Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[YoshL]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

to all sim/song authors out there, I'd like to ask a question.

would you feel disrespected if someone played your song on a rate for their first playthrough y/n and why

[mi40]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

nah, go play bodies in the house next door on 3.0 for all i care

[foxfire667]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

basically, bmah thinks that it's a major matter of respect to the song artist to not have rates record, because people may not play a chart on a normal 1.0x rate, and as a music and stepartist, i seriously couldn't disagree more. but, opinions of everyone else?

In response to bmah's point, all I have to say is:

Which of these seems more respectable to a step artist or someone who gave permission for their music to be played on FFR? Giving the entire spectrum of FFR the incentive to play any given song over and over again, or give many people no incentive to play the file once soever? Honestly, if it weren't for public ranks and rates, I would never touch easier files because I really don't find much replayability in them. For a lot of people public ranks are not enough motivation to sift through hundreds of easy (and probably annoying / dull from their perspective) files, which means that both the step artist and the musician are being rather undermined in my opinion. The ultimate goal of these files is to have people play them, and enjoy them; so if there is a way to vastly increase this, then both the step artist and the musician benefit. The music and the step file get more exposure to people who never would have listened to it or played otherwise, and it makes the file able to cater to the entire spectrum of FFR players.

[ilikexd]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

to all sim/song authors out there, I'd like to ask a question.

would you feel disrespected if someone played your song on a rate for their first playthrough y/n and why

i would never make an easy file easier than like 50

it's just not fun for me to make such easy files, much prefer all the different things you can do with harder files

[bmah]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I haven't posted here till now, but I am onto the agreement of:

one

I'm probably in the minority but that's my thoughts.

[mi40]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

overthrow the tyranny!!!!!!!!!

[foxfire667]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I'm probably in the minority but that's my thoughts.

I'm unsure if you read many of the prior posts, or all of what YoshL discussed with you. I am interested in what you have to say in regards to what I (and others) have posted on the matter from your mentioned points.

It was a decent thing to bring up, but from my standpoint (and from others here) it doesn't really seem to hold up. That is, unless there is more to be said from your end in relation to our posts.

[bmah]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I'm unsure if you read many of the prior posts, or all of what YoshL discussed with you. I am interested in what you have to say in regards to what I (and others) have posted on the matter from your mentioned points.

It was a decent thing to bring up, but from my standpoint (and from others here) it doesn't really seem to hold up. That is, unless there is more to be said from your end in relation to our posts.

I actually wanted to keep my opinion to myself and I didn't give Yoshl permission to post my thoughts on here. I've talked to him at great lengths already and I do not feel like going through this again. I have certainly read through this chat. *grumbles*

[mi40]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

hehe

[foxfire667]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I actually wanted to keep my opinion to myself and I didn't give Yoshl permission to post my thoughts on here.

Then I apologize, I was unaware of this.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

i played vertex beta on 1.5/1.6 a couple times and even then the trills can't be cheated as jumps

also for legacy songs, for the files that have split jumps, you need to play them on rates at least 2.0 for the split jumps to become normal jumps - which in turn make the rest of the files insanely hard (jacks)

Addressing this, haha: at 225 BPM, 16ths become two-frame hits 100% of the time (900 tpm / 60 s = 15 tps; 30 frames / 15 = 2 frame separation). With a perfect window that is three-frames wide. At 1.5 rate (20 tps), roughly 50% of the taps will fall within two frames, and the other 50% will be one frame apart. Just a matter of hitting it at the right time.

In response to the whole playability concept - the frustration of not being able to play certain songs on rates doesn't increase playability; if anything, it's going to frustrate players that cannot access what should be an option for game manipulation. There's really nothing that can be done about this -- creating a retroactive unlock of sorts won't do any good for the replayability factor, but forcing people to play lower level songs over and over again is certainly going to piss people off. It's also especially bad when you run into really long songs (I'm going to feel sorry for someone who has to play World Tour or Trinity multiple times to get rates working).

I also agree with Anaru -- if a person enjoys a song or file, they'll likely have given it a full play (or multiple full plays) and will use rates due to familiarity.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I read 1.5 pages of this thread.

Short answer: It ruins the integrity of the game by allowing players to speed through longer files, ruining the music the way the artist intended it and ruining the file the way the stepper intended it. It's only fun to play on rates when you're playing for fun.

[Coolboyrulez0]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

I'd prefer 0 also and just let people play like they wish instead of arbitrary limitations, if there absolutely MUST be a standardized playthrough I would be very upset if its more than 1.

[Tim Allen]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

Most people speeding through the lower leveled files have already playing them.. probably idk but I've AAA'd every file under level ~60 at least once, most under 30/40 twice and I don't want to play these 40 minute rock songs again come oooooooooooooooon

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

Here's my question:

Did this discussion of songs played on rates involve forcing a person to play the song to be able to play on rates or was it so that they could record scores? The discussion currently going on somewhat deviates from the initial question here.

You can resolve both the playability issues and the issues with respecting the artists by allowing people to play songs on rates, but only allowing the song to -record- a score after a full, non-rated run has been done. That way, players aren't forced to play a song fully to play it on rates, but they are required to give a song a full play before being able to record a given result on it.