New Table Design

[Strongy]

Thanks for nudges on Sanctum/Thirsty River - Updated!

Re: PURE vs TAS first - neither category is strictly "better" than the other. Given TAS records are more popular - I think it makes sense for TAS to be first for readability purposes

Re: ties, agreed minute barriers should stay until beaten, Ill find those and update now. Just my haste of basing the records off of the second-based table whilst initially building the tables.

[BackTwoBaySix]

I don't really like how ties are being presented here either, there should be emphasis on the first to achieve it (both in solo topk and duo doa this isn't really obvious, just the first 2 I saw).

The readability of the table can't be maintained whilst also presenting ties tbh, both a new row or on the same row looks bad. I wouldn't care if they were just removed entirely, a minute tie should be at least be beating the seconds otherwise whats the point in posting it. So taking that logic, they could just be removed and the latest minute tie (with the fastest seconds) will still be there. I don't care to see a minute tie that isn't even the fastest seconds on tables...

[Strongy]

Thanks for feedback!

If we just show the second-based record, then honestly what's the point of a minute-based table at all? This is actually something I support, and I would rather show a 1st/2nd/3rd type of format than I would present 3 minute-based ties and have issues with /age. BUT thats a very big and very separate discussion! Particularly as it disproportionately impacts dungeon records which I am less familiar with.

It isn't right for me to remove records from tables as a result of this reformatting - that falls outside of the scope of this reformatting work and requires more engagement than a post in a specific forum. However I will pick this up in a more formal way soon as the discussion is fair. Therefore at least for now, ties will be presented in the tables.

I recognise some value in showing "whoever got there first" for most runs (e.g. DoA duo/7man). But applying the rule generally, things like Augury Rock / ATFH I dont think this reasoning necessarily applies as the latest runs are much more optimised than the "first" run.

Currently, the table presents ties in a second-based order, and only runs that were submitted later AND have a faster seconds based record, are shown at all (otherwise we would end up with 100 of these). This formatting then means the second-based link is next to the minute-based link which is a nice symmetry. Ultimately, ANY order that is used, regardless of formatting, will always present one run as perceptively "better" than the other, given one link always has to come before/on top of another. If you do manage to create a situation where that isn't the case, let me know and I'll be happy to adjust!

[Aria]

a potential way of doing this is to have the table made in a seperate site/program and just link it here (or a zoomable image of it , which gets replaced when updating) ; instead of trying to build a table with this websites tools from the 90s

alternatively

how about changing the text colour of minute records (& ties) to specify how they rank

1st fastest = gold (with its corresponding seconds time shown in the next table row)
2nd fastest = silver (with no corresponding seconds time)
3rd fastest = bronze (with no corresponding seconds time)

i don't think we need to show more than two ties* per area tbh , people that have a tie that is no longer shown can still list it as a tie everywhere else and on youtube etc

to keep table presentation neat we could have the "first to achieve" minutes table somewhere else for historical purposes ; seeing as any qualified runs that aren't within the "top 3" are likely to be well beaten

this would be cool actually ^ , because people get to see how the tactic progression improved between each minute barrier over the years AND who achieved it (lots of old nostalgic guilds and fun quirky tactics would then be included)

[BackTwoBaySix]

I like how golden eye displays ties, they are in order: https://wrs.the-elite.net/goldeneye/rankings.php We can do something similar with guild tags

[Strongy]

Really pleased with the level of interest and debate being had - amazing what ideas a small suggestion can bring out

With a ranking of 1st / 2nd / 3rd based on time but not displaying seconds... I am really not sure what value a minute based table is then adding vs a second based table tbh. Me and Bay6 had a chat offline around this and I think its safe to say that opinions will be divided on this

The whole point of reformatting was to reduce the number of record tables to maintain and consolidate information into a more readable format. Having a separate table of "first to achieve" kinda goes completely against that and I would rather not make any changes in that case, though I appreciate that recognising an individuals contribution to a record / strat enhancements is important (a leaderboard imo does this well).

I would rather remove guild tags altogether than add them/make them more prominent tbh is my view on the GoldenEye thing. In a perfect world, I think it would be best if each record had a set of links to each players' profiles within the record. Profiles could then cross reference to other records achieved by that individual.... but I'm not building that any time soon and it would probably require moving to another site haha.

For now at least, I am not hearing any fundamental concerns on the proposed changes vs what we have today. Yes there may be further things to change, but I would rather put in something and then iterate/improve than have a long drawn out debate where nothing ends up happening.
Broader changes like those suggested need be considered with proper thought and executed in a proper way - which will come but its not an instant thing (especially as of course all moderators do this in their own time).

[Aria]

well the idea of keeping three entries as a 3rd, 2nd, 1st (when necessary) would be to not remove a bunch of peoples records off the tables , it's pretty much how we've been doing things anyway . if you aren't concerned with that ; only keep the fastest minute and see if ppl get upset .. or change the whole thing into a leaderboard

the reason why i wouldn't add seconds to the 2nd & 3rd place ties is because they aren't actually seconds records anymore , they are age/minutes records that came "first" and are still technically "unbeaten" for minutes . it also helps to further visually identify the top entry as "fastest overall"

if the tables gonna stay similar to how it is now , i would keep three minute-based entries (when necessary) as a middle-ground between removing all ties completely ; so teams can't snipe the seconds based record to run off with the sole minutes based entry OR flood the table with ties because we've set no limit

for example : someone could work a new tactic that took some effort and beats a minute barrier only for some joe bloggs to copy his work be 20 seconds faster and the original guy never graces the table . how's that fair ?
i feel like this kind of stuff will piss people off and prevent them from posting in general as it doesn't reward innovation ; it rewards people who can't create new ideas only immitate and replicate what's already there and execute it better . speedrunning requires both types of person .

currently if someone posts a minute record and it gets beaten by some seconds no ones gna be salty because both go up on the minutes table and they stay there until someone breaks the next minute barrier

removing guild tags is crazy to me , this is guild wars . guilds in competition and seeking online achievements is what this is all for , a table full of numbers would be sad af

[Rafe]

Whilst I definitely 100% agree worth keeping track of how a record on an area has developed, I think managing that in a complete way in a table like this is not really possible and kind of beyond the scope of what can be done cleanly in a generic forum post that summarises all the categories like this. The existing design does it but makes for a poor reading experience and especially with how tas and pure as grouped together I never liked it, and it's confusing for newcomers in my opinion that we even have a separate table for minutes and seconds, wtf does that mean to an outsider?

My personal opinion would be that the record posts themselves should contain this information (perhaps as part of approval from mod, they can state which previous record(s) have been beaten and link to their threads, so you can see a chain of them), and only second based fastest time (aka, the actual record as per any other speedrunning community) shown in this table.

Nobody has gone and tied minutes based records for the sake of only removing a guild tag to my knowledge, and I don't think this table will make people do that. At the end of the day, competing on time is what the records are about and the fastest time should be king. "Stealing" strats and doing it better/faster is part of the game, it's up to the community to give credit properly. In other games, most people are developing strats together whilst competing against eachother at the same time.

Ego over not wanting a guild tag removed so you can be shown the proper worship is what makes a lot of the minute based records cringe, where it's a low effort "okay we beat minute barrier let's stop here". Many areas are "maxed out" minutes based but there still room for some tactical or gameplay improvements to push seconds, and we are stealing ourselves of the opportunity to challenge existing records by pushing the minute based agenda, and maybe this actually leads to some competition instead of the first come first served state we find ourselves in today. My favourite records I've been involved are the ones where I/we actually competed like fow 4 min, gyala hatchery solo and Borlis pass. As the minutes dry up, we must look to seconds to keep the record pushes alive.

And removing minute based category isn't going to stop people from still pushing minute barriers, that's always a hype moment in a speedrun, but maybe we get there in smaller increments with some actual competition sometimes, instead of making people stop looking at it because the minute based record was set and no one thought you could push it further.

Tldr; seconds rule, minutes drool, be the fastest, or be the fool

[BackTwoBaySix]

Nobody has gone and tied minutes based records for the sake of only removing a guild tag to my knowledge

That's because tying a minute based record doesn't remove a guild tag, it just results in a tie. On a minute table, the first record should remain as the record as its unbeaten by a tie.

My favourite records I've been involved are the ones where I/we actually competed like fow 4 min, gyala hatchery solo and Borlis pass.

I don't see the connection between this and the topic at hand? The thing in common between these records is that multiple people were competing at the same time? Having minute based table does not prevent people running at the same time OR competing for seconds records.

When I was newer to the community I used to have these same thoughts about seconds based, that the minute table was full of low effort sniped minute records, it is true to an extent. Many records/tactics were designed to break minute barriers even at the cost of seconds. It's also true that having to break minute barriers has inspired innovation that may not have been necessary to break the record by a second instead of up to a minute. There is a bunch of crazy shit we've done over the years to enable minute based barriers to be broken, would we have had made such advancements if we only had to save a second to improve a record? With a community our size I personally think not.

The truth is that we have had seconds based records for years now, and we don't see many seconds based records (minute ties). We cannot make the community care about seconds, and removing the minute based table to try to make people care is ridiculous. I have read some disagreeable things on this forum but the proposition to remove the minute table and guild tags is far and away the most stupid and disrespectful to the legacy of gw speedrunning.

I don't mind reformatting of the tables but we should remember a minute based record is unbroken by a faster seconds based record of the same minute. I don't agree with presenting them as they are currently presented, e.g. 7man DOA its not clear to me from the table which was the first and which was the tie, this was previously possible on the previous presentation (one way or another, even though it lacked consistency).

[Strongy]

Happy to adjust how ties are presented. With the newer design, I thought it’s easy to see what came first- it’s the lowest record, as only faster second based runs would be included above it in sequential order. This makes the most sense to me and shows the clear progression of any seconds vs minute based records. If you have a better/preferred solution please can you provide an example?