I agree that it is time to improve the standards. I don't think that we will be able to reach a final set of standards though. A few tracks are still too underplayed by the top players, Seb could smash some of the WRs by seconds.

The first thing to do is not to come up with god times, it is to come up with the new system of standards. I think we should discuss this first.

Your proposition has a big flaw: your new set of standards won't be good for zzmt players.
- 5 standards for zzmt is not enough. For example, in a track like MC, there will be a 1 second gap between zzmt god and zzmt-A!
- zzmt players will have very irregular standards timeset. A zzmt player at hero level will easily beat the non-zzmt god on a track like pc, but will be stuck in the hero ranks in tracks where zzmt is not important.

The true purpose of standards is too help the players compare their different times, and now what to improve. Your proposition won't achieve this for the zzmt player.


I think that the only solution that would work for every player is actually quite simple: have two sets of standards, zzmt standards and non-zzmt standards. Those two sets will be eqal for Expert and below, but starting with Hero, gradually, the zzmt-standards will be faster than the non-zzmt ones. That way, both zzmt and non-zzmt players will have a "real" set of standards to work with.

The main question with this is how to implement this on the site. We would need simply need a button on every page (profiles, ARR list, course charts ans so on) to switch standards set. I don't think it would be too hard to do. Having some symbol to differentiate non-zzmt and zzmt players would also help.

RVL1 - 0'40"98< GOD...really?
http://www.mariokart64.com/mksc/standards.php

how about 38"50 on GOD
that will be a challenge

Nstride, there is a huge problem with separate charts: it can be very difficult to tell the difference between zzmt and non-zzmt. Fried made some interesting TAS videos at some point, showing Bowser charging a MT. He then asked the top players if the MTs where zzmt or not. The top players didn't agree, and were wrong most of the time!

For example, many advanced non-zzmt strats involve charging mt in weird places using countersteers, rdp1 for example. Someone with a pro-zzmt console (a worn out ds for example) but playing with the non-zzmt strat will automatically perform mts at those points, and will be able to charge those mts faster  and with more ease than someone with a non-zzmt console. Those people will have an unfair advantage on those tracks.

SMK have separate rankings, but it a a different story here: the non-nbt rankings forbids doing advanced techniques with the mts entirely. Therefore their non-nbt rankings aren't skewed in favor of people with pro-nbt pads.

Separate standard are a different story. ARR is not the main ranking on the site, it is a bonus ranking, and it won't be much of a problem if some player have a small advantage on the non-zzmt ARR. That's why I think this is the best solution.

Vorsch wrote on 04/16/11 at 11:27:22:


Didn't think about this.   I do that countersteer thing all the time.

So you're suggesting separate standards, and non-ZZMT players can use this as their actual ARR?

Personnaly, I think we could do separate charts but we keep that one only for ranks (the zzmt rank). It would be like the Non NBT SMK site : an unofficial rank that could let some competition for the non zzmt players.
If the rank doesn't count, I don't think some players will lie about their time, it's just a question of trust.

Even if I was mostly replying to the original poster, my post reflects my whole opinion about the standards. Even with your system, I think my arguments still stand (for example, I could still get a "ZZMT God" on, let's say, SGB flap, even without ZZMT, as the standards for both ZZMT and non-ZZMT charts would be identical).

If some people are really willing to try such system, I will help. I only want what is the best for the community. But I do not think this is going to be that much more balanced than a ajustement of the current standards.

Edit : ok, if this would be like the mkds system, then yes it should work, as some of the standards from certains tracks are identical. So who is up for that idea ?

Seperate charts would be stupid, not only because it would only include like what, 10 people?

I would like the idea of new standards, but who should do them? It has to be someone who knows the limits of the game or can guess them very good, so I'm out anyway for it, even if I wanted to do it And there's the problem about adding them to the database when created, but that should be the smaller problem.

Etch wrote on 08/20/09 at 18:23:40:


For those unaware of how long this has been going on...
http://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203971304/0

Tired of seeing this crap rehashed again and again.

People have sat on this shit for years so until they find some motivation to do something kart related for a change nothing will continue to be done.

It's not that hard to draft something up...

I already told you my opinion about you idea of mkdd-like standards.

Now I'd like to hear your opinion about my idea of having two different standard set, one 100% zzmt, and one 100% non-zzmt.

Vorsch wrote on 04/20/11 at 01:39:55:


It'd be a good idea if we could differentiate between ZZMT and non-ZZMT miniturbo's more effectively. We could have both standard sets, but how would we know which one a player falls under legitimately? That's really the only reason I disagree with split standards.

I guess it works for me, I'm just mostly adamant on my idea because it is similar to yours, with the exception that it pertains to a single chart and tailors the ZZMT times to only the top level of play (which is where all the ZZMT players are anyways). Either one would work in this situation, its just a matter of which one players would want more.

Yeah, so when are you establishing the update?