In use until September 2003
|
|
In use until September 2003 |
| Author | Topic |
| amrik | Posted - 28 March 2002 4:35 PST Times you need to beat Sergi: e1m1 23 (high) e1m2 32 (high) e1m3 38 (low) e1m4 13 (high) e1m5 16 (low..15 is much better) e1m6 09 (high) e1m7 12 (mid) that should be possible for you.. Edited by - amrik on 3/28/2002 4:39:30 AM |
| Ken | Posted - 28 March 2002 8:50 PST That's good! You know, you don't have to be "THAT" fast to beat a marathon, because players never get the fastest they can get in them. For instance, look at Sergi's e1m1 and e1m2, they're completely normal, his 24 was .9 or something, and his 33 was nothing spectacular. While I was trying some days ago, just coz Tim wanted to see my playing, I did 24/33 in the first two maps about a million times. The hard part of the marathons is being consistently good, it's a bitch. Of Sergi's demo, my favourite run is his e1m5, 15.0, pretty neat demo if you ask me. We live, as we dream - alone. |
| Ken | Posted - 28 March 2002 17:04 PST Amrik: You're way wrong, bud. 9 in e1m6? He got 11... We live, as we dream - alone. |
| amrik | Posted - 29 March 2002 6:30 PST Ken I'm talking about actually improving the run by 5-10 seconds, not no little pansy 1 or 2 second improvement =) |
| Martin Selinus | Posted - 29 March 2002 17:29 PST lol Just as if it would be 'humanly possible' to improve it by more than a couple of seconds.. That marathon is really good you know! |
| Hanz | Posted - 30 March 2002 12:03 PST All you need is a near perfect E1M3 like Markus had in his 2:36 run (0:34).. |
| Ken | Posted - 31 March 2002 16:30 PST Martin: Actually it IS humanly possible. His only really "great" map was e1m5, which was amazing for a marathon, but I guess others can do it too, or lose some fracions, or even a second there. The rest of the maps were just average for a fast runner, those 24 in e1m1, 33 in e1m2... those even I can do! Go figure!! And as Hanz said, e1m3 has lots of room for improvement.. of course not all of us have mastered that damned level! That's why I've said if someone will get that marathon in the 2:20's.. it'll be Markus, coz if he can handle another :34 in a marathon, or :35.. it'd be a pretty big improvement, and if the other maps were nice enough, it'd be unbeatable. We live, as we dream - alone. |
| tim | Posted - 31 March 2002 17:52 PST hmm my idea of bringing this up wasn't to break Sergi's record it was to see how everyone else compares to each others times, like a little ongoing contest and if the record falls well then that is great. Another good place for comparing times is the Blue Hell levels for marathons :) |
| FedimeF | Posted - 1 April 2002 6:33 PST I had a go and made a 2:54 (although i used the grenade counter) times 25/35/50/14/21/11/14. Guess which level i screwed up on :) Could someone tell me how to compile it? I couldn't get through to your homepage, Tim. |
| Nagasaki | Posted - 1 April 2002 10:23 PST First off all, getting a good time in e1m3 is most of all luck. Markus wouldn't get those 34's each time, you know? No, I suppose you don't. Secondly, Ken, if my mom would just be able to do that e1m4 trick, she would also be better in an ep1 marathon. But unfortunately, she did never practise that. And if I'd just be better in e1m1, e1m2, e1m3, e1m4 and so on, I'd own you all. See? *** |
| Ken | Posted - 1 April 2002 13:37 PST Nagasaki: You're right about everything you said, except supossing I didn't know the e1m3 fact, but here is what I actually think of it (read carefuly, it aint so complex). Markus has :32 from scratch, and :34 in that 2:36 marathon. Fine. Now, can he do those times anytime he wants? NO! And whoever thinks so must be an idiot. HOWEVER.. If he has :32.. and :34 in a marathon.. It would mean that he can do AT LEAST a 37-36 or even faster (another :34?), and that by itself would be already faster than Sergi. That was my point... To make it short: Sergi had :39, and from that to :34 there is a 5 secs difference, so my guess is, Markus can do faster than :39 pretty much always, can he not? (By always, I mean often enough to record a proper marathon). And yeah, I've noticed with the e1m4 trick virtually anyone is faster than me! It truly sucks, I'll have to practise it sometime, and get myself in the 2:40's.. We live, as we dream - alone. |
| FedimeF | Posted - 1 April 2002 15:32 PST I sure as hell can't get under 37 for e1m3 no matter how many times i try. I had another go and got 2:49 with shitty playing 25/35/46/15/20/11/14. Stubgaard's e1m6_052 fucking ROCKS! Edited by - FedimeF on 4/1/2002 3:33:37 PM |
| Stubby | Posted - 1 April 2002 16:53 PST "Stubgaard's e1m6_052 fucking ROCKS!" I've already improved it by another whole fucking second!!!! I'm amazed at my own skillz :P - The axe swinging master - |
| Martin Selinus | Posted - 2 April 2002 16:15 PST I guess you're right Ken. I just tried the marathon a few times, and I pretty easily got 2:44 (24,31,42,23,20,10,13. I think) as you can see I was really slow in e1m3-e1m5. But I still believe improving Sergi's marathon would be really hard. |
| Ken | Posted - 3 April 2002 15:11 PST You're fast, Martin. But instead of running e1m2 like form scratch, take the YA... you'll make :33, probably, most of the time, maybe some :32's, dunno. That'll slow you up 2 secs (2:46 then), but e1m3 can be faster than :42 (lets say 4 secs, to be polite, so now 2:42), and :23 in e1m4... everyone who practised the GJ can do at least 13-14, so now it's 2:32-2:33.. And you had :20 in e1m5, Sergi had 15.0.. You just have to do a :17 or so and you've got it. You could take it, ya know. :10 in e1m6 is damn cool in a marathon btw. :) We live, as we dream - alone. |
| Topic is 3 Pages Long: 1 2 3 |