Talk:Sephiroth Challenge

Hello!! I have very little idea currently how this is suppose to work, but I noticed the record listed here is a fake record. Any information regarding proper discussion format, editing of pages, evidence of the record, etc. would be appreciated! I took the time to set the record, so I figure the least I could want is the wiki listing my real one. Sorry in advance for lack of formatting knowledge! Willing to learn if necessary, although I thought it would not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djf2564 (talk • contribs) 20:14, April 7, 2021 (EDT)
 * Do you have proof that the list time is fake? --CanvasK (talk) 20:18, April 7, 2021 (EDT)

The simple answer is no, however I think it depends on how we're defining proof in this circumstance. I don't know how wiki pages or this wiki specifically differs from the evidence typically required of other institutions, be it general speedrun websites or the realm of scientific advancement in academia, although the trend I have observed among most, if not all, other institutions is that the generally believed theory stems from that which has the highest amount of valid evidence.

To side tangent a moment, according to philosopher David Hume, it is in fact impossible to conclusively prove anything in the realm of cause and effect. An example demonstrating this is the thought experiment involving dropping a pencil repeatedly throughout one's lifetime, and doing practically nothing else at all. Although it always falls to the floor, one from those observations alone has neither proven gravity nor expunged the possibility of it inexplicably levitating on some drop from one's hand in the future.

Given that, I will assume proof in this instance means evidence and argumentation that leads one past any reasonable doubt.

Firstly, the record I have video evidence for seems to not only be the record, but the highest record possible to set. I do not believe anyone has conceived of a way in which to kill Sephiroth (or anyone in a 1 stock to 1 stock match in Ultimate) faster than Hero instantly top-decking whack and it one-shotting Sephiroth. The fastest second method seems to be similar, with him using Thwack, and it making contact with Sephiroth the moment the move becomes active on frame 23. Having had this occur twice and result in a score of 1.78 both times, along with another seemingly valid account of the same occurrence resulting in the exact same score, I believe it to be the fastest score with this method. Perhaps there is wiggle room here, although going into the details of such are unimportant to the discussion I'd say.

By observing the video I uploaded frame by frame, it appears that Sephiroth is hit by Whack at the first possible moment, the frame the move is active, on frame 6 of its activation. This leads me to believe, unless there is a faster method, this is the fastest possible time with the method of quickly top-decking whack with Hero (and having Sephiroth charge directly into it). The wiggle room I see here involves A. Not pressing down-B the first frame of the match, B. Not selecting "Whack" on the first possible frame, and C. Sephiroth not being hit by the move the moment it becomes active on frame 6. All of these seem doubtful for various reasons. 1. I'm a pretty good masher, toping speeds of roughly 25 A presses per second. For both A and B here, I see the likelihood of not hitting the first available frame low, although very possible. The chances of missing two frames is subsequently more unlikely. Furthermore, looking closely at the video I've uploaded, it seems not to be the case either frame was missed by looking frame by frame at when Hero begins to change animations, and by the fact he doesn't visibly crouch (If frames are missed, he will crouch because crouch is being buffered by holding down in order to use Command Selection, his down-B).

Even with all that is mentioned above, I'd be willing to talk about whether this time can be improved. I'm highly doubtful, but I do not neglect the possibility.

What I do neglect is the possibility of the time recorded here originally being a legitimate record.

In the first place, the person specified on Twitter that the method they used was in fact the lucky Hero Whack method, the same one I used. Although it may be possible to improve my time, I see absolutely nowhere near enough wiggle room to save anywhere near enough frames for a jump from a time of 1.50 seconds to 0.80. If it were 1.47, this point would warrant some further discussion. Even in that case though:

There is a lack of video evidence, and only a picture is provided. I understand the evidence of the record is typically placed on the one who set it, and there is not enough evidence it is not simply photo shopped. Lastly, if a picture is indeed what is ultimately decided upon to be the threshold for the amount of evidence required, I am to understand I would still be here as the record listed would still be the wrong one; there are at least three users on Twitter who have managed to achieved a truly astounding perfect record of 0.00 seconds! I think that's impressive enough to warrant them being here instead of the one previously listed! I don't know perfectly how the in game timer works, but maybe even that's not perfect and it can register negative times!

In conclusion, I'm as sure as I can be about anything in life that the record previously listed here is not the correct record. Whether the record that belongs here is 1.50 from me or 0.00 from someone else, I'd say the 1.50 has the superior evidence to warrant it, and not only because I am the person who happened to set it.

Sorry for the essay, but I expected this to be a super simple edit and upon discovering it's a bit more complicated I wanted to make sure as well as I could it wouldn't be drawn out, so I covered my bases as well as I think I have to.

TL;DR I have a lot of evidence 1.50 is right, and regardless of that, 0.80 has just as much evidence as somebody else on Twitter with 0.00. I'd like to have the time I took the time to set listed on the wiki is all really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djf2564 (talk • contribs) 21:02, April 7, 2021 (EDT)
 * First, sign your comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Second I checked the video and it took 13 frames (0.21667s) to hit and 40 frames (0.667s) for the damage meter to burst. 0.667 < 1.50 so something else it up. The pause was roughly 57 frames long (0.95s) (not counting the disconnect screen). If we assume that "win" occurs a few frames before the damage meter burst then that would be close to 1.50s. Assuming the win screen time factors in pausing then that would mean your pop-off added time to your result. I don't have a way to verify this for obvious reasons and standard matches don't count pause time, though given this event tracks centiseconds they may have used a different timing scheme which does count pause time.
 * I would like to raise some thoughts on Quartiz's record (the one currently listed). Compared to other images posted to Twitter the jpeg artifacting is more intense. They claim they uploaded to an alt then reuploaded from their phone which may explain that, or any number of things. If that oddity disqualifies them the how about Hakuo who got a 0.98. Well, the resolution is weird and they uploaded via "Twitter for Advertisers". Odd so let's toss that too. How about Jason with a 1.03. Standard resolution and uploaded directly with "Nintendo Switch Share", which means it is unlikely he modified it. Since the only thing we have to go on is the result screen and we aren't speedrun.com that would bother with frame counting (or know what frames to count), even if we toss 1st and 2nd place then 3rd still has you beat. --CanvasK (talk) 22:04, April 7, 2021 (EDT)

So, a few things. First and foremost, if you, yourself, CanvasK, do not want me to have the record listed here, I'll hold the L right there. I'm not a moderator for this site and I assume you are, so regardless of any argumentation in any direction, you hold all the power. If you cannot be convinced, let me know so I know when a wall is met.

Secondly, I believe there are two miscalculations made when you checked my video. Most importantly, Smash Ultimate runs at 60 fps, while YouTube runs at 30 fps. Everything you do has to be multiplied by two. The second one is that the game "stops" not before the damage meter bursts, but slightly after. The on screen indicator of this is when GAME is both fully in place and clearly visible. The match has stopped counting frames at this point.

Thirdly, pausing does not affect frame count anywhere in Ultimate. The game halts the frame pause is pressed, and the next frame that would have occurred takes place a slight bit after unpausing. I also see no reason to assume this event counted time any differently than the regular timer does, given that it too counts precisely in centiseconds.

As for all other records, I have two primary things to add to what you've said. First, I also at one point thought "Nintendo Switch Share" was a good indicator for a legitimate record, due to specifically Jason's tweet. The entire reason I looked into counting frames was his tweet. After having done so, I can say that picture being legitimate, much like Quartiz's, is a 100% impossibility. This does not mean I'm saying 1.50 is the maximum record with 100% certainty, only that those two tweets are fake, hence my original reason for wanting the time changed on here. The maximum possible time for a Thwack kill specifically is 107 frames. The game always rounds down, so this comes down to a time of 1.78 (from 1.78333333). This accounts for how long it takes for the move to activate once the game has started, pressing each button on the first available frame, and Sephiroth being hit by the move on its first active frame. Additionally, one other person I know of aside from myself, as well as two times I personally got Thwack to kill, resulted in the exact time of 1.78 seconds, so the anecdotal evidence aligns with the counted frames. Jason specifically said, much like Quartiz did about his screenshot using the instant whack technique, that he specifically used the instant Thwack technique, which is an impossibility given the resultant time. If there was a single frame of difference, it would call for some double checking, but there is no possible way for that method to result in a time of 1.03.

In conclusion, if all we have to go off of is the results screen, ConanK should be the one displayed on this page rather than Jason or Quartiz. If that's how it has to be, I'm okay with it; my ultimate reason for changing it in the first place was not ego (although believing my record to be the current world record of course holds weight), but the fact that in the very least, Quartiz's picture is fake. Both times could not possibly have resulted from the methods claimed to be used, be it Jason's time or Quartiz's time. Djf2564 (talk) 04:48, April 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * Dude, no wants to read these huge rambly WoTs full of irrelevant tangents, you can just simply point out the record listed has no video proof and point us to the record with the fastest verified video proof, all of this extra fluff in your posts is just so unnecessary. Also for the last time, sign your comments. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 01:12, April 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sorry about that! I'm very unfamiliar with how to sign comments other than the, my bad! And the reason those WoTs are there is because whomever stopped me from editing seemed to desire more than just verified video proof. Fastest video proof is Here. Djf2564 (talk) 04:46, April 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * I'm not a moderator, just the first person to call into question the edit. I forgot that not everything is 60fps, that's on me. In Jason's twitter bio he does mention he is a modder. He got the score day 1 so I figured a modification would be out of the question, but I now recall jugeeya's Ultimate Training Modpack (which is a massive mod) working day 1 a few times so a simple text edit doesn't seem unlikely. Under ConanK's tweet he links this video which shows a 1.58 without pausing and is only 5 frames slower than your time. With that I'd be willing to accept the 1.50 unless someone can somehow show a way to do it faster, though at this point you'd need a way to skip the GAME text. I'll put your edit back in the morning, or you can but I'd recommend also linking your tweet since the video isn't 100% clear. --CanvasK (talk) 01:36, April 8, 2021 (EDT)

Thank you!! The way it is now looks all good and accurate to me! Sorry for making this into such an escapade. I figure all I could want after getting it was a link on the wiki, and perhaps more importantly, the way it was originally was definitely not right. Glad you gave an idea on the "Nintendo Switch Share" being modded too, great peace of mind knowing how that was probably done, thank you! :) Djf2564 (talk) 04:43, April 8, 2021 (EDT)