Which is the best Elma table (for Excel)?

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 16 Nov 2002, 01:15

Which do you think is THE table to use for comparing your times to WRs and such?

Maybe it sounds like bragging, but I really think my own is. It's the biggest (over 100k) I've seen and also the most complete.

Check it out here.

I don't say that other's tables are bad, most are actually very good, but not quite as good as mine. (Sorry for bragging, again)

Which table do YOU want to recommend?

Ps. Abula, I'm very unsure if this is the right forum. It fits in almost all of them.

dz · Post by dz » 16 Nov 2002, 01:33

well, basically it's the same table, outlook just made kinda better, which makes it pritty cool looking, but i still prefer the "original" excel since it has the graphical table.

Post by **Abula** » 16 Nov 2002, 03:22

dz wrote:well, basically it's the same table, outlook just made kinda better, which makes it pritty cool looking, but i still prefer the "original" excel since it has the graphical table.

I guess you mean that original is the one by CSabi..? I think mine is better ;). There you see the real difference to WR, relative difference isn't needed in my opinion. Haven't checked zworqy's .. yet.

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 17 Nov 2002, 00:15

dz: Did you check the ENTIRE document? There are 7 pages, on containing 2 big graphs. Look in the bottom of Excel to see the tabs with the page names...

Abula: Absolute diff. doesn't tell you much. 2 secs from WR can be very much or very little, depending on the level. But relative diff. tells you which levels you have the best chance of improving. But what I really was going to say is: If you want absolute times, the max on the graph should be at least a minute ( it's 1:12 in mine), not 3-4 secs as in yours. Only 10-20 people in the world will find that useful... if you hav exactly 3 secs over the WR on every level, your total is ca 42 mins... but for it to be realistic to actually be less than 3-4 sec away on every level, you would have to have a total of 40:00 - 40:30...

dz · Post by dz » 17 Nov 2002, 09:35

ye i looked it all the way down and saw ONE page with ONE simple table, just like in other similar excels.

Post by **SveinR** » 17 Nov 2002, 11:03

Hmm....It has 7 pages; one with the difference to WR's, one with graphs based on that, one that shows how your average times differ from your best times, one with difference to OLP WR's, one with difference to Lost Internals WR's, one with target times for internals, and one with target times for OLP.

GodFather · Post by **GodFather** » 17 Nov 2002, 11:16

I don't use any tables

Post by **Abula** » 17 Nov 2002, 13:25

zworqy: it was supposed to change the max depending on the times you have, too bad if it doesn't work in that way.

Chris Penrose · Post by **Chris Penrose** » 17 Nov 2002, 13:28

dz wrote:ye i looked it all the way down and saw ONE page with ONE simple table, just like in other similar excels.

There are tabs a the bottom of the excel window.

zworqy - i agree, that is the best elma table yet.

Rigger · Post by **Rigger** » 20 Nov 2002, 13:01

i don't even have excel

\-Rigger

dz · Post by dz » 21 Nov 2002, 15:33

Chris Penrose wrote:
dz wrote:ye i looked it all the way down and saw ONE page with ONE simple table, just like in other similar excels.
There are tabs a the bottom of the excel window.

zworqy - i agree, that is the best elma table yet.

ye my mistake, didn't know excel has paging kind of system.
now it's looking pritty fine.

Which is the best Elma table (for Excel)?

Which is the best Elma table (for Excel)?

!??!