First with the most, to me, means the tie breaker is time. If you are tied for the most be second, you lose. It’s a very weird statement though because the important past (with the most) is buried deeper in.
There are speed runs that do things like this. They try to optimize for most/least of something and fastest to do it wins. They often result in extremely long runs though. An example that comes to mind is a Zelda game where they found that there’s a bugged animation that skips a frame and Link moves backwards EVER SO SLOWLY while it happens. So you can open a chest, wait a long time (as in multiple minutes) and Link will go through a door he shouldn’t have. Imagine this scenario. You can beat a Mario game in an hour and skip all coins except one, but someone finds a method that takes 30 hours but collects no coins. That one wins because it collected less. I think they call them max% and least% or something.
First with the most, to me, means the tie breaker is time. If you are tied for the most be second, you lose. It’s a very weird statement though because the important past (with the most) is buried deeper in.
There are speed runs that do things like this. They try to optimize for most/least of something and fastest to do it wins. They often result in extremely long runs though. An example that comes to mind is a Zelda game where they found that there’s a bugged animation that skips a frame and Link moves backwards EVER SO SLOWLY while it happens. So you can open a chest, wait a long time (as in multiple minutes) and Link will go through a door he shouldn’t have. Imagine this scenario. You can beat a Mario game in an hour and skip all coins except one, but someone finds a method that takes 30 hours but collects no coins. That one wins because it collected less. I think they call them max% and least% or something.