instance.
as we have several runs close together, there is a case for applying a change if these differ by an amount that affect the standings. however, if doing this, all existing runs should be adjusted to make a meaningful board, not a select few, to make things future proof. obsolete runs can be omitted.
also, for verification, using the first frame the campaign map appears, post loading screen, is what would make more sense. I am against allowing inputs (eg panning) before starting, it causes confusion and can give an unfair advantage. I am also against waiting for user input for an arbitrary length.
there are reasons for keeping what we have (loading times and all), and against. runners are still free to change settings remember, and we don't enforce specific settings, even though these can also affect run times.
any reloads mid-campaign will invalidate the run. this applies to all categories. no save states / save games are permitted. the tricolore+ category is a special case as campaigns are stacked, however the same applies. should the game softlock, which is still quite rare, unfortunately that means the run cannot continue. allowing any kind of reload just creates too many verification issues.
Please ensure that all runs from this point are included with a Timer shown on the run.
Runs added without a timer will be kept on the board, unless there is reason to recheck / retime.
Also, there was some confusion about the exact end-split. Some were added with the first frame of cutscene, some were using the victory screen. This applies to much older runs for the most part.
In an effort to assist verification and help make things much clearer, please adhere to the main rules when making submissions. The Rules section has been tidied up reflect this.
*should any runs on the board require retimed that been skipped, let me know :)
the minigame version appears to be using custom settings and controls, but is based on the original port. you can run this if you want, but please mention in the run description you are using this, and add it to the any% category for now.
no compelling reason is open to debate. it looks like things will remain as they are, but let me cover a few points in response.
Knowing which game version to use and making proper use of the relevant 'slow zones' is just part of the IGT run category.
you are deliberately using an archaic and obsolete beta version to gain a speedrunning advantage (and by extension enforcing everyone to do so if they want to run competitively), with the handling differences, and these bigger IGT/route differences, some of which are still unclear. this is unfair.
in your seattle run you don't use any of the optional slow zones, you stop for repairs after a heavy crash at provo, yet still finish ahead. there's also the big fuel difference, likely due to eco skill, but could be version related. it's clear there's no contest between versions from a speedrunning perspective, the seattle run just highlights this.
many people don't want to download a really old beta of the game just to speedrun it, while maintaining a current version for normal use (with the multitude of patches, improvements and bug fixes that happen). this is not simple. I'm not even sure about the practicalities of using such an old beta with current/future dlc.
people should be able to run a recent/current version and run it fairly, no ?
also, I've seen several other posts made about new routes being added, yet not a single route has been added since I first ran the game. I really don't understand the reluctance to update the board when the interest clearly is there from the community, especially for shorter routes.
having tried out and enjoyed the Point to Point routes, especially the Seattle run multiple times now, can I request we create new PointToPoint categories for modern versions of ATS ? (new routes would be nice, but I mean new categories for existing routes).
I was aware of handling differences between old versions and newer, plus some reworked areas here and there. my current Seattle is over 80 RTA seconds faster than the leaders, using the different techniques, yet is still a few IGT minutes slower. the route appears the same, but with such a big RTA difference, something else is going on between versions (either bigger or more slow-zones, or something else).
I think effectively enforcing people to use an alpha version from years ago to compete is unfair, plus with most states still to be added, it just doesn't make sense. perhaps once it did where the changes weren't as pronounced, but this difference really is huge. in other speedrun boards where a game is in development, we see categories being locked in to cater for newer versions. perhaps this should happen here ?
could we also enforce a fuel consumption setting that is the same for all too, not based on the ECO skill, and possibly default road events ? there is nothing in the rules to specify what settings to use currently and clearly, and for longer runs these are quite important.
updating can be a nuisance, but we are seeing bigger differences in some of these runs, and ahead we will see more routes added. perhaps we need to look at this a bit more.
aside from only a few cases, most runs have similar (not identical) loading times at the start. it only happens once, and is obviously dependent on pc specs. we are talking a few seconds variance at most. using the 'press start' rule was a mechanism for simplicity. there are cases where a pc simply runs just a bit too slow, not just with loading times, but with end-turn processing, that amount to a lot more than a few seconds over a run.
there is a case for contested runs in 1st to be adjusted. mostly we haven't seen this yet. it's far better to have a uniform 'one size fits all' rule, which we have.
please select only from the default starting teams listed for the 'World Cup' category.
there are 4 independent settings: bars/life, bombs, lives and difficulty level. it would be helpful to specify clearly which settings are to be used in each category.
there are runs up that are still running non-default settings, some runs don't even have videos to check settings, making this arbitrary decision to remove select runs several years old very confusing.
just pitching in, since I've been redoing this recently :
I'm for enforcing 50 for the main category, due to us knowing for sure how the game should run for the EU version. real h/w users can run fairly, there are no graphical glitches (eg. snow) or things generally feeling off compared to other versions (eg. amiga).
main is more an investment, previous runs exist there, running @ 50 is a switch for most runners. I think there are more reasons for than against (especially regarding the ambiguity of this elusive PAL-60 version).
the small category is another matter. people intentionally or otherwise ran @ 60 on a version it wasn't designed for. it makes sense to allow it there since everyone has already, plus the extra pace makes it more interesting too. perhaps not for main, though.
I think ordering is a setting in the 'Categories' edit page, when you press the sword/mod icon and select 'Edit Game'. it's listed as 'Timer Asc.' in there. it's a little tricky to find, but you'll see it.
would it be possible to change the leaderboard ordering (ascending/descending) as it seems to be the wrong way round at the moment. thanks :)
custom categories (non pop related) could be an option. as long as it's not too trivial, or copies existing categories, it should be fine.
for rules, using the 'create new region' is ok for the 1m categories. the rng is limited when creating regions this way (the same few patterns appear), but it would still be helpful to show this on a run.
please try to include timers also ! :)
I'd be surprised if they changed it being so old, especially the Italian campaign, but it's possible. If people are running different versions with different conditions then it does create a speedrunning issue, unfortunately. Technically, people should always run latest versions though.
rules updated. also considering removing the 100k category (too similar to 50k at this point) and adding either a 500k multi-tile, or 1 million. feedback welcome for this though.
