I think the old standards should be kept integrated with the PP for history, but it would be awesome to see a new, modern standard sheet decided by the community

I think the best way to do it would be to get the top players on every track together to try to decide what the standards for that track should be.

Arvo57 wrote on 01/17/21 at 08:58:17:


Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but I don't see why we should keep the old standards on the PP if the community goes through the trouble of creating new ones tbh. The PP already feels like an ancient relic to a lot of players in the community, and having a modern set of standards while the current ones on the PP stay the same will only do even more to obsolete the site. I'd be fine with archiving the current standards maybe on a spreadsheet or something, but the PP should stay updated imo.

hahaae wrote on 01/17/21 at 09:51:40:


Good point on making the standards all equally difficult to attain roughly. I think it's better we have Gods that are TOO hard than too easy though, imo. If I had to choose, I'd use Cole's LC and Luke's rMC3 as references for what a "God" standard would be; two of the strongest WRs in the game and essentially the human limits for those tracks with current strats. Now I'm NOT saying that a track like DKS or rDKM should require as much pixel perfect optimization throughout the entire track as rMC3 or LC. Setting the DKS God to 1:44.000/.100 would be a mistake, even though the best splits give it, since it requires as good of a run as Cole's LC/Luke's rMC3 over a track that's way more difficult and inconsistent than those two tracks.

Aren’t there going to be new standards on MKRecords? If so, I see no harm in keeping the standards as is on the PP and making new standards on the new site, despite the horrendous inconsistencies in the standards here on the PP.

I am personally happy to see discussion about newer standards. Some of the standards on tracks are definitely way too strong/weak for modern day racing.

While I am for making the god standard difficult to achieve, I believe that with how developed this game is through very intense competition especially over the last couple years, I think most standards should have been achieved by multiple players at least, or have the potential to. I understand that player skill is only going to improve over time, but I think making the god standard a time that only 1 player has achieved in 13 years of development and grinding is just too strong. To compare with tracks that have been discussed, I think that a 1:09.000 LC and a 1:18.000 rMC3 would be pretty reasonable god times. They are still very difficult to achieve even for some of the best players this game currently has to offer, but within the realm of reason for most to get after a pretty considerable grind.

With many players (including Luke and Cole) grinding for weeks, even months just to shave every last bit of time from records, I think setting a god standard at current world record times is just way too strong. I would not be surprised if by nearly 2030 there is not 1 player that beats every current no glitch record, let alone multiple. Even for some of the best this game has to offer, achieving a 1:17.999 rMC3 is no pushover task, and would take most weeks to achieve even from a good base. To get an overall rank of god, this grind would have to be repeated 31 more times (not even including flaps) and in my opinion that is more than justified to get the status of a god player.

I may be in the minority in this, having discussions about this topic several times over the past couple years has shown me that many people think a god time should be a seriously significant achievement to get (near or at current world record level), but I could be wrong.

Perhaps we could follow in MKDDs footsteps and add God+ categories. After things like a-tech and r-tech were implemented and perfected, God times became pretty easy to obtain. This way people can strive further while not changing the standards from back in the day.

Glitch times should definitely be updated though. Making a glitch should not result in an automatic god time. I myself have 8 god times, while deserving none. As someone who loves glitches, I'd love there to be a standard for them to be created at least.

God+ is definitely a no from me. Makes no sense why we'd do that and not just revamp the standards entirely.

And honestly? It may not have come off from my previous posts, but I definitely understand the argument for not having God standards as hard as I had previously described. Ultimately how difficult each standard should be is subjective. All that matters to me is that the difficulty is roughly consistent throughout each category.

Arvo57 wrote on 01/17/21 at 08:58:17:


The CTR site has both "old standards" and "new standards" implemented so as not to throw away people's past accomplishments / history. I think this would work really well for the players' page too

yeah      

I'm very late to this, but here's my opinion:

The game has evolved since the last standards were created. It would not be fair for older times to be ranked with newer standards based on newer strategies that weren't known back then. So I completely agree with Arvo there, we have to keep, in some sort or another, the old standards. But, we still have to create new ones as most of them are not accurate to the modern state of the competition (I have a King D standard on both rSGB and rMR but I'm 252th and 363rd respectively, what). I don't think there's a perfect way to work around that, and everything we'll try will have its flaws: a separation of the standards would mean no competition with older players, making them isolated from the rest of the PP, a mix between the 2 sets of standards would be counter-intuitive as they'll reflect neither of the old and modern times trying to reflect both, and the idea that first came to my mind, that is to have standards based on the strategies used in a run regardless of the era it was driven in, would be both very hard to do (requiering a view of each run, yeah impossible unless 20 people came to work on the PP today) and a little unfair as we still have knowledge that older players did not have at the time. So regardless of what we choose to do, there will always be something wrong. Our work at designing how standards should be handeled nowadays will then be to limit thoses flaws as much as possible, for them to be fewer than those in our current set of standards. Working with 2 eras of the game is very difficult, but it has to be done.

In my opinion, newer times should not be classed based on older standards. They are not older times, and as such that gives them an unfair advantage over those. The same goes for older times with newer standards. The only way I see then is to entierely re-create a set of standards, based on what we know and what we've done. We will replace the old standards with them. But the harder part is, how are we gonna make them relevant for older times.

A solution to that would, eventually, be to boost times from like 2008 to 2013 (these are arbitrary dates, I really don't know when we got all the knowledge we have today) by a said amount of standards (for example, let's say the new Myth D standard for rSGB is a 1:22.55x, a 1:22.540 driven in 2010 that would technically be in Myth D, would be in Myth C). Therefore, the older time is still recognized for its strength, but with the newer standards, making it viable to compete against them. As good as this sounds, there's still some problems, such as the simple fact that our modern knowledge does not give us the same advantage on all tracks, and some older times would be considered stronger than others, although in the same standard and roughly the same period (a 2:05.5xx (Myth D) on rDS with older strategies is, in my opinion, less strong than a 1:43.7xx (also Myth D) on MH using Spear auto). It's a pretty complex question that should not be answered in 5 minutes, we must take the time to analyse all possibilities and take the best one. And no, keeping the standards is not an option. They are 8 years old (go to the standards page, at the bottom right it says "file modified 2013 03 22 by Alex Penev"). We've had them for almost ²/₃ of the game's life, it's time to change.

On how should we build the new set of standards, I believe, as others said, that at this point every God standard should've been reached, by several people, likely the top 5 to 10 on a track. For instance, DDR God (1:49.3xx) has been achieved by 60 people here, so if I had to redesign the standards myself I would put God at either 1:48.4xx (18th), 1:48.1xx (10th), or 1:47 (6th). Then we go along, for example if I chose a 1:48.1xx as God here I'd go with a 1:48.8xx as Myth A (33rd), 1:49.5xx as Myth B (64th) and so on. These choices would be directed by the player's experiences, and for instance if many think that a 1:48.8xx is still doable but a 1:48.7xx is much harder, we'll go with that last one as a Myth A standard. And this for all 64 categories, + the No-Glitch/No-Shortcut ones.

As an add-on edit, I see some people here talking about how the god standard was made for people who "had nothing else to accomplish in the game after climbing the AF ladder", a sort of perfect run, that only track specialists such as Cole on LC, Demon on MT or Blake on DKS should be able to get, being miles away from anyone in the world on their specific track. I see that and I understand that. Although the God standard has changed meaning and no longer represents that idea, I think we could (eventually) add this to the newer standards, as the ultimate goal for the "chosen ones" on a said track. I don't talk about crazy expectations like "that track will get blown up by a strat nobody saw coming" or "we'll discover a new technique that saves 3 seconds on each course", I'm talking about what we know, what is technically possible to do and what will be achieved in the coming years. Something above God standard, that's so difficult it'll only be made for the best of the best and only one could ever achieve it. No, I'm not talking about these awful God+ they added in Double Dash, but rather a much more... Special standard. There, you read it. Special. Something that we know is possible but is the closest to perfection anyone has ever been on a track. If you reach this standard, your time will be very Special, that's the word. An exemple of Special time would be, even though it's already been achieved, Guy's 3/3 King Alex MC run (1:20.357). That's Special. The God standard is at 1:21.5, the Special would be something crazy like this, a sub 1:20.4. Representing something that even the best in the world would grind for months, something that we know is possible but extremely hard, something that's the closest to perfection someone can go. That would be the Special standard (-1.000 for the ARR calculations).

Here's my point of view on the topic. Take it, leave it, criticize it, we're here to discuss so any comments will be appreciated. Thanks for reading, imma head out