|
Mario Kart MB
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl Mario Kart >> Super Mario Kart >> Standards discussion https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1501000546 Message started by Sami de la SMK on 07/25/17 at 08:35:46 |
|
Title: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 07/25/17 at 08:35:46 All, Just some thoughts and brainstorming ideas after a discussion with Alicia briefly. As you know the Standards on the site are very outdated on nearly all of the tracks, moreso with the introduction of the new strats on CI1, MC3, MC4 etc. It is worth noting that the same issue has happened on the other Mario Kart games as players have managed to push through barriers and reach higher and higher levels, sometimes with new strats, sometimes by doing beyond what was expected. Now several years ago we did change the standards to what they are today, with the aim to hopefully not have to change them again. However we have gone well beyond in some cases so I just wanted to get some thoughts from everyone what to do. It is really just between keeping things as they are despite the age of the standards, or revising them based on the achevements made in the recent years and setting top standards beyond that. Last time we chose some different names from the old standards which were named like the MK64 ones, so the players wouldn't feel they 'lost' their achieved standards the first time (e.g Myth + instead of God). My take would be to not change anything further (like MK64), as the main ranking is not based on the Standards, they are a side statistic for players to use to aim for particular targets as they climb (if they want to). I don't personally keep a track of where I have certain standard times or not, but many do and enjoy that. This is not an official 'lets do a change' poll. Just a discussion for now as we haven't gone over this for a while. So what do you think? Please share your thoughts and if anyone plays on the other Mario Karts (Christian Wild, Stacy Needham etc) your feedback would be appreciated. Or does anyone have any fresh ideas for something new? |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by ScouB on 07/25/17 at 09:30:47 Revise them. (Even if actually a part of the current standards can remain unchanged) Plus, bring back the GOD standard 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/25/17 at 09:31:25 I'm extremely surprised to realize the big IJ on VL2 PAL has never had an impact on standards. :o So yeah, it definitely needs a change. Not everywhere, but some tracks need that. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/25/17 at 09:33:42 Antistar like this. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/25/17 at 09:34:29 On a more serious note, yeah, some need some revision. But let's not go overboard, they need to remain more doable (or as doable) as RR 5-lap PAL. :P For instance now 12"02 has been done on MC2 flap PAL, but setting it on 11"99 might be going a bit overboard. A new standard doesn't necessarily need to be faster than the current WR (imo), it just needs to reflect a really, really good time with a 'new' strat. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by ScouB on 07/25/17 at 09:35:01 614B584F462A0 wrote:
http://www.ffsmk.org/forum/Smileys/classic/merite.gif |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/25/17 at 19:47:16 7C5645525B370 wrote:
As long as we won't have more players to test new possibilities with MC2 flap, it'll be hard to set a correct Myth+ time. I guess LB can allow bigger gaps than tight trajectories, so set Myth+ to 12"49 doesn't surprised me for the moment, as long as more players won't try seriously. Another example, VL2 flap PAL is a combination of very hard strats, so I should say 8"99 is already a great time for the Myth+. ;D But as already 5 players did under 8"79, maybe they can assert a Myth+ at 8"79. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/26/17 at 01:00:28 Shall we first make a list of which standards are really out of wack? I agree with Alicia on VL2 (8"79 ;D). I remember going for the current WR and hitting a quasi perfect lap and it was something like 8"80. I was surprised so many people managed to do better (some even by quite a margin), but that does prove it's somewhat doable, if not extremely hard still...But that's the type of toughness I would personally have in mind. Also agreed on MC2, the standard deviation on even very good laps tends to be much bigger than on other tracks, because of the LBs of course. I think we should just go with what ScouB says there, he's the only one that really tested the 'new' strats properly. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/26/17 at 01:09:58 614B584F462A0 wrote:
Of course I will not stupidly threaten Sami or anyone on this but if standards are modified I might consider asking for removal depending on which the changes are. I don't have time to answer in detail right now but be sure I'll give my opinion on which standards should deserve a change if we have to do it, but also why I don't think that's a good idea – even if I already know why Sami opens the Pandora box there, this having nothing to do with pissing me off of course, no worries. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/26/17 at 01:17:34 Sorry for sort of joking about that man, I didn't know it would be that sensitive to you. :-/ I hope we can manage a solution that satifsfies everyone at least to sufficient extent that people won't leave over it. Having you or any other top player remove their times would be a bigger pain than the cure of having better standards provides. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/26/17 at 02:51:10 lol I didn't feel offended at all, don't worry about this. I've been completely immunized to sarcasm as years went by… the only thing that disturbs me is the lack of respect and you never showed something like this towards me. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by A Runnelid on 07/26/17 at 03:16:36 103A293E375B0 wrote:
I can't help but think it would be a better idea to have more people than one use the new strats prior to letting them influence the standards, with no disrespect to ScouB's informed opinion and knowledge. (On a side note, I would like to see more people attempt them.) -- Person: "It's imperative that we decide on a balanced well-rounded set of standards for all courses, carefully considering all ramifications with regards to both track-specific strategy and long-term effects for competitive SMK playing and its community." Someone else: Yes, for all tracks but MC2. Let's just have one person decide that one. -- :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/26/17 at 04:07:14 Of course in an ideal world all of our players would test every strat to the best of their ability and all would then weigh in equally, that is, if we're even going to suggest new standards for some places at all...but pragmatically speaking the best course of action would be (at least for the moment) to let ScouB have the biggest say in those standards. At least that's in my learned opinion. :P No one else has even tried his method of executing the LBs yet, or when they did, at least they didn't score new PRs with it yet eventhough it's potentially a lot faster. Of course I absolutely share the thought that more top players ought to try, but it's intimidating business for sure. @Mario, of course I have huge respect for you. I thought that would go without saying really. Some of the SMK performances you have done, both in terms of WRs and CDM performances, have been truly iconic. That CI1 lap, all your very tough Myth+ times on tracks like GV2, BC2, GV1 platform in bronze medal play-off, sub 1'28 on RR, Match Race final, TT 1-try gold medal, the list goes on. On occasion I can be a sarcastic smartass, but I hope that never overshadows the fact that I think you're a really cool dude and an absolute beast of an SMK player. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by A Runnelid on 07/26/17 at 04:43:07 Karel, it's not that I don't understand your reasoning behind your point, I was (mostly) referring to the fact that numerous players who consistently play the game, and do so at high enough level to gauge the impact of the potential standards across the entire spectrum, have not - based on the information in your post - all too deeply investigated where new strategies on MC2 would lead in terms of viable improved standards. I would like to see this explored further before new standards are put in place. This would be my humble opinion. :-* I'd play it myself to support my point, but needless to say, I don't have the ability to perform what it is possible. I personally would gladly leave this to the players that can form a informed opinion through further testing, and make no mistake, I trust their opinion and judgement, I just want them to make sure that the decision is based on sufficient input and at least somewhat more thoroughly investigated concepts, again without discrediting ScouB's efforts in any way. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/26/17 at 04:55:07 Eventhough I see your point, the times ScouB have set seem so extreme from the onset that most players are too intimidated to even try and to be honest putting the top standard faster than ScouB's shocking flap WR would just be silly. I'm saying that because ScouB played the track for weeks (months?) and this lap was over two tenths (!!) better than all the other laps he has done there. Considering the fact he actually achieved a time better than the time that we should mark as the top standard, extra exploration from other players would unlikely lead to another outcome. That'd be my educated guess, but I'm happy to let ScouB speak up himself, MC2 is his track now after all. :D By the way I'm not saying that his 12"02 will never be beaten, but I guess I am saying that whoever manages to go faster would certainly deserve the top standard in any case. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Chris on 07/26/17 at 05:55:17 We are currently working on new standards in MKSC aswell. We not only made some of them, that didn't really implement new strats or ZZMT, stronger - we also made some, that were way too hard to achieve a tad easier. If you revise them, you should balance them so they all have an acceptable level. Imo, RR 5lap PAL is a good example of a standards that's just painfully hard to achieve and should be easier to achieve. When I look through the rankings and see some 5laps with only one or two players having achieved the Myth+ time (KB2 NTSC flap for example) I feel like you should probably make them a little bit easier to achieve, even if it might make the people that tried so long for them a bit upset, but I think if you need to grind for days and weeks to finally get one single Myth+ standard I feel it's not satisfying for those who are going for those Myth+ times (the grind, that is). However, if you have a nice challenge but the standard is actually reachable with some reasonable effort, it feels just as good to achieve it. If you'd ask me, I'd change this KB2 Myth+ standard from 10"06 to 10"10 for example. It's not huge, but definitely more achievable. On the other side, of course there's also courses that are just really inconsistent for many (MC4, DP1 5laps) so the standard isn't set too high. Some have beaten those standards by almost 1.5 seconds though, and that is a tad too much if you ask me. I know this idea probably suits not everyone here, but this is just my opinion, from a guy who worked with 3 others on a bigger variety of standards in another game and also has an idea of how hard those standards here in SMK should be. You should just work out some standards that are suitable enough, post them in public and discuss which of those need a fine tuning. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/26/17 at 06:04:32 Nice post Chris, definitely food for thought. :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/26/17 at 07:40:28 My suggestions for PAL Myth+ : MC1 flap : 11"36 or 11"40. DP1 5-laps : 1'11"00. DP1 flap : 13"70 or 13"76. BC1 flap : maybe 17"40 for barrier breaker ? MC2 : no idea has ScouB is the only one who maximized LB. Maybe 1'07"00 - 12"50 for a start. CI1 : needs more tests I think. Maybe 0'54"50 - 10"50 if ScouB didn't maximize his times. GV2 flap : 11"86. BC2 flap : maybe 19"86 (because I think we didn't make the extra boost at this time). MC3 : no idea for the moment. Maybe 1'26"50 - 17"00 (or 16"90) for a start. KB1 flap : 9"15. CI2 5-laps : 1'05"00. CI2 flap : 12"70 or 12"76. VL1 5-laps : 0'49"49. VL1 flap : 9"60. BC3 flap : probably 17"60 due to Karel's time, but we should need more 17"5x to be sure. MC4 : dunno if pipewall needs a change. Maybe 1'32"50 - 18"15 (or 18"20) once we'll sure. DP3 5-laps : 1'16"00 for barrier breaker. DP3 flap : 14"76 or 14"80. KB2 flap : 10"36 or 10"40. VL2 flap : 8"79, 8"89 or 8"99. RR 5-laps : 1'26"50 if it needs to be less hard ? Keep in mind that pipeboosts and wall jump aren't the only new strats since the last time we changed standards. VL2 big IJ is the most obvious and I'm still stocked it wasn't changed before, as I was 100% sure it was already done ! Some extraboosts were added (DP1 5-laps, GV2, BC2, DP3, ...), new strats were found (KB1 flap, ...), or were optimized beyond our expectations (MC1 flap, DP1 flap, MC2 flap obviously, VL1 5-laps, KB2 flap, ...). Myth+ needs to include the best strats. Adding an extra boost can save 0"05-0"06 for example, so I guess it's not an aberration to change the Myth+ in consequence. EDIT : in addition to RR 5-laps, I think we can adjustate GV2, BC2 and BC3 5-laps too (respectively to 1'00"99 - 1'40"99 - 1'29"49), even if I'm not 100% positive about that. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/26/17 at 12:11:31 As first I'm completely okay to bring back the GOD name to the best standard since there's no real reason to keep on calling them "Myth+" which doesn't really make any sense actually. I never asked for it before because I don't really care, but especially because I don't see where there would be a religion-related issue since the GOD standard was already used before (and had been used for years, and is still used on other MK charts. I'm not a fan of GOD-xx rankings though, maybe just because the ASR rankings would evolve and I know I would be GOD-1 or even better on many tracks, which is something I really don't like – it's a matter of personal taste there, I see Myth+/GOD as the ultimate standard that just can't be improved/overtaken/whatever. About changing the standards and after having reading the whole topic (BTW, I'd say Chris's post is very interesting and is a great discussion point, just like Alicia's suggestions, even if I don't accept them for obvious reasons), there are two ways to analyse the situation. Here they come: 1) A very selfish opinion would be "fuck no" because I would not accept to see "super-goals" like standards becoming completely irrelevant after I fought for hundreds (I guess) hours for. Of course my performances have been appreciated by the community and my rivals, and of course I did it for the beauty of the game, but also for myself. This is not about being fucking pretentious there, I really hope not to read the same crap as some (jealous?) French players have been able to write about this, eh? Just saying, there are something like 7-8 of my WRs I had already secured but wanted to push further just because I wanted to reach the ultimate (and unofficial) standards Sami had set almost ten years before. When you own 34 of them, on a total of 40, after a long WR harvest that earned you a World Champion title, you just can't stop there, there's something way too cool to do that nobody achieved before: hitting all of them. Before everyone. For the history, for pride. Of course it's been already two years and nine months since I've hit my 79th and final one, and I could have ended the job on RR since then. But now that this discussion is open I feel some kind of obligation to do it very quickly when I'm not into the game at all because if I don't, I will have done all this shit for nothing. Which of course doesn't please me at all. Based on this logic, do not change any of those standards in any way please! Just because: • turning some of them into easier ones will make my 2013/2014 efforts ridiculous and pointless because I could have avoided wasting hours for a standards I might have already hit before (hey GV2/BC2) ; • making some others harder to reach will also destroy all those efforts and make the 80/80 dream impossible (at least for me) because I will NOT play the tracks in question again (especially MC3/MC4 with pipe/wall boost strats). 2) A more realistic and objective vision doesn't even make me see this potential change differently, because many other players also improved a specific time just to hit a M+ standard, of course they didn't do that as often as I did, but still. And I'm having a look at how the ASR charts would look, too. If we change SOME of them, there will obviously be tracks where only one or two players (Karel and Scoub, again?) will hit the only (close-to) GOD/M+ standards while everyone is now far away. I'm not saying high level competition is dead on the SMK TT scene, but we can be pretty sure there will be only two players fighting for WRs on 3 specific tracks on the "upper charts scene", assuming there will be no Sami, Kartie, Neo or me playing again. So we might have two players having six M+ times that their legendary rivals will probably never have… whereas they did own them before the change. And considering how important the change could be, would we (previous M+ holders) fall down to Myth E/F or maybe Titan A? LOL, seriously, please don't destroy another part of our profiles history. Anyway, I also think there is absolutely no need to change the MC3/MC4 standards since the MC2 flap ones were NEVER changed in SIX YEARS of allowed IB, creating a ridiculous amount of M+ times (more than 40 on PAL before it went banned!!), so why would we do it now for a smaller strat change? The wall/pipe hits and boosts don't create a huge difference from the previous WRs, at least not as much as IB did… if I'm correct, the single lap differerence between IB and LB was close to one second and a half back in 2006, it's not even the case for the full race when it comes to MC3 or MC4 (and around a quartersecond for the single laps). New standards would not even make reaching M+ times easier since both are tracks where at least 5 people have already hit it in 8 possible situations (there is only one exception, MC3 PAL 5-lap, where only Sami and I achieved it). The only standards that could be discussed in my opinions are the CI1 ones, maybe because some of us already had "SC" PRs and experimented the strat before? But I don't think I'm objective there as I've played it (especially on the NTSC side) and like the strat. Ah, and I'm not even OK with the idea of making the RR M+ too easy to reach, I've always found it fascinating to make such a legendary full race the one with the hardest of all the highest standards of the game. Oh, on a final note: even if I regard him as a friend and maybe the best rival I've ever had and enjoyed to face in the whole game, I don't really see the point of Karel praising my performances this way, because it will absolutely not change my mind about a potential removal demand. As long as I'm losing even only one of my 79 M+ I will think about asking for it, even if Neo suddenly says he sincerely respects me and apologizes for making a fool of my person for a decade. I hope it shows how determined I am to ragequit the whole scene if I feel that all that I've done on the game is suddenly destroyed after having slightly destroyed the charts with the recent decisions. If my attitude is regarded as childish, well you will not have to keep somebody's whose spirit doesn't suit you on the charts, so everything will be okay for everyone, eh? This might have been one of my worse English posts, sorry for that, I didn't have much time to write it and this discussion is really pissing me off so I may not be very nice to read. Hope you've enjoyed the fact I spent more time explaining my "general" point of view than the "selfish", by the way. I don't think I have to "convince" too much of you there on this, though. Thanks for reading and sorry for the huge rant. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/26/17 at 15:00:27 Wow, so you were with players who were agree to change rules implemented since 10 years or more (even if I recognize pipewalls weren't formally forbidden, contrary to CI1 SC), because it's part of a game, players have to progress with new strats, too bad if they're retired, ... But out of question to change standards because it's unfair for retired players or profiles history ? I guess people don't care a lot about that. The most important would have been to reach this 80/80 Myth+ in 2014, as it should have been done, but you didn't, just because of your aversion to do NBT on your favourite track, and because you didn't want to kill a dream you'll never be able to reach. If you have to hurry up now, it's your only fault... Latest new strats are discussed since a few months, we had plenty of time to be sure of our decision, so I guess it's normal to discuss about standards now. Of course, the idea is not to set them immediately, especially for CI1-MC2-MC3-MC4. It'd be better to have a few players who'll try new strats more seriously, and I hope it'll be done, now they're finally allowed on players' site. And giving time will be better to set good standards directly, instead of changing them too quickly, then readjusting them some weeks later. And of course, the idea is not to change instantly a standard as long as a new strat is found. They're not changed since a while and I'm not shocked by this ; only VL2 flap was surprising for me because the big IJ saves something like 0"40. We can consider it as a forgetting but well, pipewalls were forgotten since 10 years too, no ? [smiley=lolk.gif] The situation couldn't be the same with MC2 IB, because we couldn't forget the fact that too much players were Myth+ here. Maybe the fact it was alone in its situation (VL2 flap can't be the same, as I'm alone between 8"76 and 9"38 ^^'), players didn't really care, and possibly some of them were happy to claim an easy Myth+. Moreover, IB was instantly accepted, and probably too fast because many players weren't really interested by the strat. I don't remember precisely, but I think IB had a success the first months, then was finally more and more rejected by the community. We certainly lost too much time to change standards here, but we also lost too much time to discuss about the legitimacy of the strat ! And maybe it had an impact with the lack of change in the standards. But anyway, of course, the situation wasn't good. Now, there is 6 standards (if not 8 if we finally consider MC4 on PAL) where new strats arrive at the same time : MC2 with mega LB power, CI1 with wall jump, and MC3 with pipewall). It's not the same revolution than when we discovered NBT, but it's certainly more than a single extra-boost added here and there. So yeah, it's normal to discuss about standards, it must be the next process, now the strats are finally allowed. But well, anyway I think you're a little selfish about the situation Antistar. :P You're ready to discuss for CI1 just because you already tried it, and set strong times on NTSC, enough to be already considered Myth+. But not for MC3, despite ScouB improved the flap WR by 0"28 (against 0"20 for you on CI1) ? And you're ready to still claim your Myth+ on MC2 PAL flap, even if the WR is 0"83 faster than you ? I'm not sure if I can be convinced, especially since you said you were ready to discuss, but for CI1 only... Maybe people don't care that much on standards, and maybe that's why there already was a ridiculous situation with IB before. But it's not because it happened once, we have to accept it all the time. It was a complete nonsense to not change MC2 standards with IB, and nobody can reasonably say he deserved a Myth+ even if the flap WR is 1 second faster. It's the same now : you don't deserve Myth+ anymore with your 12"85, whereas the WR is 12"02. And for the moment, I'm not saying to set Myth+ at 11"99, but "just" at 12"49, regarding the complexity to maximise LB at its highest power. Big IJ on VL2 is very hard too, but at least you only have to focus on trajectories. With MC2, you have to deal with the speed too. Maybe we'll set Myth+ to 12"19 when more players will test it, but for the moment we can't be sure. But I'm sure Myth+ can't stay at 12"90. :P And if you paid attention of my suggestions, I always let a possibility to save the Myth+ for you, except for the latest strats because they can save more time than a single extra-boost. And with this new situation, you don't deserve Myth+ anymore here. When IB arrived, the best players dealed with it and even if we had changed standards, they would have been Myth+ (Karel and me were tied at 11"60, Sami got 11"64...). So you should do the same if it's so important for you. So, please don't act as if everything can go only in your favor. It's players' site, not Antistar's site. You can't allow new strats and forbid new standards in consequence. In this case, we should have said to Karel "please no, don't overtake Antistar, he doesn't play anymore, it'd be unfair"... And if you talked about IB's situation, that means you're ready to accept ridiculous situations just to save all your Myth+. It was a mistake, not something normal. It's not because we did something wrong before, you have to use it as a strong argument. Otherwise, CI1 wall jump will be still forbidden, seeing that it was disallowed 2 or 3 times by the past... And your threat to leave players' site doesn't affect me and doesn't stop me on the fact some standards must change ; personally I won't regret you if you leave players' site, because your decision would be enough childish to not have regrets. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/26/17 at 22:42:13 Well I think you overreact even more than me, I said I would give a personal and probably selfish opinion. This is the obvious reaction to a discussion brought by a situation I didn't vote for (allowing new strats for no good reason in my opinion). I have the right to think the charts I paid so much attention to in the past are now fucked up and will be for good. Plus, I don't understand why you accuse me to agree with allowing the new strats: just because I stay on the site doesn't mean I approve this change. I'm still completely against it (the decision to allow them suddenly in 2017; not the strats, I have nothing against them) but I decided to stay on the site because this is not something stupid and inappropriate enough in my mind to say goodbye to such an important part of my life. Changing standards in addition to this would make two important changes I don't accept (and find ridiculous), which would be too much for me. I'm free to think, and even to say, that if I don't like something, I stay away from it. Unfortunately too few people have the courage and honesty to act this way in the world and especially on the internet, I guess this is why it shocks people. When I say I'm leaving something I don't approve, I do it and I'm not the kind of person who keeps on knocking on the window hoping for attention. I might have been this kind of person when I was younger and less happy in my life but I've grown up much more than many people among this community have ever seen and could think. On another note, please don't be Neo-ish, for fuck's sake. I don't even see where I'm claiming this is "my" site, even when I was an undisputed double #1 this would have been a complete lack of respect to think this way. I just express my single right to have an opinion and to speak sincerely about it, which I know doesn't suit everyone. This is not forbidden as long as you show respect to your opponents, which is something I think I've always done – which is definitely not the case of everyone within this community. I know where I come from, i.e nowhere, and I'm perfectly ready to come back to it. SMK has no importance anymore in my current life for a lot of reasons you do know, and you have already asked for removals of different kinds in the past so you should understand me more than the majority there. To be honest, I find kinda funny to receive this kind of criticism from someone with a more extreme point of view about retiring when things are changed. With all my respect, you're definitely not the right person to attack me on this. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 07/27/17 at 02:12:36 Everyone please relax, remember this topic was just to brainstorm some ideas, to get some feedback from what is happening on the other sites (thanks Christian for your input and thoughts) not a vote to do an actual change anytime soon. This is the same subject that all the kart sites are facing over time as strats change and techniques are found; we (like the other sites) have to a degree left a lot of standards to get too old. Yes, they could have been changed immediately every time new strats were found, (VL2 big IJ etc), but that might have or might not have been liked by everybody, so rightly or wrongly it was left as is. The very old God -x system may have worked for times going well beyond the highest standard, but things would have still been lopsided anyway with some tracks it being easier to achieve and so on. So ideally one highest standard idea was best. It was always going to be difficult to judge as we were unsure of the true limits of the game, and while we feel (hopefully) we know every strat there is to know, what if there is more still, even if something small and subtle? Of course we dont want to do anything that will affect hours put in by players to reach certain standards. Andreas is right that whatever happens we would need to thoroughly test everything a lot more (not just Scoub and one or two others). So rather than getting hasty perhaps we can take some time to think outside the box of some other solution. Some fresh ideas; rather than changing / throwing in the bin what we have and causing players to want to leave if something is or isn't put into place. *Godfather group hug* :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/27/17 at 02:17:09 I've thought about one thing then told Karel privately I would not ask for any removal as long as I own WRs, because I would destroy some credibility there myself too. If standards are changed AND modify my ASR I will just announce a definitive retirement from the Players Site but will not ask to be removed. So there is no threat or anything related from me to consider when discussing about those changes, it's much nicer for the debate atmosphere to everyone when there's nothing regardable as a threat involved in the process. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/27/17 at 07:02:39 537F6C777126281E0 wrote:
Oh, so for you it's not a problem to suddently allow CI1 wall jump, though it was clearly forbidden since 14 years ? No of course, because you were always against this decision, and couldn't accept a rule you didn't like. Pipeboosts aren't even in the same situation (the only pool done in 2007 was in favor to allow them, but the final decision had never been clearly taken, so we can consider pipeboosts were more muffled than forbidden). So even if I'm against pipeboosts, I have to admit we could discuss about them again, while CI1 wall jump had to be forgotten forever... So in this situation, I can give you all the proofs you want to show that suddently allowing CI1 wall jump is definitely more stupid than allowing pipeboosts ! But as you were for CI1 wall jump, tried it a lot, it's not a problem for you to suddently allow it 14 years later. But you never tried pipeboosts, maybe you're not ready to try them in 2017, therefore it's a problem for you to suddently allow them 10 years later. So, how can you explain that well enough, so that I won't take you as an egoist ? |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/27/17 at 07:40:19 Without trying to stir flames or pick sides here, I think Guillaume was actually against CI1 walljump this time around, precisely because it was banned multiple times before. But correct me if I'm wrong. In general, basing decisions on historical consistency considerations is rarely a good idea, as you would be doomed to make the same mistake over and over. I think the community very clearly sided with pipeboosts, so let's not even mention that again. The CI1 walljump thing has always been a can of worms, it might have been better if it remained forbidden, but here we are I changed my mind in comparison with previous polls and voted to allow, purely because the technical reasons to keep it banned didn't convince me enough anymore. And maybe a little bit that the majority have been wanting it to be allowed for years, so hopefully we would finally hear the end of that discussion. Personally, I would have preferred to keep it banned, but out of egoistic reasons. I don't enjoy the strat and had some very strong WRs without it. Plus you do skip a wall. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Alicia Kart on 07/27/17 at 07:51:15 Antistar was always for CI1 wall jump. He was the one who did a new poll in 2012 despite rule was forbidden since 9 years (and the poll said "no" to the wall jump, once again), and he was one of the first players to answer to you, after you hoped the debate with pipeboosts won't be an opportunity to debate about CI1 wall jump one more time, by upping previous pool about it. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/27/17 at 08:21:08 Just because I thought forbidding a strat was a stupid rule doesn't necessarily mean I didn't accept to compete the way it was asked us to. This explains why I never drove it on the PAL side, even for CDM practice (as this competition doesn't live with blinkers when it comes to that topic). My NTSC lap attempt was just for faking a sub 10" WR I never submitted of course, because my only purpose was a joke for the SMK a section of the MB. The Stunfest 5-lap performance that came just after had almost the same purpose: claiming "hey I drove a SMK WR at a video game event!" before "oh, by the way, it's a SC WR, lol". If I'm correct I've done this long after the last time I asked for allowing the strat (2-3 years?), knowing it was SC and absolutely not driving it to prove something. Since then I don't remember having asked for it to be allowed as I did know this would never be the case anyway. So yes, when it suddenly came OK for the majority to allow it, I called it a lame joke and still think it is, because it should have been allowed from the goddamn beginning, when it was discovered first, not a whole decade after when it's not even the main topic (we were discussing on MC3/MC4 new strats and not CI1 that was definitely brought on the table for wrong reasons). If you don't understand I was joking again on it when I bumped the topic that's your problem, but that was obvious troll to me (and I'm pretty sure Karel took it this way too). Sorry but I think my attitude towards this specific case has always been coherent and logic. My ony mistakes were to create that poll (but I didn't imagine how closed the case was back in time) and bumping it for joking. What's selfish there, seriously? |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Aron Langerak on 07/27/17 at 14:59:12 We play for the fastest times not for some standards made up by us.. I don't care about standards at all but I can image that people who do care about them want to change them. I think at least the laps should change on the MC's. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Firewaster on 07/30/17 at 05:58:17 032F3C272176784E0 wrote:
Trust me, this doesn't work. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/30/17 at 09:44:12 I didn't say this to get anything from Sami lol, and I said afterwards it would be a bad idea as long as I have WRs, so I cannot do it for this simple reason. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Chris on 07/30/17 at 11:49:56 So I read through the topic and on one side I understand Antistar that a change of standards would destroy a lot of effort put into the game if we decide to make them weaker. However: 30020E0A630 wrote:
Making a standard harder because of new strats wouldn't upset me, as long as you don't completely overdo it. We had many strat changes in MKSC (due to new shroomspots, different MT routes and such) that would allow times that pushed the 3laps or flaps by well more than half a second which made us think about adjusting standards. Some of them were so weak that you could reach them without even using ZZMT already. Imo it's the same with the pipe boost strats, they may not suit everyones likes, but this is just because (as Karel already stated) people don't like changes. Of course it allows other, maybe worse players to beat your times and make your efforts "useless". But, why just not try the new strat yourself? You may not like it, but maybe because you haven't fully understood or tried it yet. Not to insult anyone here in their opinion, but if you ask me, the whole purpose of standards is to motivate people. It motivated Antistar to go for WRs beyond the 2nd place, as a standard was still to reach. With a change to make it weaker, the effort would go to extinct. For others, it might not be motivating at all as they lack knowledge or skill, which is why a slight increase of the Myth+ time to make them easier would give them some new motivation. A standard that is too easy to reach (a few GODs in MK64 for example) may motivate people to try for the god and then leave it alone for a long time after achieving them. This is why we looked over the whole set of standards in MKSC and were looking for a standard that is challenging, but reachable. SMKs standards are in most cases fine, some, with implemented new strats, are just too weak. Also a personal thing I wanted to say and ask for a long time but wasn't sure to post as it would upset some people I think... The reason why it took so long to discuss if the new strats should be allowed... to take all this time from almost half a year ago, was it because of the past discussions of not allowing the CI1 strats? I feel like some people here were very cautious about this and just wanted the community to fully approve this to not get the same result as in the past? Also, unrelated but somehow still related: if you want to be removed Antistar, why not just change your name? So the WRs won't get lost and the site still holds its credibility. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Danger M on 07/30/17 at 11:56:03 Just set Myth+ to be whatever my pr's are and fill in all the rest from there. Easy fix. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Shock on 07/30/17 at 12:18:40 I have read only a few posts in this topic, but Chris thinks I should throw this idea out there: In MKSC we're considering keeping both the old and new standards available on the site to compare your timesheet against. However, the new standards will be the "active" ones on the site and considered the one that forms the official ARR rankings. But we thought of adding a button that lets one easily look at your ARR on your timesheet (and maybe also on the main ranks page) that uses the old standards. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Fabrice Baro on 07/31/17 at 05:46:48 7A757F6271776E757F7E7E751B0 wrote:
Very interesting idea. Also if this feature is implemented we could imagine integrating the non-NBT times as well. Like this every set of strats (non-NBT, NBT, pipeboosts...) would be unified. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by KVD on 07/31/17 at 05:48:50 I like this idea a lot as well, not only to still honour Antistar's achievements, but also in general. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 07/31/17 at 22:24:02 Where's the "like" button? |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 08/01/17 at 01:31:30 39363C2132342D363C3D3D36580 wrote:
As per my first post, some "fresh ideas" are very welcome. Do you know how far into development this is for MKSC so far? If Alex is creating it then a similar template could be used if we put together a 2nd (new) set of standards. Then we can test with to see if we all like the idea? |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Shock on 08/01/17 at 10:18:39 We're still finishing up the new set of standards (hopefully we'll be done within the next month), and I just sent a message to Alex asking if he'd be able to add a button like this to the MKSC and SMK page. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Saint Nicholas de la USA on 08/01/17 at 15:33:46 If I was going to do anything I'd make the NTSC standards harder so that they're at least as hard as the PAL standards, based on the number of players who can achieve them. I think I might still make Emperor overall (barely) on NTSC, given how much more time and effort I've put into NTSC than PAL, where I got to Hero A in less than two months. It may mean that a lot of my Titan times will drop to Emperor and some of my Emperor times will go down to Hero, etc. but getting up to those levels should mean something. Some suggestions for new NTSC standards: GV1: how about 1'00"50 for Titan F. (currently 1'01"70) CI2: 1'05"00 (or lower) for Titan F (currently 1'06"20) VL1: 51"50 for Emperor F (currently 53"25), and probably 53"75 for Hero F (a one-second hike from the current Hero F). BC3: 1'30"00 (or possibly 1'29"75) for Emperor F (currently 1'30"65?) GV3: 1'15"00 for Hero F (currently 1'15"75), 1'14"00 for Emperor F (now 1'14"75) VL2: 52"00 (or lower) for Hero F, no more than 50"00 for Emperor F (currently 53"50 and 51"70) RR: 1'26"00 (give or take) for Hero F (currently 1'26"60), maybe 1'25"50 for Emperor F I'm only looking at stuff closer to my rank; I'm not sure how I'd do the Myth/Myth+ (top players would understand this better) and the standards from Veteran on down don't seem to really be any harder on PAL than on NTSC. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Antistar on 08/03/17 at 02:48:02 Thanks Nick for pointing out the NTSC standards, which haven't even been discussed yet. Most of the Myth+ times are much easier to reach on that side and if we have to make some harder, we should focus on the NTSC ones first. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by .Hahaae on 08/04/17 at 17:45:36 Myth+ -> God SMK is a pile of shit cuz no god |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 08/04/17 at 18:13:24 494949210 wrote:
If we change Myth + back to God, will it automatically not be a pile of sh*t anymore? :) We used to use the God standard with naming conventions like in MK64 originally but the names were changed for various reasons when we made the current standards many years ago. Of course this can definitely be looked at as well. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by .Hahaae on 08/04/17 at 19:00:19 586A66620B0 wrote:
If we change Myth + back to God, will it automatically not be a pile of sh*t anymore? :) We used to use the God standard with naming conventions like in MK64 originally but the names were changed for various reasons when we made the current standards many years ago. Of course this can definitely be looked at as well.[/quote] Ya |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 08/05/17 at 08:40:43 6D6D6D050 wrote:
If we change Myth + back to God, will it automatically not be a pile of sh*t anymore? :) We used to use the God standard with naming conventions like in MK64 originally but the names were changed for various reasons when we made the current standards many years ago. Of course this can definitely be looked at as well.[/quote] Ya [/quote] It would be lovely if every single bad game in existence (there are 1000s) could be made great just by changing a 5 character word to a 3 character one :D Anyway Shock and I were discussing with Alex a bit regarding the button idea and things; it would mean some work which may not be feasible but we are still reviewing options. On a lighter note; while you are here, we look forward to your completed timeset :) Perhaps after the above has been sorted which is a fair deal, so no rush :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by .Hahaae on 08/06/17 at 21:21:31 I don't really kart much anymore, mostly do psychedelics and work |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Sami de la SMK on 08/07/17 at 00:39:49 292929410 wrote:
Ah ok, i thought you might still do a little MKSC on and off. Hope all is going well :) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by eoJ on 08/08/17 at 08:00:49 My two cents: I have always had the belief that the highest standards should be attainable through a lot of hard work and practice at a specific strategy. When NBTs came to be the norm, I fully understood why the standards needed to be re-worked because all of them instantly became obsolete. However, I remember talking with Sami a decade ago about how high (or low, if you choose to look at it that way) the Myth+ standards should be set, and I had a pretty firm belief that they shouldn't be out of reach with the current strats, or even be set directly at the current world record. I feel like they should be a combination of a good barrier and what we can all agree is a phenomenal time for each track. Obviously we can't predict the future and where the standards are going to be in another 10 years, but there's nothing wrong with calling a GOD time on MC1 something that a handful of people in the world have already gotten and are happy with their achievement. Lowering the barrier further just to push people to grind for another straight year (which I agree with Guillaume on) is just arbitrary and I don't think it will have the expected outcome for the activity side of the argument. [smiley=beer.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by ScouB on 08/08/17 at 09:40:35 It's not about making the Standards harder to reach (at least as far as I'm concerned) more about making them more coherent between all 40 standards and aligned with newest strategies (MC2 / CI1 / MC3 for example) |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by .Hahaae on 08/08/17 at 10:26:46 Revising standards undermines the very reason for having them, and is a disgusting concept unless they're complete shit and way off-base (re:MKSC) if you want my sober opinion tbh Does the opposite of motivate people. Makes them say "fuck you" and quit. Props to MK64. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by eoJ on 08/08/17 at 14:22:37 7848445E692B0 wrote:
Well, the poll suggests otherwise. My read on the poll is that every time a strat becomes obsolete, the standards will have to change, and I don't think that's right. Standards should reflect how we as a community generally feel is a phenomenal lap or race that someone drives. Barriers are practically the same thing, so unless people are breaking barriers by well over the intended standard time, I don't think it really needs to be altered. |
|
Title: Re: Standards discussion Post by Saint Nicholas de la USA on 08/08/17 at 19:34:33 Just some more suggestions for NTSC standard hikes. MC1- I'd probably make 59"00 the Emperor F barrier and 59"75 the Hero F barrier to beef up the NTSC standards here. GV1- Emperor F 1'01"50, Hero F 1'03"00 to put it more in line with PAL. The one-minute barrier might work for Myth F but I would personally make it a high 59"xx. Maybe 59"80. BC1- Looking at the PAL charts, 1'27"00 looks like it was born to be the Emperor F barrier for NTSC players. Hero F isn't terribly weak on NTSC compared to PAL but I'd still bring it a few tenths lower. CI1- 57"00 for Emperor F works for me. Not sure where I'd put Hero F, probably 58"00 or somewhere else in the low 58" range. GV2- Wouldn't the one-minute barrier make a badass Emperor F standard? Push the Hero F standard just a little bit lower, maybe to 1'01"40, and it'd look great IMO. Star F here is harder on NTSC than on PAL, not that I have a problem with this! DP2- Hero F is probably fine already, as it's actually been reached by fewer NTSC players than PAL players. But Emperor F could stand to go way down. 1'25"50 would probably do it, putting me in the high Hero for both PAL and NTSC. BC2- 1'41"00 needs to be the Emperor F barrier. 1'42"00 would be okay for Hero F even if a bit tough. MC3- I think I'd make 1'28"50 the new Emp F benchmark and 1'30"00 the Hero F time to beat. The Star F is actually harder on NTSC! MC4- Emp F can go down to the 1'36"00 barrier, barely putting me in Emperor range. The Hero F is fine and the Star F, once again, is actually harder for NTSC players. |
|
Mario Kart MB » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |