single vs multi wrs
Moderator: Moporators
single vs multi wrs
Should single WRs better than multis be automatically multi WRs?
all levs without apple + sink & loop would become single WRs (ramp just got beaten)
loop is ez better multi, sink probably impsy, all other noapple levs don't make sense
+ it makes sense and that is how it is in elma
- some ppl put effort to drive those recs, but I guess it wasn't THAT much effort
admins.. move it to polls section
all levs without apple + sink & loop would become single WRs (ramp just got beaten)
loop is ez better multi, sink probably impsy, all other noapple levs don't make sense
+ it makes sense and that is how it is in elma
- some ppl put effort to drive those recs, but I guess it wasn't THAT much effort
admins.. move it to polls section
[carebox]
Re: single vs multi wrs
ez, a few multiwrs are already hold by same guys as single (02, 05, 10, 14, 45 and prolly others)
Re: single vs multi wrs
Of course, it makes all the sense in the world!
Re: single vs multi wrs
+ 19, 29, 34Pawq wrote:(02, 05, 10, 14, 45 and prolly others)
But im not so sure about 14, someone who really knows should decide
Little hard to say but i say YES
Re: single vs multi wrs
loop is approx 0.1-0.15 faster if both players are really pro (like zweq + jarkko can theoretically do teh) but would need some lgr so they dont really see each other
dont think it will ever happen though
dont think it will ever happen though
Re: single vs multi wrs
Someone voted no, I'd like to see the reasoning for that.
Re: single vs multi wrs
Yes, there's no doubt about it.
- Morgan
- 36mins club
- Posts: 582
- Joined: 16 Dec 2007, 22:55
- Team: SPEED
- Location: Lębork, Poland
- Contact:
Re: single vs multi wrs
i voted no, becouse there is no option : "just dont count no-apple levs in multi tt and mutli wr tables"
tt will be lower but who cares
tt will be lower but who cares
Re: single vs multi wrs
54 ints - 54 multi wrs. thats it for me. 27, 28, 30, 31... would look just... :l
Re: single vs multi wrs
Yeah, it would look weird and why should there be a drastic rule change after 10 years? Feels like it would rape history.
You could argue that having this rule change with single player wrs automatically being multi wrs if they are indeed faster would also rape history, but that's how it should've been done in the first place! I think this change should be made, but that's just my opinion.
You could argue that having this rule change with single player wrs automatically being multi wrs if they are indeed faster would also rape history, but that's how it should've been done in the first place! I think this change should be made, but that's just my opinion.
Re: single vs multi wrs
ramp wr in multi not better anymore:)
Re: single vs multi wrs
Yeah of course they should be moved. I mean come on youre saying just because that person didnt drive them in "multi player mode" thats the only reason it cant count? how is 19.79 just Jarkko any different than 20.08 Jarkko and Jarkko? there was no advantage when he didnt do it in multi player mode. just move them and quit whining about the history and whatever who gives a shit its just fair and what makes sense, isnt that more important? what IS actually the best time?
- Kopaka
- 39mins club
- Posts: 6611
- Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
- Team: LAME
- Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
- Contact:
Re: single vs multi wrs
Totally agree on this.Kortsu wrote:Yeah, it would look weird and why should there be a drastic rule change after 10 years? Feels like it would rape history.
Not really fair that just because the level has no apple that player automatically get's two WRs, with just one run. (I know in this case jarkko probably has multiple times in single better than the multi wr, but there could be other cases where that is not the case)gimp wrote:Yeah of course they should be moved. I mean come on youre saying just because that person didnt drive them in "multi player mode" thats the only reason it cant count? how is 19.79 just Jarkko any different than 20.08 Jarkko and Jarkko? there was no advantage when he didnt do it in multi player mode. just move them and quit whining about the history and whatever who gives a shit its just fair and what makes sense, isnt that more important? what IS actually the best time?
Re: single vs multi wrs
maybe ask holders of all wrs that would be replaced, i dont think anyone would mind as mostly same guys would get the wrs.
Re: single vs multi wrs
I like it how it is now, no need to change imo.
Re: single vs multi wrs
multi is multi, single is single o,o
Re: single vs multi wrs
The game (well, at least stats.txt) sees the combined best times as just single player times or as single or multiplayer times so there would actually be no multi tt.
Re: single vs multi wrs
Who has single WR, can easily get multi WR there as well. It's just about if he decides to dully waste his time by playing the same level twice, which is stupid and boring.Kopaka wrote: Not really fair that just because the level has no apple that player automatically get's two WRs, with just one run. (I know in this case jarkko probably has multiple times in single better than the multi wr, but there could be other cases where that is not the case)
Arguments about how it is unfaaair that he will get 2 WRs with one run make no sense.
Re: single vs multi wrs
i agree with madness! why make them get a world record twice? and if its the whole getting 2 wrs with one run that pisses you off, heres a more simpler and logical thought, dont have levels without apples in the table at all. just wait until somebody gets 20.05 on uphill battle in multi mode, and Jarkko is just too lazy to go beat that, then youll realize how stupid this really is. And if your going to say single is single, multi is multi, then look at the table and see that there are records with Jarkko and Jarkko, there is not multiple players here, there is one single player. the poll speaks for itself anyways.
Re: single vs multi wrs
lal wtf, ez 19 first trygimp wrote:just wait until somebody gets 20.05 on uphill battle in multi mode, and Jarkko is just too lazy to go beat that
Re: single vs multi wrs
He already did. http://elmaonline.moposite.com/?s=stats ... _multi&i=5Pawq wrote:lal wtf, ez 19 first trygimp wrote:just wait until somebody gets 20.05 on uphill battle in multi mode, and Jarkko is just too lazy to go beat that
Apparenetly he's too lazy to send it.
Re: single vs multi wrs
No. People have since the beginning sacrificed good runs for the multi table. If you want a multi wr in say uphill balle, you should play it as multi ffs.