Forum Super Mario Kart
Communauté SMK => Le Championnat Super Mario Kart => Règlement => Discussion démarrée par: clbrun le 02 août 2009, à 13:29:17
-
bon, apres m etre finalement d avantage penché sur la question, ma position n est plus aussi tranchée qu avant ::)
quand je parle de "victoire a 2 pts", ca sous entend "victoire = 2 x le nombre de pts d un match nul"
donc d un coté, je considere toujours que meme si 3-1 est la + petite victoire possible en jouant 4 rounds, ca reste un resultat assez net, car un joueur gagne quand 3 fois + de rounds que l autre, et donc une victoire merite toujours un petit bonus selon moi(donc victoire a 3 pts), et je parle meme pas du 4-0.
d un autre coté, c est vrai qu avec une victoire a 3 pts et un match nul a 1 pt, ce dernier est assez penalisant puisque 3 matchs nuls valent 1 victoire et 2 defaites... du coup un joueur de milieu de tableau est peu recompensé pour un match nul contre un tenor, mais beaucoup sanctionné pour un match nul contre une quiche, alors qu une victoire a 2 pts retablirait un peu les choses a ce niveau là. les favoris ne font en general pas des tonnes de matchs nuls, et je pense pas que la difference se fasse a ce niveau : pour eux elle se fait plutot sur les bonifs des phases finales, donc pas de grande incidence sur eux, si ce n est qu ils seront aussi un peu moins penalisés quand ils concedent un match nul. d ailleurs, pour les bonifs des phases finales, elles seront proportionnellement aussi importantes qu avant, car la bonif du 1er est egale a X fois les pts d une victoire, donc peu importe qu elle vaille 2 ou 3 pts car ce sera toujours la meme proportion! c est juste que les matchs nuls rapporteront legerement + de pts qu avant par rapport aux victoires / bonifs, mais là encore ca reste assez anecdotique vu les nombres de pts en jeu!
dernier point, j ai fait des simulations avec une victoire a 30 pts et un match nul a 15 pts en me basant sur une petite trentaine de joueurs : ca permet que les phases de poules du TT et de chaque mode 2players soient equivalentes en terme de nombre de pts distribués en tout (somme des pts de tous les joueurs) et au mieux (un perfect en TT est quasi = a un perfect en MR). pour moi c est un element qui plaide pour une victoire a 2 pts car sinon il y aurait un desequilibre relativement sensible entre le TT et les autres modes...
a titre perso, plus ca va, plus je penche pour la victoire a 30 pts et le match nul a 15 pts ::)
je precise que dans la mesure du possible, seuls les participants au cdf 2009 sont invités a voter, car eux seuls sont concernés! :-X
ceci dit, les autres peuvent toujours donner leur avis et leurs arguements! ;)
-
Il faut aussi savoir que ce débat ne concerne quasiment que le MR et le BM. En effet, il n'y a quasiment jamais de match nul en poules de GP (un seul en 2008).
Pour ma part, j'ai changé les paramètres du fichier excel du CDE 2008 en mettant le nul à 15 pts et je me suis vite aperçu que ça ne changeait vraiment pas grand chose, que ce soit du point de vue du classement général ou du classement en poules ;D
Le seul détail notable, c'est qu'avec un système 30/15/0, Gerard aurait été 7e au lieu d'être 9e en poules de BM, avec Mario passant de 8e à 9e et Camillo passant de 7e à 8e. Tout ça, je précise, parce que Gerard avait accumulé un total de 9 nuls (!) pour 6 victoires et 2 défaites tandis que Camillo ne comptait que 2 nuls (mais 9 victoires et 6 défaites) et Mario 4 nuls (mais 8 victoires et 5 défaites).
Alors d'après vous, qui est le plus méritant ? ^^
Pas évident à trancher... ::)
-
Pour ma part, j'ai changé les paramètres du fichier excel du CDE 2008 en mettant le nul à 15 pts et je me suis vite aperçu que ça ne changeait vraiment pas grand chose, que ce soit du point de vue du classement général ou du classement en poules ;D
c est clair que ca a peu d incidence et que c est peu evident a trancher, mais bon mon vote c est aussi pour que les poules de TT et des 2players soient bien equilibrées :D
sinon si qq un a encore un vieux fichier de classement 2004, je le veux bien car celui en telechargement sur le site est vierge ???
-
On change, 20/10, par logique mathématique (même si 2/1 me semble encore plus logique, je pige pas pourquoi on veut avoir autant de points ???)
-
Gerard avait accumulé un total de 9 nuls (!) pour 6 victoires et 2 défaites tandis que Camillo ne comptait que 2 nuls (mais 9 victoires et 6 défaites) et Mario 4 nuls (mais 8 victoires et 5 défaites).
Alors d'après vous, qui est le plus méritant ? ^^
Pas évident à trancher... ::)
J'avoue ; faut-il féliciter Gerard d'avoir résisté aux cracks, ou au contraire considérer qu'il n'a pas su battre des adversaires à sa portée ?
Pour moi en tous cas c'est clair, je préfère la règle actuelle, mais je ne suis pas choqué par l'autre règle, donc je reste neutre. :)
-
On change, 20/10, par logique mathématique (même si 2/1 me semble encore plus logique, je pige pas pourquoi on veut avoir autant de points ???)
c est pour mieux doser les bonifs, car 1 pt de + ou de - sur les bonifs c est rien avec des matchs a 30/20 pts, mais ca represente direct un match nul avec 3/2 pts... donc c est pas qu on veut, mais c est que ca permet des dosages plus fins, sans changer les proportions!
-
OK, lu et approuvé ;)
-
Je suis partisan de la victoire à 30 points et le nul à 10, car cela privilégie la victoire, l'attaque, le courage, le dévouement...
-
J'avoue... ::)
Mais je préfère la logique mathématique... ;D
-
Je suis partisan de la victoire à 30 points et le nul à 10, car cela privilégie la victoire, l'attaque, le courage, le dévouement...
je pense que quel que soit le nb de pts d une victorie par rapport a un match nul, tous les joueurs essaieront toujours de gagner tous leurs matchs, donc la victoire a 3 pts privilégie certes la victoire mais pas specialement plus l attaque, le courage ou le devouement que s il y a la victorie a 2 pts ::)
donc tu diras a ton pote qui a du thon que c est un con :-X :P ;D
-
je pense que quel que soit le nb de pts d une victorie par rapport a un match nul, tous les joueurs essaieront toujours de gagner tous leurs matchs, donc la victoire a 3 pts privilégie certes la victoire mais pas specialement plus l attaque, le courage ou le devouement que s il y a la victorie a 2 pts ::)
donc tu diras a ton pote qui a du thon que c est un con :-X :P ;D
C'est pas faux les gens chercheront à gagner quoiqu'il arrive mais je trouve que la victoire vaut plus que 2 fois un match nul. Sinon, on peut mettre le match nul à 1 point et la victoire à e^1.
Mon pote va être conthon de ta remarque... ::)
-
bon, apres m etre finalement d avantage penché sur la question, ma position n est plus aussi tranchée qu avant ::)
quand je parle de "victoire a 2 pts", ca sous entend "victoire = 2 x le nombre de pts d un match nul"
d un autre coté, c est vrai qu avec une victoire a 3 pts et un match nul a 1 pt, ce dernier est assez penalisant puisque 3 matchs nuls valent 1 victoire et 2 defaites... du coup un joueur de milieu de tableau est peu recompensé pour un match nul contre un tenor, mais beaucoup sanctionné pour un match nul contre une quiche, alors qu une victoire a 2 pts retablirait un peu les choses a ce niveau là.
c'est exactement ce que je pensais hier soir dans mon lit !!! :o ;D
la victoire à 3 pts "désavantage" les joueurs moyens car un nul contre un cador, ça raporte pas tant que ça, alors qu'un nul contre une quiche, c'est un drame (oui, bon, toutes proportions gardées)
qu'est-ce que je vais bien pouvoir voter, moi .... ::)
-
j'ai voté (machinalement ::)) pour qu'on en reste à 30/10 avant de lire ce que tu disais clbrun, donc si tu as la possibilité de changer mon vote, je préfère voter
clbrun est une burne pour un changement à 30/15.
quoi qu'il en soit, je vote CONTRE le TT ;D
-
(je certifie qu'Harold a bien voté pour le choix numéro 1, j'avais voté juste avant lui et regardé les résultats par la suite)
-
Le "clbrun est un dieu" est de moi, du fait de ma neutralité actuelle... ::)
-
j'ai voté (machinalement ::)) pour qu'on en reste à 30/10 avant de lire ce que tu disais clbrun, donc si tu as la possibilité de changer mon vote, je préfère voter clbrun est une burne pour un changement à 30/15.
quoi qu'il en soit, je vote CONTRE le TT ;D
modif faite !
le sondage sera terminé vendredi 14 aout à 20h00 ::)
-
(je certifie qu'Harold a bien voté pour le choix numéro 1, j'avais voté juste avant lui et regardé les résultats par la suite)
sombre prétentieux ! qui es tu pour penser que j'ai besoin qu'un grabataire confirme mes dires ?!?
PS : j'ai pas oublié la meilleure blague de la fun cup. le moment ou je sais plus qui a sorti un brillant "narnet il a bien joué" énorme je m'en remets toujours pas ;D
-
PS : j'ai pas oublié la meilleure blague de la fun cup. le moment ou je sais plus qui a sorti un brillant "narnet il a bien joué" énorme je m'en remets toujours pas ;D
Ça t'a vraiment marqué ça, je t'ai bien vu la ressortir 2/3 fois ici depuis la Fun Cup :D
Mais j'avoue que c'est tordant... ;D
-
Quelle bande de salopes ;D
-
I think we should get 5 points per win.
So
4-0 win = 20 points
3-1 win = 15 points
2-2 draw = 10 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
This means when its already 3-0 theres still something to play for and its the fairest system also (because its the most mathematically correct).
-
Interesting proposition Karel !
Yes maybe we should give more points for 4-0 than 3-1, and more for loosing 1-3 than 0-4.
But only 5 points more for a win 3-1 than a draw is not enought I think...
I would see more something like this :
4-0 win = 40 points
3-1 win = 30 points
2-2 draw = 15 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
4-0 loss = 1 points (for the effort::) )
-
PS : j'ai pas oublié la meilleure blague de la fun cup. le moment ou je sais plus qui a sorti un brillant "narnet il a bien joué" énorme je m'en remets toujours pas ;D
Ça t'a vraiment marqué ça, je t'ai bien vu la ressortir 2/3 fois ici depuis la Fun Cup :D
Mais j'avoue que c'est tordant... ;D
ça y est, Mario, je viens de comprendre ;-)
Oh, Harold, fais pas semblant de plus savoir : c'est Geo qui l'a sorti, sur une MC2 en MR où je l'avais battu (si, si, c'est possible ; enfin, maintenant que j'en parle, j'ai du mal à réaliser que c'est possible ??? ;D)
venant de la part du futur champion du monde, c'est plutot flatteur ^-^
-
I think we should get 5 points per win.
So
4-0 win = 20 points
3-1 win = 15 points
2-2 draw = 10 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
This means when its already 3-0 theres still something to play for and its the fairest system also (because its the most mathematically correct).
I'd say : genius ! :D
-
I think we should get 5 points per win.
So
4-0 win = 20 points
3-1 win = 15 points
2-2 draw = 10 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
This means when its already 3-0 theres still something to play for and its the fairest system also (because its the most mathematically correct).
Interesting proposition Karel !
Yes maybe we should give more points for 4-0 than 3-1, and more for loosing 1-3 than 0-4.
But only 5 points more for a win 3-1 than a draw is not enought I think...
I would see more something like this :
4-0 win = 40 points
3-1 win = 30 points
2-2 draw = 15 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
4-0 loss = 1 points (for the effort::) )
I'd say : genius ! :D
Yeah guys, but I still like when the score is 3-0 and there's nothing to play for anymore . It's sometimes nice to play without pressure during the championship and have fun with less skilled players for example, trying funny/hard things with no consequences in terms of ranking :) I remember playing against Lindsay last year in the group stage of MR: we played both with Toad/Koopa on MC1 Non-NBT, the race was very very close and it was pretty fun :D We wouldn't have such opportunities with the system you suggest :-\
-
Oh, Harold, fais pas semblant de plus savoir : c'est Geo qui l'a sorti, sur une MC2 en MR où je l'avais battu (si, si, c'est possible ; enfin, maintenant que j'en parle, j'ai du mal à réaliser que c'est possible ??? ;D)
lol notre match était tendu, tu aurais très bien pu me battre. Tu es en train de nous faire un bluff à la Sami. ;D
-
>>> Flo
The opportunity would still exist, but at your own risk....its limited risk anyway, since it's groupstages. Personally I didn't like the matches at 3-0 up (or worse 3-0 down) when there was nothing to play for anymore. I would like this situation to be prevented in competition. :-\
-
Yeah guys, but I still like when the score is 3-0 and there's nothing to play for anymore . It's sometimes nice to play without pressure during the championship and have fun with less skilled players for example, trying funny/hard things with no consequences in terms of ranking :) I remember playing against Lindsay last year in the group stage of MR: we played both with Toad/Koopa on MC1 Non-NBT, the race was very very close and it was pretty fun :D We wouldn't have such opportunities with the system you suggest :-\
That's a good point. 8)
But the championship isn't a place for fun, to laught... it's the opportunity to destroy some people, to humiliate the weak man : it's just a copy of what the nature do. O0
-
Oh, Harold, fais pas semblant de plus savoir : c'est Geo qui l'a sorti, sur une MC2 en MR où je l'avais battu (si, si, c'est possible ; enfin, maintenant que j'en parle, j'ai du mal à réaliser que c'est possible ??? ;D)
lol notre match était tendu, tu aurais très bien pu me battre. Tu es en train de nous faire un bluff à la Sami. ;D
sérieusement, je t'avais battu ou pas ?! ???
-
But the championship isn't a place for fun, to laught... it's the opportunity to destroy some people, to humiliate the weak man : it's just a copy of what the nature do. O0
Geo the King! ;D 8)
-
I think we should get 5 points per win.
So
4-0 win = 20 points
3-1 win = 15 points
2-2 draw = 10 points each
3-1 loss = 5 points
This means when its already 3-0 theres still something to play for and its the fairest system also (because its the most mathematically correct).
I'd say : genius ! :D
sorry to interrupt your harmony here but i don't think karel's proposition is all that great. because in the end this system just equals the goal average, multiplied with five. winning over a certain person in a direct confrontation is not important anymore with this system.
just imagine this:
in a poule with 16 people, player A wins 5 times 4-0 but loses 10 times 3-1. player B wins 10 times 3-1 but loses 5 times 4-0. with karels system they both get 150 pts. do you really think that they have made the same effort? :o player a defeats 2/3 of the competition whereas player b only beats 1/3. do you want them to score equally?
don't get me wrong, i like the idea that a 4-0 gives more points than a 3-1. but in my view it should just be a little bonus (like the bonus points in TT for the best three times for each course at past cdf's)
i think it should look something like this:
4-0 --> 35 pts.
3-1 --> 30 pts.
2-2 -->15 pts.
1-3 --> 5 pts.
0-4 --> 0 pts.
(i just realised that it's almost the same proposition that geo made ;D good work geo ;) i just think that the amount of points that the loser gets for a 1-3 should equal the bonus points for a 4-0 instead of a 3-1)
-
Interesting proposition Karel !
Yes maybe we should give more points for 4-0 than 3-1, and more for loosing 1-3 than 0-4.
That's why goalaverage was invented ::)
-
Who needs goal average when you can incorporate it directly into the points though? It seems a complicated addition without a real reason...
And yes I agree with Raphael's system pretty much, I can see how winning should be rewarded a little more. I would just like to make sure there are no matches that don't count for anything during the competition; whether that's with your points system or mine I don't really care.
-
I agree too for the Raphael's proposition ! Swiss pover ! 8)
-
Who needs goal average when you can incorporate it directly into the points though? It seems a complicated addition without a real reason...
Then I have a better solution:
You win 4-0: 4 points for the winner, 0 point for the loser
You win 3-1: 3 points for you, 1 point for your opponent
Draw: 2 points for everyone ::)
-
That's the same system as I proposed (same proportions, which is the only thing that counts)
And theoretically why not? It seems to make perfect sense. :)
That said, I can kinda see how Raphael system spices things up and rewards winning more, so I'm voting for that one too.
-
Ive been studying the spreadsheets and formulas extensively and goal average at some stage is needed to help differentiate. Can get quite complicated with this, perhaps pick something that is not too drastic a change from the previous year, or just leave it the same.
-
i already proposed a system very similar to karel's one some weeks/ months ago, and no one cared :P
for now, i think we won t make a too big change this year... even if i agree a 4-0 win deserves a bonus compared to a 3-1 win, the bonus may just be a better goal average, like now ::)
with raphael's system, we fall one more time into the problem which lead to this poll : all the matchs don t give the same amount of total points. a 4-0/3-1 means the match worth 35 pts, and a 2-2 means the match worth 30 pts... yes, it s a smaller difference than 20/30pts that we had until today, but since the aim of this poll is to answer to the question "do you want that all matchs represent the same amount of points?", i d like to get the question solved ;)
and another problem to your systems / raphael's one (except a more complicated excel file) : how do you apply it to GP? ::)
so please, just answer the "normal" poll for now ;)
-
i already proposed a system very similar to karel's one some weeks/ months ago, and no one cared :P
for now, i think we won t make a too big change this year... even if i agree a 4-0 win deserves a bonus compared to a 3-1 win, the bonus may just be a better goal average, like now ::)
with raphael's system, we fall one more time into the problem which lead to this poll : all the matchs don t give the same amount of total points. a 4-0/3-1 means the match worth 35 pts, and a 2-2 means the match worth 30 pts... yes, it s a smaller difference than 20/30pts that we had until today, but since the aim of this poll is to answer to the question "do you want that all matchs represent the same amount of points?", i d like to get the question solved ;)
and another problem to your systems / raphael's one (except a more complicated excel file) : how do you apply it to GP? ::)
so please, just answer the "normal" poll for now ;)
This is gona end up like that story about the tortoise who wanted to find a better shell for himself. He tried everything and none of them worked out, so he got fed up and went back to the original one.
So just to save headaches, im saying now just leave it the same. My result wont get any higher so it is not gona affect me. Plus everythings ready to use as is for the spreadsheets.
-
don t worry, to make victory 30 pts + draw 15 pts, i have to modify the value of only ONE cell (namely the "number of points for a draw in poule" cell) in the excel file, so there is really no problem at all about it!
and it would be even better on my opinion, because the TT poule will represent almost exactly the same amount of points than the 2players poules (if there is the same number of players of course) :)
i guess sami voted "stay with the same", but please could the others tell us what they voted too?
-
i voted for a change to 30/15 or 20/10...
-
Hmm it seems I slightly misunderstood the topic (I didn't know the history to arrive at these 2 options, but now you've explained it). In this case I vote for a change (whereas I think I may have mistakenly voted for no change before). ::) :-X
-
J'ai voté pour "laisser comme ça, on verra bien l'année prochaine" ;D
-
Hmm it seems I slightly misunderstood the topic (I didn't know the history to arrive at these 2 options, but now you've explained it). In this case I vote for a change (whereas I think I may have mistakenly voted for no change before). ::) :-X
no problem, it s a bit my fault : i should have explain it a bit more in english to avoid this misunderstood ;)
so you confirm that you initially voted "no change" and now you want to vote "i want a change" (like harold, hum hum...) ? if yes, i ll correct your vote ;)
-
Oui! No problem! ;D
-
ok, modif done ;)
here are the files :
http://championnat-smk.org/docs/poules_generator.xls
http://championnat-smk.org/docs/poules_generator_3,5.xls (with the 3,5 level)
-
Haha, this means I'm fcked, as Flo & Sami will never be in the same group stage in MR and GP (assuming that they are the lvl 6s), so if anyone else wants to reach the final they will either meet Flo or Sami in the semi. :-X :P You really did me in this time Cedric... ;D :'(
Well you can always try to beat them in the group stage I suppose. >:D
Cool system though, it's starting to look like the Champions League with all these seedings. :P
-
Well you can always try to beat them in the group stage I suppose. >:D
exactly! flo is a real wimp in MR, as i saw it last year O0
another way to defeat them is to be #8 in the poules, so that you will probably meet a level 6 in the first row, and it s easier to beat them when the winner is the first to 5 rounds, than when it s the first to 9 rounds ::)
or maybe, we can put sami level 5 in MR and drew level 6 since he reached the final last year... ??? :-X :-*
-
Yeah I was wondering about that, Sami didn't even get a medal in MR last year.
Still his MR track-record is pretty awesome and in my mind he's the favourite to get to the final in this mode alongside with Flo, so I can totally understand why you would give Sami the 6 and not Drew. SMK is not maths, they still have to prove it in the qualifiers! ;D >:D
another way to defeat them is to be #8 in the poules, so that you will probably meet a level 6 in the first row, and it s easier to beat them when the winner is the first to 5 rounds, than when it s the first to 9 rounds ::)
I think only Harold would have the balls to pull of such a risky move... ;D ;D ;D
-
...and if sami is level 5, you could be in the same poule than him + flo :-X
and this would not prevent you of meeting them in quarter or semi final :P
btw, i m quite satisfacted of this levels table (with the 3,5 level), the only probleme remaining is that the poules may be not equal in terms of number of players (for exemple, 16 players in poule A and only 15 in poule B), which means some "bye pts" :-\
-
...and if sami is level 5, you could be in the same poule than him + flo :-X
and this would not prevent you of meeting them in quarter or semi final :P
I know.
I also think Sami is better in MR than Drew is overall anyway, though it's always dangerous to underestimate Drew as last year has proven. :-X
Yeah the system looks fine, I pretty much agreed with all the numbers you assigned to us (though I don't know if Alexandre is really a better MR player than Banjo now). Let's hope we'll have an equal amount of players then.
-
though I don't know if Alexandre is really a better MR player than Banjo now
oups, yes it s mistake, i may switch their notes :-X ::)
-
Haha, this means I'm fcked, as Flo & Sami will never be in the same group stage in MR and GP (assuming that they are the lvl 6s), so if anyone else wants to reach the final they will either meet Flo or Sami in the semi. :-X :P You really did me in this time Cedric... ;D :'(
Well, Sami and I were not in the same group stage in MR and GP last year too, but we still faced each other in 1/2 final for both modes (not in final). Your predictions may not be accurate then... :P
So yeah, I guess we just have to do the best we can in the group stage, and we'll see what happens next. Time will tell... :)
-
Juste une remarque: pourquoi ai-je le niveau 5 en BM cette année alors que j'avais le niveau 6 l'an dernier ?
-
Parce que t'as fini 4è l'année dernière sans doute...?
-
I guess because there can only be two lvl 6s (finalists) and this year Geo has improved so much that it's more likely he will reach the final.
And let's not even mention the other lvl 6 of course. ;D
-
mario et karel ont bien repondu ::)
-
joli fichier cedric karel a raison le cdf devient une compèt de pro ;D (dommage pour sa derniere année :'()
et oui tu as eu raison de mettre sami niveau 6 en MR (encore heureux !!), moi je l'aurais mis aussi 6 en battle >:D (et sans rire ! :-X)
(GOD)SAMI : the only player to be 6 overall, so the big favourite for winning the 1st world championship of super mario kart
ze game he's playing since he hasn't got any "cock's hair" yet,
ze game that pulled in busy for years on sunday afternoon (evening also),
ze game he's dreaming all nights since he managed to break the 1"02"00 (impossible time? ::)) on MC1
ze game he never forgets, even by fucking the ass his girl
ze game that he managed to made a reason of living for some terrorists drivers of time trial
ze game which permitted him to create a brilliant community of players (some of them are now clothers from the loss of "cock's hairs" than the birth... ::))
ze game barber never understood, because of dreaming to famous Coach Ian Dowie, harding on so much by watching crystal palace winning for the 1st time ;D
so for all of theses reasons, don't think a single moment that sami will leave the title of WORLD CHAMPION this year. he will simply win all modes, even without closing an eye 4 days consecutively.
I prefer not to be late, so sami congratulation for this famous victory !!! O0
another way to defeat them is to be #8 in the poules, so that you will probably meet a level 6 in the first row, and it s easier to beat them when the winner is the first to 5 rounds, than when it s the first to 9 rounds ::)
I think only Harold would have the balls to pull of such a risky move... ;D ;D ;D
don't watch that ! >:D
-
(http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs164.snc1/6134_248712400570_586000570_8254428_1476335_n.jpg)
@ Harold ;D
-
Awesome last picture and post :D (even if the bareer to break on MC1 was 1'01" and not 1'02" ;D)
-
Awesome last picture and post :D (even if the bareer to break on MC1 was 1'01" and not 1'02" ;D)
not when he was young. I remember a famous 1.01.29 or 27 no ?
-
OK, I thought you were talking about the legendary 1'00"99 non-NBT ;)
-
joli fichier cedric karel a raison le cdf devient une compèt de pro ;D (dommage pour sa derniere année :'()
et oui tu as eu raison de mettre sami niveau 6 en MR (encore heureux !!), moi je l'aurais mis aussi 6 en battle >:D (et sans rire ! :-X)
(GOD)SAMI : the only player to be 6 overall, so the big favourite for winning the 1st world championship of super mario kart
ze game he's playing since he hasn't got any "cock's hair" yet,
ze game that pulled in busy for years on sunday afternoon (evening also),
ze game he's dreaming all nights since he managed to break the 1"02"00 (impossible time? ::)) on MC1
ze game he never forgets, even by fucking the ass his girl
ze game that he managed to made a reason of living for some terrorists drivers of time trial
ze game which permitted him to create a brilliant community of players (some of them are now clothers from the loss of "cock's hairs" than the birth... ::))
ze game barber never understood, because of dreaming to famous Coach Ian Dowie, harding on so much by watching crystal palace winning for the 1st time ;D
so for all of theses reasons, don't think a single moment that sami will leave the title of WORLD CHAMPION this year. he will simply win all modes, even without closing an eye 4 days consecutively.
I prefer not to be late, so sami congratulation for this famous victory !!! O0
another way to defeat them is to be #8 in the poules, so that you will probably meet a level 6 in the first row, and it s easier to beat them when the winner is the first to 5 rounds, than when it s the first to 9 rounds ::)
I think only Harold would have the balls to pull of such a risky move... ;D ;D ;D
don't watch that ! >:D
LOL!!
i had 1'01"07 with no pipe jumps but yes i spent a lot of years with this game.
#1 at CDM is a little too much though my friend ;D
-
I don't understand the enthusiasm with Sami : he made not any PR this year on TT, maybe on PR on GP, and played maybe 3 or 4 battle mode and match race on zsnes this year. ???
-
I don't understand the enthusiasm with Sami : he made not any PR this year on TT, maybe on PR on GP, and played maybe 3 or 4 battle mode and match race on zsnes this year. ???
SAMI! Please stop hacking Geo's account, it's not funny at all! >:(
-
(http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v376/228/42/1022121489/n1022121489_201552_1464.jpg)
Futur vainqueur de BM!? ;D
-
I don't understand the enthusiasm with Sami : he made not any PR this year on TT, maybe on PR on GP, and played maybe 3 or 4 battle mode and match race on zsnes this year. ???
SAMI! Please stop hacking Geo's account, it's not funny at all! >:(
Muhahahahaha! >:D
-
ET bien finalement on a fini par arriver à quelque chose de plus logique! :)
La proposition de karel n'était pas mal, s'insiprant un peu du système du rugby actuel (pour rappel : victoire avec 3 essais ou plus : 5 points, victoire 4 points. Nul 2 points. Défaite par moins de 7 points d'écart 1 point. Défaite 0 point. Avec la particularité qu'une défaite par moins de 7 points d'écarts avec 3 essais marqués ou plus par l'équipe perdante se soldait par... 2 points! Soit l'équivalent d'un match nul. Cette situation ne s'est néanmoins jamais présentée lors des précédentes compétitions officielles).
Appliquer cela au MR - BM semble cependant difficile vu la faible variété des scores possibles. On pourrait éventuellement imaginer :
4-0 : 5 points
3-1 : 4 points
2-2 : 2 points chacun
1-3 : 1 point
0-4 : 0 point
Maintenant on peut discuter le fait que perdre deux fois 1-3 est l'équivalent d'un nul... SAchant que prendre 1 round en MR est à la portée de tout le monde (un éclair sur MC1 ou une étoile sur VL's... et j'en passe)