I've been conflicted on whether to make a post on here as I, unlike those posted before me, have no intention on running NMG again with or without a filter. I do think it's important to get some perspective on the nature of TA which may not be widely understood and why, in my view, TA doesn't add value to the speedrun.

The matter comes down to the two layers of randomness which the skip involves.

First is item RNG which is obvious. Chances for a nitro is 40% per item box, so to get a nitro in two boxes for the second attempt is 64% (if my maths holds up). Not awful odds but for a skip that's all or nothing, a run can quickly fall apart if you're required to cycle 4 or 5 boxes (or more as has happened to some runners).

Second is frame length. Following a test carried out with the help of RedHot, it was discovered that the physical length of a frame affects the chances of success. This is completely uncontrollable as we can't even see frame lengths, let alone predict them. This means that, with the right setup and item RNG, the skip will fail because you got the wrong sequence of frames.

This level of uncontrollability is simply why TA is just a bad skip. The filter will encourage people to play without and hopefully find enjoyment in this game again, as I know there are those who just don't want to play knowing they "have" to go for this to be competitive. There's a line to say "well, just don't do the skip and play how you want", but experience shows that's not happening because people yearn for something tangible, which a filter provides.

I don't understand the concept of the "golden generation". In terms of the community that's long gone since 2014-17 or so when the speedrun scene was very active and there were frequent races in the community. The past 3 years have been very stale as there's just a low turnover of players. This is apparent in both TTs and Speedruns and neither a filter or no filter will make any difference to that. We're focusing on the enjoyment of current players who feel they're losing motivation to play knowing they either submit a worse time, or attempt a run they have lost interest in.

I feel the WR won't be invalidated as by default the filters show everything, and WR remains unchanged. But if there's a concern people won't play with TA then surely that's supporting the idea that runners just don't want to do it? And if they don't want to do TA then surely a filter would encourage this, which all things considered is not a bad thing. CTR can be optimised with "Classic" techs, such as pushing the boundaries of sub 50 without TA or Pap NMZ. If anything, TA is halting the progress of IL techs because the mindset is shifting to one where people will continue any standard of run in the hopes they can get a look at Hub 4. The WR is a prime example where the fundamental driving has barely changed since TA has been implemented.

We have to avoid making a category here, it doesn't require one and you'll get another pointless empty board.

I guess Classic is easily defined as no "mbrugliament" skips such as TA skip, Papu NMZ, OS Nyxx cut and Cove startline. Everything else is fair game and anything new found for the speedrun from here on out that wasn't an existing skip in TTs pre 2019 or so.

The "ban list" is very small and manageable. I think anyone can easily understand what skips they can and can't do.

Let's not forget the Classic mode is what has been understood in speedruns for 10+ years or more, a lot of things were historically possible and just not done in runs, like HAS hairpin and Pass boomerang, and I think these are fine to include.

Furthermore minor grass cuts and improved SG tech are fine, anything that builds on existing tech instead of brand new game changing cuts.

I remember a brief mention of a "Classic%" being raised before but wasn't sure how you meant to implement it. I think with clear cut rules as classic skips including Pass but no Papu/TA and future skips does "future proof" the old category which has a lot of historical significance.

I am in agreement with the points RH made above and Classic filter would be a great alternative to a TA filter.

Thanks for the shit posting in a community you're not part of Jumpy.

I don't think there's any major disagreement regarding the filters from runners that has been openly voiced in either Discord or here, if mods have a chance to implement filters that would be neat. (Simple Yes/No I think works best)

Remember the WR doesn't change and all runs should be displayed by default anyway, but good to compare like for like for those who choose to.

TA is the only skip in the game with such a skewed risk/reward associated to it so I think a filter is a good idea. No other skip saves a minute and no one is consistent at TA due to the nature of physics involved.

Also TA is not a very skilled trick. Papu NMZ or Boomerang are high skill tricks and also do not save nearly as much as 2 TA skips. At the moment it's unfeasible that any huge skips are to be implemented. Any other TT skips currently not done are too difficult for the potential timesave. (OS Nyxx for example would maybe save 10s if done on 3 laps)

I keep the stance that TA adds little value to a run and comparing runs that don't go for it is a great approach to solve this issue.

Thought I'd add to this thread as I came across this problem using Mednafen. Some emulator's or controllers might not accept all 4 shoulder inputs when trying to input the code so if anyone has this issue, a fix is assigning the shoulder buttons to your keyboard instead which worked for me.

Agree with what has been mentioned already and think we should just go with Mednafen. I understand the emulator is fairly lightweight compared to some others so it should be fine for streaming/recording & playing. Also with RedHot's load remover and auto splitter he has developed that should allow for us to track total IGTs and consider removing loads if we see fit.

I don't think we need to allow more than one emulator either, regardless of the rules on the main Crash boards (and make sure mods update the CTR rules accurately if/when a decision has been made). The main argument I have heard is that Mednafen currently is not compatible with Mac, but I don't think this issue is worth throwing away our chance at fair competition.

There's also the issue of current runs on the boards which used RetroArch. I don't think the advantage is huge enough for these to be removed (although WR is on that emu when we already knew it was unfair :-D)

This code is correct but you have to hold all 4 shoulder buttons. For whatever reason Crashmania made a small mistake on their website which is usually the first result when you check Google

It's that exciting time yet again where, as the speedrun develops, it proposes the same old question of what version is optimal in an RTA run.

This thread is focusing on Any% Warpless. For 101% you want a 30/39k NTSC-U PS2, for All Cups the best is 30/39k NTSC-J PS2 (or is assumed).

So how do we identify how good a console is? CTR records your course time on each track, as you'd expect from a racing game. This is what we're calling "In-Game Time" (Or IGT for short). The problem with IGT is it is not 1:1 with real time. In fact, 1s on the timer in NTSC is about 1.04s in real life. For PAL 1s in game is around 1.05s. Despite this, both versions play almost all tracks similarly, in that your course time can be close on both versions. So what does this mean for a speedrun?

We can take this IGT component out, then determine how much "Non IGT" there is per run. This will cover hub movement, load times, cutscenes and lag all of which differ depending on what console you decide to use, as well as the RTA/IGT difference mentioned above. The theory is, the console with the lowest Non-IGT component, the more optimal it is for a speedrun. Obviously if you crash in the Hub it'll skew the results, but adjustments have been made where necessary.

So, first let's cover NTSC-U. The main factors for this version are lag, cutscenes, animations and pause glitches. NTSC is a laggier version than PAL, and has lag on most tracks in consistent places (the water on Crash Cove is a good example of this). The console has to work harder to keep a consistent 30fps, and unfortunately isn't capable of doing so (thanks Sony). As for gameplay, it is considered easier than PAL as NTSC plays more consistent. Higher hops reduces the chance of froggy chains being cut short so you keep SGs for longer, and some skips the extra froggy height is beneficial (Polar Pass).

For PAL, you have the language glitch option and almost no lag, bar some exceptions (under the bridges on Tiny Arena for example). A consistent 25fps is better than a laggy 30fps. The PAL language glitch swaps cutscene lengths around, and completely removes the Komodo Jo cutscene which saves 22s. However, Oxide for example is some 10s longer (I haven't done a full analysis on this). Another main part of language glitch is the trophy award speech. On 3 tracks per hub, when you win a trophy, the game doesn't play the line "Congratulations, you won a trophy" on PAL. This saves in the region of 2-3s and each time and can get this on all 4 Hubs, so 12 separate occasions in the run. NTSC can do this from Hub 3 onwards, so has 6 chances. However, on NTSC it is a 1-frame trick, and going from most runs, 0-2 pauses per run is an average, occasionally more.

So there's some important aspects of versions, now to console models.

For consoles you have 30/39/50k (Fat consoles), and 70-90k (Slim consoles). On NTSC, slim consoles lag a lot. In some cases lag loses 20-25s or more over the run, so we can rule out these as optimal versions to play NTSC. They are still viable until 48 level where these seconds really matter.

30-50k Fat NTSC models have less lag, and loads are good too. On average, the Non-IGT of these is somewhere from 14:55 - 15:05. There has been cases of Fat consoles reaching as low as 14:45, so if you were to get a brand new Fat console then you could save even more time.

For PAL, from testing I have done all consoles run very close to each other, so 90k won't lose you much time. We don't have a good sample of PAL 90k, but from my own experience it is close to a 50k. However, 30-39k consoles seem to be in the range of 14:40-14:55 Non-IGT. My own 39k console is closer to14:40 than 14:50 and a console from another runner is also close to this.

So what does this mean? The PAL tests we've done are for runs in the region of RTA 50 - 53mins (or so). If the IGT in a PAL run is to reduce, the Non-IGT reduces at a higher rate than NTSC. So, a theory I have is if a PAL run was to match the IGT of the current WR (49:06), the RTA could be into mid-low 48:4x. Better IGT = Better Non-IGT. At optimal play, a PAL console will have better RTA than an NTSC console.

Now of course, PS2 age and from the sample we have, only one NTSC console rivalled PAL, but that's not to say more don't exist. As consoles age, the loads get worse and this can lose 10-20s, or even more when the console is really starting to deteriorate. I don't think it's a sensible idea for someone in America to import PAL console, and vice versa, as you're playing a lottery in the hopes of scoring a good console. I do think people in Europe and other PAL regions should look to PAL as an option as replacement units are much easier to find. Americans can easily keep using Fat NTSC consoles, and again have an easier time finding a good console.

This hopefully sheds light on the console discussion, but please post your thoughts or let me know if I missed anything/wasn't clear in places.

tl;dr PAL on average is somewhere in the region 10-15s quicker than NTSC, assuming you can play well and your console isn't dying. PAL is better for optimal level using current data. If you can hit 6 1-frame trick NTSC pauses every run then you're a god.

Fuck Sony.

Requested the above messages removed from this thread for being off topic & inappropriate, I would appreciate if both Spikestuff and AQLGamers move this discussion elsewhere thankyou.

To answer Ahvena, I would think Emulator split would be possible for 101%, Any%, All Cups and (God Forbid) Max%. I assume it's easy enough to implement even if there aren't very often any runs. I think Warpless and All Cups is absolutely priority though.

So for this thread there's no need to discuss allowed Emulators as that's already planned for the Crash series soon and we'll just follow the new rules. It was mentioned to me after I made the thread so very convenient timing!

Also with the plan to grandfather current emu runs, the emu boards should be quite straightforward to set up if a mod has chance to do that? Think it's safe to say it has been agreed that the community would like emu boards for Warpless at the very least.

Yes I think making it a subcategory is the best idea and it's great to see how much interest there is!

On the topic of RetroArch, I think it's fine to allow it as long as it's as accurate as BizHawk/Mednafen, if there's a good comparison/reliable test done then that's all good. If we use these as a standard and then freely disallow anything that's inaccurate such as epsxe, PSXfin etc. Remember the point is fair competition and a standard approach.

As a much discussed topic over recent months, the idea of encouraging runners to use emulators is reaching a point where some changes to the boards may need to be made.

Before anyone jumps on my back, the proposed changes are not going to affect the console boards and PS2 will still be optimal.

Anyway, the ideas I'd like to propose are: Separate boards for Emulator runs Strict rules on banned Emulators to only allow BizHawk/Mednafen IGT tracking as discussed in a previous thread to aid comparison between emulators and consoles

This may mean a lot of current emulator runs will need to be reviewed and though there's never a "right" way to handle this I'd love to hear what others have to say, we can cross that bridge later.

Hopefully a dedicated space for Emulator and a standardised approach will encourage people who don't have consoles, or prefer Emulator over their current setup, to run the game and feel more competitive.

The IGT tool has some bugs that need ironing out and some final things added before it's working, but at the moment RedHot has other more important projects to focus on. It hasn't been forgotten and I understand the mods are ready to implement it whenever it's sensible to do so.

Though I'm not against 101% Warpless, it could just be misc/category extensions if people genuinely want to run it and feel competitive, but from experience I didn't find Warpless all that engaging. It doesn't add anything new to the run and instead forces you to do the same things again and again. Hence why I personally wouldn't be that interested in having it as a thing nor would I run it.

The tricks/glitches aren't skill based in any way so there's no boundary stopping anyone from doing them, not sure what argument there is to support Warpless as a worthwhile category.

iirc the original reason we ever added character classification to the boards was to promote competition for Warpless runs.

Any% isn't relevant to specify the character (at least in my opinion).

All Cups allows character switching within the run, as well as Max%.

The new 101% route allows you to change character mid run if you want so character classification might not be suitable there either, especially with the new route where Accel might be faster for the final 30 mins. I'm sure it can be added if enough people want it but two characters might just look silly on the layout.

Thanks for bringing this up, I'm not sure on the rubber banding myself so I've linked it to the TASers if they're interested in doing any work for their own interest. For CTR speedrunning it won't have any application I'm afraid. 2p already makes some tracks easier, like Blizzard Bluff where assets are removed to increase performance, but no 2P mode is allowed/possible for TTs or speedrunning.

But hey, fun to look into right?

Revising this thread to post more Warp glitch stuff and a way to skip Gem Cups:

Mixing the warp glitch with "storing" boss data, that overcomes the crash that happens on certain tracks. So far you can only use this on the Gem Cups. When tested on a CTR token you lose the "stored" boss race and don't get awarded a token, although the track doesn't crash.

In the interest of competition and fairer comparison between runs, I'd like to propose the idea of adding an "IGT" column to the Warpless leaderboard.

IGT which stands for "In-Game Time" can be calculated from the sum of all course times over the run. This is the best comparison which will negate the differences between console lag, load times and region. The course times in CTR are accurate with or without lag, NTSC or PAL.

To be clear, however, this is not to replace the current RTA timing. Rankings will still be decided by RTA, and IGT will simply be for information only. This won't take Hub movement into account, or NTSC pause glitches.

At the moment the easiest way to calculate IGT is inputting your course times into LiveSplit (or your split programme of choice) which will add them up for you. A programme is currently in development to calculate IGT automatically from a video feed, and I'll edit this post once it has been completed and tested.

Initially I'd like to suggest either the top 10 or 20 times have the IGT calculated, or any time which is sub 53:00, but I think it's best to give runners the opportunity to submit their IGT runs if they want to and not have this as a mandatory requirement. This might all go to waste if SR.com doesn't allow optional IGT lol.

This has loosely been mentioned in the Crash Discord and the majority seemed to support the idea, but please post your thoughts in this thread before decision is ultimately made.

Yeah this is just a comparison of track times. There was a side-by-side comparison of hub movement between Dingo/Coco which came out around 3s in Coco's favour, though the driving wasn't great on that so I don't want to assume that's the difference. Though even with better driving it's a small save for Acceleration chracters.

I did want to do a PAL comparison and timed the first Hub, but I was finding my PAL consistency just wasn't good so I wouldn't be confident enough to give an accurate PAL/NTSC difference at the moment.