This thread is for whether we should split the LB into manip/no manip. If you actually have any suggestions on rules to have if we do this, please post them at https://www.speedrun.com/yugiohfm/thread/qjef7/.

I appreciate reading can be hard but please at least try.

Seems cumbersome to prove that a run was not RNG manipulated.

Seperate them.

The games that I moderate have a large tendency to separate categories based on ingame content, thus I prefer to separate categories based on game content rather than techniques. If a separate category is made based on banning a technique and the any% route later changes to the point where that technique is no longer optimal, then do the later runs qualify for both categories? Do the earlier ones become completely obsolete? I don't think categories should be that subject to change so I try to avoid that as a principle.

I consider manipulation to be a technique, therefore my evaluation of whether the technique merits a separate category turns to the difference seen in the gaming content when the technique is or is not used.

I was also heavily influenced years ago by a chart that Omnigamer made as a guide for deciding when a new category should be made (). Based on this chart, new categories should be made when there is a >0 sum trade off between the time and the amount of challenge in the run, which includes execution, planning, and discovery (feeling rewarded from finding something new).

Having tried to play the game both with and without manipulation, for starters, I fail to see the difference in content between the two methods. You fight the same opponents in both instances, but one case has you fighting the same opponents multiple times. This is not a difference in content that I value. That same case also has you attain more cards to change your approach to each opponent, but this is not a difference in content that I value, either, because you don't get any significant reward in game for winning in different ways, just star chips and different cards. I see no difference in valuable content between both methods.

In addition, the challenge, as defined previously, doesn't feel different enough to me from both methods. Without manipulation, you certainly have to plan card acquisition differently, but the raw execution of it is all the same, except it's more of the same type of execution. It's all menuing as far as I'm concerned. If anything, RNG manipulation adds more unique execution to the run because you have to time things, as well. I'm also not aware of any differences in the discovery between both techniques. All in all, the trade off between challenge and time does not feel significant enough to me.

The other problem I can't overcome is that as much as my run deserves to be on the bottom of a leaderboard for it being my very first completion of the game ever, I can't define the two types of runs in ways that can be visible in gameplay, save from arbitrary restrictions like "no Free Dueling X or Y opponents." Most of the reason for the separate rule proposal thread, from my understanding, is to organize the discussion in order to ultimately come up with that definition. I am definitely interested in seeing where that discussion leads and am open to changing my mind if a proposal is made that sufficiently designates certain content between the two runs. However, I have yet to see such a proposal.

TL;DR I see no basis for any category separation based on RNG manipulation.

I think there should be sub-categories for RNG or no RNG manipulation.

The main issue here is the fact that there is no way to tell if someone is using RNG manipulation (assuming they attempt to hide it, which is entirely doable), and even if you CAN tell, it cannot be 100% proven.

While this sucks, I still think the benefits vastly outweigh that one negative so far as making sub-categories goes.

Here's the thing. The way the leaderboards are NOW have the EXACT SAME ISSUE as they would with sub-categories.

The issue is that we cannot prove if someone used RNG manipulation or not. That issue exists right now, and has existed since RNG manipulation was discovered. So, we have lived for 3 years with this issue existing already on the leaderboards.

Therefore, since this issue exists with the current leaderboards, and HAS existed for 3 years now, either sub-categories should be made (which would be the same as keeping the leaderboards as they are now, but would look better and be easier to understand, but there are NO technical changes as far as rules are concerned), or RNG manipulation should not be mentioned at all on the leaderboards and all runs should be together (the RNG manip Yes/No flag would be removed in this case, no other change).

If we remove the RNG manipulation Yes/No flag from the leaderboards, this will obsolete all runs that do not use RNG manipulation (aka MOST of Forbidden Memories speedrunning, not just in the past but in the present and I'm sure future as not many people run RNG manip). People will still run without RNG manipulation, but now their times will be directly compared to runs with RNG manipulation with absolutely no indicator on the leaderboards which is which. Like I said, most people will still run it, but as far as having fair representation on the leaderboard for competitive purposes? Nope, not anymore. What most people will end up doing is (likely) just commenting whether or not they used RNG manipulation, forcing anyone who looks at the leaderboards to sift through runs until they find the non-RNG manipulation run they're looking for. Either that, or they would simply have to look through all of the videos themselves to find one that did not use RNG manipulation. And this WILL happen, because I promise you someone who has grinded no RNG manip for YEARS to get a sub 3 is not going to announce to everyone that they are in 10th place or whatever. Of course not. They, like 99% of everyone else who runs this game actively, are going to say "Well, I have the record in No RNG manip, but the leaderboards are weird and combine all runs, it says I'm in 10th place, but without rng manip it's 1st." By the way, this has basically been how things are for the past 3 years, except we can at least tell people they can filter runs based off of RNG manipulation or not (aka sub-categories with extra clicks).

Keeping things as they are now, again, in my opinion should not be an option, because the only issue with sub-categories exists (and has existed for 3 years) in the current leaderboards.

Therefore, the two options are to either implement sub-categories (which most runners have been doing verbally as it is, as most people say/think of them as two different runs, two different world records, etc), or don't mention RNG manip anywhere (remove the flags that exist now).

My vote is for sub-categories (aka technically what we have now but with less clicks).

By the way, sub-categories are not the same as two separate categories. I am sure most people know this but I wanted to mention it explicitly. I do not want 2 separate categories. I want sub categories (so there will be 2 tabs underneath Any%, one for RNG manip, one for no rng manip). Sub-categories were created exactly for purposes like this, where two different categories aren't necessarily warranted, but there is still a vast difference in the runs that needs to be separated.

My opinion has not changed in the years since RNG manipulation was discovered.

The run is the same with more advanced strategies used to go faster.

If the mass are unhappy with the middle ground we agreed on 3 years ago, then I vote to get rid of the flag all together and just have every run together, like I've always believed they should be.

Nobody needs me to go into this, as I've done that enough in the past when we sought a resolution to this.

As long as the division exists, Subcategories, definitely.

It's not interesting at all to see a unified "any%" ranking that puts all of them together. Looking at the manip times (as the fastest possible of the game) and seeing no-manip runs crumpled together doesn't make sense, and it's not what is looked for. Same when looking for no manip runs and having to toggle off the manip ones or look for "No".

Regarding the philosophical definition of "no manip" and how much it relies on good faith, that's a very, very long and separate discussion.

An edit just to note >all< the possibilities: Suppose that no manip becomes a bust and there's no trust anymore. The worst case scenario would be a misc or extension category, because it's still the most significant way people have ever speedran the game, and may do so and care about their times in the future. Therefore the division would still exist.

Split the leaderboards into subcategories. It makes things more clear in terms of world record, 2nd place, etc. etc. for the categories that are by all rights different from each other as the nature of each speedrun is vastly different between manipped runs and non manipped runs, yes one is faster that we can agree on, however, one is the run of frame perfect inputs and the other is the run of dueling as much as you can as quickly as possible to earn a critical mass of drops that enable you to beat the final 6 more consistently. Only reason I'd be against a split in the leaderboards at this point is if the WR times for both categories were at least close time wise but an hour and a half is a significant difference.

Defaulting to the position I always use when this topic comes up in various games: Split the categories, but do not define them as "RNG Manipulation" and "No RNG Manipulation"

Just call them Single Segment and Non-Single Segment, or some variant thereof. The point of RNG manipulation as it's used in the run is that you need to reset the console to gain a significant advantage, otherwise the most you're likely to get out of it is a good starting deck, and maybe a single MBD drop off Campaign Heishin if you're some sort of framecounting robot.

If you can't reset, you can't manip for drops. Simple as that.

Further info on why I think a category split is necessary to begin with: I am of the opinion that the usage of RNG manipulation as it's currently used in the run changes the character of the run significantly enough for it to be considered a different category. There are many other games that use RNG manip and have those runs counted on the same board as the non-manipped runs, but the application is entirely different. It's more about getting favourable outcomes that you could otherwise get through regular play without manip if you were lucky enough and just increasing consistency, more or less. Grinding for MBD on Heishin 1 is something that nobody would ever, ever do in a non-manipped run, and pretty much every duel thereafter is almost entirely based around throwing your hands to reach MBD as soon as possible. It's just not the same speedrun, IMO.

^ Pray no one gets a disc read error in the middle of a race, has to reset their PS2, and still gets a time that would be PB for Single Segment, but can't actually qualify for Single Segment.

I understand the point you're making but I can probably count on my hands the number of times I've seen such a thing happen to anyone, in any game that would cause disqualification. And I think it would still be easier to exercise moderator discretion to judge what constitutes an 'unintentional reset' as opposed to what is 'unintentional RNG manip'.

@Drakodan Just to clarify your idea about the run relying on single segment, GMS was able to collect a Beast Fangs from Seto 1 without a reset. And I posted a video when RNG manipulation came out of me winning three Beast Fangs in a row from Shadi from Free Duel.

The reason the current route uses resets is 99% due to the difficulty in beating Heishin with a starter deck, the rank required (S/A) and the low drop rate of MBD. Weaker enemies allow you to easily beat them to the rank you want, while providing more flexibility on what you can do due to the higher drop rates. You won't have to be anywhere near frame-perfect to do it.

You also don't need to be a frame-counting robot because you can just hit big ranges of frames (of a second or more) and play the starting hand you get. I use audio cues to hit my manipulations, while it wouldn't be too much hassle to look at your run timer when exiting a duel. I reckon I could hit manip to campaign Rex, if I wanted. From there, I could win 3 Crawling Dragons in a row. Or I could be more subtle and win 2 Crawling Dragon and a Beast Fangs in 7 duels by controlling some middle duels.

I'm aware that the point of the resets as they're used is a specific application on Heishin 1 to farm MBD. If there are other, RTA-viable methods to aim for specific drops in Free Duel without the need for a console reset, at that point I would argue that it's just new tech, and that opting not to learn/use it is entirely on the runner.

Separate the categories, it's obvious that the gameplay styles are entirely different, if someone resets the console or game, have them note that and the moderators can judge whether or not things are fishy.

I agree with Cfg about separating the Any% into SubCategories Since the main strats in each of the types is quite different I guess that they could be called: Any% 3xMBD RNG manip Any% No manip

I still think Drakodan has the correct idea. If someone is skilled enough to reset-less manip a dope run without resetting... well than they deserve it (a) and (b) as GFC said it is effectively unenforceable. Single-Segment solves all the problems, GCAH is happy bc he can manip a WR in SS, GFC is happy because they are separated, and the universe rolls on.

Personally, I am too lazy with other speedgames to learn rng manip, but like, a no-manip'r knows what a good time for no maniping is.

When is a decision going to be made in regards to this, it has been over a month and while yeah you can manip beast fangs off seto 1, shadi, etc. etc. there is NOTHING preventing that in the rules right now so if GCAH or someone wants to go and win triple beast fangs manipped but not obvious off shadi and get a sub 2 time with 'no manip' be my guest, as it is currently allowed in this ruleset that we currently have and if we split the categories you can do it there as well since, again, we can't invalidate a run based on obscene 'luck'. Or we can just remove the RNG manip flag entirely and lump all runs together and go with that.

Is there a way to run a poll on these forums or would we simply tally votes by hand. If so I vote to split the categories.

As I see it, the conversation came up because GFC brought it up, then it died quickly. Most of the latest discussion on this has been by people who just come along to chime in when this matter comes up. Based on that, I don't see a strong enough reason for change (and by this I am purely going off of the response, not the arguments for and against).

I believe subcategories are the way to go. Any% no RNG manip is still fun to run but not having a leaderboard for itself kind of kills the point of running it, and 3xMBD manip is a totally different game.

RNG manip also removes knowing how to face final 6, which is a huge factor on this game.