Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Forums - What are the rules for this game for speed running?

What exactly are the rules for doing runs for this game? I plan on running it but need the rules before i try, otherwise i'm doing it wrong

Generally historically the rules are fairly standard when comes to speedrunning most games including the C&C ones. To be honest you as the runner and other runners when they come make the rules but unless there is something unqiue or special that you think needs to be indicated otherwise the main thing that is clarified from game to game is where the timing starts and stops or if it is IGT or RTA.

If you want to indicate where you started and ended your timing then we can use that as the standard for this game which typically has been from campaign selection till the 'Victory/Mission Acomplished' dialogue appears.

It also seems as if you are now a series admin so you can make changes if you feel you need to, otherwise standard speedrunning rules apply; no modding or hacking of the game, single segment, recorded etc.

Hi. As you may have already seen, I have responded to the post made on gamereplays here: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=961236&st=0&gopid=9766819&#entry9766819.

Rules we play by:

Glitches are allowed (Although I have found only 1 use for them in an optimal run which h I haven't actually timed yet - Allies mission 1)
Must be completed on Hard difficulty.
Single segment.
The time achieved is the time displayed on the end game summary

If I've missed any out I'll post an updated list.

NOTE: I won't run this unless it is on hard btw.

So, the difficulty of the levels shouldnt actually matter. The object is to get from start to finish as fast as possible.

At the moment, your runs are so much faster anyway. You can play on hard if you want. However, if a strat is found that is faster on easy than it is on hard, would you be willing to drop it then?

The rest i agree with. Id be interested to see the allied mission 1 glitch, hopefully it breaks the autoscroller nature of that level.

The aim of the speedrun is what the community agree the aim should be, be it easy or hard. Even like I explained in the GR thread, MiningKid, someone completely seperate to gamereplays also ran the game in the exact same way we do, individual levels on hard.

It looks like all of you here have not been speedrunning RA3 for long, so it would be a shame to see you go off into your own small community.

My advice would be to watch my videos to get some hints and tips and then start running on hard. I will be available if you have any questions, just send me a message on gamereplays.org.

So basically what your saying is - "The aim of the speed run should be what the community decides, so my advice is, do it our way, or im not doing it at all" no disrespect, but doesnt seem particularly diplomatic.

Paraphrasing, but basically what I'm saying is that everyone else until now has speedran the game in the way we do it and it seems to work fine. The earliest runs we have go back to over 2 years ago.

It is nice to see you both starting to speedrun, but don't you think it would be a better idea to join the already made community instead of starting a niche for those that want do play it on easy?

I've brought up the question of difficulty many times but not in many places that have links available that I can use to support my thoughts on this matter.

[Opinion] As far as I am concerned if increasing the difficulty does not add anything additional to the game in terms of content then there is no valid reason to run on the harder difficulties.

If on a harder difficulty you need to complete more objectives to complete the game then clearly this becomes a question of whether they are separate categories or if the lack of content is considered a 'skip'.

[Opinion] In this situation I would consider the harder difficulty the standard any% category because you are completing a standard amount of content (This argument is not very well articulated). If on a harder difficulty all that is changed is hit point values/ammo drops/AI difficulty or something similar which does not add content then I would suggest that it is a not different category despite the fact that it may require a different strategy and set of skills, the objectives and outcomes of the run are still the same.

This question of game difficulty has come up in the C&C Generals section of the forum and you can view that discussion here: http://www.speedrun.com/Command_and_Conquer_Generals/thread/b582y/1#uansf

The related leaderboard is here: http://www.speedrun.com/Command_and_Conquer_Generals

You guys are the runners of this game at the moment, so ultimately this is your discussion and I just want to act as a moderator for this discussion. Here is my thoughts on a similar question related to C&C speedrunning: http://www.speedrun.com/Command_and_Conquer/thread/efnxi

[Opinion] Whether a run is on Easy or Hard it is by definition still a valid any% run of the respective category (Allied Campaign any% for example). Whilst I don't want this discussion to unfold like the current 'GTA V Classic%' thread I have no issue with a rule change if it is properly discussed and it is a unanimous decision but the way I currently view this subject is like this; Hard difficulties are more impressive and certainly will require more skill, that is simply unquestionable. I think one short term solution for the moment is to add the difficulty of the run on to the leaderboard but I don't think it invalidates the existing Easy or Hard difficulty runs. To use a real world analogy, imagine you are a swimmer competing the Under 16's Mens (or Women's) 50m Freestyle at the Youth World Championships and you set a world record for this category (Under 16's) that is 30 seconds, this will still be a valid record even though the Olympic/World record is 25 seconds, you have still completed the exact same discipline even though it is the Under 16's, the record is still valid although it is perhaps not as impressive as the Olympic/World record.

The sections that are my opinions are just how I have view things for now and am perfectly happy to read your discussions and help make things clearer and more defined.

Whilst my current opinions seem to align more-so with the newer runners I would just like to clarify that I am fairly neutral in this matter and understand that certain games will have a 'historical' ruleset that exists not because they are arbitrary but because they are the most popular category and the most fun. Enjoyment is subjective.

I think we (should) all fundamentally agree that we speedrun games because we enjoy the games we play and whilst I have no issue with standardising difficulty, this does not stop people from completing a speedrun on any difficulty you desire.

What I am happy to do for the moment right now is to update the leaderboard to include speedrun difficulty so that whilst this discussion continues any speedrun that is completed in both the past and future can be shown on the leaderboards. [This has since been done and is updated]

Just remember guys I'm here because I love Command and Conquer so if you have opinions that are contrary to my own just post them in here in a civil manner :). I will have no problem removing post that attack anyone and ask you to resubmit your argument in a more discussion friendly format.

Edit: Typos and grammar.

I would also like to add that there is no issue with adding in the IL's in as a leaderboard as well. Other RTS game have popular IL leaderboards and I had a feeling when I first created the C&C board on this website that IL's would eventually become a factor, perhaps even the most popular format depending on what unlisted speedruns already existed and what is more competitive.

OK.

Sorry my last comment sounded confrontational. I just found out all my runs are complete shit. :P

Anyway, there is no reason easy, medium and hard runs can't all co-exist peacefully, though there is the risk that there will become simply far too many catagories. Hard IL's, easy IL's, easy full runs, Hard fully runs and so on.

How would the IL look? Is it possible to make a table for them? Something nice and neat, with links?

Can you admin me for this?

Thought I ought to put my opinion out there. I don't think that we should be limited to only one difficulty, as mentioned earlier. Like Cornford said, we speedrun because we enjoy the game we play. This also includes the difficulty we play at. Imagine this. A novice player decides that they want to speedrun RA3. They won't be able to even beat hard difficulty, let alone be able to speedrun it. It makes it completely unfair for those who want to speedrun it should it need to be a harder difficulty. It would also turn those people off from speedrunning, and would prevent new runners from coming to join the community, and we as speedrunners are growing a community of people who share in that common interest. I myself do not plan on speedrunning on the harder difficulties anytime soon.

"If on a harder difficulty all that is changed is hit point values/ammo drops/AI difficulty or something similar which does not add content then I would suggest that it is a not different category despite the fact that it may require a different strategy and set of skills, the objectives and outcomes of the run are still the same. "

This is not actually correct. There are more enemies, defenses, attacks, shorter timers on triggers etc on harder difficulties. These do make a huge difference on strategies. I haven't played easy but I have watched some of the runs posted and this is where I've made the comparisons. Watch mine and their videos side by side and you will see what I mean.

These are linked: "I think one short term solution for the moment is to add the difficulty of the run on to the leaderboard but I don't think it invalidates the existing Easy or Hard difficulty runs."

"Anyway, there is no reason easy, medium and hard runs can't all co-exist peacefully, though there is the risk that there will become simply far too many catagories. Hard IL's, easy IL's, easy full runs, Hard fully runs and so on. "

Do you mean that you would combine different difficulty runs in the same list? I don't like the idea because, referring to my first point, they aren't comparable.

On the other hand, I do also feel like an individual category for each difficulty per level is pushing it a bit too much. An easy way to filter this would be to only have easy and hard but there would still be a lot.

"Imagine this. A novice player decides that they want to speedrun RA3. They won't be able to even beat hard difficulty, let alone be able to speedrun it. "

The thing about the campaign is, after running it over and over again, patterns emerge. Once you've noticed these you can get consistent in what previously seemed an impossible task (it's just like speedrunning any other game). Some good examples of patterns I've found:

-Geneva, triggered chronosphered units are always in the same location so you can place a unit where it would spawn and instantly kill it.

Gibraltar, there are a lot of units at the start and initially ran past them to complete it as fast as possible. Then I found that most of the time as soon as my mcv spawned there were too many units to cope with. I started looking at unit locations and what triggers them to move around and found a consistent path (watch the video on my youtube) which is not even difficult to execute.
Mount Rushmore, the video shows it all, very few commands and very difficult to fail.

I could explain these in more depth but this post would be way too long, that can come later...

On top of that I have already created strong strategies for almost every mission and I could create guides or a hints and tips section to help even novice speedrunners master the levels.

Right so the way Im seeing it now is thus;

One board each for easy and hard full campaigns
A leaderboard for the IL times, though im not sure what's available.

Don't get me wrong, I've played hard, and it isn't much different. Really, its only a stronger AI, more units/defenses and shorter timers. That's all the difficulties are. Its still significantly harder, but I don't feel the runners need to be limited to only one difficulty, so having a board for each difficulty will give players a choice for their runs. I myself am not going to run hard anytime soon, as I'm still practicing hotkeys and my easy route. Maybe eventually I'll join the "big leagues", but for now on sticking to what I know.

http://www.speedrun.com/red_alert_3#Allied_Campaign

Here is an example of what the current leaderboard looks like with the updated difficulty option. As you can see it shows what difficulty each run was on but doesn't take up the space of having and extra board and making things more difficult to navigate at the moment. (Disclaimer: The speedrun I have submitted it just temporary to display what the board looks like, it is just a YouTube link to the RA3 Allied cutscenes)

As far as it is at the moment I do understand that Easy, Medium and Hard can be viewed as different runs/categories since the strategies are different but from what I understand the secondary and primary missions objects remain the same? I am not arguing that the runs are different because they do need to be played differently for each respective difficulty though the way the leaderboard is structured at the moment simply displays what campaign was completed. If you had to complete a separate/additional primary objective then it would instantly become a separate category.

On the 'Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire' board each category has drop downs for difficulty and RTA/IGT. This is a format that could be easily adopted but as it is in this game and it appears to be in RA3 the difference in the categories is the change in amount of AI, health which are very similar. The objectives that need to be completed for each categories to be complete do not change however.

http://www.speedrun.com/swsote#100%25 (Easy and Jedi being used)

In regards to IL leaderboards; this website already has an IL's feature implemented and that can be viewed in both that AOE and Portal. After researching other games on this site I think these examples and the one before could be very elegant solutions to our current debate.

http://www.speedrun.com/aoe1/individual_levels http://www.speedrun.com/aoe2/individual_levels http://www.speedrun.com/Portal/individual_levels

It's great to see interest in what I thought was going to be one of the least active games of the series so it'd be awesome when do all get on the same level :)

In the end I am happy to do whatever you guys want to do! :)

"As far as it is at the moment I do understand that Easy, Medium and Hard can be viewed as different runs/categories since the strategies are different but from what I understand the secondary and primary missions objects remain the same?"

Different difficulties do sometimes have different objectives though. For example, Stalingrad and Odessa need all transports alive at the end while also there are more units attacking them. On the lower difficulties it would be possible to win even if you do lose some even though there are less units attacking them.

One thing I don't want is to have my times up on hard and no one to even challenge me for the top spot. The main reason people have been giving for not getting into speedrunning before is that they wouldn't have a chance of competing with my times. Having a bit of competition for my times was really the main reason I am even contemplating this tbh.

How do you feel about the other leaderboards formats that I put in my last reply?

From how i see it, that is still the same objective, protect the transports. The only thing changed is how many. Even so, I feel we can still split them into different categories, so that we can satisfy everyone's requirements.

"One thing I don't want is to have my times up on hard and no one to even challenge me for the top spot. The main reason people have been giving for not getting into speedrunning before is that they wouldn't have a chance of competing with my times. Having a bit of competition for my times was really the main reason I am even contemplating this tbh."

That just sounds awful man, I gotta tell you. You seem pissed off that people aren't at your level. Well no, we're not. Not even close. And we may never be. So there.

Anyway. Here is a list of boards that are currently being proposed.

Easy Soviet Campaign Hard Soviet Campaign Easy Allies Campaign Hard Allies Campaign Easy Empire Campaign Hard Empire Campaign Hard Soviet IL Times Hard Allies IL Times Hard Empire IL Times

Can anyone think of any that should be added or abolished?

Regardless, if we do want to give the community the shot in the arm that it needs, we'll need to start looking for new players somewhere, anywhere. Michael, you're more in with the community at large than any of us are, have you got any ideas?