Hello all! I’m the new moderator of this game since @TheRat is inactive. I wanted to start a discussion of the rules regarding level order in Any%. Here is the current wording of the rules: “Run starts when clicking into the first mission, and ends on closing the statistics graph for the last mission.” This wording leaves quite a bit of ambiguity, and I would like to clarify it. One interpretation would be that you must complete the levels in the order that they are available from a fresh save file. That is, starting with “Hope” and working clockwise until ending with “Loki”. Another interpretation is that you can complete the levels in any order, so long as you complete all 20 levels. For example, you could do Ursa and Draco, and then complete the rest of the levels in the standard sequential order. I'm not dead set on it, but I am leaning toward allowing any level order. The biggest advantages of the sequential ordering I can think of are: This is what is available from a fresh save file It makes the most intuitive “sense” for what a full run should look like. It makes run verification easier (no need to have a tally of which levels are completed). Gives all runs a more uniform flow. On the other hand, in favor of any ordering: I don’t see any functional gameplay difference in allowing for runs in any order. We are already allowing runs from completed save files, so it seems like a bit of an artificial requirement that you have to go in order. It would probably allow for faster overall times since you could execute the more difficult strategies immediately and quickly reset if you don’t hit them. It allows for more creativity in runs, giving people the option to play more how they would like. No runs would be obsoleted with this definition, since you can always choose to run sequentially even with this definition. Personally, I think runs are more fun if you are not required to slog through the boring tutorial level immediately.
I could also add a separate category to cover both cases, but it seems a bit excessive when there are only 4 total runs. Let me know what thoughts you have! Not sure how many will see this since there are only a few runners lol.
I mean, by definition, any order is allowed. I don't think it's necessary to do any order. I'd prefer sequential order. I think sequential is nice because it allows for easy benchmarking against other runs with consistent splits. I did sequential and probably always will. It's been a few years since I did a heavy speed run, but I personally don't think any level is really hard enough to be a "run killer" which would be an argument for any order.
We should not have two categories. The only other categories should be for the other level sets. [which I proposed a while ago lol.
"I mean, by definition, any order is allowed. I don't think it's necessary to do any order. I'd prefer sequential order. " It might be allowed by definition now, but it doesn't have to be. That's the whole point of this thread, to figure out if it should be allowed or not.
"but I personally don't think any level is really hard enough to be a "run killer" which would be an argument for any order."
Wait until you see my crazy new Tucana strat :).
"We should not have two categories. The only other categories should be for the other level sets. [which I proposed a while ago lol."
I agree, I'll probably make a "Conquest" category soon.
Special Ops could be another if people run it. It's also be a nice shorter run as it only has 10 levels.
We can just leave it in order. Everyone has done it that way anyway.
