|
Mario Kart MB
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl Mario Kart >> Mario Kart Super Circuit >> Standards feedback https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203971304 Message started by In Hiding on 02/25/08 at 12:28:24 |
|
Title: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/25/08 at 12:28:24 Ok, so the standards are up, they're not perfect but they're up. As per main page, they will be edited in approximately 2 weeks and then edited again in 6 months time if they need to be. NO arguements on the statement above. Otherwise, please make comments on them, too tough? too easy? some way off the mark? (lol- there are bound to be a few wide of the mark) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BenSkywalker on 02/25/08 at 12:35:04 I agree with most of them, and applaud the fact they're finally up. However, do they definitively lean towards a pro-ZZMT bias? Not a problem if it is, it would just explain why a sub 48 on PC is still regarded as an Expert time (in a non-ZZMT sense I'd presume a sub 48 would be at least a Hero E). I guess if they definitely are, some other tracks need to be reconsidered - my RMC1 5-lap for instance is probably as good as my PC 3-lap, and both tracks are as susceptible as each other to ZZMT cuts, yet the rank differentiation is a fair bit greater. One final point: Matt's SL flap is God, but Hirano's RR 3-lap isn't? No disrespect to Matt's flap but man... if ever there was a shoo-in for an immediate God, I would have thought RR would be it! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by AlexPenev on 02/25/08 at 13:01:46 Have another look at the LP (course) standards, Tom. I fudged them for now, but see if you want them changed. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Michael F on 02/25/08 at 13:06:54 The god times are very unbalanced, and most are too easy. They seem to be completely arbitrary, and not based on any game knowledge. It seems that you ignored all the new ZZMTs and new strats that can still be added, and you also ignored the best splits. You also ignored Fenner's times. Even if you think they're fake, they're still not strong enough to be god. Also, I think that god times look nicer if they end with 0 or 5. Iirc, Matt Ellis posted a set of god times awhile ago that was much better than these. Even if they're not perfect, they'd serve as a better starting point for discussion. Matt, can you post your set of god times again? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by DarkRoy on 02/25/08 at 13:55:39 I don't know much about MKSC best times, so I'll talk only about RKB1 The flap is definitely too easy: I lost almost a tenth in my 3"13 run, and I can see some improvements here and there. Sub 3 would be a perfect GOD barrier IMHO. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 02/25/08 at 13:56:40 A fast view on tracks i know: -PC lap under 12"15: never in this world. With Bowser is difficult to sub 12" with 3 ticking in a row (looking at cyberscore Pierre has 12"15 with ticking, although i bet he played only until he got the NR) and lighter chars like Toad are not fast enough w/o ticking to compete with Bowser in a track like PC (Hirano PC 3lap ticking was 8 tenths slower than mine with Bowser with the same strat, and we know that Hirano drives way better than me) -SG 3lap is too easy: my splits give me 47"19 (and the god is 47"48) and i'm no good a this track i only used a ZZMT strat that couldn't be even the best possible. I suggest to cut one second at least. edit: anyway good job! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/25/08 at 13:59:31 Michael F wrote:
Heres what I have for the GOD standards. (Exact copy from last time I posted them, minus the ** add-on's) * = means this depends on whether or not the fastest strat is legal or not (strat got banned...) ** = Changes since last time I posted them GBA Tracks PC 00:45.00 ** 00:44.70 00:13.00 ** 00:12.90 SGB 00:47.00 00:12.50 RP 00:59.50 00:17.10 BC1 00:42.35 ** 00:41.90 00:12.50 MC 00:54.80 **00:53.40 00:16.00 **00:15.50 BL 01:13.10 00:21.90 CL 00:47.90 00:14.25 BC2 01:01.85 00:19.00 LC 01:05.80 **01:04.50 00:19.30 SG 00:47.35 00:12.35 **00:12.00 CCI 00:49.00 00:11.80 SW 01:01.55 00:18.65 **00:18.50 SL 01:02.50 00:18.50 **00:18.00 RiRo 01:12.70 00:22.70 YD 01:04.50 **01:02.80 00:18.80 **00:17.85 BC3 01:21.10 00:25.15 LP 00:50.00 **00:49.55 00:14.80 **00:14.70 BP 00:47.80 00:12.30 BC4 01:35.90 00:30.15 RaR 00:34.70 **00:34.80 (yes, I actually think it should be made higher now.) 00:10.50 **00:10.35 SNES Tracks MC1 00:45.00 **00:44.85 00:06.78 **00:06.75 DP1 00:58.00 00:09.35 GV1 00:48.25 **00:47.85 00:07.00 RBC1 01:12.20 00:12.44 *00:12.45 (was a mistake before ;) ) MC2 00:56.40 00:08.16 *00:08.15 (same as above) CI1 00:40.80 **00:40.00 00:04.00/00:04.88* (ended up being banned, ignore the first time) GV2 00:48.15 00:07.75 DP2 01:09.70 **01:09.30 00:11.20 RBC2 01:24.00 00:14.80 MC3 01:12.50 00:11.85 KB1 00:28.70 **00:27.90 (yes, I'm serious...) 00:03.00 **00:02.95 (yet again, I'm serious...) CI2 00:49.80 **00:49.00 00:06.58 **00:06.45 VL1 00:40.70 00:04.95 RBC3 01:14.00 **01:13.60 00:12.78 **00:12.70 MC4 01:19.50 00:13.30 DP3 01:01.00 **00:59.90 00:09.50 **00:09.45 KB2 00:44.20 **00:43.70 00:05.18 **00:05.15 GV3 00:57.75 00:08.48 **00:08.45 VL2 00:38.70 00:05.28 **00:05.25 RR 01:10.70 00:12.10 **00:12.00 |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by KartSeven on 02/25/08 at 14:10:36 Yes, some of them have to be changed, but it's good btw. ;) Only some gaps between GOD and Myth B are completely weird (Retro KB1, RaR, ...), but otherwise that's OK for a beginning. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 02/25/08 at 14:26:08 Another too easy God i've noticed: BC3 3lap God is set to 1'21"00: my splits give 1'21"45 only due to ZZMT advantage: this is a track i just touched |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BenSkywalker on 02/25/08 at 14:34:16 If we're going to pick through individual tracks, I'd say RDP2 sticks out as well. That should be a second lower I reckon; no-one yet has done a proper run using ZZMT through the SC and then shrooming elsewhere. EDIT: Liking your modded God standards Matt, they work well. Agreed on RR and the lowering of SL flap. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by tom_c. on 02/25/08 at 15:16:04 where's the arr page? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/26/08 at 01:27:02 cheers for the feedback. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 02/26/08 at 02:39:02 i want to say that i really appreciated the coming of standards, and i want to thanks you, Tom :-* |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/26/08 at 04:10:33 termoPilucco wrote:
QFT :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 02/26/08 at 07:30:46 the standarts motivate me i am happy with my Exp B overall, but in my eyes some 3lap / flap standarts are a little bit unbalanced, somtimes i have a hero in a flap time, and then an adv in the 3/5 lap but i love them. mh but i think PC flap god needs to be changed ah, and i love my rVL2 flap Myth D Good work Tom Edit: Hiranos RR time should be GOD, shouldn´t it? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/26/08 at 07:55:22 amendments are being made alot quicker than 2 weeks :P watch this space.. or more importantly watch the standards page lol I agree with most of the aforementioned points, so these should be alot better and somewhat more aggressive. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/26/08 at 08:55:35 Thoughts on Standards v.2? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Marijn S4X on 02/26/08 at 09:44:41 I wanna play MKSC again now :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt V on 02/26/08 at 12:22:39 Marijn S4X wrote:
My friend Dave says MKSC sucks, and that he'll give me his copy of MKSC, and these standards are making me want the game asap. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Enzio on 02/26/08 at 13:12:13 I liked the standards v.1 better, I had a Myth time :(. Seriously though, these standards will make me play more, maybe not a lot, but maybe I can get some times while waiting for a Halo 3 game to start? :P |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/26/08 at 13:48:07 RKB1 5-lap is waaaay to low now, my best splits just BARELY bring me down to 27.90 as it is, which is why I saw it as the ideal god time. Another thing is that the RKB1 flap needs to be fixed, it's messed up from God to Titan A. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BenSkywalker on 02/26/08 at 13:56:04 Liking it, liking it... :) SGB's Titan B 3-lap is put down as 40"30, tho! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/26/08 at 14:03:01 found another error, RDP3 5-lap God and Myth A are the exact same. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/26/08 at 14:30:13 ;D hehe, oops, must've missed that one.. keep the suggestions coming, i blended alot of matt's suggestions in with the others, Ben, i agree with your dp suggestion however i've not really attributed to a flap as i've no idea how much it would save. Anyway, they dont have to be perfect.. just good enough for a solid 6 months before review. I'd like some feedback from the lower players too. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by tom_c. on 02/26/08 at 15:18:55 Tom you have a private message |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/26/08 at 15:30:30 In Hiding wrote:
about Ben's suggestion, it's already used for the flap really, just the one ZZMT needs to be added, it would save .10 maybe. also, GO ON AIM ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BenSkywalker on 02/26/08 at 15:51:24 Yeah, I really meant that for the 5-lap, not the flap. I'm not sure if it'd save anything on that. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Chapolin on 02/26/08 at 18:21:25 Matt..your proposal for the flap in LP is very good... ;) 14"70 is very balanced. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by PeachKarter on 02/26/08 at 20:25:20 my BP flap Exp D by the time my newest flap is updated.(16"73) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by johnboy81918 on 02/26/08 at 20:43:45 PeachKarter wrote:
What does this have to do with standard feedback? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by PeachKarter on 02/26/08 at 20:46:13 johnboy81918 wrote:
What does this have to do with standard feedback?[/quote] Exp D is a standard |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by johnboy81918 on 02/26/08 at 20:49:18 PeachKarter wrote:
What does this have to do with standard feedback?[/quote] Exp D is a standard[/quote] Right, that is true...but you didn't provide any actual feedback. This is for improving the standards, not saying you got some particular one. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by tom_c. on 02/26/08 at 21:01:42 lol exp d is a standard. peachkarter, you're a funny guy. ;) edit: johnboy, take it down a notch. just because you're jealous of peachkarters exp. d bp flap, it doesn't give you the right to be a pompous asshole |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Matt Ellis on 02/26/08 at 21:05:01 tom_c. wrote:
QF(sarcastic)T (I think I gave enough feedback to make one spam post ;D ) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Michael F on 02/26/08 at 21:31:00 Here are my suggestions for god times. I didn't spend much time thinking about these, because I figured it's easier to wait for people to comment on them and then make changes. So some of them might be inaccurate, but I tried to consider all the new strats and ZZMTs that Matt Ellis ignored. If you think any of these seem unreasonable, then I'll list the new strats or ZZMTs that I had in mind. PC 3lap: 44.25 PC flap: 13.10 SGB 3lap: 46.50 SGB flap: 12.55 RP 3lap: 59.00 RP flap: 17.10 BC1 3lap: 41.75 BC1 flap: 12.45 MC 3lap: 53.00 MC flap: 15.50 BL 3lap: 1:12.00 BL flap: 21.80 CL 3lap: 47.25 CL flap: 14.20 BC2 3lap: 1:01.50 BC2 flap: 18.90 LC 3lap: LC flap: SG 3lap: 46.50 SG flap: 12.00 CCI 3lap: 48.75 CCI flap: 11.60 SW 3lap: 1:01.00 SW flap: 18.50 SL 3lap: 1:01.50 SL flap: 17.75 RiR 3lap: 1:12.25 RiR flap: 22.70 YD 3lap: 1:00.50 YD flap: 17.60 BC3 3lap: 1:20.00 BC3 flap: 25.10 LP 3lap: 49.50 LP flap: 14.70 BP 3lap: 47.25 BP flap: 12.20 BC4 3lap: 1:35.50 BC4 flap: 34.20 RR 3lap: 35.00 RR flap: 10.40 |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Michael F on 02/26/08 at 22:11:07 PeachKarter wrote:
Do you realize that Alencar already has 10.48? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by PeachKarter on 02/26/08 at 22:14:05 Michael F wrote:
Do you realize that Alencar already has 10.48?[/quote] ah...ok...3lap 34"9x-35"10 |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BenSkywalker on 02/26/08 at 22:44:06 I reckon LC flap could be a little lower still Michael. Maybe 19"15 or 19"10 (maybe even the whole hog and have a nice rounded 19"00). I know ZZMT opportunities aren't as varied for LC flap as other tracks, but given my non-ZZMT 19"41 had at least one major area that could be improved via ZZMT (the run up to the wallhole cut near the end of the lap; my run used an inertia charge to get a blue boost there, whereas a ZZMT user could fit one or maybe two boosts without the need to go off a more conventional racing line as I did) plus several smaller areas where ZZMT can help out, I think a lower God time there should be implemented. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Michael F on 02/26/08 at 23:01:02 BenSkywalker wrote:
Now that I think about it, I can think of 3 ZZMTs that could be added for the flap, so yeah, 19.00 seems reasonable, and maybe 1:03.50 for the 3lap. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by johnboy81918 on 02/26/08 at 23:37:25 tom_c. wrote:
Sorry :( I don't normally post in here, I just wanted to check out the standards topic, and noticed his posts XD I wish I had ED times :( |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 02/27/08 at 01:30:40 tom_c. wrote:
no i dont :( |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by tom_c. on 02/27/08 at 02:05:59 o |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Robin on 02/27/08 at 02:14:18 The lower standards seem alright to me, although most of the flaps seem easier than the 3/5laps. I'll look later to see if there's any in particular I think are way off but these ones get the job done imo. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 02/27/08 at 07:05:39 RR standarts 3 lap is too hard, isn´t it^^ ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Enzio on 02/27/08 at 09:17:36 Agreed... You can't give the nr 5 an Exp D :-? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 02/27/08 at 11:16:09 Enzio wrote:
man nice to see you again :) come back to mksc, let´s have a battle for top 20 =) sorry for off topic ::) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by PeachKarter on 02/27/08 at 20:09:51 should stickie this thread. standards are here to stay! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by _Cole_ on 03/10/08 at 13:41:54 I agree with Fried on PC flap (13.10) and SL flap (17.75). For CL flap maybe 14.15 or 14.10. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Lenny on 03/10/08 at 22:03:27 Hmm, forgot to post my opinion on the standards. A little bit too grouped for some, and far too close for others down on the lower ones. That is to say, they are uneven. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Lenny on 03/24/08 at 23:50:34 I should also say that DP2 standards are waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too hard IMO. You simply have to take a look at the times to see that something's not right. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 03/25/08 at 00:26:23 ZZMT wise, that is achievable. However, the differences really needs to be fixed for it.. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Robin on 03/26/08 at 19:41:12 Yeah, a 1.6 gap between Titan B and C, and then 0.3 or less gaps between all the surrounding ones? I think that's a typo. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Manning on 04/06/08 at 07:00:58 Especially from Beginer through up tp Adv E the flaps don't correspond to the course standards. Also, most of them are not evenly distributed. HOw about trying one track at a time to update and fix, And how about everybody else does the same to try to make these standards content with everybody. I'll try to do one track hopefully by next post. (Anyway Tom, on Rp 3lap for some Myth Time, it goes from 59:95 or something to 50:90. Just wanted to let you know.) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Vorsch on 04/17/08 at 14:20:21 A couple problems I noticed: the standard is the same for RDP3 god and myth A, also the lower ranks for RKB1 total need to be adjusted (almost half the players are newbie or beginner E on this track). |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 04/17/08 at 15:13:45 thats b/c they suck |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 04/18/08 at 04:45:03 thats positive! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/10/09 at 04:37:33 BUMP Ok, if anyone has any suggestions for standards to be altered, please post them. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/10/09 at 06:31:19 I'll only give feedback on the couple of courses that I'm top 3 in and still close to the SR. KB1 standards are still good as is, the 5lap standard is just barely in my best split range, and the flap is probably the hardest barrier to break in the game that I know of (excluding the RR strat barrier). Personally I believe it should stay at 3"00, but it might be possible to go to 2"95. That'd probably be the lowest that I would put the GOD standard on that flap time. RP flap should drop to 17"00 at the very least, and 16"60 at the most. I personally think 16"70 is a nice middle ground for that lap, but you should get Stellmacher's opinion on that as well. SL flap could most definitely go to 17"75, so I'd say somewhere around 17"65 or 17"70 would be a reasonable GOD time. Yet again, its probably a good idea to get the opinion of Stellmacher here, as well as Cole if anyone can contact him. BP 3lap should go to 48"00 at least, 47"90 is more reasonable though, the lap seems fine to me though. Again, get Stellmacher's opinion as well. RMC2 flap should definitely be lowered to 8"00. We know the sub is possible now, and as it currently is, the GOD is rather easy to hit. You should get the top 4's opinion on this as well (Yunus, Mickael, Stellmacher, Cole). I'm unable to say anything for CI1, as I don't know which strategy Stellmacher used, considering there's no video (although it's obvious it had ZZMT in it ;) ) DP2 5lap actually seems pretty reasonable as a GOD time. From what I know, Stellmacher's time there is pretty strong, and is still .23 away from just getting a tie with god. CI2 flap is perfect as it is. That course is pretty well maxed out for the flap. Getting those last few milliseconds will be really tough. RRR flap should be lowered to 12"00 or 11"95. 11"90 Would be pushing it, but then again, I haven't subbed the 12"00 mark here, so Stellmacher would probably be best to ask on that. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by SuperYoshi1 on 08/11/09 at 18:10:48 Like some people pointed out, earlier in this topic and recently in the suggestions thread, some arkward standards and some differences between them need to be fixed : -BC3 : God and Myth B are identical for flap -CCI : 49"41 for Myth C, I assume it should be a round number here (not very important though, the whole standards should be changed here anyway) -BC3 : for 3lap, Myth A and C are identical (1'21"25) and Myth B is lower than Myth A (1'21"20) ; and for flap God and Myth B are the same as well. -RKB1 : flap standards are crazy from Myth D to Titan A, and there is one full second gap bewteen God and Myth A for the 5lap, with only a 0"10 difference between the others. -RDP2 : Huge 1"6 gap between Titan B and C. -RDP3 : God and Myth A are identical for 5lap. I don't think I pointed out everything, those are that striked be the most. Also, some standards should be better balanced depending on how of an influence ZZMT's have on a track (PC, MC, LC, RMC1, RCI1...) or depending of the difficulty to pull off the fastest strats (CCI, RR...) For instance, it's impossible for a non-ZZMTer to get higher than a Hero time on MC flap or MC1 flap, and higher than Expert on PC 3lap... I may build a example on what could be balanced standards later. About God Times : Quote:
27"00 / 3"00 looks like great Gods for this track. I though about 2"95 for the flap as well, but seeing how my own flap looked flawless and I haven't sub, 3"00 may be more adapted. Quote:
I don't know how much ZZMT's help for the flap, around 0"5 or maybe less. I would say 16"75 or 16"80 is a nice God, but yeah you'd better ask Seb for this. Quote:
Being honest, I think sub 47 can be done with ZZMT's ::) I think Yunus has splits for sub 48 already w/o them. I can think of at least 3 spots per lap where ZZMT's can be done, but then I don't know much about ZZMT's :-/ But for sure the God shoud be under 47"50. This needs opinions from ZZMTers however. The flap is good as it is now. Quote:
8"00 is a perfect God, no doubt, though really hard to achieve. Quote:
Definitely agreeing here. Will put later again some personal good God Times that I can think of for my best tracks. This post is already very long :P |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/17/09 at 04:36:36 cheers, any more ideas? I'll work out some perspective ideas asap. Also, Its going to be very hard to work out the zzmt times compared with non-zzmt times. Its hard to make cut offs for those. I didn't take them completely into account last time on the basis that as with any form of mt, they can be missed, and adding one each time into a strategy takes time and dedication. (I dont think you go from doing no zzmt's to doing 2 or 3 in a lap over night) Hence I think that the staggering of times should be fairly even. Needless to say they tighten nearer the top and more competitive area (God - Hero etc). I'll give it another week or two for feedback and then start putting some more together. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/17/09 at 04:48:41 In my opinion, you need to get the opinion of most of the top 10 (and especially stellmacher) before you come to any conclusions on standards, even if it takes more than 2 weeks. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/17/09 at 04:57:47 i'd like to get them out of the way :) lol I can also put in a final stipulation of another 6 months. After that they'll probably not be changed unless something drastic comes along. I.e if we had allowed the stop/start shrooming bollox. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/17/09 at 05:07:20 I personally don't see why it wasn't allowed in the first place :/ It's kinda a part of the game mechanics, but eh, that's another topic I guess. As for standards in general, I think it'd be a good idea to have SMK Standards instead of our current ones (to cover the skill gaps and still give high level players a decent standard, looking at PC 3lap here) with GOD +'s (to cover times that are impossible without ZZMT, also looking at PC 3lap here) It'd require a decent reworking of the current standards though. I think that Myth times should be hittable for top level non-ZZMT play, and everything above that possible for ZZMT, albeit very hard to do. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by SuperYoshi1 on 08/17/09 at 05:29:31 Well it would be quite hard to decide new God standards for most of the 3lap without either Seb or Pierre, as I have no idea what could be the best strats possible for ZZMT tracks, hence the best times possible (PC, MC, RMC1...), so yeah I would wait a bit for the opinions of those 2 persons. (I don't plan to switch to ZZMT yet). However I could make some accurate God standards for flaps (maybe with the help of Brutus). Btw, I like the idea of adopting SMK standards, this would require a longer time to change the whole standard system, but if we can start working on it soon, it could be interesting. And even if we decide to keep the current system, the "God +" thing you mentioned could be added without needs of changing this standard system, definitely something which can be adopted [smiley=lurk.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Nicholas Harvey on 08/17/09 at 11:20:22 I myself like the idea of SMK standard names too (Knight, Veteran, Star, etc.) since this game plays more similarly to SMK than to MKDD or MKDS. The only little problem is that some of the lower Titan players will have to settle for the lower "Emperor" rank. I like this though because reaching the low-grade Titan standards is IMO no harder than reaching Emperor times in SMK, while the high-grade Titan level is noticeably tougher and closer to the real thing. (almost all my Titan times are D's and E's; in SMK I have no Titan times) Agree with Matt on making the Myth times reachable in non-ZZMT and extending God for ZZMT players. It's just like the A-tech in MKDD. Most of the ZZMT mini-shortcuts can be done in non-ZZMT as well with skillful boost manipulation. I couldn't do ZZMT's in SMK either, but I could do some of the advanced NBT routes (which the top players always ZZMT for) by painstakingly manipulating the boost from an earlier corner. It adds some challenge, and encourages players who can't do ZZMT to try tougher strategies, but I am not saying you should ban ZZMT-- it's probably extremely difficult to do even with a pro-ZZMT GBA unit. I don't think modifying your GBA will magically make you get God times. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 08/17/09 at 12:02:42 The standards on some tracks are ridiculously biased towards ZZMT players which is not the best course of action imo. The AB spin + shroom thing should be disallowed. It does the same thing as ticking, prolonging the boost of the shroom. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 08/17/09 at 12:05:42 I thought it is disallowed?! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 08/17/09 at 12:06:39 It is, but some people brought up admitting it back on the site. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 08/17/09 at 12:31:29 2E3235373B293D226B5A0 wrote:
Quote:
Are you talking about the same thing as Brutus? = the start-stopped strat I found for flaps? And @ Brutus, it has never been admitted back on the site, otherwise the times that got released because this strat was banned sould have been reput after that, but they didn't... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 08/17/09 at 12:50:02 Flo, I never said that it was admitted back on the site, I said that it being admitted was "brought up" aka Matt saying he didn't understand why it was disallowed in the first place. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 08/17/09 at 13:24:05 Ah! so you answered to my 2 questions. Thanks. :) I had a doubt on what Matt and Tom were talking about, but now, everything is clear. And I agree with you. I don't really understand neither why this strat was banned because most of us agreed for letting it allowed but well... it's up to you to come back on your decision mods... :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/17/09 at 20:59:17 221215141513600 wrote:
I think I mentioned this before, but my argument towards that is ticking involves crashing into an object to achieve the speed boost (unintended) whereas AB stopboosting is something that has actual game mechanics and doesn't involve crashing into walls. It's more similar to watersliding than it is to ticking. Mind you, I can still see reasons as to why it should be banned, just putting my opinion out there. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/20/09 at 18:23:40 I say get rid of the standards. Besides being completely random, no one bothered looking for typos. Only way you will have a nice looking ARR chart is with zzmt only and/or nonzzmt only. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/21/09 at 01:18:39 they're not completely random, they're zzmt charts. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/21/09 at 21:52:37 64424752456E58445F5E06370 wrote:
Haha, don't tell me you think the mksc standards are actually good Tom? All I'm saying is that mixing zzmt and nonzzmt times together makes it hard to reconcile them into one list of balanced standards. It looks even worst with so few players with zzmt capable dpads. I'm not saying make split charts but be realistic when trying to improve something that's already broken. In terms of difficulty, some myth times are piss easy while some expert times are brutal to get. I just think an ARR chart for this is meaningless. I don't see why changing them all again improves the situation. At the very least, fix the typos. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 08/21/09 at 23:13:51 I agree with Etch :) I think we should write to different standard pages, one for ZZMT and one for non-ZZMT. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/23/09 at 01:03:08 Etch, changing them allows us to make them better over time. They were the first set of standards for a reason. If we just remove standards then we wouldn't make any progress with them, where if we revise them they will eventually become good over time. Right now, as you said, some of the standards are piss easy obviously, but a lot of them were made with what we thought possible at the time. For courses that we knew what was possible (see: most courses where GOD hasn't been achieved yet/some of the high level god times/PC/RR), the GOD standards were fairly good. Problem is, we didn't how much ZZMT would change things, so some of them were rough estimates of what we thought possible (see: almost all of the easier GOD times) Now that we can make a better estimation of a GOD ranked time on pretty much all the courses for ZZMT, I believe we should try and figure out the best possible non-ZZMT times. In general, my belief is that we should mostly focus on what's possible for non-ZZMT users between the GOD/Newbie ranks, as pretty much all of our players are non-ZZMT players, and it's currently the main style of driving. However, for those who go up and beyond with ZZMT style driving, there could be GOD+1/GOD+10 (I highly recommend this as it is) rankings to give the ZZMT players something to try and achieve. If we do it this way, then our standards inbetween GOD/Newbie wont be unbalanced because of starting with a ZZMT GOD time like our current standards are. To me, this would be the best set of standards. GOD+1-10 (For ZZMT Players) GOD (What we think is the fastest achieveable time for the non-ZZMT standard) Myth A-F (Everything goes exponentially down from here, based off the non-ZZMT GOD standard) Titan A-F Emperor A-F Hero A-F Star A-F Veteran A-F Knight A-F Warrior A-F Contender A-F Apprentice A-F Novice A-F Newbie A-F Kart Fan (Anything lower than Newbie F) It's a lot of standards, but in the end would leave a lot more room for balance. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 08/23/09 at 01:38:55 Ah! I see what you mean. mmm Yeah, that could be a good idea, just like they did in SMK ^^ |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by SuperYoshi1 on 08/23/09 at 10:13:52 My guess about God times for non-ZZMT, and ZZMT (maybe for God + 10 times) [ZZMT] [non-ZZMT] PC : ??? / ??? (no idea) 46"80 / 13"70 (not accurate, especially the 3lap :-/) SGB : ??? 48"25 / 12"45 (current God is already strong though) RP : 58"00-58"50 ? / 16"75 59"00 / 17"00 BC1 : ??? / 12"50 ? 42"70 / 12"55 MC : ??? / ??? 55"25 / 16"25 BL : ??? / 21"80 ? 1'13"50 / 22"00 CL : 47"00 / 13"95 48"20 / 14"10 BC2 : 1'01"00 ? / 18"85 1'02"00 / 18"95 LC : ??? / ??? 1'06"00 ? / 19"30 ? (bad knowledge) SG : ??? 47"50 / ??? (dunno new strat potential) CCI : 48"00 49"25 / 11"50 SW : ??? / 18"00 ??? / 18"30 SL : 1'00"50 ? / 17"50 (better ask Fenner ;D) 1'02"50 / 17"65 RR : 1'11"50 / 22"25 ? 1'12"00 / 22"40 YD : ??? / ??? 1'02"50 ? / 17"50 ? BC3 : 1'20"00 / 25"00 1'21"50 ? / 25"30 LP : ??? / 14"40 ? 49"75 / 14"50 BP : 47"00 / 12"00 (extreme flap ?) 48"00 / 12"30 BC4 : ??? / 29"70 ? 1'36"25 / 30"00 RR : see non-ZZMT 34"75 ;D / 10"30-10"35 ? Discuss them... [smiley=lurk.gif] (Will put retro tracks later) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by FennerGuy 2010 on 08/23/09 at 11:16:37 nice God+ times for that SuperYoshi1 I think ZZMT PRs are as follows PC: 44"34 / 13"19??? BC1: 42"10 BC2: 1'01"47 ::) ::) ::) SGB: 46"58 / 12"48 MC: 52"50 (5lap) SL: 17"50...you're good btw :D YD: 1'01"73 (5lap) SL: probably 1'00"30 |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 08/23/09 at 11:42:37 About non zzmt BC1, i have a very old japanese video (before ticking was discovered) showing a 14"08 second lap. Before modify my DS, I had a 14"46 non zzmt opener (and i doubt it's the fastest opener lap around) So at least 14"46+14"08x2 = 42"62 I'd say 42"60 for the God Standard. Non ZZMT PC: in my opinion can't go much lower than what Su did (46"91), so i agree on 46"80 ( and good luck getting that). |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by FennerGuy 2010 on 08/23/09 at 12:04:20 I think I know about the retro ones (ZZMT): MC1 - 44"49 :o / 6"75 DP1 - 57"00 / 9"19 GV1 - 47"46 / 6"99 BC1 - 1'11"99 / 12"40 MC2 - 56"40 / 7"90 CI1 - 38"80 / 4"75 GV2 - 47"77 / 7"65 DP2 - 1'08"20 / 10"99 BC2 - 1'23"60 / 14"49 MC3 - 1'11"90 / 11"69 ;D KB1 - 27"30 / 2"92 :P CI2 - 47"97 / 6"35 VL1 - 38"88 / 4"88 BC3 - 1'13"49 (using Bowser I guess) / 12"60 MC4 - 1'18"50 / 13"10 DP3 - 59"20 / 9"09 KB2 - 42"72 / 5"00 GV3 - 57"30 / 8"00 VL2 - 38"30 (the Karel way [smiley=evil.gif]) / 4"79 (THE FUCKING KAREL WAY[smiley=evil.gif]) RRd - 1'09"30 / 11"60 |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 08/23/09 at 12:24:31 lol fenner God standarts should be able to reach for someone, shouldn´t they? just saw your rVL2 flap I loled..... |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 08/23/09 at 12:36:50 God times should be, for the most part, impossible to attain. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/23/09 at 13:52:14 This site rushed making them and to no surprise they were bad. I can't imagine a new set of standards for mksc being torn apart but if the same amount of effort goes into making them, they will probably still suck. If it's done right, it's probably for the better. Just make sure to set the bar high so any new God times aren't destroyed and you have to rerevise the standards. I still say making them balanced overall would be the biggest challenge. With so much variation between the tracks, you are forced to look at them specifically to determine appropriate gaps. I can see God+ times reconciling zzmt and nonzzmt times but Tom said these are zzmt charts so what the fuck is it then? You would still have n00bs with zzmt getting God so that would only improve the huge ARR gaps slightly. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 08/24/09 at 04:54:42 What do you mean? Well then Etch, give us an advice as you are a mod (so you may be used to creating new standards...) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Brutus on 08/24/09 at 05:04:47 I'll try to restate his post so that you understand. He means that the standards were made too quickly, so they weren't too good (evidence of this is errors in standard inputting, for example same time being a Myth C and Myth A standard for example). When he says he doesn't think new standards will be easy to beat but still will be crap if they are made too quickly is that they will be harder to beat (obviously), but still bad if not enough thought goes into them. Then Etch said that making them balanced is the most important thing (for example one track's standards shouldn't be so much harder than another track's). I hope that made sense? If further clarification is necessary, just let me know (or maybe Etch can try to explain). I would be for Etch making standards, but I'm sure he'll agree that he's not quite at the level to determine a god, at least for most tracks. I'll say that I think this game can be maxed out quite a bit more, and determining standards should be put off for a while longer. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/24/09 at 05:20:21 They weren't rushed, I spent hours on them while I was at work. Needless to say there were some mistakes, sue me! Need to chill everyone, when the standards were first put out no one said they were perfect, infact quite the opposite and I stipulated that we would review them after 6 months to see what progress had been made and see how players are grouping in the stats. This is a democracy in so far as I want players input in helping to devise the standards. To be fair etch no one posted back then saying they wanted to create demi god times for non-zzmt and it sounds logical. The God times were set by what I thought was possible at the time in zzmt, thats why they are "zzmt charts". I then took benchmarks for certain standards from the players times in the chart at the time and made standard benchmarks for which I put incrementals in between, thats why some of the incrementals aren't static. I was also looking at how much per zzmt saved and how many per lap you could do to improve times on currently what they were. I dont think we should have God + 10/9/8/7 etc, i dont think we need it. God is a "perfect" zzmt time, maybe the highest nonzzmt times should be Myth/Titan level. I'm more than happy for people to heavily contribute to making standards, maybe we should all go through together track by track and share thoughts. If we do one a day we'd cover it off in a month or so? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by flo233 on 08/24/09 at 07:27:54 the only track where i can help is Ribbon Road i think 1'11"50 is reachable without ZZMT for Fast lap I don't now but under 22"40 for sure. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by FennerGuy 2010 on 08/24/09 at 10:56:23 I could've stayed in the MKSC site frozen so I can max half of my PRs :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/24/09 at 12:51:52 786463616D7F6B743D0C0 wrote:
So you think 5 standard spots are going to be enough to cover the ZZMT/Non-ZZMT gap on some courses? GOD should be possible for a top level non-ZZMT time. It's disadvantaging a player who can't use ZZMT because of hardware limitations. At least with GOD being the highest attainable time for non-ZZMT, a player can still reach an ARR of 0. GOD+ times would allow you to change how the standards go lower. Usually everything is based off god (slowing the time exponentially based off of it), but GOD+ times don't have to be, they can just be times that are considered benchmarks for ZZMT times. That way non-ZZMT players will be able to achieve the highest rank, and ZZMT players can go that much farther with it. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/25/09 at 20:01:05 I bring these issues up because there doesn't seem to be a solid plan here. :-* That's kind of important when making new standards. I am still sensing some disagreement on what should be a god time and how zzmt and nonzzmt gaps should be covered. Easiest solution is to treat zzmt like nbt is for smk. The problem with the mksc site though is that there are so few players. It's harder to gauge what good times are with so few people making a serious attempt at it. Setting the bar higher for newbie might encourage people to get records that don't involve falling off the track ten times. Once people learn how to drive, they slowly improve by adding mt's and shrooming better. Some strats are harder so you see larger gaps on some charts. Since there is such variation between the tracks, going through them one by one is probably necessary to create balanced standards. Not every course gives zzmt a huge advantage but we can't have the best nonzzmt time ranked expert a for example. At most, the best non-zzmt times should be ranked low myth. This might be a good compromise but the fact is there are only a few players who have good zzmt times. On some charts, you would still have a large gap between those times and non-zzmt. At least on smk, you have a lot more people so it looks like there isn't a bunch of empty space. Three Choices 1. Make standards that are strictly zzmt 2. Make standards that are designed for non-zzmt leaving ranks near god as a zzmt buffer 3. Make standards that are strictly non-zzmt leaving ranks above god as a zzmt buffer I don't know about you guys, but I don't see this site getting a whole lot larger than it already is. In the interest of making nice looking standards but allowing god to be possible for non-zzmt players, choice 3 is probably the best. At any rate, we need to make them hard enough so they last forever so to speak. What we decide to do will come down to preference. Standards are arbitrary but if we are going to do them, make them pretty. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Nicholas Harvey on 08/25/09 at 21:22:28 I like option 2 the best, since ZZMT is usually needed to make the Myth ranks in SMK. I also like the idea of harder Beginner standards like in MKDS (the current RKB1 5lap is a great start), though people here seem to want the SMK system of standards more. There is no way to describe how bad you'd have to suck to get Pawn standards in that system. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/26/09 at 00:58:04 I've already said that I like option 3 best, but in the interest of fairness, I'll go over the pro's and con's of each option. The standard names I use are based off of the current names for standards, and not the SMK standards like I hope we change it to. 1. Make standards that are strictly zzmt Pros: 4 - More room for competition in ZZMT - GOD standard will be very hard/next to impossible for a top level ZZMT player - Still leaves the option for GOD+ times for ZZMT players that go up and beyond that of 'top' ZZMT play - Ignoring Non-ZZMT players, this is the easiest way to balance the standards, as you would only require finding the theoretically fastest ZZMT time instead of finding both. Cons: 5 - Many players do not want to modify their GBA/DS/DSL to be pro-ZZMT, or do not have the tools necessary - Non-ZZMT top level players would most likely end up getting to Hero/Expert at best - It would be impossible for a non-ZZMT player to get a GOD time. - Many average non-ZZMT players would probably be ranked somewhat near Adv/Inter at best. - Shunts the ARR ranks for non-ZZMT players, leaving a significant gap between them and ZZMT players. 2. Make standards that are designed for non-zzmt leaving ranks near god as a zzmt buffer Pros: 5 - Allows more ranks for ZZMT players. - Still has the option of GOD+ for above and beyond ZZMT players. - Top level non-ZZMT players would be able to get low Myth/Titan times - Balances the gap in ARR a bit between non-ZZMT and ZZMT players - Would be possible to alter GOD+/Myth times (or ZZMT times in this case) by changing the exponential gap, although it has a possibility of making a non-ZZMT player's standard lower. Cons: 4? - Would still be impossible for a non-ZZMT player to achieve a GOD time. - Doesn't allow non-ZZMT players to get a 'perfect' ARR of 0, which should be the highest achievement in standards reachable by 'any' (top) player after putting in many hours to a course for a 'perfect' time. - Would be harder to balance the standards for non-ZZMT players with less room to put lower ranked times; Exponential gaps would be bigger than they would be in option 3. - Changing the exponential gap at Myth would look weird, as all of the standards on every site have a history of having the standards go exponentially down from GOD. This is more of a personal opinion and doesn't have a lot of value, but it should be pointed out. - Would require us to find the theoretical best possible times for both ZZMT and non-ZZMT. 3. Make standards that are strictly non-zzmt leaving ranks above god as a zzmt buffer Pros: 7 - Top level non-ZZMT players would be able to achieve GOD times with a 'perfect' non-ZZMT time. - The gap in ARR between non-ZZMT players and ZZMT players would be as close as you can achieve realistically. - Allows non-ZZMT players to achieve an ARR of 0. - GOD+ to GOD times can have higher exponential gaps than GOD to Myth/Titan/etc, allowing it to be insanely hard to climb the GOD+ charts even with ZZMT (I'd like to point out that in my personal opinion, GOD should be like slightly optimized TAS time for non-ZZMT players, and GOD+10 should be a slightly optimized TAS time for ZZMT players. (I say slightly optimized because fully optimized would involve delaying MT's by a frame to increase your speed by 1, completely straight ZZMTs, or other small things similar to that, which would be impossible for a player to do in real time)) - An insanely skilled non-ZZMT player could still have the possibility of climbing to GOD+1/GOD+2 depending on the gap/usefulness of ZZMT on the course. - Would be easier to balance than Option 2, as it gives us more ranks available to lower level players, decreasing the exponential gap for non-ZZMT players and allowing the lower standards to be a more accurate display of skill level. - Would also allow for alteration of GOD+ times (due to exponential gap) for ZZMT players without affecting non-ZZMT players. Cons: 2? - Makes the exponential gap for ZZMT players bigger, as this option has less standards available to ZZMT players. - Would require us to find the theoretical best possible times for both ZZMT and non-ZZMT. - I'm sure there's more, but I can't actually think of any more. If anyone has any Pros/Cons to add to any of those options, please tell me, I'd like to keep a list of them and start a poll tomorrow so we can effectively decide on which option we want to follow. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by SuperYoshi1 on 08/26/09 at 02:52:07 I think the option 3 would be the best as well, anyway, how many ZZMTers are currently active / will be active in the future ? Option 2 is fine for me though... but option 1 does not really serve the interests of the community. Why making standards only for 3-4 people who can do ZZMT's ? However, what do we do for RR and many flaps where ZZMT's aren't involved in the strat ? Those will be a problem for setting God + times. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 08/26/09 at 03:37:58 For the tracks where ZZMT doesn't save any time, we just set the highest possible time as GOD+10. and (depending on the situation/strategy) scale correctly. It's a pretty simple solution. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Phantomganon on 08/26/09 at 04:31:27 I think there are many tracks, where ZZMTs have no effect for flaps (LP; RR, rKB1, rDP1....) I think option 3 is the best solution. And for the tracks where ZZMT is useless, you set the non-ZZMT barrier for everyone (God +10), As Matt said. It would be a lot of work, but I think we could do it together, (like Tom said, one track a day, or so'). @ Mick I play ZZMT and I`m active now... But I´m not that good at it, as you maybe noticed xD |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Boom3r on 08/27/09 at 15:24:12 373D2E28392E033A2E393D375C0 wrote:
i'm gonna write some thoughts about the tracks tomorrow. hm i'm inactive quite long and never wrote down my fastest splits and stuff... sorry that i didn't say anything earlier here |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 08/28/09 at 01:30:38 seb, what do you think about the three options? |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Boom3r on 08/28/09 at 02:23:04 option 3 would be the best solution without a doubt. the main point of standards is to motivate people, right? (never really cared about them :-[ ) so new players have more accurate non-zzmt standards to reach and the top non-zzmt player should be able to get god times! another point is that i don't expect many karters to modify their gbas. maybe we can change it to zzmt standards in a few years when there is good amount of zzmt players (like Sami did with the smk standards) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Boom3r on 08/28/09 at 03:13:19 4842515746517C4551464248230 wrote:
16"70 sounds really good, my waterslide was pretty weak there. Quote:
oh i hate this track, there are quite some mistakes in my flap, i would go for 17"65 Quote:
hm this is one of the tracks i didn't use zzmt, but like Mick said there can be 3 or 4 zzmtboosts done per lap...so sub 47 is doable i guess, would need some tests though i agree on the flap. Quote:
vid of a slightly slower run http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHefyO43FMc&feature=channel_page 39"00 is a good god standard Quote:
hm i fucked up the 2nd shroom and lost around "30 here, so with 3 good shrooms i would have reached the god time. i would say 1'08"30 or "20 Quote:
11"90 is pretty hard but quite good as a god time -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gonna write some god times later today |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Boom3r on 08/28/09 at 14:48:29 yeha tripple post lol sry 6475627D7F40797C6573737F100 wrote:
my old non-zzmt pr was 42"80, my opener was 14"43 and i doubt it was my fastest one. but i agree with 42"60 it's hard to make god standards for zzmt, there will be so many new strats...so i think it would be better to make them very strong. i should say that i played most of the courses till i got the wr and stopped then most of the time cause i wanted to get a lot wr's as fast as possible ZZMT PC: 44"30 ; 12"90 (current standard) SGB: 46"50 ; 12"40 RP: 58"60 ; 16"70 BC1: 41"75 ; 12"45 MC: 53"00 ; 15"45 BL: 1'12"50 ; 21"75 CL: 47"00 ; 13"90 BC2: 1'01"20 ; 18"90 i'm going for the quadruple post and make the others tomorrow or i just edit my post ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 09/13/09 at 02:34:05 So? Is the standard page going to be updated soon? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 09/13/09 at 06:59:16 No. We're NOT rushing it this time. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Flo1 on 09/13/09 at 08:16:23 I didn't mean to rush it. :-/ I just wanted to know how it was going. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by In Hiding on 09/14/09 at 02:45:49 Ok, my boss is away this week so lets have a go at PC, we will do 3lap and flap each day from now on (week days only - Mon-Fri). If things get slow we can wait for more input. I assume we're all happy now with the idea of God 10+ Being ZZMT, through to God which is the fastest non-zzmt times. Then incriments down from there. Loigcally to me it makes sense that if for example we have; God+10 = 1'30"00 God = 1'00"00 Then we plit the thirty seconds by 10 (+1, +2, +3 etc) evenly? The rest lower is also open to debate. Matt, do you have time to put up your suggested times for people to discuss or would you like me to do it? Regards, Tom |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Boom3r on 09/14/09 at 04:38:22 suggestions so far non-zzmt 46"80 / 13"70 (not accurate, especially the 3lap Undecided) by Mick zzmt 44"34 / 13"19??? by Fenner -> (i already beat the flap) 44"30 ; 12"90 (current standard) my suggestion post your opinions |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BPA on 09/14/09 at 05:44:41 PC flap non-zzmt I think could be 13"65... something about 13"70 doesn't seem strong enough imo, my 13"82 came after only one day's play and I know at least two parts of it were pretty rough. I don't know enough about the 3-lap to say. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 09/15/09 at 04:28:40 I don't know who has ZZMT times on that course, so it's hard for me to even make an estimate for the 3lap :-X |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 09/15/09 at 10:09:38 The fastest non ZZMT time is 0'46"91 with a weird strat tha generate a MT (non ZZ) in the middle area. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 09/15/09 at 11:56:23 Think you could make an above level diagram of the strategy so I can see how its done? I'd like to test the strategy so I can get a rough idea of how improveable it is. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by termoPilucco on 09/15/09 at 13:14:33 uploaded here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqCNNzwOmRc |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by MKSC european champion SC on 09/15/09 at 13:18:15 Very nice strat! I may try it just to see if I'm able to make it :D |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by BPA on 09/15/09 at 13:34:53 Those inertia drifts are cool as fuck but hard to pull off. Remember seeing that vid when su did that time, what a ledge. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by karterfreak on 09/15/09 at 16:34:53 If I get some time after I write the news update (too much shit came up today), then I'll give this a shot. It looked like that time could probably be improved by .30 or so, but I can't say for sure. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by MKSC european champion SC on 09/16/09 at 05:02:30 I tried a bit that start last night and I can tell that drifting as close as possible from the grass is really difficult imo. I really don't think it could be improved at all (except maybe (1% sure because we can't see well) at each shroom posts... :( |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by The Gaff on 08/03/10 at 04:12:20 Ok, i think its time to have a look at the standards and see if they can be improved. I'll be looking into this and would appreciate some feedback from people on particular courses. I'll put a document online and people are update it as they see fit. Will do this by the end of the week. but in essence, start thinking about standards pls |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Firewaster on 08/03/10 at 04:37:28 rGV1 GOD seems to be a bit easy to achieve since Pierre's new strat for the shroom brought a new level to it. I mean, a WR "70 faster than the god is something a little off. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by DarkMeta on 08/03/10 at 04:41:00 Oh yeah! New god standards to discuss! That's awesome. I'll have a look at them tonight (even if I don't think I have a good enough level to say a word... :( ). |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/03/10 at 15:09:20 366C37353F373D69695C0 wrote:
Reposting Three Choices 1. Make standards that are strictly zzmt 2. Make standards that are designed for non-zzmt leaving ranks near god as a zzmt buffer 3. Make standards that are strictly non-zzmt leaving ranks above god as a zzmt buffer Unless we make split charts, I think it's retarded to base the standards off zzmt only. I am beginning to think having a separate chart isn't a bad idea as the non-zzmt AF is destoyed on places like GV1, PC, and MC. Unfortunately, it's an extra hassle for updaters but would allow both times and records to be appreciated for what they are. We added prb on mkds over 2 years into the game with a shit load more of activity so it's not impossible. People like Seb and Pierre could submit their non-zzmt times and see how they compare to Mick overall, etc. I don't know how everyone feels about this but for the sake of pretty charts it's the best route to go. Whatever the result, a new set of standards is automatically an improvement. lol |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Chuck Foster on 08/03/10 at 15:19:12 I think separate charts is a bit excessive. I do like your second option, Etch. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by The Gaff on 08/05/10 at 03:26:03 my take is that as we allow zzmt in the same way that nbt is allowed in smk that we handle the standards in a similar fashion. as i always say though, its a democracy so ill be tempted to go with the majority. The problem in this case is the majority of players are not set up to play zzmt. Tough one. I'll put a poll up at some point if it becomes an issue. The way i see if, nonzzmt players should be able to hit god but zzmt players hit god+ |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Firewaster on 08/05/10 at 05:40:58 @Gaff my opinion goes with yours on the ZZMT/NBT comparison. SMK has become a way more competitive game with it's addition, and the players page is probably only alive because of all the different strats and improvements it made possible. There's a side non-NBT site though... Well, my vote would go to keep it all together... But my vote is biased since I mastered NBT/ZZMT... But I really encourage everyone else to try it! |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Etch on 08/06/10 at 14:25:10 250A1106140210170611630 wrote:
Buying a triwing and busting my gba sp open sounds like a hassle and I'm sort of lazy. Only competition zzmt gets at the top is Seb and Pierre anyways. Funny Mick is as high as he is despite all this. |
|
Title: Re: Standards feedback Post by Firewaster on 08/06/10 at 15:28:02 I'm trying to climb to Pierre and Seb's level... It'll take a while though!! I was also lazy, it took me some time to mod my GBA... But once it's done it really changed my gaming experience! It made me feel like playing SMK (which is my favorite MK game), and that is a HUGE plus for me! And yeah, Mick is a beast! :o |
|
Mario Kart MB » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |