second-based records

Post content relevant to Guild Wars. This includes, but is not limited to: screenshots, guides, tutorials, questions & answers, etc.
Misty
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Owls
Guild: Illumination Theory [IT]

second-based records

Postby Misty » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:15 pm

People have been asking for this for years, and it's not too late to implement it. As time goes by, record submissions are less and less frequent - this isn't just because of the smaller community, but because record times have been pushed down so low that it seems either impossible or unfeasibly difficult to beat them by a full minute. A table respecting second-based records would provide an incentive for SC players to make minor improvements to tactics and push themselves to go a little bit faster... bit by bit, this could even lead to a new minute-based record being considered possible. Never mind if it doesn't - hopefully we can all agree that XX:00 is a better time than XX:59, and that the old system is the reason nobody has bothered pushing to go faster than that XX:59.

I'm not suggesting to get rid of minute-based records; I know they're a popular and proud tradition of GW records. Instead, just create a new sticky thread in each sub-forum, recording the fastest second-based times. The XX:59 times will still be on the other table as normal.

I already brought this up on Discord, and Flo asked me to post here, together with my answers to some questions:
please write into your post how you ld time multi-level records (dungeons)
from the creation of the level 1 instance to the spawn of the end chest, minus the load times between levels - I'll admit that I'm not 100% clear on how load times work, so hopefully someone who knows better can help out here.
It could also be interesting to list dungeon times as a sum of all the levels instead of just the total time.
how you ld deal with people refusing to use any tool
This system should be entirely reliant on video time - not a third party timer.
also, make a statement who is migrating the database in case of alltime records that dont have video proof
"records" with no recording would receive no recognition on this table. Aside from pre-Dhuum UW and teleport abuse, what would we lose? Alternatively, those records could be listed as they currently are, but if anyone offers a tie with an actual video, that would trump the old record. For example, the 2 min SoO would be listed as 0+0+2, and if someone posted a video with 0:59+0:59+2:59, the old record would be wiped from the board.
and how to deal with records that complied with the ruleset and are now punished for trolling on the last level of a dungeon because their time was guranteed
That's too damn bad for them. This sense of entitlement is why we've spent years not actually pushing for the fastest times possible.

I'm sympathetic to the concerns of all the people who worked hard to get an impressive time, only to have their achievement wiped by some upstart who copied their tactics. That's why I don't want the old table removed, although I don't think it's the best way to honour the pioneers who paved the way for faster times. That would require us to keep an archive of old records, showing how things progressed over time... but that's a suggestion for another thread =P
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Cruz
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz
Guild: IT

Re: second-based records

Postby Cruz » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:04 am

Wow someone who's better than me might beat my records then. That's scary!

Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: second-based records

Postby Flo » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:58 am

@Misty

Timing dungeon records:
from the creation of the level 1 instance to the spawn of the end chest, minus the load times between levels
First of, please give us a precice time for this dungeon record viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2501 that cant be argued about. Because I definitely wont deal with clowns demanding the record is actually a x:xy and not a x:xx. Tell us where you ld pause the video, where you think the instance is actually loaded and the time should start running and when each level is done. Please do so without referring to the ingame timer at all, because he isnt required to have that.

Video time:
This system should be entirely reliant on video time - not a third party timer.
Video time is unreliable, because youtube and twitch work with full seconds. Now I am sure there is some website out there that lets you get down to miliseconds, but then again: If someone loads into an area (whatever loading into an area would be defined as [loading screen starting/gaining control of the character]) at 0:05.3 minutes and finishes at 3:12.2 minutes, what time would that be? Even worse with multi-level records, but I am sure you ll mention that in your response to timing dungeon records. As I said, I have no interest whatsoever in arguing about single seconds with everyone that thinks it would be a rgeat idea to do so. Just check out what drama I had to deal with just with ethers 57:00 PURE or whatever it was, and that ruling is clear and consistent.
"records" with no recording would receive no recognition on this table.
Uh, okay. That is one way to go, but punishes people for something they didnt know about when the record was done. Retroactive punishing is ugly. What about records of the TAS category, where only 1 player needs to record? Lets say you do a dungeon record with 2 people and only 1 has a recording. Now in dungeons when you leave for the next level, the only thing that happens is the loading screen appearing. What stops anyone from cheating here? As long as /age is required, you cant really do that, but with second based times nothing stops you from just cutting your video.
This in turn would require a rule change and require a video from the guy zoning to each new level. People dont even understand the current ruleset, so while doing this change would certainly be possible I see huge risk with people not complying and then having to deny records because even in TAS video coverage would need to be given.

Old records:
Alternatively, those records could be listed as they currently are, but if anyone offers a tie with an actual video, that would trump the old record. For example, the 2 min SoO would be listed as 0+0+2, and if someone posted a video with 0:59+0:59+2:59, the old record would be wiped from the board.
This solution (and setting the seconds of each record that doesnt have a recording) to 59 by default is really unfair towards everyone that complied with the at the time current ruleset. Removing stuff retroactively because you re assuming the time is as bad as imagineable is rough.


These are the huge operative concerns I have, which you have not yet addressed in a satisfactory manner. The other points of yours are debatable and everyone will have a different opinion on them, so I am not going to comment on most of that.


Last point:
That would require us to keep an archive of old records, showing how things progressed over time
I started doing this at the last meta reset by copying the old current meta records in a 2nd post. This is obviously not the same thing you re asking for, but tbh at this point its too late starting since all records are so far developed and the origins have often be forgotten.

Misty
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Owls
Guild: Illumination Theory [IT]

Re: second-based records

Postby Misty » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:48 pm

Tell us where you ld pause the video, where you think the instance is actually loaded and the time should start running and when each level is done.
As I said, I'd like to hear from someone who knows better. If there's no good answer forthcoming, I'd say just don't bother subtracting the load times. That is quite harsh for those with slower computers, but no more so than the current system. At least this would be more honest.
Video time is unreliable, because youtube and twitch work with full seconds.
I assume this is about getting totally accurate times for subtracting the load screens. Perhaps some helpful active mod like Has could devise a simple tool for you to easily measure that... or you could just round to the nearest second.

These 2 slight inaccuracies are only applicable to multi-level areas. The current system for those is absurdly inaccurate. Cruz's solo Frostmaw's, which you linked, has over 11 minutes of action (after subtracting load times), and yet it's listed as 8 minutes! If my suggestion was applied with no refinement whatsoever, it would be listed as 11:18. It takes serious mental gymnastics to imply that this would somehow be worse.
Retroactive punishing is ugly.
I agree. That is why I said to keep the old table. Nobody will be removed from it unless they are beaten under the current rules.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Cruz
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz
Guild: IT

Re: second-based records

Postby Cruz » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:16 am

Flo, I don't think that implementing a table for rta has anything at all to do with runs without a video recording. They wouldn't even be on the same table, right? So why bother trying to compare them with rta runs.

For timing I think the best way would be to take the first frame of fading from loadscreen for the fastest loader. I think it's reasonable to require a youtube video from all party members to compete on this table, even for TAS. For dungeons, I think we should stick with the easiest solution, and include intermediate load screens.

This is how I would time my Frostmaw solo: start - end. So that's 11:15,268. Edit: The exact milliseconds will obviously differ here if you frame advance so round it at y,xx or y,x.
You can get the VLC extension from here. To open a youtube url you may need to update your youtube.luac. Go to %ProgramFiles%\VideoLAN\VLC\lua\playlist and open it with notepad. Replace it with the text from this page. You can put buttons for play speed and frame advance on your toolbar from the tools menu.

Cruz
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz
Guild: IT

Re: second-based records

Postby Cruz » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:47 am

Adding to that, you could make a rule requiring the "has joined the game" message to be visible, since that would be used to determine who to time from. For example, this is the first frame of the 15 DoA:
Image
It is then confirmed by 7 of these messages in chat:
Image

Misty
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Owls
Guild: Illumination Theory [IT]

Re: second-based records

Postby Misty » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:16 am

@Cruz Why would that require videos from everyone in the party? So long as the fastest loader presents his, that should be all that's necessary?
That's still a bit harsher than the current TAS rule (only requiring one video from ANY party member), but it does seem very reasonable. However, for existing records maybe it's okay to relax the rule and accept whatever we have. It's not as though people in those records were actively trying to take advantage of the load time discrepancy (except in cases where it's very obvious, like TAS DoA), so it would only be inaccurate by maybe a second at most. While there are still people who want to stick with minute-based, we can't very well call that a big problem.

@Flo I realised I didn't respond to your concern about cheating by editing out part of some dungeon levels. That's unavoidable, and we've always relied on honesty for that. You claimed that /age prevents it, but it's incredibly easy to falsify the /age.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Ether
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:47 pm
In-game name: Ether The God
Guild: Loa

Re: second-based records

Postby Ether » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:16 pm

i dont see the benefit for seconds based records yet. for DoA everything but the 8 man standard can currently be beaten with currently known tactics. i think its worth it to wait for another half year or so before bringing up this discussion again.

Cruz
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz
Guild: IT

Re: second-based records

Postby Cruz » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:52 pm

That's irrelevant. The point is to make the timings more realistic and competitive. Also, why should we only consider DoA in that argument?

haskhasin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: second-based records

Postby haskhasin » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:29 am

sorry, but I don't really care much at this point. My opinion since someone asked:
- For current records, just list them as (example) 15:xx in the table, and put any 15:30 below. When someone gets 14:50 we can remove the 15:xx.
- Don't subtract loading times for loading screens in the middle. That just complicates things.
- Still require /age at start and end in multi-level things
- beg bill for an actual in-game timer


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests