New Jersey, USAThanks for the info! That's a good point that copying submissions without permission is not good. It so happens that I haven't copied any submitted times besides my own. If we see future CyberScore submissions with videos attached, I'll use the CSMail system to ask runners if they want their run listed here as well. Of course, if they are interested enough they can also make a speedrun.com account and do their submissions themselves.
Thanks for all the replies so far! It sounds like having an IL board on speedrun.com is a good idea.
We will definitely have both Fastest Track and Fastest Lap categories for each race. These both have AI and traffic on.
We can add the Free Run mode as well, since the game offers that game mode with no traffic. Free run doesn't save times to the in-game High Scores tables, so those runs would need to have video captured.
The game also has a "survival mode" in its High Score table, which has traffic but no AI and requires no crashes to complete. I'm not sure if we really need to add this since it's kinda redundant when top levels runs would have no crashes anyway.
Anyway, I'll start moving my times that have video from cyberscore onto here.
Thanks again!
Hi guys, As you may have known, I have been using the Burnout 1 leaderboard on Cyberscore to track fastest lap and fastest total time for each track: https://www.cyberscore.me.uk/game/2
Would you all like to see these IL leaderboards moved onto Speedrun.com? A few points to consider: -If we have a leaderboard on speedrun.com and someone submits a new time to cyberscore, how will we know about it? What is the best way to keep our leaderboard in-sync or up to date?
-Should we initially copy over all submitted times from Cyberscore or only those which are verified or have proof?
It was requested for a place to showcase speedruns of Portal 2 custom chambers. I'll start us off with a segmented run of the No Elements series, ran by myself, Zypeh and Swagatron. Feel free to post videos to your own custom chamber speedruns.
No Elements Segmented Speedrun:
The warp back inbounds is one of those save/load oddities that I don't understand in this game. It is not just based on position because you can have the same save file and sometimes when you load it, you will warp in bounds and other times you will still be OoB where you made the save.
It's sort of like how for super reportal saves sometimes you load it and you are stuck in the wall, and sometimes you are not. It's very frustrating to work with tricks like this and it most likely requires the loading to behave in a specific way that may or may not be hardware dependent. Of course, with the segmented run we could reload the save as many times as we needed until we got the result we were looking for... but it meant attempts at the segment took way longer than any other segment because you only got to attempt it maybe 10% of the time for some saves.
If the game supports that kind of player control without any modification to the game itself, it would be allowed. If using touch-based controls somehow creates a big advantage maybe we would label runs with the control system used... but I really doubt it will become like that.
You guys do realize that you can start timing from when the crosshairs appear and not directly from the save itself, right? Assuming this is for Single Segment and not the RTA category, you will simply record a demo when you start and check the tick when the crosshairs appear at the end of container ride. So if you are starting from a save made 3 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds before the ride ends you will still be able to subtract out the number of ticks before the crosshairs appear and all be on equal timing.
Good News! I was informed that the subcategory feature exists and seems like a much better way of doing this compared to making it a completely separate category.
I encourage all runners who want to skip the intro to submit to the Single Segment category using the subcategory variable to indicate Container Ride Save being used
I'm sorry I didn't suggest this as a compromise option earlier, I was not aware of the feature! I am very happy to have been told about it and it is certainly a better solution than before.
you can rename it to "Single Player with Blackjack and Hookers" if you want to.
Actually, I had no great ideas for a name, so you might want to think about what sounds better than "Single Player without container ride"
Alright, so since we're having a really hard time with this, I'm making the following observation:
-There are people who want to have runs that skip the container ride.
-There are people who value full-game and don't want invalid runs included on that board.
-Nobody on either side will see it the other side's way
So, seeing as we have split opinion, let's split categories. It will at least stop us from fighting or trying to impose our way of thinking on runners who don't feel the same way. Tanger says I should just stop waiting for feedback and make it anyway. So at least I know I have his support.
I'm creating the new category now. If I get extreme backlash for this we can always take it down later but let's see how it goes. Also - I am not going to argue about how to formulate the rules for this new category, since I prefer full-game anyway. You guys can time it however you want, penalty or no penatly, intro length added or no intro length added, community save or no community save. Maybe Meowmix will convince everyone to use host-timescale mid run, who knows. But at least we won't be fighting over a single category where we'll never agree.
How is me suggesting something and asking you guys anything other than asking the ones who voted yes? Again - I want suggestions, I want feedback, me making a suggestion first does not equal me telling you what we HAVE to do.
Please, give me a better compromise if you have one. I tried to come up with a compromise that reflected the overall poll survey, not just what I want. If it were my choice alone there would be no incomplete runs allowed at all, but I'm not asking for that.
we wouldn't because more than a third of runners don't think it should count as run of the category. This is why I think a new category designed for runs that skip the intro should be made
Please don't put words in my mouth... I'm trying to make suggestions because I know you guys want to put these late-start runs on the leaderboard and, well, we have to choose something. I'm not saying we've all agreed to what I suggested, I was being serious when I asked if it sounds good or if it sounds stupid. But we can't make a compromise if you're going to attack me and quote me on things I've never said. Please, give me real feedback and we can come up with something.
The poll we made didn't address anything about the leaderboard, just whether or not people supported doing these kind of runs. 63% in favor of these runs and 36% feel they don't belong. I suggested 3B because it is a compromise which overall favors the 63% desire to have these runs on the leaderboard, however takes into consideration the concerns of the 36% by separating them from full game runs. I don't think option 2A makes sense because that would entirely favor the "Yes" group without any regard to the "No"s. And obviously option 1 is no good because it completely favors the opposite. Between 2B, 3A, and 3B, I thought 3B was the best option because it has the added benefit of eliminating timing quirks like needing to determine the exact length of the intro, adding a penalty, and displaying a time longer than the actual length of the run. But again, this is NOT a command, it's a suggestion and we can't make progress unless I get some open feedback instead of angry responses which provide no solution.
By the way... I didn't mean for "late-start" to sound derogatory... it's just the best way I could think of to distinguish from starting at the beginning that wasn't overly complicated like "start-at-end-of-container-ride". Sorry if you felt like I was making it sound fake/meaningless
I'm not sure what is meant by this: "if you don't like people's consensus then change the discussion"
I have not been trying to change the discussion, I am honestly trying to be diplomatic with people who see things differently. I know I have a bias but I want to make a compromise... and I have not been avoiding discussion at all. I gave suggestions to Meowmix for a poll that would gauge community views, I was around for several streams where we could discuss the issue, and I've tried spread the word via twitter and streaming myself.
Also Pero, I'd be happy to see you running the game no matter whether you do the intro or not. I'm just interested in keeping the leaderboards fair and something that makes sense within the speedrun community at large.
I'd like to implement 3B... however I've recently been thinking that maybe the idea of adding the time of the container ride is a bit silly, since a late-start run is not actually taking that long. For example my PB would be considered a 59:10 (or something around there) on the late-start category. This way the distinction is clear and the time shown is not fabricated, while still giving runners the ability to upload these late-start runs to our Speedrun.com site. Does this sound like a good compromise? Or does it sound stupid?
I don't like the idea of allowing/disallowing based on the runner's time. Either you run the full game and get to compete with those of us who have been doing that since speedrunning started, or you do your other runs and get to put your time somewhere else. It shouldn't matter what level of play you are at.
Also... timescale and cheats are very important to never allow in speedruns. Your time should be a reflection of how long the run actually takes (minus loading screens). The idea that the game engine could play at any speed as long as the ticks are comparable is entirely backwards... the ticks are used BECAUSE they let us accurately count how much actual time is passing.
however... as it applies to single player misc categories, I think 2A or 2B are the only reasonable choices. We wouldn't want to double the amount of single player categories for misc which are not ran as seriously to begin with. Options 3A/B only make sense for the main single player runs to me
Coop timing already starts after the cutscene anyway, obviously doesn't need any change. I'm ok with pretty much any option except 2A... there are enough people who don't think these runs should count at all so I think we need some compromise which keeps track of the times without placing them in direct comparison with full game runs.
So, it's clear to me that many runners (although not a supermajority) would like to play the game without playing through the intro. KEEP IN MIND: you may play the game like this as much as you want, the decision at this point is about what to allow on our leaderboard.
Options at this point:
- No change, any submitted runs must be full-game
- New variable to allow both full-game and late-start runs on the same single player category a) with all kinds of runs shown by default b) with only full-game runs shown by default
- New category for late-start runs a) as a miscellaneous category b) as a "regular" category
Other question: if a new variable/category is created, should it be applied to all variations of Single Player? (third person, LSD, etc.)
Also if I forgot about other reasonable options, please suggest them.
Note on timing late-start runs: The majority who commented on this seemed to agree we should add the base length of the intro + small penalty to account for time normally lost in the intro. As work on a modified version of P2LT progresses I will happily work with Alpha or whoever is going to be coding it. There should also be a way to calculate the time manually but I haven't worked out the exact offset yet (and I mean exact to the tick - if you are going to approximate, round up to the nearest second).
eh I modified the wording on the rules to reflect the importance of timing between start of control and end of control
