I second Neko and BobbyKaze/Amoser being added as mod/verifiers respectively. I'm pretty new to speedrunning as a whole, but I've been grinding this game a lot and have a ton of free time at the present, so if you need help with anything I wouldn't mind lending a hand where y'all think it would be of use. Whether that's modding or anything else I can do, lmk.

I appreciate your input.

Your times doesn't seem to be bad at all, which is surprising since you're a brand new speedrunner. There seems to not be many easy standard mode full-game speedruns out there, however, so it's hard to judge at what time ranges one could be considered proficient at the game/category.

But most importantly, and this is what I was referring to when saying that it was probably a bit too early to conduct recruitment of brand new staff people : It is true that - at least to my eye - you have definitely been present since you've joined, some time after the game came out. But, when someone first begins a given speedgame, there's no tell as to how much time they will continue to run it. They may very well choose to move on to another game, for instance in the span of two months. And, this is particularly unpredictable in your case, understandably so as you've just joined this enormous and vast gaming culture. Where every single games are their own stories. While that is perfectly valid to change games, you'd agree with me that it doesn't make much sense to consider adding a person that possibly doesn't plan on staying. In general, I'd rather have people in charge that have shown to be around and alive for extended periods of time. And that, we can only get to know as time goes on. So, I think that for a while, it's probably for the better that you don't worry too much about this side of speedrunning, and reroute your time and effort on having fun running and interacting with other players. Slowly gaining speedrunning experience and maturity in the process. Sorry for the disappointment. But I'm still happy you replied.

In the end, I think that proposal was not very well thought out, since it doesn't concern a lot of people to begin with, especially this early on in this game's life, where we can't even really say that history has begun. I think it would have been better to wait at the very least a couple weeks past the opening day, that the run landscape and player activity evolves, that some runners rise out of this, as mid to long term game residents of sorts.

For all we know, the five of us may also be enough to handle the continuous pouring and stacking of submissions without much issue and stress. And that's with me considering that all of us would watch all of the runs fully, which is a very optimistic assumption that will most likely not happen in practice. Which is fine anyways, because it's by no means an obligation and it would be very strict otherwise (and hard to police). But if this still appears to not be enough, we may have to proceed differenly. Regardless, it will take time to get rid of the 75 or so now-pending submissions, but I'm sure unclogging it will get done in less time than it took to set up the leaderboard. Lol

Not that I wish to be a moderator/verifier (can't promise I can give the time up for it at the moment), would there be anything wrong in accepting someone in to mod/verifier on the proviso that if they stopped being active in the community they are removed? Could maybe be a decent way to help you get through the backlog of submitted runs.

Sure, whatever makes sense. Just wanted to offer that I have time & willingness, so if you could use a hand I'm more than happy to help :)

Well, removing a staff member would probably be considered if they were to not be much responsive and helpful anymore, despite new submissions pouring in, or when being prompted for help. So in that side, it would check itself off. Of course, people can also tell us that they want to stop.

If it gets hardly manageable, we may add more people in haste. It would take some additional time to instruct those people, but most likely not much. And I guess that in this case it would be alright if they are not really experienced with the games. Technically, I've watched and reviewed lots of Klonoa speedruns despite not having any expertise in them (Wii, L'sV, EoD, DCT, KBV...), so...

A significant portion of the runs are short ILs, so clearing the submissions may also not take as long as planned. But it still should be taken seriously

The game converter is simple, just a PS2 controller that can be used with the console. (I like those controllers.) As for the binding, I consider it important, but if you say there is no need to delay it in the debate at the moment, that may be true.

As for moderators, I agree with the players who think Balneor is the right person for the job.

@Harutomo This is another possible complication found by Tsu (つかさ) on the discord. It IS possible to get both buttons on one controller on PC using only official software, but it's still clearly unintended. https://discord.com/channels/162351381963866112/999994923367534603/1002782797901086780

Unfortunately I think this means an "external software" rule wouldn't really make sense, as it would only affect certain types of controller that can't do it this other way. This also doesn't seem to work on console.

The leaderboard is now open. Thank you very much for your patience.

Rules have been tweaked, board design altered, staff added, IGT stuff indefinitely removed.

Let's finally enjoy ourselves.

100% isn't a thing for full-game runs just yet, but if people are currently interested, they can start discussing it here. We would need to discuss and make clear exactly how we would envision that speedrun to be like, and how to go about timing it, even if some of this has been discussed already.

In the close future, we might consider new categories, particular changes and such, though it will depend on the player activity at that time.

Now, we will get to work with verifying the runs. Do not forget that PC players have to meet the 60 FPS + counter requirements. Unfortunately, it means that some of the pending runs will become unacceptable as a result. Though only leaderboard-wise. Not in our hearts. Make sure to ask for help with setting this up. Either in new threads or in the server.

Re-added Low IGT, it turns out that it had a bit more activity despite the apparently lacking submissions. Now these runs have a place - not a perfect one - and that they will easier to manage in the future.

It is more like a temporal category slot than something official, and it will mostly be updated once we get to discuss Low IGT and more in greater details.

Since some people seem interested on the matter, let's begin talk on adding the 100% category for full-game runs.

To begin with, what would be 100% ? Well, probably about beating the game while grabbing all dreamstones and collectibles (phantomilians, Mommet doll pieces), implying you need to unlock and beat the extras.

How would the run look like ?

Well, we could have the player begin on a new save-file, just like in any%, then beat the game while getting all dreamstones and phantomilians in the process. After getting past the credits (which doesn't take a lot of time thanks to competently designed cutscene skipping and fast-forwarding, and the timer being continuously paused), the player goes to the extra to 100% it and finish the run. ...Or, is that the only way to see it ?

Another approach would be to play on a beaten save-file with no phantomilians saved. That way, we can skip having to go through the ending cutscenes, by playing the extra(s) first and then the final boss.

While this would be a big deal if not a dealbreaker in the older games like DtP, here the gain is kinda negligible. It would also be annoying to setup, whereas with the first approach you just create a save-file and the run can begin. Another small negative side effect, would be that the timer cannot start at zero. Indeed, the timer is always active and running in the background, even if you never toggle it once in one specific save-file. So, toggling it again will have the timer start on some count, but not zero () It's not much, it might simply require doing an additional calculation to determine the IGT time, subtracting the final end time with the beginning time of the run. But the biggest annoyance is obviously having to actually set up the save-file.

So the first one really seems like the best. Or so I personally think.

Either way, what we can't avoid talking about next are the timed extra stages. Indeed, their timer work in milliseconds which is not directly compatible with IGT timing that are in seconds. Not only that, but the in-game timer simply doesn't display during them, only the special incorporated time-attack one. How may we proceed ?

I don't see many solutions, but it seems easiest to simply add the time of the extra in seconds, to the final IGT. In L'sV, there are two extra stages, so you would need to check if adding their two milliseconds counts would make a second. It is annoying because of the obvious lack of accuracy. But given the length of 100% runs, is a second truly relevant ?

Is there anything else I'm missing ?

[Edit : I effectively forgot to talk about the subject of the dreamstones count. Are we allowed to collect more than 150 ? Do we strictly need to get 150 ? Do we allow fairy exploits ?

Personally, as long as 150 dreamstones are reached, the amount that usually amounts to something special in both games, I don't see why someone couldn't get the amount they want. Fairy exploits are extremely complicated to route in the stage, and usually won't save much time, it's therefore limited to top play. Besides, it would make odd scores such as the Kingdom of Sorrow 153, and Empty Sea of Tears 154 extremely annoying to deal with. In these stages, you can get beyond the 150 ds amount with them extremely easily and unconsciously, even during casual play. Enforcing a 150 limit would be stupidly hindering the gameplay. So, I'd personally favor getting at least 150 per stages.]

The idea of starting from a file with no freed Phantomilians for hundo doesn't sound great to me either, as it didn't with DtP, so I would agree with Balneor. I don't think banning over 150 Dreamstones would add anything to the experience. From my perspective, getting one or two extra unintended Dreamstones is more of a happy accident that doesn't give any unfair advantage. I don't have a clear opinion about the inclusion of extra stages in 100% runs right now, but I guess following rules for DtP and PS2 LsV as close as possible is the best way to ensure consistency. The IGT timing would be a reasonably simple extra step for the runner at the time of submission, but isn't an extra stage beyond 100% completion, in a way? I guess it is open to interpretation and as usual, I'm the dude who barely has time to play the game and vaguely thinks to himself that one day he'll learn hundo as well.

Well, in L'sV you've still got to beat the second extra to have access to the music box (something something barbarian organ), and get all the gems to have access to the final artwork. In DtP, there's no such things, only a bonus sprite on the world map.

People often aren't sure if getting the gems is part of 100% or an optional challenge. But given the game is clearly programmed to recognise scores, that you get a different gem texture for 150, that it is abudantly clear there are 150 per stages, and that it may be argued that getting all of them show mastery of the game, I think they shouldn't be brushed off.

I should mention that there could completely be a speedrun where you get and beat all of the stages of a given game. One where you only get to focus on the permanent collectibles, and not the dreamstones. Obviously, the rules we decide for 100% would henceforth apply to it, since they're virtually the same.

But in other pressing news, in my previous post I had claimed that the ending cutscenes could be skipped. Well, how happy was I to learn the opposite ! It is apparently not possible on L'sV. This is not a big problem since you can still get to play all the stages before beating the King of Sorrow, and that from a new save-file. ...But what if you could not skip the DtP ones ? You cannot access Balue's Tower before beating the game. So if that were to be true, would we still require people to wait through the absurdly extremely long ending cutscene of that game ? Now, that still wouldn't be much of a problem if you could still fast forward through them. But is that possible ?

The answers to these questions are unknown, and we cannot really advance without them. Depending on the results, it might be necessary to have slightly different rules for each games. Which isn't a bad or problematic thing for say, but for sure regrettable.

Well, good news, you can skip the KPRS DtP ending cutscenes + credit in the blink of an eye :

So, DtP could have the player start on a new save-file, beat the game, skip the cutscenes, and finally beat the extra. L'sV, on the other hand, still on a new save-file, would get to play the extras before the final boss. As otherwise, skipping the final cutscenes isn't possible and people would have to wait minutes (why)

Both are different enough that we may still require adequate text for each of them, but at least, we can seem to be able to start on a new save-file for both. Hurray

Added 100% to full-game runs.

But writing it, I have come to notice two concerns.

• On DtP, as we start on a new save-file, you have no choice but to beat Nahatomb first. But on L'sV, you have full choice over what you want to beat next, between the two extras, and the King of Sorrow. You could do extra 2, then KoS, then extra 1 for instance. Furthermore, if you were to force people to beat the final boss first like in the first remaster, they would have to wait for the long credits cutscene, therefore making it annoying. So, may I suggest that we allow this slight wriggle room for L'sV ? It doesn't affect the times.

• In any%, when you accidentally enter a stage again, the IGT continues and you suffer a time-loss as a result of having to exit it. But, after the final boss is defeated, the timer does NOT continue in the normal stages. This affect both games.

What does this imply ? Well, first of all, that measurement becomes impossible after you defeat the final boss, outside of the extras. Meaning New game + based runs are basically impossible.

Second, it means that, if we define the final time of 100% as the addition of the full-game time (final time during the final boss) + the extra stage times, that people could intentionally beat the stages quicker than normal, almost as if they were on any%, then beat the final boss, then go back in each stages to 100% them without having their IGT time be raised by any digit whatsoever.

Obviously, that is extremely cheesy to do and wouldn't be greeted warmly. But even then, if say, some runner beat the final boss, then realize they actually missed some piece somewhere, and go back to the stage to complete it again (instead of resetting the run altogether), the time spent during that stage won't be counted even though it's part of the global 100% time.

So it's sad to say, but I think it is necessary that we enforce runners to 100% the main stages before beating the final boss, as otherwise the run cannot be timed and would thus be unacceptable. Extra stages are separate and unaffected.

Decided to go ahead and add a 4th variable based category distinction called Pause abuse.

" Pause abuse is a way to play the game that is defined as abusing the pause function of the game and using the pause warping technique. Not to be mistaken with death warping, which is always allowed.

For full-game runs, for now, only select it if your run use the pause warping technique. For ILs, select it if you pause and/or use the pause warping technique during the run. "

I was really annoyed to have to click on the unfolding button every time to have access to the difficulties, so I decided to finally move Low IGT out of the way and redefine it in a way that runs can still be submitted playing the "Low IGT" way, but that the leaderboard now is a bit clearer.

As such, the rules were also slightly tweaked, and I believe word count wise they are a bit shorter than they used to be.

Right now, these runs are fully operational, "Low IGT" runs can be clearly categorized depending on their difficulties. "Low IGT" like runs are even possible on ILs now ! The only thing runners currently can't perform at the moment are runs where you change difficulties during them. But we'd need to see if this type of run would amount to anything different first.

Obviously, all pending and verified runs have been updated with this.

[Tweaked the writing :

" Pause abuse is a way to play the game that is defined as abusing the pause function of the game and using the pause warping technique. It is much akin to Low IGT. Not to be mistaken with death warping, which is always allowed. Bear in mind this is not a fully established category, and that these rules may change.

• For full-game runs, for now, only select it if your run use the pause warping technique.
• For ILs, select it if you pause and/or use the pause warping technique during the run. " ]

In regards to difficulty switching, there is a possible use for it. Running the entire game on easy to take advantage of damage boosts/easier routing, etc and then switching to normal on 6-2 to take advantage of the large time saves from the puzzle completion death warps seems like a very viable pause abuse routing. I can't think of any other level RN where you'd want to play on normal over easy, but that alone makes cross-difficulty pause abuse runs more optimal, I believe.

Add an IL page for the Extra Vision. Also, I'm thinking that there should not be different categories for the difficulties. Ratchet and Clank PS4 uses difficulty switching to save time, and here seems to be no different. Of course running the game entirely on hard should be a minor category since it's an official way to play damageless

Only saw your comments now. Src notification feature is currently heavily desynchronised

I'm sorry for what's to come.

traccsuichi : yes, though they might be possible using pause warping as well.

I think there would also be two other uses :

• Mostly your idea but with tweaks : Play on normal to have an one second of invulnerability, use it to be faster by damage-bouncing on many enemies, and pause warp at the next checkpoint to refill your limited health.

• Much like it is used in og DtP extra ILs, if you throw an enemy at a clock, but die before it, the timer would stop earlier than anything having to do with pause warping. Possible uses would be insanely uncommon, and still small time-saves, but they're here.

NoobKillerRoof : I am not sure I get what you mean, there is an IL page for all the extras of the games, namely Balue's Tower, Chamber o'Fun, Chamber o'Horror.

It might prove to be a bit too late to reconsider a complete revamp of the difficulty category design. I assumed it was very obvious that playing the game on one specific difficulty would yield distinct speedruns, hence why I suggested it first. A ton of other games do this, and in fact, I might dare say this is the common approach. I'm not familiar with the game you cite as an example. I assume that there, being able to change the difficulty in the run yields big time-saves. But as far as KPRS goes, it doesn't seem to give much difference. You'd probably play the game on easy most of the time. Or, considering the difficulty irrelevant exclusive strats, you would need to both be extremely good at the game, and have very calculated routing to be able to save time more than you normally would by just playing the game better.

But I will say this. Given the way the board is currently set (which I did totally not change on a whim one time), it would seem like we can add a 4th difficulty option, which is the one where the difficulty setting wouldn't matter. Yes, I know, Low IGT was like this. Except that then you couldn't do a Low IGT run playing only one difficulty. Accessibility problem is the same. And yes, it will also restore the 4 difficulty tabs unfolding button issue... you know, the one I was obstinate on solving in the first place. But I guess it's not a fault of the design, solely src limitations. No point fighting through it. Not like it's a huge deal

Since changing difficulty would imply pause warping, we have no choice but to allow the broken move. (How else would you be supposed to change difficulty ? I guess between levels. If that's a thing, I'm not exactly sure ? If true, there would be another choice to make, whether or not we enforce players to change difficulty only at the map screen. Or, just add a 5th diffculty variable for that stuff).

Given the way the rules are currently set up, in the case of full-game runs, playing difficulty irrelevant runs it would seem to be the same as doing Pause abuse runs. But remember that this gameplay mode is not exclusively about pause warping. It's also about abusing the pause mechanic itself, like pausing the entire run, anticipating what's happening next, setting up tricks... It's just that this isn't regulated yet for full-game runs but it is planned to be in the future, and only for top runs (which is ulimately where those speedruns are truly gonna thrive). So, these variable would still indicate that something is slightly different about the run.

I know that adding this extra difficulty variable would raise eyebrows. With such a big variety of ways to play the game, there's bound to be some that will never ever get played. It's a waste of space, the board needs space optimisation, some could say. Yes. But it already was like so. There currently are categories that likely wouldn't ever get played regardless of this change. Really negligible stuff like using support mode with a boss that makes it not particularly useful to have (Pamela, Polonte). Or, impossible categories like 100% for bosses. In the end it's more about what people ultimately feel like running. And at least, if we do add this, no one will be able to complain that we can't do x or y like you seem to. Every way to play the game will be possible.

...Well, turns out that not at all actually. Cause what if you want to abuse the pause button, but not use any pause warping ? And what about the reverse ? Well first, because it was a convention. Both were considered to go by hand. More concerning yet, trying to make room for them would most likely put a lot of stress on the design of the leaderboard. And, listen. I think this is going too far. We can't allow every running possibilities, without making the board be very convoluted and the rules be super heavy and technical, puzzling people. I'll remind you that Low IGT stuff is still not exactly like speedrunning, since you can just pause the entire run, and plan your next course of actions in advance without any penalties. If we had felt like so from the beginning, we could have very well banned any form of Low IGT runs, and leave other people to keep track of such runs outside src. Haru didn't consider Low IGT as proper speedruns and I would tend to agree. In the end, I did suggest trying to implement them, as I thought it wasn't very complicated. But that seems to grow more and more untrue in retrospect. Unfortuntely, if it means we have to turn the leaderboard into a chimera of two opposed ways to speed through the game... we might have to go back to the fundamentals. Now, in order to keep this leaderboard in good shape, we should try to stick only with the most relevant bits of Low IGT. Which at the maximum limit, would be to add a 4th difficulty variable, called "irrelevant". The rules would be easy to update with.

That. Orrrrrr...... (and as another reminder) : we could allow exclusive pause warping uses to non-pause abuse categories, if we take the time to discuss them. I'm pretty sure everyone would be okay with them. I am confident as well it would put any other Low IGT based categories that do more than just sniping clocks and teleporting to them, out of business instantly. Despite the bunch of Low IGT oriented runs that there exist, I have yet to see any player do anything beyond just this one trick. These runs, Low IGT wise, cannot seem to be more bare-bones than this. Maybe that's just a tell this is only what most players are most comfortable with. If we do that, it will also massively simplify the leaderboard. Moreover, we may stop caring about anything pause related, as it's really insignificant, and is a way too specific of a playstyle, only catering to top players for any real results. And difficulty irrelevant stuff too, for these reasons, and also since it's already quite a sketchy way to play the game.

Final word. Maybe. We can't have anything. If we do anyways, the board will become an ugly and unreadable mess, with tons of rule text explaining every little things, quirks, and caveats so the player can technically make the good submission choice, but they will in reality most likely be totally overwhelmed (and honestly, mods themselves might as well). So we can't. We have to make choices to exclude certain ways to play the game. Even if some are technically possible, it always returns back to this question : do we need it ? Is it relevant to add ? Will people play it ?

Before we bring any changes to low IGT runs, I request that a choice needs to be made between :

• adding that 4th difficulty category (let's just call it "irrelevant") and stopping on expanding the leaderboard with too specific categories in the future (maybe excepted no skips/glitchless stuff, but then maybe not)

• completely disregarding pause abuse/pause warping/Low IGT runs, and focus on the proven to be more relevant categories and actual speedrun-like gameplay, only by allowing pause warping tricks to be used in a couple places that actually feel like they save time and are fast in the run (as opposed to spending 8 real-life seconds to save fractions of one, or change difficulty levels during the run, which saves really negligible time that again only truly matter at extreme top play).

I'm not sure a lot of people will understand the intricacies of this as I'm trying to illustrate them. This is all maddening hell. What is anyone expected to be able to do with such a game like that ? Even if I hadn't personally been adamant on regulating regular pausing abuse, pause warping would still have been found, and changed the game forever, forcing us to do something about it. That time is now, and I hate to say it.

As a newcomer to the scene, I would lean towards disregarding pause abuse/Low IGT runs for the sake of simplicity.

It would maintain a higher sense of competition between runners as it condenses people into the already existing categories, instead of people being spread out across countless categories, some of which may still remain empty. There's already three difficulties, with the option for support mode. Any additional factors will increase the categories exponentially.

Of course if there's enough demand for it in future, or if new uses for the pause abuse mechanic are found then it might be worth reconsidering down the line.

There's also the possibility of maintaining the pause abuse mechanic, but with limitations. You mentioned how Low IGT stuff isn't in the spirit of speedrunning as you can plan out your actions at leisure. Would it be worth considering allowing the mechanic with a limit on how long you can remain paused for at any one time?

Y'all are a lot more knowledgeable on this subject than I but I hope ye will consider my two cents on the matter.

Regarding Low IGT/Pause Abuse, I think the way it was before (or at least the way I believe it was before) made a lot of sense, and honestly nothing here is changing my mind at all about that. That is: keep the pause abuse (or whatever we call it) "category," and don't split it up by difficulty.

There's been enough interest (not to mention existing runs) in the category that just deleting both it and those runs doesn't seem justified at all. The only harm I can see in keeping it is that it adds one extra tab and that it potentially means that people might choose to run that category when they could be running the "more competitive" categories instead (which doesn't even really seem like a bad thing to me, but I can sort of understand why someone might prefer to have most people competing in a small number of more active categories). Either way, right now nothing about keeping it seems nearly detrimental enough to justify essentially erasing a way of playing the game that people are already doing and interested in exploring further.

Keeping it the way it was allows it to serve as one catch-all that allows "everything" (non-hardware dependent) the game makes available to minimize the in-game time, including swapping difficulty (BOTH for strategic reasons and potentially to warp to checkpoint). This also means that future exploits that are discovered which may need to be regulated in other categories will generally continue to have a home here.

Likewise, having this category split by difficulty doesn't really make much sense to me; in other categories playing on higher difficulties is interesting specifically because it makes things, well, difficult. But allowing things like checkpoint warps (and even support mode itself to be honest) really seems to undercut the reasons why someone would want to play on hard in the first place, and I haven't seen any real interest in having Low IGT runs divided up this way either. Besides, since swapping difficulty mid-run is already excluded from the other categories, having it permitted in the "anything goes" category seems quite reasonable. Note that I don't think making the Low IGT category difficulty-irrelevant needs to imply anything about how difficulty is handled in other categories.

Again, if I'm not mistaken, what I'm proposing is essentially how it was in the previous iteration, when Low IGT was listed as its own "difficulty." I don't think there was anything fundamentally broken about doing it that way, and so far I haven't heard any proposal that I think is clearly superior to doing it that way either.