I am 100% in support of a 100% category ;)

Just need to define what makes it 100%.

Is it just all mark of the gods? Is it mark of gods + breakables?

I personally would make the All Marks category, rather than "100%". However open to others ideas. I'll implement what the consensus is.

(Otherwise if no one gets back to us, if you want to just run something that interests you we can make it a category and work out what it is called).

I will wait until next Monday for any more replies before pushing forward with any the next step.

My current plan will be a top-10 check and removal of runs with non-accurate emulation.

More feedback before then is very welcome.

TLDR: Some emulators time too quickly. Please respond to these questions:

1. For timing to be fair, any run that is using the wrong emulation should be removed. Please agree/disagree with this. The other alternative is re-timing them based on a time-slow calculation (but would contain the quicker video).
2. I can do a review of a number of runs and re-time and reject those that are not accurate. Would I need to provide proof of this? What would that proof look like?
3. I would prefer not to have to re-time all 59 runs. Are we happy with top 10? Top 20? etc.
4. We will need to do a review of which emulator(s) cause this and include it in the rules as a banned emulator. Please agree/disagree with this.
5. For future runs, a quick check would need to be made. I again would prefer to keep this top 10/20/etc. Do you agree? Which runs should be timed frame by frame?

It has come to my attention that there is a significant discrepancy in some emulators (at least one emulator). The discrepancy is a timing difference that gives a significant time advantage.

I noticed it on a run that was recently submitted and so looked into it a little deeper.

This difference is measurable on the screen below the castle screen. In each run every runner moves non-stop, right to left, without any delays or variation. This means that I could use this to time the screen and work out how many frames to get from one end to the other.

Most emulators + Original Versions take 79 or 80 frames (@30fps) to get across the screen. Some emulators take 72 (@30fps) frames to get across the screen. I compared the clock on the screen to a stopwatch just to confirm the video wasn't sped up or anything like that.

What does this mean: A 35 second run (20th) would become a 31.89 second run (=1st).

Upon inspection I have noticed this has affected at least 1 leaderboard time. I will not provide any details of which run(s) at this time as I do not want it to influence anyone's opinion.

To be clear, I do not believe anything intentional has occurred. This seems to be a previously unknown error in emulation.

I ask this community to please weigh in on this topic. Please provide feedback on each of these items:

1. For timing to be fair, any run that is using the wrong emulation should be removed. Please agree/disagree with this. The other alternative is re-timing them based on a time-slow calculation (but would contain the quicker video).
2. I can do a review of a number of runs and re-time and reject those that are not accurate. Would I need to provide proof of this? What would that proof look like?
3. I would prefer not to have to re-time all 59 runs. Are we happy with top 10? Top 20? etc.
4. We will need to do a review of which emulator(s) cause this and include it in the rules as a banned emulator. Please agree/disagree with this.
5. For future runs, a quick check would need to be made. I again would prefer to keep this top 10/20/etc. Do you agree? Which runs should be timed frame by frame?

Hopefully a large number of people provide feedback to this. I would prefer to make any changes with group-consent. (If no feedback is forthcoming, I will talk to PresJPolk and decide upon the best course of action.)

Thanks.

Done - apologies - I swear I had done it at some time .... apparently not.

Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the delay.

All non-original versions count as emulation. Each version will be allowed unless they are deemed to be non-accurate emulation.

I've added you in as a mod. I've sorted the PS4/pro situation by adding in the platform type to the board. At the end of the day it doesn't bother me regarding times/WR/etc. (not why I speedrun)

You're skip in the 1st underground level is interesting. I'll have to have a look. Seems more consistent than mine (which gets screwed up by the games terrible camera).

If you want to get the best time, for the last level, when you need to do the climb on the floor that keeps creating itself. You want to climb up more than around so you want to keep running up the big stairs (see my last run). The problem is it is much riskier and the game will unfairly drop you at times, losing a minute or more.

Great run Azama. Real solid 1st run.

Do you run on PS4 pro? I have concluded you do based upon load times and a lack of lag in certain sections.

I've added PS4 pro to platforms and put your run in under PS4 pro (let me know if I should change it back to just PS4).

Load time difference between our runs is 26s (2:19 of loading for my run and 1:55 of loading for yours)

There seems to be a lot of lag time save in the desert also. Will be hard to quantify how much though.

Retimed your run. Happy to reinstate original time if we can confirm it. Contact me on discord please to chat more.

I just had a look at a video of the atari version. Looks to be based upon the DOS one (trees and terrain is more similar to DOS) but seems to run much much slower.

I'd say for sure it is a separate category.

KrusKader should be abe to fix that up for you. I'll message him on Discord to let him know.

In terms of RTA vs In-Game Timing - Typically XBox and PS4 will be quite similar. PC will typically be much better.

But In-Game Timing makes verification a lot more difficult, especially when two runs have a very similar time. The loading transitions are a fade in and out and so decisions on when to stop and start timing must be made.

Lastly without a reliable in-game load timer, typically a runner will make a mistake with start/stop timers which means each verification needs to be timed manually which then will have some errors anyway. Its not to say it can't be done and I'll leave it up to the group at large what they want. However I would suggest just to leave it as is. Console players typically know they have a disadvantage (or seperate category).

Regarding the Any% No Fly Glitch - that is a valid category for the moment. We can make that happen. Regarding other categories - we'll make them as we need them.

So question for runners:

Split Boards into Any% and Any% No Fly Glitch?

Interesting - any idea what caused it the first time? Also what platform was that on?

Interesting. Would be good to work out how to recreate. Not sure if I will revisit this game though any time soon.

I found the general jumping up to various places on slopes potential. Just couldn't turn it into anything really useful.

In the end the game was just run pretty standardly.

On PC with real quick loading times it also would be easy to death-warp by dropping out of the sky just as you enter an new area. It then reloads you at the save point for that area which is often closer to where you need to go. On PS4 this is not useful as reload times are too slow.

I hate them too. Always on the return trip.

But saying that - there is no RNG. If you move the exact same way they act the exact same way.

Thanks for the reply nestorc.

Even though I think you timed it to the colour change originally, would you mind re-timing it once we decide to change the final ruling? I just want to make double-sure that yourself and beatmaster are comparing equivalent times.

I'm gonna reach out to beatmaster and get him to reply too before we make any changes.

Thanks mate. I kind of have twitter that I don't really use. I'm @CovertMadness, I use discord more - Covert_Madness#7439. I'm happy to help out with modding but at the end of the day I'm really just a guy who wastes too much time looking into random games :)

I guess the important thing from above is the conclusion of the rules/timing changes. I'd love to hear from beatmaster and nestorc on this since it affects them the most, but I think it can be important for Draechan and everyone else to discuss.

So just to add a little more substance to my discussion on times in the other forum post:

I started looking into TASing this since it would be pretty quick and easy to do an optimal TAS and I had the idea of a few new strats.

A few important notes:

1. The game operates on a 3-frame movement cycle. This means the main character only moves once every 3 frames (unless a number of specific events occurs such as pushing into a wall or changing opposite direction).

2. The game operates at 60Hz, or 0.01666..... frame time. What this means, however, is the 0.05 timer is actually the resolution of the game in almost all circumstances (key situations can be discussed separately).

3. At the end, the ability to move stops at the 'end' and then 3 frames later, the screen changes colour. This means the colour change is the most accurate solution for time measurement as it is easily discernible and repeatable after loss of movement.

4. On the boards, currently the rules state "Timing ends when you bring the chalice into the golden castle". Technically, the game can end without bringing the chalice into the castle, as the chalice just needs to touch the castle in the correct spot.

5. Entering the castle itself loses 3 frames of time. This should be avoided.

6. The current two leaders have an 0.01 difference. Considering how the movement frames work, this should be either an 0.00 difference, or an 0.05 difference.

7. In their justification one stops the timer when their character disappears 'into' the castle, while the other stops on the colour change. This means that they have mismatched their finish states, leading to in an inaccurate comparison.

So, my conclusion from this is that ON the frame that the colour changes should determine when the game has concluded. (you could do 3 frames before then but that just adds extra unneeded calculations). This is 100% repeatable and consistent after loss of movement. This would need a change in the rules.

The top two times should re-check their times with this in mind to make sure we are looking at an equivalent comparison. I don't think the timing needs to be re-checked for anyone else because their times are not as close and a WR is not on the line.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Just to confirm - 0.05s increments is what the timer works in.

It seems to go down to .05s increments, I'll have to re-check this later. That's a resolution of 20Hz.

NTSC is 60Hz and PAL is 50Hz. Should have a time resolution of 2.5 frames or 3 frames.

I'll have to double-check the resolution of the timer tonight and post up a reply.

Hey all - just submitted my first run of adventure (just started running it). I put my submission down as Emulator but am posting here to clarify.

I am currently running it on the PS4 atari classics game ( http://au.ign.com/games/atari-flashback-classics-volume-2 ).

This has an in-game timer which seems to be quite accurate (from first castle screen until final screen).

So a number of questions:

1. Has anyone reviewed the console emulation details? Can this be deemed to be an emulated atari system or will there be a new category?

2. Is in-game timing acceptable or does the run have to be timed manually? (I time it manually anyway to check but the in-game timing is more accurate in my opinion).

3. Any other thoughts on using the console emulation for runs?

I may eventually download the original + emulator onto PC but at the moment I am planning on using the PS4 for easy streaming (my PC is not great) and general practice.