second-based records

Post content relevant to Guild Wars. This includes, but is not limited to: screenshots, guides, tutorials, questions & answers, etc.
B2B6
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:44 pm
In-game name: Back Two Bay Six
Guild: Aria

Re: second-based records

Post by B2B6 »

As an outsider of the speed running community I'd like present my thoughts on this. We are still living in the stone age here by following a minute-based system ruleset. I've watched lots of speed runs on Games Done Quick every year and I have never seen anything other than second (or smaller increment) based records. We are the exception here by running minute-based records and mostly based on what I can gather the reasons are; archaic tradition, perhaps a technological issue or subjectivity on when a run starts and ends.

It should be obvious that if second based records were introduced then there would be a requirement for a stricter ruleset. Modern problems require modern solutions. The idea that we should use to in game /age only for records in my mind is an extremely idealist mindset. Trying to apply old rules to a new class of records is just naïve and of course bundled with problems that have already been discussed. Trying to account for players who don’t want to use third party timers so they can play vanilla guild wars in records is just pandering for an insignificant portion of the community, the approach here should just be “them the rules”. To be clear I am not saying that vanilla players going for records don’t exist, you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, a second-base ruleset would not suit everyone and that’s the price of progress.

Most of the records we currently have are unbreakable, it is clear why that is, so I won’t go into that. With the current minute-base ruleset, the speed running is doomed to die. We are currently on a trajectory of diminishing records and the destination is a list of unbreakable records and a player base that never attempts records again. For a while we have been approaching the horizontal on this curve.

An argument I’ve seen is that it would not be fun to have records broken by seconds because of RNG. This is an emotional argument and to be honest its ridiculous. In the sport of powerlifting, there is a 500kg deadlift record, that will be broken with 501kg eventually, and that’s the way it is. If people keep breaking records with 1kg, eventually it adds up to a significant difference over the original 500kg. My point is that beating a 1:56 record with a 1:55 isn’t a bad thing, it’s just the nature of records.

I’m not here to solve all the problems that come with second based records, basically here to just say +1. Although moving forward with the assumption of a stricter ruleset and a toolbox assisted timer, taking the fastest load timer (longest time) from each party member on each level would be the fairest way to ensure there’s no subjectivity on the records and no requirement for admins to frame-by-frame a video.

Sylars
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:32 am
In-game name: Musical Was Dub
Guild: [DS]

Re: second-based records

Post by Sylars »

In all honesty, to every person with the faintest involvement in speedeunning, the whole rule table we currently have present is nothing but a wet joke. That's true for both the "Standard" and "TAS" category, which follow no logic whatsoever and the restriction of displaying the /age in records despite having video evidence - all for a minute based listing.

Seriously though, obviously +1 to second (or fraction of a second) based records. The instance timer should however be a requirement. Spoofing times would be too easy otherwise. And while you're at it, please abolish the disgrace of a "Standard" category. There should be standard (currently pure) and TAS. IF there should be a third category, name it cheating and limit it to actions being performed that would otherwise be impossible in the game (such as targeting boos). Sorry, but manually dropping coins is clearly not TAS or cheating, using the tb minimap is not any more tool assisted than auto pcons and while we're at it, there's nothing standard about tool assistance.

Just take a look at I don't know, virtually every goddamn single game with an active speedrun community?

Nika
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: second-based records

Post by Nika »

If we explore second based records, how would we modify the rule sets?
We already established that we need video proof of everything, so first thing to do is change the way we time things by not having timers start on instance creation but rather on first movement or skill cast.
How would we handle already established records? Break them up into "milestone-records" (which would be the first time a new minuete milestone is reached aka kind of what we have right now) and then add the second based ones - or are we getting rid of any submitted record that cannot be timed?

And then the most important question: why do we want this change?
it certainly allows for more tactic diversity, exploring a strat that doesn't save a whole minute but only 10-20 seconds suddenly becomes way more relevant.
But the biggest goal is to increase competition/activity - and i disagree with "B2B6" that breaking a record by a mere second would be healthy, especially considering the high variance in gw.

idk just some thoughts, didnt put much effort into structuring this

Cruz
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz
Guild: IT

Re: second-based records

Post by Cruz »

Since you can input movement before the loading screen is even faded that method isn't foolproof, not to mention the fact that it greatly breaks tradition. The easiest way by far is to just require an instance timer. I understand there is an argument against such requirements, but it mostly bears weight in the pure category and so we may want to simply exclude that one. The timer would be pretty easy to verify too, for example by comparing skill cooldowns.

I strongly disagree with the notion that there is any problem whatsoever with having the fastest time being listed as such. If someone can't stand being beat, maybe they should think twice before they compete.

Sylars
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:32 am
In-game name: Musical Was Dub
Guild: [DS]

Re: second-based records

Post by Sylars »

Cruz wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 12:19 pm
Since you can input movement before the loading screen is even faded that method isn't foolproof, not to mention the fact that it greatly breaks tradition. The easiest way by far is to just require an instance timer. I understand there is an argument against such requirements, but it mostly bears weight in the pure category and so we may want to simply exclude that one. The timer would be pretty easy to verify too, for example by comparing skill cooldowns.
First frame of loading screen should be the timer start since that's also the instance time.
And there are timer programs you can overlay on a video without issues as to not require the instance timer, but the instance timer could be used too obviously.
Cruz wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 12:19 pm
I strongly disagree with the notion that there is any problem whatsoever with having the fastest time being listed as such. If someone can't stand being beat, maybe they should think twice before they compete.
Finally someone said it.

Nika
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: second-based records

Post by Nika »

If we're going for second-based records people with slow loading screens should not be at a disatvantage, even if that means that you could cheat a couple steps before your timer starts.

There is no problem with having the fastest time being listed as such, it's more about waht we do with the currently established records, is the plan to just throw them away?

Misty
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Owls
Guild: Illumination Theory [IT]

Re: second-based records

Post by Misty »

Did you read my initial post? My proposal is to KEEP minute-based records and just add another table that recognises RTA. There is no need to agonise over the old stuff being removed.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Sylars
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:32 am
In-game name: Musical Was Dub
Guild: [DS]

Re: second-based records

Post by Sylars »

Not to mention that all recent records could be timed. We have videos as a requirement anyway, there's not a single record on the current leaderboards except for pre-dhuum uw that doesn't have video proof, so no time will be lost. There isn't even a point in having two record tables.

And Nika, people with slow loads already have the exact same disadvantage now in group records.

Nika
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: second-based records

Post by Nika »

Ok I kind of started reading on This page as in only started thinking about the topic recently again, my bad!

It is true if you slowload you are disadvantaged, however we cannot fix that as long as we use the infame instance timer /age, but minute based records are also a little bit more forgiving than making every second count

Sylars
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:32 am
In-game name: Musical Was Dub
Guild: [DS]

Re: second-based records

Post by Sylars »

We've had so many 12:01 or 13:00 or 13:01 uw runs that were age 11/age 12 but only for some person. I don't think moving from minute to second based records changes much of anything in that regard.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests