Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[TheSaxRunner05]

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

This wont affect many players anyways, only the active interested vets, who have FP 10+

Besides no one complains about "ruining the authors intent" on SM, people play on rates all the time and those scores are held in a higher regard than the 1.0 scores

[TC_Halogen]

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

This wont affect many players anyways, only the active interested vets, who have FP 10+

Besides no one complains about "ruining the authors intent" on SM, people play on rates all the time and those scores are held in a higher regard than the 1.0 scores

You make a valid point, but the situation is slightly different for FFR -- the separating issue here is that FFR actually acquires permissions to use artist music (as opposed to SM, which does not). Artists occasionally get really excited to see their music in a game like this, but they are musicians who do have an intent with their music, and rate mods might ruin that intent.

Your point about Flash Player 10 is an interesting one... not everyone uses F10 or newer when playing the game -- however, if casual players play the game on the browser (due to not knowing about standalone play), they'll experience all of the benefits that us community goers opt out of using due to performance issues/preferences.

[foxfire667]

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

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.

It's the exact same file, except faster.

I don't understand what people can't get about this, either the files get tons more plays from people of all skill levels, or they get tons less because lots of players don't care to touch them. If I was a musician or a step artist on FFR, knowing that people will avoid my step / music because it's easy or long would annoy me, not people playing it slightly faster so they can enjoy it more.

FFR has over 1400 public songs (and almost 200 tokens), and with a player who can AAA semi-high level files, the sheer number of songs way below their skill level is pretty tremendous. You can't seriously tell me that encouraging a player to actually touch hundreds of new songs and step charts is doing anything but helping bring recognition to step artists and musicians. You also can't seriously tell me that bringing rates into the game wouldn't make working on FFR's ridiculously huge (and still growing) public rank list, a much more enjoyable and manageable task for anyone who tossed it aside before. Rates are an incredible thing, and I truly believe that if they are added without any strange prerequisites they could lead to some pretty nice results.

[alloyus]

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

Really don't see an issue with having to play a song once before you can have rate scores record for it, most of you are being so sillyyy

[foxfire667]

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

Really don't see an issue with having to play a song once before you can have rate scores record for it, most of you are being so sillyyy

Forcing a one time play through completely defeats one of the big things that could come about from adding rates into game, which would be giving players motivation to attack their public ranks (and have fun doing it). Sure, playing a harder file normally isn't a big deal at all, but imagine having to play hundreds and hundreds of files below your skill level one time before rates are allowed on them.

It would take all the incentive to play the easier files to improve ranks and essentially throw it out the window, because nothing changes. If you have to play it once, then they are still bored and annoyed, and they would AAA at the end anyway. People not touching the easier files now would still not touch them if rates were added with this restriction.

[bmah]

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

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.

This is what I was suggesting all along, and I was a little upset that the people I talked to refused any sort of compromise. This is why I'm not bothering to chase after this topic. What you're saying is my one and only suggestion.

[TC_Halogen]

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

It seems like the only sensible solution to accommodate for both sides -- why is it being so heavily disregarded?

[foxfire667]

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

It seems like the only sensible solution to accommodate for both sides -- why is it being so heavily disregarded?

My prior two posts pretty much sum up my opposition to such a restriction.

If this restriction were to be added though, I guess it wouldn't affect me in the least so whatever I guess (just thinking about other players and public ranks in general). That is if I assume rates even are going to be added to the game anyway.

[mi40]

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

i still don't get why a full playthrough is required

any other rhythm game out there that can be played on rates don't require a full playthrough, so why does ffr need a restriction like that?

rates are a sitewide feature and a non-exclusive feature

there shouldn't be anything, even a full playthrough, barring someone's desire to play on rates

[mi40]

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

it's almost like we're forgetting that, higher rates recording opens up HUNDREDS of SONGS to players who are otherwise ALREADY WELL ABOVE a certain skill level

most players who are past a certain skill level DON'T PLAY / VISIT older songs (ie. Dance 1, Funk, Hip Hop) because it's not fun for them

requiring them to do a full playthrough defeats the whole purpose of higher rates recording, since it goes back to: "oh hey, i need to spend hours and hours before these scores will record for me... i'll just go back to dance 2 and misc"

[Xx{Fallen}xX]

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

I am heavily against having to play through a song before you can record a score for it. Its as Foxfire said before, and i feel that it undermines the whole point of letting rate scores record in the first place.

Edit: I wouldn't mind a poll about this topic

[alloyus]

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

Rates are for fun/bragging rights, sounds lazy to blast through level ranks just using rates.

[benguino]

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

The restriction would be "you need a full playthrough on 1.0 to have rates RECORD", it is not "you need a full playthrough to play a song on rates." Even with the restriction, there would be nothing stopping people from playing a song on rates. Rates are in FFR for the additional fun factor and indeed many people have been playing songs on rates on songs they have already AAA'ed just for the fun of it, the lower level files HAVE been getting more attention because of this. Likewise, if you're playing the game for fun, you can still play a file on rates, not give two shits if it records, screenshot the score, and post in the brag board; just because it didn't record doesn't make it less impresive. Like I said, rates are supposed to be for fun, not to be used as a mechanism to go through 100's of lower level files in a much shorter period of time. If other people had the patience and determination to go through all the songs in the levelranks, then so can you. Also, you're going to always have an influx of new members some of which will care about their rank and play those low level files so those low level files are always going to be played regardless of what happens. The percentage of the site that falls under "people who are highly skilled you don't give a shit about their ranks but suddenly would go through the trouble of playing every song if rates recorded" isn't that high to begin with since most highly skilled players already went through their ranks, so most of the arguments in this thread for the opinion opposing mine has little merit imho.

[YoshL]

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

The percentage of the site that falls under "people who are highly skilled you don't give a shit about their ranks but suddenly would go through the trouble of playing every song if rates recorded" isn't that high to begin with since most highly skilled players already went through their ranks, so most of the arguments in this thread for the opinion opposing mine has little merit imho.

Yet the arguments in this thread pretty much represent most of the active ffr community.

[mi40]

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

the addition of this feature would hinge on two things

1) does it make for a better gameplay experience? if yes, it should be implemented
2) does it reward people for improving? if yes, it should be implemented in order to encourage players to keep playing & expanding their song subsets

for songs from the difficulty range 1-50ish, it is very easy to skip over entire difficulty ranges, even for beginners. the steeper learning curve of ffr comes after difficulty 50, where a lot more concepts are introduced (rolls, jacks, etc) in faster bpms & higher quantities..

for people who do play this game consistently, they will be improving at a rate faster than they would be playing ALL of the songs given in a difficulty range.

it doesn't take more than a few handful plays of the easiest songs (difficulty 1-3) to get past the plethora of songs available at that range. at this point people are striving to go beyond their skill levels to improve.

so what happens when you are forced to play a full song? you simply skip it or don't pay attention to it - thus giving it no chance.

looking at it from the other perspective, newer players are NOT going to touch omega-hard FGO/FSO songs, simply because it's way out of their skill range and it doesn't provide them with a fun experience. this can be said the same about people who have improved beyond a certain skill level.

to restrict people & demotivate people from playing easier or harder songs by forcing a full playthrough before they can have higher rates record, is simply another barrier FORCIBLY limiting people to a certain subset of songs within their skill levels

not many players, even the NEWER players, go back to lower difficulty songs and play them for fun, simply because it does not provide a challenge for them. and to play through a FULL time for EACH AND EVERY SONG before they can have their merits (AAAs) recorded is wrong.

as a matter of fact, having a new player go back and play secret zombie room on 1.3 and getting 3 goods on it just to find out that it hasn't recorded is something i do not want to see.