This forum post will be used to discuss what is a skip and what courses as of right now have skips.

What we have now: Since the last time I made a forum post here (back in 2020), runners have found a way to exploit the checkpoint system and out of bounds reset system to get faster times. Since the exploit was found (Originally mentioned by Discord user Insomniac_rap) multiple tracks have been found to have ways to get a faster time. When it became apparent that a lot of tracks had these exploits, we decided to put a new category to acknowledge the faster times.

What is the debate about: The debate is around how do we define when a runner does a skip. At the moment we have a skip defined as "A "skip" is when the player abuses out of bounds to cause them to go further up the course, potentially getting a lap skip." Now this definition can easily be changed, but this definition has caused a problem with two tracks, Houston and Detroit.

Houston's "Skip": For Houston it was found that at the end of the track you can jump over to the finish line, then turn around after the finish line to finish a lap (video for example, right now in Non Skip ). It was then found you could jump all the way into out of bounds then get reset behind the finish to finish a lap (video in Skips ). This is where the debate lies, would either route be considered a skip or if we changed the definition, would that cause both of these to be changed.

Detroit "Skip": This one was found by very recently, it was found to be viable to hit the last jump and go straight towards the finish line, either hitting the side and bouncing up, or getting reset by hitting out of bounds (Video in skips ). The debate again lies in that is this considered a skip.

Feel free to put in your opinion at the bottom, once it feels like we have come to a consensus, I will like the post and make the changes as needed.

My stance: First thing we need to do is redefine the skip definition on the site, as I made it in a rush and left it very vague. We could define it as "A skip is performed when the runner skips large portions of the track by using out of bounds to spawn somewhere else, jumping across portions of the track that was not intended, or to get the game to count a lap that was not intended." The quote can be changed if something isn't clear, but I feel this gives a good definition on what to look for. With this definition, it would make all the routes shown in this post to be consider skips. The other way we could define it would be "When the runner has the lap counted by landing out of bounds and getting reset behind the finish line to get another lap counted." This would go with most of the tracks but would make the three runs up top not skips. Personally I would lean towards the second definition, but both can easily be changed, and I'm open to seeing other angles.

Personally, I think the game has made this rather easy for us (so far - there's always the possibility of finding more stuff in a speedrun, and things can change in the future), on the condition that we are able to accept the implications of what the game allows.

Quoting GhillieGuide from a conversation we had recently: ''all the true "Skips" from my definition utilize the out of bounds warp to advance track segment out of order''

This definition is consistent and easily applied across the game. The Kyoto skip veers off a jump over toward the finish line, lands and immediately does a wheelie to prevent the in-game OOB prevention system from resetting the player back onto the in-bounds track, and then continues with the wheelie toward the finish line. GhillieGuide can explain the mechanics of what happens better, but the result is that nearly an entire lap is skipped by the player, but counted by the game. This is a clear "Skip" case.

Meanwhile, the Detroit and Houston shortcuts (note I am referring specifically to MOMP's Houston run) highlighted above are in a different category. They don't involve loading track segments out of order, and they don't involve using resets or wheelies to trick the game in any way. They are just taking advantage of the things the games allows short of actively tricking it into counting a lap you did not complete.

As such, I believe the Detroit and Houston shortcuts highlighted above should be allowed in normal runs, and should not be relegated to Skips. Skips should be preserved for runs which skip entire segments of tracks (not individual turns/corners) by abusing checkpoint mechanics/OOB/wheelie trick/resets. Any trick which does not use these mechanics should be legal for regular ILs. I don't believe there should be much, if any, gray area with this definition, as this is a pretty clear demarcation.

Actually, this does raise a good question. Assuming the tricks mentioned above are allowed, are things like Ghillie's Houston run (or one of the laps in their Detroit run) where they use an OOB reset warp but don't load any segments out of order to be allowed in No-Skips, or relegated to Skips? Seems like as long as you don't get the game to give you credit for a lap you didn't complete a la Kyoto that it may make more sense to permit it, and be explicit that a skip loads a track segment out of order - just using a reset warp is not enough to count as a Skip.

I'm not 100% sure where I fall on this one, yet, but this makes the most sense to me at the moment.

I'm of the opinion that action should be taken to ensure the fair comparison to historical runs for new runs as a general motivation; I arguably have the most to gain from keeping Houston and Detroit skips in normal but I value using objective standards most. To be clear, the first time I talked on this issue I stated the first clause below and I don't believe it's adequate to address the current skip methods and applications. I am already theorizing new techniques and skips that will change this discussion significantly I suspect.

I am of the opinion 2 clauses can adequately address this:

1. Any technique that allows players to load track segments out of order is a skip

2. Any technique that allows the player to cancel the Reset mechanic or advance to another track segment utilizing it is a skip

If you are confused about what I mean by a track segment go into the track editor feature in-game and look at the options/compare to the courses in discussion here.

The Houston skip I found is way easier than taking the corner properly with the ramp to go faster; it's not like taking a better line/pattern of jumps it's very specifically a exploitation of the Reset mechanic and it's easier to go really fast using it. The skip as it exists isn't fully optimized as to how much time it saves because my lines are legitimately worse than pancakes' lines. On lap 1 and 2 a properly executed ramp turn is faster than the skip I suspect but actual time save is not accurately represented in my run(same thing applies to Detroit).

I am currently running Detroit without the skip and it's far more difficult to just drive the course normally. I am peaking at/near my old PB(1:12) and it's much harder even though I just got a 1:08 in a couple days after finding the skip. I don't think they are comparable fairly I should have to grind out the same levels andou etc. did. From my perspective, the clauses stated above are an objective place to start on rules on what I perceive to be a changing game with relatively rapidly advancing techniques. Advancement of understanding how to exploit the Reset mechanics IMO will continue to transform the way this game is run.

Thanks for reading my essay and I would appreciate if people here didn't use masculine terms to address me(man, dude, bro etc.) going forwards.

Cheers, Ghillie

I think the debate here fundamentally should be about how to ensure a fair and honest competition first and foremost not about what defines a skip

My personal take on this is that anything that lets you skip a part of the track by not following the route should be considered a skip. For example, had the Detroit trick been that you landed on the track, even if it was after the corner, I would not consider it a skip. But as you land outside of the track, and jump back in, I think it's a skip. Same goes for Houston as you actually have to drive backwards on the straightaway to make it work. Thereby you are not following the course.

I think a definition should be something along these lines: "A skip is when you use out of bounds, trick the checkpoint mechanism or use ground outside of the forwardmoving trackborders to skip portions of the track." This definition would make all of the examples above be considered skips.

There are "bounds" or boundaries on levels separate from the guide rails that surround the track; the off-track area is technically in-bounds as none of these "skips" involve bypassing a boundary the game puts in place. The only mechanism that stops you from going outside of the track is the Reset mechanic movement is not restricted. I fear any definition that uses out of bounds as a term will be subjective in nature.

Look at the Goldmine rush run at the start with the ramp; it involves going out of the guiderails on the track and either landing on the building or on the other side. Out of Bounds is a standard naming convention but it doesn't actually make sense in this game as there are no out of bounds areas accessible. Banning anything in the off the track area is a little gray as I believe the above example shows.

A definition that limits and addresses the Reset mechanic without making accidentally going off the track invalidate a run would be ideal and the reason for me avoiding out of bounds or off track in my proposition.

If anyone is confused about Detroit I consider it to be a Reset Cancel where you cancel the Reset by advancing to the next lap; it's an exploitation of the Reset mechanic like the other skips exactly similar in function to the skip Pancakes found on Houston.

The existing "Skips" runs on the leaderboards are of two kinds, currently:

1. There are five currently known shortcuts which I consider "Major Skips" - Kyoto, Phoenix, Long Island, Madrid, and Seattle. They are all fundamentally similar and easily grouped together. They all contain single-digit lap completions, and, crucially, being credited for a lap that the player did not complete. Under no circumstances should these shortcuts be allowed in regular No-Skip play. This is already the case.

2. There are several runs marked under "Skips" which do not have the player being credited for a lap they did not complete. I do not consider these to be skips. Maybe semantically "minor skips" or just regular old shortcuts - but I very strongly feel these techniques should be 100% legal in No-Skips runs. Examples are Houston & Detroit. The player passes through all checkpoints and any shortcuts may only take place within a track segment - no track segments or laps are ever fully skipped.

I cannot consider any solution which places shortcuts of type 1 and 2 into the same bucket to be a practical category grouping.

I don't think "reset cancelling" as Ghillie referred to it, if not used to gain credit for a lap not completed by the player, should ever count as a "Major Skip", as of my current understanding of the game. Under this analysis, the techniques used in Houston and Detroit should be allowed under No-Skips.

I believe this is the most fair, future-proofed, and objective way of handling Skips in Excitebike 64.

I really think it is unwise to group shortcuts which do not require any glitches or anything other than passing through the checkpoints, alongside runs which, by use of a specific glitch, trick the game into thinking an extra lap or laps were completed.

This game is exploding with potential for strategy and innovation, and I see a chilling effect occurring where viable strategies that the game allows are being shunted to the "Skips" category despite there being a clear and universally applicable definition that stands out starkly when analyzing what is happening in each run.

The problematic mechanic here is the "getting credit for laps not completed" - this is what needs to be separated out to protect leaderboard integrity. Separating other things out actually harms leaderboard integrity and has a chilling effect on strategy development, in my opinion.

I think ultimately the biggest threat that applies here is that of conflict and alienation resulting from ruleset; if runners feel as though learning these small skips is a departure from what they enjoy/see as a legitimate improvement on strategy I can see their point even on the topic of Gravel Pit first lap shortcut

I don't particularly feel strongly that the smaller "skips" should or should not be included; As someone involved in strategy development outside of skips to some extent I feel like there's been really great improvements and competition happening and it's still at too small a scale to where the ruleset really doesn't matter. Worth thinking this over we have lots of time no rush. If you force me to choose I'm biased on the side of protecting the historical runs; all of them except Tokyo have significant improvements possible without the use of any of these skips.

Probably just gonna bow out of this discussion mostly other than to answer questions or clarify about mechanics; I would be most pleased with a result that leads to the most runs being created so just gonna keep enjoying the game and improving. I have the most conflicts of interest speaking on this issue so worth being skeptical of my perceptions.

For a short subjective statement from me to finish

These feel like skips, cheating and that's why I call them skips with little uncertainty

Quoting Ghillie above: "If you force me to choose I'm biased on the side of protecting the historical runs; all of them except Tokyo have significant improvements possible without the use of any of these skips."

This is pretty much what I mean by the chilling effect on strategy development. The only way to "protect" historical runs is to preserve their evidence and surrounding context - the video and any associated information, strategies used, etc. You cannot do that by defensively splitting off new strategies - importantly, this is contingent on whether these new strategies still fundamentally seek to get from A to B as quickly as possible. Strategies which undermine fundamental aspects of the game in ways which ask us to intervene to override the in-game rules - clearly exemplified by the game allowing us to skip entire laps in e.g. Kyoto - are of another nature and can be cleanly separated.

This is the difference between what I deem "Major Skips" and the other things referenced here. What is at stake here are creative, but normal shortcuts (how is cutting across a single corner truly a "skip?" - this is a standard shortcut avenue for racing games), solutions to racing problems that the game explicitly allows - why are we micromanaging the ruleset of the game in such a way that would now make this unclear? This opens the door to questioning more routes and techniques. The only reason the "Skips" category needs to exist is to cordon off truly game-breaking, lap-skipping exploits. Why dilute that with these unrelated shortcuts?

Even just glancing at the leaderboard speaks volumes. The existence of a "Skips" category seems to be tempting the community into recategorizing routes and strategies which simply find new and creative ways to go fast.

This creates more complication if these things overlap. Consider what happens when a full lap skip is found on a track that has one of these glitchless shortcuts...

Love the discussion so far. As I now consider myself a casual more than a speedrunner so I'll try to be brief. After reading your posts i'd prefer to see the community allow "minor skips" that involve jumping over a corner, first lap gravel pit etc. in the main categories and only limit the use of glitches that allow incomplete laps to count, skip sections of the track, etc. to be forced into the skips categories. Also, as Meauxdal brought up, please don't feel inclined to make a decision/rule based upon protecting historical runs at the expense of new strategies. I understand mine were set years ago with the available strategies at the time.

@andou What is your take on the Detroit example? That is jumping over a corner, but it also uses ground outside of the track to be able to do it. Cause I think that had you landed right back onto the track it should be allowed, but as you don't I want it to be considered a skip.

Hey Erru did you take a look at the start of goldrush mine with the ramp that takes you off course momentarily?

If I were to advance the course by accidentally landing off the track to the left after that ramp and skipping forward slightly would you consider it a skip? Just by accident holding too far left(I've done this before)

You can land on the course next to it and advance the course and it's pretty obviously part of the designed course but if you land out of bounds it technically meets the criteria you state above for a skip

I understand the desire to count the Detroit example as a skip as that was my initial reaction too, but I fear how restrictive the rules would end up being written. The only way to write a rule that separates this trick, that I can think of, would be to count any use of the ground out of bounds to advance to a further track segment or count a lap is a skip. If we decide to include the Detroit skip I am curious what exploits of this trick could be found in the future the allow the user to skip larger segments of the track. As of today I'd say we include it, but would hate to see the community have to come together again when a larger skip with this method is discovered.

I don't think you'll see much more than the Detroit shortcut in terms of larger shortcuts which do not use glitches. The game has a checkpoint system that forces you to pass through each major track element - the Detroit and Houston shortcuts only work because they take place between two consecutive segments. If you were to find a (glitchless) way to skip an entire track segment, the game would not allow you to get credit for the lap.

Of course, more things can always be found, but I don't think there's really much "slippery slope" risk in terms of what other shortcuts will be able to do - the checkpoint system is always going to be in place, and any run that actually bypasses this should be a prime candidate for Skips - this is still perfectly consistent and leaves very little room for gray area.

cool, if the game has a a checkpoint system as you described I'd say we include both Houston and Detroit in the main categories and leave the skips categories for the major glitches that we have discovered.

I am currently exploring several skips/shortcuts which shave off part of a lap

It is possible to land next to an area of track and advance to that area from previously in the track; These wouldn't be "major skips" in any sense but I have had it work at several places; will experiment more

Most of the time it's faster to just stay on the course and connect your lines with momentum

A run where I try and exploit this as much as possible might look cool but when I calculate it out it's usually a little slower so I haven't been that keen on it

There is a checkpoint system that's pretty easy to show; just go to the left on the first big jump of nashville and you will see you haven't loaded the checkpoint or flag needed to advance the course; still working out how this actually functions/how much can be skipped. The lap skips are legitimately glitches that bypass these flags.

There is a legitimate possibility that in the course of a Rounds speedrun that players accidentally get flung offcourse and from instinct aim toward further in the track to then be reset farther along it. I don't think it's a legitimate skip; wouldn't be surprised if some of the current runs accidentally utilize this just trying to save a run that was otherwise dead