SPF Hall of Records

Assuming it's FAM, I don't see an issue with keeping a single list, especially when existing entries come with a vid such as yours. If need be one could always check the vid and use either method or both. So I think there's no need to worry from your perspective. :D In recent years most players including myself also recorded/uploaded the sets and will always be able to apply both methods to their existing scores if necessary. In any case the difference in the methods should be so small that they should very rarely be decisive about a score/rank in.

Maybe we can just add new columns and use both methods for unclear cases. The suggestion being to sort new entries should be accompanied by a recording, and generally use the precise method to evaluate the score. When close to an existing score, a new entry should also state the score as determined under the traditional method. If that leads to a different rank, then I'd say we should have the "precise" method prevail, because that really is the accurate measurement. If there is no "precise" score/video of the existing score, then we could have the scores traditional method prevail if people feel strongly about it. However, those old scores are likely to be drastically improved nowadays anyway, so personally I'd say even here we can just apply the new method and go from there.

The beauty of the new run counter and its precise method is that it is tracked automatically while running. You do your runs and then immediatlely have all relevant data to make an entry, no need to review video or to rely on counting while running. It makes it a lot less time consuming to post entries, which will result in more activity for sure.
 
I think it would have been less favorable to make a legacy score separation a few months ago but now that Fabian’s throne has been overtaken (by two separate users!) and all of the records are more or less approachable that seems like the best way to go. No reason to miss out on a more accurate automated counting system. Looking forward to @ffs new attempts and hopefully many others!
 
I agree with jpy that corrupted/fabian being out of top spot makes mixing the tables more palatable. I strongly think that we should NOT try and mix the scoring systems via conversions and such. Had some conversations with @ResTTe and @Albatross about that which convinced me. But that's not quite the same thing as having either/both on the table. That might work ok, but the new system will no doubt give better scores than the old system. So when I get a video-less blizz sorc score of 1.80 using the new system here in about a week (this is a joke :p, that aint happenin too soon), then will mine go above or below corrupted's score? Just illustrating some potential headaches.

Something I think MIGHT be fun is to keep this here, and ofc continue to allow entries via the traditional counting method, and just do a side "reboot" of the HoR, maybe HoMF? I personally don't think of this as abandoning HoR, but think of it more like how the ut99er thread rejuvenated 99ing without us totally abandoning the old 99er thread. I realize people with good scores on here already may dislike this idea, very reasonably. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

A new thread would also give us room to change some other things if we desired. We could decide if we want to count s/e time in the runs or not, and maybe gripphon would get motivated since if he can ignore his "too fast" pitrun issues ;). I would also propose something like 1 hour entries, independent of run number. Well maybe more like 40 minutes so guys like you and ResTTe could count your old entries. Kind of dumb imo how right now pit sorc is so much less time to get an entry with as compared to a pitbarb. Just spitballing some examples of stuff we could do.

I also think it could be improved how HoR is kind of a mix of runs with various focuses. I hope he doesn't mind me saying this, but @art_vandelay and I had started drafting up a "Hall of XP" thread, specifically for exp efficiency entries, but decided to wait to post it till we were both feeling a little more motivated. I think in an ideal world, we would have a thread each for xp, mf, and rf. Xp tracked by xp/hr, mf by adjeff, and rf by runes per hour, or something that is similarly clear for comparing different areas.

I also don't definitely don't mind just sitting on the new runcounter a while and waiting till things stabilize and we all mull it over. But on the flipside it could be fun getting some focused running in while the counter is shiny and new and exciting :D. Interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

EDT: another completely valid option is just to not use the new scoring system and keep the methods as-is. Just mention the new scores as nice side-data. I will still love using the new counter for rolling and evaluating maps. That is an absolute gamechanger for me personally. But I also agree with ffs in that it just seems slightly better overall to use the more accurate method. Also if we get minion kill counts (which albatross mentioned to the guy who made the run counter, and he seems to be getting it implemented), then we'll even be able to see the impact of blizz sorc killing more minions in a better way than just guessing at it.
 
Last edited:
Idk, personally I feel like, as long as there’s not something fucked about it that comes up.. using an automated counter that’s available to everyone is much better and the whole bang should transition to that. Accuracy is paramount for min maxing to this extent and sharing your effort while comparing it to others’. That’s no knock on previous runs that didn’t have this available it just is what it is. If someone was salty from a new run passing their long standing record using a better system of tracking then they could always do some more runs and beat it, that’s kind of the point of this. FAM confirmation is key, though.

E: I say this as someone who can’t currently run and it’s looking more and more likely that I may not play again at all, but I still want to see what people can do!
 
We could decide if we want to count s/e time in the runs or not
This is actually a pretty big deal considering how unpredictable s/e is and to some extent hardware related. You'd no longer need an SSD to compete for top scores. However, it's practically impossible to convert old scores to the new system. We can do it for runs with videos, it's going to suck, but at least it can be done.

@ResTTe, if it comes to it I can help with converting your score to any kind of new system. You have the video so the record is safe.

@Jpy you can always come back later. Someone will probably still be around :)
 
Idk, personally I feel like, as long as there’s not something fucked about it that comes up.. using an automated counter that’s available to everyone is much better and the whole bang should transition to that. Accuracy is paramount for min maxing to this extent and sharing your effort while comparing it to others’. That’s no knock on previous runs that didn’t have this available it just is what it is. If someone was salty from a new run passing their long standing record using a better system of tracking then they could always do some more runs and beat it, that’s kind of the point of this. FAM confirmation is key, though.
That pretty much nails it IMO.

To be clear, all I think we should do is change the boss count system to the method used by the run counter because it would be stupid not to make use of it if or once it's FAM. As mentioned before, it makes it much easier and less time consuming to get an entry in here, and we will all benefit from it.

That's all. We should not touch the existing entries, and I don't see any need for other changes either for that matter. E.g. stuff like excluding S&E time.. going through menus is part of running, and I say that as someone who struggles with S&E times. :) I strongly prefer one continuous HoR list that is largely unchanged except for the boss count method. The active SPF community is small, and we should avoid fragmentation to the extent possible.

So I strongly prefer to keep it simple. More specifically, once/if the counter is FAM, I suggest the following:
  • Existing entries stay as is.
  • New entries will use precise method.
  • We add a new column to the tables, specifying which method has been used for an entry.
  • New entries should come with video recording, so that theoretically the both methods can be applied for them in theoretical cases where it matters. Uploading videos has been a "gentleman's rule" anyway in recent years, so I don't think this is asking too much.
  • New method prevails over old method in theoretical cases where the two methods come to different results. If both methods cannot be applied (e.g. lack of video for existing score), the new method entry prevails. As @Jpy said, players with video-less existing entries can always go for another one, and as I mentioned this should only apply to old scores that can in all likelihood be easily surpassed nowadays.
If any unforeseen complications arise in an individual case, I'm sure we will find a fair solution. At the moment I don't see any issue though to be frank, so unless there are major objections I'd go with the above.
 
The new method is obviously better and i see no problem with switching to it. That's if the counter works properly 100% of the time of course. If so, it would be nice if we include minions in the score too. That would change results for some classes quite a lot and if the method of counting is correct, we would see how AT sorc and pitnecro compares to pitzerker for example. Getting real results sounds amazing and we would see how we were in some estimations. Different monster type minions have different dropchances, so we would have to agree on some approximation of the significance of them.

The most important thing now is if that runcounter gets accepted or not. I have no idea what are the rules for that to happen, but i guess it shouldn't be too hard to figure it out.

Ok, so we will keep old scores as they are and what about the new ones? Will we just add a new column with the new method scores and if someone wants to add a traditional score, they will be able to? Maybe there are some more things we can add to make it more interesting?

@Albatross Yeah, i will just rewatch my entry video and count individual champions if that's allowed. Not like i need any help with that, but you can always do the same thing and we can compare our results ^^
 
I say that as someone who struggles with S&E times. :)
Oh cmon. You say that as someone with a completely untouchable pindle record ;). I personally think that not having a serious component of your runtime being determined in confusing ways by hardware limitations would be better than not giving credit for fast menuing. But ofc I can see the issue both ways. But when we're up against the efficiency wall where HLW becomes worse for pitzerker, p5 trav becomes better for blizz sorc, and albatross cant properly test superfast ~5.5 boss AT maps, all due to s/e issues, I think it could be a fantastic time to actually discuss this. (Has @Gripphon been tagged yet? Would be interested if he has thoughts as well).

So are you saying we now have to count both ways for every entry? Otherwise how do you rank in a case such as that once I mentioned in my first paragraph? Or if you just leave the old guys' scores as in and they eventually get passed up by a decent number of new-score entries, I don't really like that. Because they won't look nearly as good as they are. Maybe there are too few entrants who can get a score thats ~97% as efficient as those guys, so maybe it doesn't matter and I'm overcomplicating things. Idk.

I also don't like the idea of video entry being required, especially now that it isn't necessary for accuracy. I only recently figured out how to tweak my pc settings so that I could run d2 and obs without huge slowdown. Idk how many people are potentially out there who even would like to join the HoR stuff, but the counter gives us a chance to make the barrier for entry much lower, and requiring a video negates a lot of that.

That's also why I mentioned standardizing sets by time rather than number of runs. If you're someone who wants to join with 90s pitzerker runs, you just don't want to do the required runs all in one session. Again this might be a thing that doesn't matter since idk how many people would join even if it were easier to do so. And ofc if were combining old entries and new entries on the same table, it probably needs to be done the old way regardless. I just don't like the idea of the two different methods being on the same table, but ofc i can see what you mean about it being simplest.

I don't think fragmentation is an issue at all, since I think all of us who are active here these days will remain here, regardless of what we decide.
 
Yea, @ffs sorry m8 but you’ve probably benefited more from quick save and exit times than anyone here LOL. Aren’t speedrunners using something now that only counts time in the game? This would honestly be the most fair implementation possible across the board, so many people struggle with that and it’s ridiculously impactful for any quick run.
 
I feel very strongly that we should not overhaul the whole thread and essentially abandon the current HoR scores, just because there's a run counter that tracks bosses individually and can exclude S&E time. I did not mean to debate all kinds of possible changes one could make to HoR. To me it is out of the question to essentially throw everything away and implement some entirely new system, such as excluding S&E times or time based running rather than number of runs.

We should respect what's been done here over the years, adhering to something that is at least close to it, and measure ourselves against those scores, rather than scrapping everything and starting from scratch.

I only meant to raise one thing only, and that is the boss count method. If players feel strongly about not using the more precise method for whatever reason, then I'd say we'll keep things as they are and make no changes at all.

Oh cmon. You say that as someone with a completely untouchable pindle record ;)
I couldn't care less about Pindle, happy to scratch those if that's perceived as unfair. :)

I'm now very much on the flipside of S&E issues, in particular for Pit Berserker runs where several good sets where ruined by horrible S&E lags. My Pit efforts would definitely benefit a lot from excluding S&E time. But I'm very happy accept the fact that I have some sort of disadvantage there, in order to not completely abandon any basis for comparison across new and existing entries. At the end of the day, we're talking about how efficient certain runs actually are in reality, and that includes S&E and menu time.

So are you saying we now have to count both ways for every entry? Otherwise how do you rank in a case such as that once I mentioned in my first paragraph?
As explained in my last post, that case would be solved by the new method being decisive. As I suggested existing entries could just get a tag (like for example "O" for old scoring system). New entries will be in the same table, and should also get a tag (e.g. "N" for new method) in order to provide an indication that entries were scored differently. If an old entry holder cares about his actual rank and feels he/she is being surpassed by what is actually an inferior effort, than he/she is free to do go for a new entry. This was mentioned several times now. How likely is that scenario anyway? It's not like all those people who were inactive for 5+ years are suddenly going to come out and complain about a new player passing them in some very old ranking.

My suggestion to ask for video for each entry was to have a double-check opportunity as to the results from applying both scoring methods. I don't have a very powerful gaming computer either and still record my entries, even though it might result in better scores if I wouldn't do it. So again I don't hink it's too much to ask. But personally I wouldn't mind settling completely for the run counter info either, though.
 
Your Pindle record and other records should definitely not be disregarded, they were obtained 100% legitimately and to be fair anyone could have purchased a Mac if they were that set on chasing it and I’m quite sure you would’ve even given them advice on how to replicate your setup. Efficiency is one thing, for sure, and those loading times do matter for that, but for the sake of comparing actual run times against others eliminating something out of the user’s control (now that it’s actually easily implementable) seems like a good move to me. So am I understanding that the run counter in discussion itself is actually capable of ignoring the loading screen? Why would we incorporate the run counter for accurate boss/champ/minion counts and not take advantage of that?
 
@Jpy because that would mean current scores will no longer comparable at all to new entries if the latter would disregard S&E times.

Basically it will definitely happen that less efficient runs (disregarding menu time) will score higher than more efficient runs (which included menu time), and this would be a common occurrence rather than an exception. (Pindle running is the extrem example here.)

This is not the case for the "current" vs "precise" boss count methods, where such unfairness is more of a theoretical scenario. @Albatross had mentioned that differences where around 3.3% when applying both methods to a few sample entries. Cases where this makes the difference in ranking will be far and few between.
 
Let's see if we can figure this out before Max replies if we can officially use the counter :D

Regarding s/e and my short AT map. I actually feel it's an argument against ignoring s/e because I could never run that map efficiently (possibly no one else too) and therefore I would not run it. We'd get an interesting score, but it'd have little meaning in real world application. I understand that super quick runs like pindle are an issue... ffs, can you even match your own score now that you're using a PC? :)

Though I was initially hyped about the prospect I think it's best if we didn't touch s/e. The difference we'd get from switching scoring systems would fade in comparison with removing s/e times from runs. It would truly be a completely different system...


So far I completely agree that we shouldn't touch existing entries.
I'm very much in favor of using the precise counting method.
I'm still undecided about the exact way to incorporate this into the existing tables, but the ability to either input the new score or both (with video) sounds like a good compromise.

We could figure out ranking issues as they come, it's not like we have a hundred people actively competing.

Edit: just to touch on Luhkoh's barrier to entry bit, I agree it's good to lower it, which this counter does. It's also understandable if someone has an older PC or laptop and video isn't an option so we should not require it. However, I couldn't help but be a little suspicious towards a completely new player ranking top 3 in a category without any video proof. This should get better with time as more people upgrade their machines (talking about a few years down the road). I think the biggest barrier is actually FAM, people generally don't want to start from scratch. The next one is the effort you need to put in to get good at runs and then to properly count them (and the counter will fix this one).
 
Last edited:
If you take a 1-2 second loading screen off a 60 second run (example, Pit) that’s about 1.66-3.33% of the run. We can continue to recognize legacy runs for what they are, great run times among that period of time, but why sacrifice accuracy and fairness across the board for the sake of runs that didn’t have them available.

Ask yourself this— if this were available at the start of forming HoR thread, would people have ignored it/left it out? Again, it’s no knock on the previous runs but it’s undeniably a step in the right direction for future ones.

Just something to consider.
E: it makes more sense to leave save and exit times in for something like an MFO (or at least the ones that don’t separate running areas) where different people are running different areas with different applicable loading times and comparing against each other. For HoR, you’re only comparing against others that have done the same run. A simple disclosure about the average save and exit time you’re experiencing would clarify any effects on practical efficiency.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't know if we should keep s&e times or not. This thread was meant to show how efficient one can be in farming specific areas with specific builds. As usual, people pushed it way further than that, so now it's basically something like "who can get the luckiest series of runs". Those results have nothing to do with the original concept and they aren't even comparable to day to day farming. If that's the case, if is really worth it to keep s&e times?

I don't feel particularly connected with any of the outcomes, so i won't argue about it. I just think it's worth it to think a little bit about the current situation to see how it actually looks like.
 
Why can't we just get both times? I think this is easily doable on the technical side of things and it would allow us to have a realistic as well as a fair score for each new run. Ranking would be done according to the time with S&E and the non-S&E time could be another column. This way seems fairest for everyone involved.
 
Again: I only meant to collect some feedback on the boss count question, and did not mean to start a debate on a multitude of other things that could be theoretically be changed for whatever reason.

I feel I've already explained my reasoning on all the points raised, but to clarify: I will not flush all those entries over the years down the toilet here and essentially restart HoR for no good reason. Switching to a very different system (that no longer makes comparison with existing scores feasible) would be disrespectful to all those people who had entries here over the years. So unless Gripphon as original thread owner steps in and decides otherwise, it is not my intention to change anything whatsoever in the ruleset except for the boss count method.

That being said, I do like the idea of (voluntarily) adding more information, as just mentioned by @art_vandelay. In other words, HoR systems would stay as is (except for the possible switch to the precide boss count method), but we add columns for additional aspects for informational purposes. This could include things like run efficiency without menu time etc.
 
That’s a great compromise to still show how well someone is doing without hardware limitations.
 
@ffs I know you didn't bring these other issues up. I did. I was the one interested in discussing them. Is it not fine for us to do so? It seems like I'm not the only one interested in it.

***

To me it is out of the question to essentially throw everything away and implement some entirely new system, such as excluding S&E times or time based running rather than number of runs.

We should respect what's been done here over the years, adhering to something that is at least close to it, and measure ourselves against those scores, rather than scrapping everything and starting from scratch.
I just don't really understand this rationale. It's not something I feel super strongly about, so I'm not trying to push anyone's buttons. But why do we need to say that starting a new thread or table is "throwing everything away"? I conceptualize this thread as something like an extremely long-term tournament. And why should someone starting a new tourney, to try out some new concepts, erase or besmirch the old "tournament" in any way?

It's not some huge deal to me, I just don't understand the "can't do new things, because of how the old things are" rationale. It's not even some kind of innovation > tradition thing. It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Why not try new things? What's the downside for this traditional HoR?

How likely is that scenario anyway? It's not like all those people who were inactive for 5+ years are suddenly going to come out and complain about a new player passing them in some very old ranking.
That was kinda my point. I don't like the idea of corrupted and fabian appearing low on the table whether they themselves care or not. Again, idk if this is remotely likely that they will be both:

1. beaten by a significant number of players regardless of scoring system
2. have people ahead of them with new system who wouldn't be ahead with old

Maybe it's not likely at all, and then who cares? But my point was that I didn't like the old guys scores appearing lower than they "truly" are. To me that "throws what was done here in the past in the trash" a LOT more than making a new thread/table.

***

So in conclusion I don't like the idea of mixing the tables regardless of what we decide on other issues such as s/e. It just doesn't make sense to me. Really devalues the old entries imo which is more trashing of tradition than separate tables.

Ofc I'm fine with the idea of using the old s/e system and just having the other info as side info like art mentioned. My whole "debate" stems from the fact that I think mixing the tables is a bad idea, and then if we're separating tables anyways, we are free to use whatever ruleset we think is best. If most of us think the old way is best, then cool we can stick with the old way. But I still feel like mixing the tables is kinda crappy towards the old entries. And it seems like there is at least some interest in discussing changing other methods as well.

EDIT: I wanted to add that if new tables are just totally unpalatable, that I vote we just still score and rank by traditional method and include new numbers as side info. Only way to combine the tables in a way that doesn't devalue what was done in the past imo.
 
Last edited:
@Luhkoh of course you are entitled to debate other scoring/system ideas :) and you're free start a new thread if you and/or others would like to compete in such a different system. Personally I think it would be very unfortunate to have two SPF threads for what is essentially the same idea, but that's just me. I'm just saying I see no issue with any of the current HoR rules, and don't intend to implement any such further changes in this thread.

If people have strong objections to switching to the new boss count method, then I'd be perfectly fine with leaving everything as is. I don't even have an issue with the current boss count method. I'm just seeing the boss counter as an opportunity to facilitate new entries in an easy, quick and comfortable way – that's all.

I don't see major discrepancies and things like "top scores ending up as bottom/average scores" from the switch in boss count method, at least from what I've gathered so far. If someone can demonstrate to me how that is a likely outcome I'd be interested in seeing examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luhkoh
Diablo 4 Interactive Map
PurePremium
Estimated market value
Low
High