World total times top100 development

Post by **Abula** » 23 Jun 2003, 23:52

I'm interested to see how top100 (and top10, 50, 200, 300, 400, 500) is getting tighter and tighter.

WR total time #132
38:01,52

Total times #44
1. 38:37,47
10. 39:58,08
50. 42:01,43
100. 43:34,04
200. 47:59,14
300. 52:32,79
400. 57:53,04
500. 1:18:18,89

Differences #44
WRs - 1. : 35,35
1. - 10. : 1:20,61
1. - 50. : 3:23,96
1. - 100. : 4:56,57
1. - 200. : 9:21,67
1. - 300. : 13:55,32
1. - 400. : 19:15,57
1. - 500. : 39:41,42

Feel free to update the list always after the update. During my army I'm not sure if I'll have energy for this.

PS. When DarMoeD broke 39mins he was 16,20 behind the WR total time if I remember correct.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 24 Jun 2003, 08:55

You need to continue improving your TT, if you want's to stay on the place you have.

sonic_fruit · Post by **sonic_fruit** » 24 Jun 2003, 10:22

i keep imroving my tt, but i can never get inside the top 400.

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 28 Jun 2003, 16:57

maybe i should send my state to imporve your tables

Post by **Abula** » 30 Jun 2003, 12:24

WR total time #133
37:58,68 (-2,84)

Total times #45
1. 38:35,22 (-2,35)
10. 39:57,02 (-1,06)
50. 42:01,43 (0)
100. 43:33,11 (-0,93)
200. 47:55,25 (-3,89)
300. 52:20,03 (-12,76)
400. 57:34,26 (-18,78)
500. 1:12:40,49 (-5:38,40)

Differences #45
WRs - 1. : 36,54 (+1,19)
1. - 10. : 1:21,80 (+1,19)
1. - 50. : 3:25,21 (+1,25)
1. - 100. : 4:56,89 (+0,32)
1. - 200. : 9:19,03 (-2,64)
1. - 300. : 12:43,81 (-1:11,51)
1. - 400. : 18:38,04 (-37,53)
1. - 500. : 34:04,27 (-5:37,15)

Post by **Abula** » 11 Jul 2003, 18:18

WR total time #134
37:57,24 (-1,44)

Total times #46
1. 38:33,98 (-1,24)
10. 39:57,02 (0)
50. 41:59,99 (-1,44)
100. 43:31,25 (-1,86)
200. 47:52,56 (-2,79)
300. 51:57,95 (-23,08)
400. 57:13,58 (-20,68)
500. 1:08:43,15 (-3:57,34)

Differences #46
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 4 Aug 2003, 07:19

WR total time #137
37:53,25 (later)

Total times #47
1. 38:28,23 (later)
10. 39:54,94 (later)
50. 41:58,25 (later)
100. 43:31,02 (later)
200. 47:51,19 (later)
300. 51:46,66 (later)
400. 56:36,27 (later)
500. 1:06:56,81 (later)

Differences #47
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 17 Aug 2003, 15:15

WR total time #140
37:48,80 (later)

Total times #48
1. 38:20,87 (later)
10. 39:52,21 (later)
50. 41:58,25 (0)
100. 43:31,02 (0)
200. 47:51,19 (0)
300. 51:39,22 (later)
400. 55:58,77 (later)
500. 1:06:19,31 (later)

Differences #48
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 5 Oct 2003, 16:07

WR total time #141
37:47,52 (later)

Total times #49
1. 38:19,99 (later)
10. 39:52,21 (later)
50. 41:58,25 (0)
100. 43:29,10 (0)
200. 47:49,33 (0)
300. 51:39,13 (later)
400. 55:58,77 (later)
500. 1:05:39,32 (later)

Differences #49
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 5 Oct 2003, 16:13

WR total time #147
37:32,91 (later)

Total times #50
1. 37:59,73 (later)
10. 39:45,21 (later)
50. 41:52,15 (0)
100. 43:25,96 (0)
200. 47:20,75 (0)
300. 51:12,17 (later)
400. 55:27,94 (later)
500. 1:03:01,58 (later)

Differences #50
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 15 Aug 2004, 22:39

WR total time #179
37:11,26 (later)

Total times #51
1. 37:40,80 (later)
10. 39:41,94 (later)
50. 41:21,76 (later)
100. 42:50,93 (later)
200. 46:38,84 (later)
300. 50:30,43 (later)
400. 54:23,74 (later)
500. 1:00:49,30 (later)

Differences #51
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Feel free to count those 'later' or post here these stats after the update.

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 16 Aug 2004, 12:42

again i didn't manage to follow the rules
but i see my tt is updated to some 42.21.68 omg
next time i'll do it, ok?

Post by **Abula** » 22 Aug 2004, 23:03

WR total time #179
37:11,26 (later)

Total times #52
1. 37:40,80 (later)
10. 39:41,04 (later)
50. 41:21,49 (later)
100. 42:40,90 (later)
200. 46:28,34 (later)
300. 49:58,45 (later)
400. 53:41,40 (later)
500. 59:29,14 (later)

Differences #52
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

Post by **Abula** » 22 Aug 2004, 23:13

WR total time #179
37:11,26 (later)

Total times #53
1. 37:40,80 (later)
10. 39:41,04 (later)
50. 41:19,64 (later)
100. 42:49,32 (later)
200. 46:20,50 (later)
300. 49:54,96 (later)
400. 53:23,79 (later)
500. 58:35,58 (later)

Differences #53
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

John · Post by **John** » 23 Aug 2004, 00:15

sorry I might just be really stupid but I havent figured out what that "later" are supposed to mean.
Abula u said "Feel free to count those 'later' or post here these stats after the update." mayb I could do that if I just knew what later means :S

Edit: lolz I just found out

mayb I fix those stats after school later today.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 23 Aug 2004, 16:00

Damn, have to hoyl some to stay in top 200 :/

John · Post by **John** » 23 Aug 2004, 20:40

Abula wrote:WR total time #179
37:11,26 (-3,32)

Total times #53
1. 37:40,80 (0)
10. 39:41,04 (0)
50. 41:19,64 (-1,85)
100. 42:49,32 (+8,42)
200. 46:20,50 (-7,84)
300. 49:54,96 (-3,49)
400. 53:23,79 (-17,61)
500. 58:35,58 (-53,56)

Differences #53
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

I calculated some of them, mayb the rest later ;X

Post by **Abula** » 30 Aug 2004, 01:56

WR total time #180
37:05,78 (later)

Total times #54
1. 37:32,44 (later)
10. 39:36,18 (later)
50. 41:17,92 (later)
100. 42:37,48 (later)
200. 46:16,80 (later)
300. 49:46,77 (later)
400. 53:05,41 (later)
500. 57:59,67 (later)

Differences #54
WRs - 1. : later
1. - 10. : later
1. - 50. : later
1. - 100. : later
1. - 200. : later
1. - 300. : later
1. - 400. : later
1. - 500. : later

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 30 Aug 2004, 09:35

looks like removing dmdÂ´s recs caused other players to hoyl internals again
nice times guys

burgertime · Post by **burgertime** » 31 Aug 2004, 19:02

500th place is moving way too fast. Would a top 1000 be better? Are there even 1000 people who have sent in their state?

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 31 Aug 2004, 20:08

At the longer course, it would be cool. =)

Post by **Abula** » 2 Sep 2004, 23:37

One day...

About 750 people have sent their times in.

petsen · Post by **petsen** » 3 Sep 2004, 12:29

Kopaka wrote:Damn, have to hoyl some to stay in top 200 :/

looks like i have to hoyl to stay in top50 :/

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 3 Sep 2004, 14:29

yeh why jump to 1000, just because it is a nice, even number?

if anything there should just be a top600, but it isn't really necessary - top500 is not too tough yet

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 3 Sep 2004, 14:30

fackin double post :S

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 3 Sep 2004, 15:01

ez for u to say top 60 nat goad, why nat have a top 700?? it was about 750 that sent in... or maybe require to finish all levs or something and the top list could be how big some helst

Post by **Abula** » 10 Sep 2004, 15:13

Blaargh I won't go on counting these, too boring.

Memphis · Post by **Memphis** » 19 Oct 2004, 16:40

top 750 and top 1000 would be cool when there is that many people so everyone even noobs can see how there placing and how they are improving. Makes it more competitive for noobs. By the way i think i am stupid but all these abula posts make no sence to me. Anyway peace

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 19 Oct 2004, 16:53

looks like you still don't belong to the scene

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 19 Oct 2004, 17:03

Cypress wrote:top 750 and top 1000 would be cool when there is that many people so everyone even noobs can see how there placing and how they are improving.

Totally agrees.

petsen · Post by **petsen** » 19 Oct 2004, 18:17

Kopaka wrote:
Cypress wrote:top 750 and top 1000 would be cool when there is that many people so everyone even noobs can see how there placing and how they are improving.
Totally agrees.

i follow..

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 19 Oct 2004, 20:20

petsen wrote:
Kopaka wrote:
Cypress wrote:top 750 and top 1000 would be cool when there is that many people so everyone even noobs can see how there placing and how they are improving.
Totally agrees.
i follow..

i follow the following of the agreement of the great statement above

John · Post by **John** » 19 Oct 2004, 20:25

I wont quote the quoted quotes but yes it would be good to make bigger lists, for example 500th TT is now 56.xx that is pretty low.

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 19 Oct 2004, 23:33

low=lol?

Ky.Jelly · Post by **Ky.Jelly** » 19 Oct 2004, 23:37

Zweq wrote:low=lol?

nat so lol, im 480th

Ky.Jelly · Post by **Ky.Jelly** » 19 Oct 2004, 23:39

sorry, 483rd

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 19 Oct 2004, 23:41

so this is how you got those first 3000th posts?

Ky.Jelly · Post by **Ky.Jelly** » 20 Oct 2004, 00:00

Zweq wrote:so this is how you got those first 3000th posts?

ye max n0lifing it like your tt

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 20 Oct 2004, 17:47

Assumption: Those who sign up for mopolauta and get loads of posts have no life.

If that's true, you might as well use your elma time productively.

MiEkk · Post by **MiEkk** » 20 Oct 2004, 19:18

anyone notice how tight the top 100 is getting? its going down like 5-10 sec every update. Unless I get headbanger or Apple harvest I might never get in.

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 21 Oct 2004, 12:44

MiEkk wrote:anyone notice how tight the top 100 is getting? its going down like 5-10 sec every update. Unless I get headbanger or Apple harvest I might never get in.

42 mins club without HB or AH? impressive

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 21 Oct 2004, 15:29

sierra wrote:Assumption: Those who sign up for mopolauta and get loads of posts have no life.

If that's true, you might as well use your elma time productively.

Shot your fucking mouth!

petsen · Post by **petsen** » 21 Oct 2004, 15:31

John wrote:I wont quote the quoted quotes but yes it would be good to make bigger lists, for example 500th TT is now 56.xx that is pretty low.

i agree top 750 is the minimum atm, top1000 is soon to be recomended.

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 25 Oct 2004, 15:03

i haven't bothered sending in my state.dat because none of my times get on any of the tables. if there was top 750 created, even though 750 state's haven't been sent in, i'm sure it'll be filled VERY quickly.

StingZor! · Post by **StingZor!** » 25 Oct 2004, 18:37

Drive Farsund! 53:13:19 And proud of it!

EDIT: Wrong forum.. sry

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 25 Oct 2004, 19:09

StingZor! wrote:Drive Farsund! 53:13:19 And proud of it!

Kinda wrong topic dude. If you wanna tell your total time, put it in your signature.

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 25 Oct 2004, 20:57

psteve wrote:i haven't bothered sending in my state.dat because none of my times get on any of the tables. if there was top 750 created, even though 750 state's haven't been sent in, i'm sure it'll be filled VERY quickly.

im sure there are about 700 kuskis already. soon 1000

World total times top100 development

World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development

Re: World total times top100 development