Target List Personal Stats

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 18 May 2009, 13:53

Pro - 3
Good - 25
OK - 26

nearly more goods than ok's

Slalom -> Good

edit:

Pro - 3
Good - 26
OK - 25

Wewt!

New Wave -> Good

Xiphias · Post by **Xiphias** » 18 May 2009, 18:53

Xiphias, Mon 7 Aug 2006 wrote:
Xiphias, very many long time ago wrote:2 WC <-- Animal Farm new ;D
1 Pro
25 Good
26 Ok
3 WC <-- Uphill Battle
5 Pro
29 Good
17 Ok

Looks like it's been a while since I posted my stats.
7 WC
23 Pro
24 Good

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 18 May 2009, 21:17

38 WC
15 Pro
1 Good (curva)

Madness · Post by **Madness** » 18 May 2009, 21:41

44 WC
10 Pro

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 24 May 2009, 09:23

Pro - 4
Good - 25
OK - 25

Uphill Battle -> Professional

_FreaK_ · Post by **_FreaK_** » 24 May 2009, 11:28

xD my target lists looks similar to Madness's one:))
11 OK 43 Begginer

Labs · Post by **Labs** » 24 May 2009, 14:12

Labs wrote: 3 World Class
26 Professional
25 Good

5 World Class
24 Professional
25 Good

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 27 May 2009, 15:18

Pawq wrote:at last... last beginner pwned
atm:

pr0 - 1
goad - 24
ok - 29

oau and hifly ok->good

pro - 1
good - 26
ok - 27

ez only half are oks now

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 29 May 2009, 16:37

Pro - 4
Good - 26
OK - 24

Headbanger -> Good

Edit:

Pro - 5
Good - 30
OK - 19

Framework -> Good
Curvaceous -> Good
Hi Flyer -> Good
Tag -> Professional
Shelf Life -> Good
Downhill -> Good

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 22 Jun 2009, 20:32

Pawq wrote:pro - 1
good - 26
ok - 27

pro - 1
good - 30
ok - 23

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » 22 Jun 2009, 20:40

wc - 25
pro - 25
good - 4

Labs · Post by **Labs** » 25 Jun 2009, 22:08

Labs wrote:
Labs wrote: 3 World Class
26 Professional
25 Good
5 World Class
24 Professional
25 Good

5 World Class
26 Professional
23 Good

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 26 Jun 2009, 03:13

5 Pro
31 Good
18 OK

Hehe went up i think, forgot to post it.

EDIT
5 Pro
33 Good
16 OK

Steep Corner -> Good
Long Haul -> Good

EDDDDDIIITT

6 Pro
32 Good
16 OK

Hooked -> Pro

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 8 Jul 2009, 03:29

Hey, just noticed my "below Beginner" were gone!

6 Good
18 OK
30 Beginner

I guess you're all like this

culinko · Post by **culinko** » 8 Jul 2009, 16:14

CuLiNo wrote:
CuLiNo wrote:
1 WC
9 Prof
43 Good
1 OK :X
1 WC
13 Prof
39 Good
1 OK

1 WC
14 Prof
39 Good

no more OK's

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 12 Jul 2009, 19:15

33 WC
21 pro

Kowal · Post by **Kowal** » 13 Jul 2009, 09:53

52 WC
2 PRO

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 13 Jul 2009, 12:35

Kowal wrote:52 WC
2 PRO

lol, sick fucker

Jarkko · Post by **Jarkko** » 13 Jul 2009, 12:59

10 WC
10 PRO
16 Good
15 OK
3 Beginner

I still have beginner times

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 13 Jul 2009, 14:28

Kowaaal, only 0,25 to WC in ziggy, and 0,17 in flat track... please hoyl them now so you have 54 wcs as 2nd (3rd? 4th? one of the first anyway

) kuski ever, and beat ramzi

Jarkko leave them and get back to tp ^^

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 13 Jul 2009, 17:36

Pawq: in flat track that is not "only"

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 13 Jul 2009, 21:19

and i didnt say it is, "only" refers only to ziggy

Kowal · Post by **Kowal** » 14 Jul 2009, 18:05

Flat Track done

53 WC
1 PRO

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 14 Jul 2009, 18:08

FinMan wrote:Pawq: in flat track that is not "only"

seems Kowal will handle everything!! mmmega grats Kowal!!!

Kowal · Post by **Kowal** » 17 Jul 2009, 22:35

54 WC

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 17 Jul 2009, 22:36

Grats Kow! Well Donne

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 18 Jul 2009, 00:03

Pawq wrote:
FinMan wrote:Pawq: in flat track that is not "only"
seems Kowal will handle everything!! mmmega grats Kowal!!!

now i dont even try to doubt it

gz

Mats · Post by **Mats** » 18 Jul 2009, 12:56

Awesome...Gratz Kowal

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 20 Jul 2009, 23:43

Pawq wrote:
Pawq wrote:pro - 1
good - 26
ok - 27
pro - 1
good - 30
ok - 23

pro - 2
good - 32
ok - 20

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 25 Jul 2009, 05:33

Pro - 7
Good - 32
OK - 15

Ramp Frenzy: OK -> Pro

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:00

34 wc
20 pro

Ecchi · Post by **Ecchi** » 28 Jul 2009, 04:11

32 beginner
14 OK
7 good
1 pro!

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 28 Jul 2009, 11:43

Lukazz wrote:34 wc
20 pro

1 more WC

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 28 Jul 2009, 14:17

and still 20 pros? ;o

Mielz · Post by **Mielz** » 28 Jul 2009, 15:34

Yes, he made WC on 55. More Levels

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 28 Jul 2009, 16:13

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 29 Jul 2009, 10:47

SmaXa wrote:Pro - 7
Good - 32
OK - 15

Ramp Frenzy: OK -> Pro

Pro - 7
Good - 35
OK - 12

Turnaround -> Good
Quick Round -> Good
Circuitous -> Good

Mielz · Post by **Mielz** » 30 Jul 2009, 19:33

9 WC
26 Pro
19 Good

Uncle Milty · Post by **Uncle Milty** » 30 Jul 2009, 23:17

4 Wc / 10 Pro / 37 Good / 3 Ok

John · Post by **John** » 30 Jul 2009, 23:49

The targets people use nowadays is way outdated, it doesn't even consider styles that was discovered like 3 years ago. I suggest we make a completely new targets.txt by discussing new limits in some irc-channel or something. Last targets.txt was developed only by highly established players (Luther, Cloud, ramone, Zweq and Karlis) but maybe this time anyone interested could join the discussion? I'm just tired of people staring blindly on current targets without evaluating the accuracy in them.

Also, this time around, I suggest making WC harder to achieve. In my opinion WC should only be achieved with times so close to the actual WR that a little extra hoyling could realistically get you the actual WR. Pro should be those slightly slower times still driven with WR-style or times that is still very competitive in the top of records-section, but not close enough to threaten the WR. The remaining targets are harder to define, the time-window for those is wider and it's more difficult to define what styles could be used for each and every limit.

Anyone who agree with me? ;s

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 30 Jul 2009, 23:51

targets are completely useless
look into records - check what's your position in top100 is and you see how good your time actually is
all times that don't get into top100 simply suck

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 31 Jul 2009, 00:01

I agree with John.

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 31 Jul 2009, 00:24

John wrote:Pro should be those slightly slower times still driven with WR-style or times that is still very competitive in the top of records-section, but not close enough to threaten the WR. The remaining targets are harder to define, the time-window for those is wider and it's more difficult to define what styles could be used for each and every limit.

Aren't the differences between Pro and Good big enough already?

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jul 2009, 00:51

zworqy wrote:
John wrote:Pro should be those slightly slower times still driven with WR-style or times that is still very competitive in the top of records-section, but not close enough to threaten the WR. The remaining targets are harder to define, the time-window for those is wider and it's more difficult to define what styles could be used for each and every limit.
Aren't the differences between Pro and Good big enough already?

The relative difference might be good enough but since new styles have emerged and records-updates has brought tighter and better times the whole targets.txt should be renovated. Since Pro-targets should be lower, Good-targets should as well.

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 31 Jul 2009, 01:53

top20 - world class
top50 - pro
top100 - good
top300 - ok
top500 - beginner

Ecchi · Post by **Ecchi** » 31 Jul 2009, 02:06

It might not be accurate for pros, nor beginners, but atleast i see them as quite accurate goals, when I feel I have a good time in a level, its usually just an OK, though some levels should probably be changed, though some are damn hard to achieve still, atleast for me o,o

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jul 2009, 03:35

milagros wrote:top20 - world class
top50 - pro
top100 - good
top300 - ok
top500 - beginner

Too easy :s Also, targets like that are dependent on recordsupdate and we all know how frequently those are updated.

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 31 Jul 2009, 08:01

Im one to agree with John.

nick-o-matic · Post by **nick-o-matic** » 31 Jul 2009, 08:43

Maybe milagros meant that we should take the limit times approximately from current top-100 lists and then keep them same. I think that would be the best way.

Also I think that milagros's targets are too easy. At least WC and pro are actually in many cases what they are nowdays! But that would change if we added there completely new target. Would

top5 - 1337
top20 - world class
top50 - pro
top100 - good
top300 - ok
top500 - beginner

be good?

Adding the new target - "1337" or whatever - would make the system a bit more complicated. But now the revolution due to the new system would be smaller because WC and pro times would remain approximately the same.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 31 Jul 2009, 10:19

The differences between Pro and Good are already too much.

certain targets are very wrong, some goods are simply easy to achieve, while others are still way out of reach.