TARGETS12.TXT - Just a suggestion

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 9 Aug 2004, 21:12

Luther wrote:Please enjoy the new list. We think it should pretty well determin where you are at, skill-wise. If you disagree, it's your own problem you're not aware of what a good time and a bad time is.

Luther's crusade of arrogance continues. This is the worst part of his post in the News -> Records forum, but the general attitude in that whole post and his recent posts in this topic is almost as bad...

I just can't respect someone with opinions like that.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Aug 2004, 00:31

At first when I saw new targettimes list I thought the times was pretty hard in general but after reading Luther's definitions of every grade on the News forum I have to say the list seems a lot better. Zworqy your list isnt bad but it's still too ez. But I know how hard it is to make a targettimes list (I tried to fix some sort of list myself like only a week ago). Hope all players start using this new one cuz Im so tired of all those hmm what should I say...not so good players that say they got World Class times all the time..

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 10 Aug 2004, 06:00

not all worldclass times are same hard to achieve but we can saz it's ok set (not worldclass set

)
we can see in records lists how many made world class times in different levs
i'm a bit dissappointed i don't have 54 worldclass times

..i'm one of those who didn't follow teh records rulz0r (so not updated)

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 10 Aug 2004, 08:02

i'll have more top10 times (when i follow teh rules:)) than world class times
the question is : is top10 time world class?

Luther · Post by **Luther** » 10 Aug 2004, 08:26

Dyrox · Post by **Dyrox** » 10 Aug 2004, 10:36

I think those new target times are great!

EasyGijs · Post by **EasyGijs** » 10 Aug 2004, 11:30

I think with this new target times list a 6th rank should be added:
absolute beginner, this rank should contain times which are good for someone who started the game finished all level a few times and never have seen a rec.
Because if you never downloaded recs and your just a beginner and proud of your 1:15 tt and you see this target time list, Than you can't compare youself with anything.
most of beginner times are much too hard for these people, like lv 6 long haul. 50 seconds is with short cut, as beginner you don't do this short cut.

But the list is very good for experienced kuskis, and the levels where i have beginner are the levels which i have to work on and the levels which i have professional are the levels I really worked hard for.

Ramone · Post by **Ramone** » 10 Aug 2004, 12:03

list is very good. in my opinion I see only 2 flaws:

Flat Track. U have 17:16 and thats beginner, I played over 30 mins yesterday, didnt even make a top10 time.

Also zz pro is far far too easy. Check top 100. many has that

Dyrox · Post by **Dyrox** » 10 Aug 2004, 12:07

I agree with Flat Track, Ramone... It's really hard to get a good time if you are not using the new style...

Endrju · Post by **Endrju** » 21 Aug 2004, 09:25

One little typo (dot instead of comma)

4. Over and Under 0:30,30 0:30.70 0:31,60 .............

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 17 Sep 2004, 18:29

Top 3 sick beginner times:

3. 4, Over and Under (beginner 35, ok 33:50)
So beginners can make the double-killer jump? fast turnaround?
high speed in Under part? LOL

2. 5, Uphill battle (beginner 25:50, ok 23:50)
30 for beginner and ~26 for ok is more realistic

1. 16, New wave (beginner 1:48, ok 1:39)
Yeah Right. So to even get INTO beginner times, you have to take the shortcut to teh apple after the wave part?
1:48 would be better as ok time, ok? 2:10 or something for beginner...

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 17 Sep 2004, 18:56

Flat Track 17,00 is TEH hard... it's less than half a second from WR with old style

but who gives two fucks. the standard is egalitarian

MiEkk · Post by **MiEkk** » 23 Oct 2004, 17:40

I know this is late to post this but I sure everyone has noticed. The new target times list is so stupid. ONly three people have a world class TT compared to it. Shouldn't world class be based on the top 10 of every level and TT. That would make so much more sense, for example, Luther doesn't even have a world class TT and he is ranked 4th.

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » 23 Oct 2004, 21:16

The bad thing is that so many times just end with 00. So lazy!

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 24 Sep 2005, 15:14

I made another try:targets13_zwo.txt

I'm really satisfied with this one. Some levels to check out especially:
2. Flat Track
9. Tunnel Terror
15. Serpents tale
16. New Wave
33. Zig-Zag
35. Labyrinth Pro
46. Bowling
54. Apple Harvest

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 24 Sep 2005, 15:55

IMO only one that should be changed is Flat Track (I've got no problem with it anymore anyway), rest is pretty ok in the 1.2 targets list...

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 24 Sep 2005, 17:21

i guess world class player should be able to do serp bounce, so ez some 56.00 there not 1.03

Fluff · Post by **Fluff** » 24 Sep 2005, 20:38

Well we could say the same for hill now. Ez fix WC target at 16.00 or smthg.

for zworqy's targets, Flat track should stay as it is, once u get the style its not that hard to do 15.5x even if i must admit that its kinda hard to get the style

(havent got it yet ;s)

ziggy: lolz at 1.18 for pro's :X 1.10 seems better

same for lp pro's-->2.30

didnt look at good,ok targets.

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 24 Sep 2005, 21:14

lolz at: apple harvest, lappy pro, spiral, new wave
the rest is ok

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 24 Sep 2005, 22:29

Sorry zworqy, I find them to be too easy. They aren't called target times for nothing.

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 25 Sep 2005, 16:20

At least it's a lot more realistic target times list than the previous one (the one on Moposite).

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 25 Sep 2005, 17:25

DamRho wrote:At least it's a lot more realistic target times list than the previous one (the one on Moposite).

Exactly!

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 25 Sep 2005, 17:28

i dont feel to be world class player, pro only
so targets are ok, most of my times are pro, a few of good and world class

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 1 Oct 2005, 22:16

Just something kind of related: why should the target times list be a product of someone's "guessing" or "judgment" of times instead of a clear statistical analysis of people's current times?

Wouldn't it be more correct target times list if it could change throughout time as people improve their times and find new styles and faster ways of doing things?

A suggestion:

Top 50 times for a level or total time would be World Class.
Top 150 times for a level or total time would be Professional.
Top 300 times for a level or total time would be Good.
Top 500 times for a level or total time would be OK.
Everyone else would be a beginner.

How would you find the times then? Just look at the lists at moposite or elma stats compare or something else!

Imagine some guy who plays and gets to Professional level. He stops playing for a while and so other people improve their times making him drop in the table and become only Good. Isn't this more realistic? Isn't it feasible that someone who stops playing will fall back in the new styles that have been found and thus be considered not as good as he used to be? Isn't this a better reflection of reality than a "static" list such as the one by Luther, the one proposed by Zworqy (which is more realistic than Luther's in itself IMO) or the ones in use by stats compare sites?

A possible problem that could come with the use of such a target times list would obviously be the nomenclature used: obviously if the times improve to the point where the 500th time has 40 minutes total time you can't consider anyone with 41 minutes a "beginner". But this is a problem already existing in the current target times list anyway; maybe a nomenclature system that evaluates the time instead of the person that does the time would fit better. I know you can argue that the current nomenclature is evaluating the times and not the ones who do the times but you can't deny that there is a negative connotation in it all: a "beginner" time is done by a "beginner" person. Wouldn't something like Mediocre, Average, OK, Good, World Class be more fitting?

Here's how the total times would look like in such a target times list (using current nomenclature):

World Class: 40.34.49
Professional: 43.03.28
Good: 47.33.05
OK: 53.44.73

Any opinions? (serious opinions please; if it's just to say "you suck" because you disagree for no valid reason then it's better if you're not posting here).

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 1 Oct 2005, 22:59

I think it's better if you do it like this:

Top 10 times for a level or total time would be World Class.
Top 50 times for a level or total time would be Professional.
Top 100 times for a level or total time would be Good.
Top 250 times for a level or total time would be OK.
Everyone else would be a beginner.

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 1 Oct 2005, 23:32

tijsjoris wrote:I think it's better if you do it like this:

Top 10 times for a level or total time would be World Class.
Top 50 times for a level or total time would be Professional.
Top 100 times for a level or total time would be Good.
Top 250 times for a level or total time would be OK.
Everyone else would be a beginner.

Wouldn't that be as unrealistic as Luther's list? You mean everybody playing Elma today is a begginer except 250 people?

Rasken · Post by **Rasken** » 1 Oct 2005, 23:33

Thats too easy DamRho. My tt is 42,40 and according to your suggestion I`m a pro player. And I really dont think I am

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 1 Oct 2005, 23:56

Rasken wrote:Thats too easy DamRho. My tt is 42,40 and according to your suggestion I`m a pro player. And I really dont think I am

But that's the point; it's as easy as how good players are in general! You're pro according to my suggestion because there are not enough players better than you. Wouldn't that be what should define a good player and not someone's judgment on what a good player is?

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 2 Oct 2005, 00:00

if there are 250 better, you must be beginner

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 2 Oct 2005, 00:49

Noobs you just don't get it ffs

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 2 Oct 2005, 01:04

milagros wrote:if there are 250 better, you must be beginner

Exactly how many Elma players do you think there are in the world?

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 2 Oct 2005, 01:56

Seriously ppl, everyone has different opiions of what is a "world class" player and such, what we really should do is rename world class to level1 or soemthing neutral like that, and then we could focus on making all "level1" times equally hard to make and all "level2" times equally hard to make etc etc etc. Because that is what a good target times list is, a list where all the good times is good not better nor worse. SO ppl please stop caring abuot what the different things are called because that really doesnt matters.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 2 Oct 2005, 08:44

Well. No point in setting target times after top 10, 50, 100 and such. Caus it's different from level to level how many has good times. For example top ten in warm up is much better times than top ten in upside down. And if you take after top times, you could as well just look at those instead of having target times.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 2 Oct 2005, 09:56

Kopaka wrote:Well. No point in setting target times after top 10, 50, 100 and such. Caus it's different from level to level how many has good times. For example top ten in warm up is much better times than top ten in upside down. And if you take after top times, you could as well just look at those instead of having target times.

You are right, totally right. I feel like that the same way.
I was just trying to argue with damrho about his values which were really unrealistic.

Luther · Post by **Luther** » 2 Oct 2005, 14:16

The Target List is based on various of things, for example, a World Class time is only achieved if you use the "best known" professional time for a level. Also you need to hoyl the style a bit to reach a World Class target. How many people that have made the style/hoyled it doesn't matter, it's about the times, not the kuskis.

It is the same with the other target times, like when we decided an OK target time, we considered the style, the range of times possible for the style(s) and made a target for it.

What I feel now though, is that some targets need to be updated, eg. Hill Legend, (Flat track), Serpents Tale, Curva, and some more.

And it is not my list only, it is a cooperation between karlis, zweq, ramone, cloud etc, we discussed and decided. And a Beginner Target is not meant to be for someone that have never played the game, but for someone who have played the game for a while but haven't yet achieved a really good time, for instsance, in one of my top 10s (Ramp Frenzy) I have three OK times =)

Keep hoyling, and suggest improvements rather than think it would be better/easier/more fair to make a new list, because it won't happen :*

Squip · Post by **Squip** » 2 Oct 2005, 14:28

Go and make: uphill battle, hill legend and serps harder, then the targets will be pretty ok imo.

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 2 Oct 2005, 14:43

why flat track? it's now fucking hard to get a good target without the new style!

Luther · Post by **Luther** » 2 Oct 2005, 15:01

lukaz, exactly, we need to make it different, not lowering it in this case.

squip, yeah definitely Uphill battle as well =)

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 2 Oct 2005, 16:25

and curva style was found afterwards, so some hundreds down there too

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 2 Oct 2005, 16:41

Luther wrote: And it is not my list only, it is a cooperation between karlis, zweq, ramone, cloud etc, we discussed and decided.

I know it isn't your list alone I just couldn't remember the rest of the nicknames correctly so I didn't wanna guess some random nicknames.

As for the rest of your post it's your point of view and I won't argue with it. It's really about the definition you want to use for a "target times" list and yours seems to be accepted by most people so why try to change the world? I don't like your target times list, I know people who don't also, but if the majority likes it then I suppose we'll have to live with it.

Cheers

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 2 Oct 2005, 18:10

It's not about either you like it or don't, it's about either it's correct or not.

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 2 Oct 2005, 20:06

8-ball wrote:It's not about either you like it or don't, it's about either it's correct or not.

So why would someone's "guessing" be correct and mathematics isn't? You do know that we put spaceships in space because of precise calculations and not because someone guesses values right? It's about points of view, not correctness.

TARGETS12.TXT - Just a suggestion

ads

kopa you didn't like internal tropics!