Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[benguino]

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

in reponse to yoshl:
I understand that. But the main argument on the opposing side is that lower leveled files would be played more without such a restriction. And I agree however they wouldn't be played THAT much more because the restriction would only change whether or not a small percentage of people would actually play the files. So even though I'm in the minority, I fail to see the argument posed by the majority.

[XelNya]

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

in reponse to yoshl:
I understand that. But the main argument on the opposing side is that lower leveled files would be played more without such a restriction. And I agree however they wouldn't be played THAT much more because the restriction would only change whether or not a small percentage of people would actually play the files. So even though I'm in the minority, I fail to see the argument posed by the majority.

Ben's pretty much summed it up. To be honest, if the argument is more "it helps us get passed the easier songs that bore us" then I'd say you're looking at it the wrong way and that the feature should be ignored.

[alloyus]

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

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

You mean the most outspoken of the community

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..

Very big generalization, there are many many players where this is one of their first finger-coordination rhythm games, and while it's definitely simpler to improve from 1-50, it nonetheless is definitely still difficult. This was pretty much my first rhythm game that I really got into and setting aside my one-handed playing time, it still took quite awhile to get my fingers to move with the speed that I needed them to.

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.

In general, level ranks is a completionist thing. Still strongly feel that this is an argument to avoid hard work (in the case you're thinking of, moreso hard work based on time, but if you're starting out and just getting the hang of things it's less time and more skill). You're not required to work on level ranks, people do for a sense of accomplishment/bragging rights.

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.

Very untrue. The 1-3's are pretty much just 1/4 notes, there aren't even a solid amount of "dense" 1/4 notes in them, the only longer run of 1/4 notes I can think of is in Super Mario, the ones after that start getting into some small bursts of 8th notes, which can be a big jump up from 1/4 notes when you're just starting.

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.

So silly to skip a song just because you can't record a score on it with rates. The idea of it is to play it once just so you can experience it the way it was originally intended. After that it wouldn't matter whatsoever. If you want to go into it all close-minded and not pay any attention to it then that's your own fault.

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.

Nothing to say here that hasn't already been addressed.

]quote=mi40]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[/quote]

Most songs are 2-4 minutes...are there some longer ones? Yes, of course. So what.

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.

You can get a AAA on 1.0...you can get a AAA on 2.0. It just won't record. Why do you have to go back to old songs as a skilled player and play it on rates in order to AAA it? I understand you just think it's boring. Just don't work on rates. This is so ridiculous to me that some of you are being like this about this whole thing. It's definitely NOT "wrong" to not let people have recorded scores on rate scores. This isn't even how it's necessarily going to stay. You're really telling me you can't play through a song ONCE the way it was originally sent into the game? Come on now.

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.

There's a scores thread that they can brag about that in. Go there. If you can get that on 1.3 and really want it recorded that badly then go AAA on 1.0 and have your recorded score, that's honestly a really fun song/file anyway >.>

Would actually be cool to see in the level ranks page your highest score and then next to that what rate it was on (like if you beat your 1.3 on 1.4, only the 1.4 score would show up or something, not 100% sure how others would feel about that though)

Edit: Basically what Xel said

[mi40]

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

i don't see what the point of having a restriction in the first place is

forcing people to play through a song before letting higher rates record is basically the same thing as forcing people to run a marathon before running a triathlon, freaking stupidest idea ever

alloyus i'm gonna take your recent played games as an example

Winter Wind Etude
J'ai Envie de Plaisir X2
Rave7
Jamais Vu
do i smile?
Extratone Pirates (Drunk Optimus Remix)
Bubble Bath Aftermath
Bubble Bath Aftermath
Bubble Bath Aftermath
Bubble Bath Aftermath



hey look guess what? i don't see any easy songs on here because they're out of your skill range
well gee whillikers would you look at that, you might argue for "how the song was intended to be" but all i'm seeing is, you don't even TOUCH lower files anymore because 1) you aren't rewarded for playing them 2) it's not fun playing them because they're way out of your skill range

if you don't even touch the files once out of FREE WILL, i don't see how this "oh you have to play it on 1.0 to see how it was intended to be" argument follows through

worst freakin' idea ever.. what's the point of forcing people to "see how it was intended to be on 1.0" when you don't even touch it on 1.0
you can't tell me you went back and played super mario 8bit or this beat is for tha streetz to "see how it was intended on 1.0", this isn't some mona lisa exhibition where we sit back and appreciate how a simfile was intended to be, we're trying to cater to anyone and everyone, and in order to do that any kind of restriction like forcing people to sit through songs is the dumbest, stupidest idea i've ever heard

[alloyus]

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

I definitely played them back in the day when I was just starting -_- And if I wanted to actually work on my level ranks then yes I would of my own free will play songs on 1.0. I actually have gone back and played VC's on rates for fun. And if I was playing a song for the first time, for example if I actually felt like playing the new songs every week, of course I'd play them on 1.0 the first time. Truly all I see is "I don't want to play easier songs on 1.0 because it's faster to AAA them on 1.5 first try and I don't have to look at it again."

[mi40]

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

what you said is partially true but let me ask you another question..

should playing ffr be a grind or a chore? i'm 100% sure you certainly did not play every single song from difficulty 1-70 before you could AAA songs in the 70s

and you don't ever visit songs in the lower ranges anymore - because you aren't rewarded for it

i think having no restriction (no full playthrough required) is ultimately opening up songs for people, since there are over a THOUSAND songs in the game, and people almost always skip at least a few hundred songs.. and after they've improved a lot they are given no options and are stuck with a few hundred songs within their skill range

instead, i think having no restriction for rates gives people a chance to play ALL songs, even at any skill level, from song 1 to 2000, whenever they want, however they want, and still be rewarded for it.

VC level player wants to play some difficulty 1-30 files that they did not have a chance to play, and don't want to face the higher FMO/FGOs in misc/dance 2 section yet.. so instead they test their skills in the dance1/lower difficulties section, instead on rates. that sounds like a good experience to me.. they get to explore more songs and are NOT CONFINED to a subset of a few hundred songs within their skill range.

[alloyus]

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

I am also 100% certain about that, but I never grudgingly worked on my ranks, I actually did it somewhat for fun. I just don't find it fun anymore I just typically play SM. I guess that post brings me back a little, was honestly annoyed so much by this thread but that was actually more pleasant to read xP Much better way of describing it, and if it's the way you intended it to be from the start of your posts I apologize for thinking otherwise. There definitely will be people who use it just to skip through stuff but I guess there really will be people who could just go around trying songs on a rate if they wanted to.

[foxfire667]

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

Still strongly feel that this is an argument to avoid hard work (in the case you're thinking of, moreso hard work based on time, but if you're starting out and just getting the hang of things it's less time and more skill). You're not required to work on level ranks, people do for a sense of accomplishment/bragging rights.

Why do you feel that tedium should be considered a skill factor? That honestly sounds like quite a turn off for wanting to progress in a game, at least in a visually apparent sense.

Also no, you don't have to work on level ranks, just like you don't have to play FFR at all. The point is though that public ranks are the closest thing we have to a way to show others how far you've come (aside from just posting good scores in the brag board). As it stands now, in order for it to be even a remote representation of decent player's skill, they have to sit through hundreds of files that are far under their skill level. Public ranks are also where the majority of FFR files are, and it seems like giving incentive to play more songs there would be a fairly beneficial thing.

So silly to skip a song just because you can't record a score on it with rates. The idea of it is to play it once just so you can experience it the way it was originally intended. After that it wouldn't matter whatsoever. If you want to go into it all close-minded and not pay any attention to it then that's your own fault.

I don't see how skipping over a song because you know it is too far below your skill level (and thus would be pretty boring for you to play, and wouldn't be fun) is being close minded. This is a game, and if something isn't fun in a game, people are probably going to skip over it (since above everything, they are here for entertainment). Take away rates recording (even with one play-through) and it's still going to be the same. Perhaps they might play an easier file on rates, but it will not coax anyone to play a file on 1x rate, and it will not motivate people to attack ranks (and by extension play more songs / files). If they avoided it before, they'll still avoid it, and if they played it on rates alone before, they are still going to do that.

This is so ridiculous to me that some of you are being like this about this whole thing. It's definitely NOT "wrong" to not let people have recorded scores on rate scores. This isn't even how it's necessarily going to stay. You're really telling me you can't play through a song ONCE the way it was originally sent into the game? Come on now.

I won't say it's wrong, I'll just say it isn't accomplishing anything by being implemented. Please tell me, what will making one full play through on any file before rates are recorded actually change in compassion to how things work already? Do you really think that step artists and musicians are going to be grateful for this perquisite, especially knowing that all it will really do is take away motivation to play their songs or steps (as opposed to otherwise).

Also, as I've already said, FFR is not exactly a small thing to tackle. It's got over 1400 public songs, and those songs really add up in terms of time spent playing. It might not seem like much to play one file you find boring once, but how about hundreds upon hundreds. You aren't talking about a few minutes, or even a few hours, for a general player, you are probably talking about a couple weeks of constant tedium. Take that one full play through away, and even if it takes them a little while to play the files, at least they are having quite a bit more fun doing it.

Also two more things. The first, having scores "not record" also implies GTS and credit gain would be disabled on those files as well. This is yet another blow to motivation for people to play files out of their skill range on rates with such a restriction. The second thing you have to consider is who would this restriction actually effect? This restriction seems like it would really only pertain specifically to people who are decently skilled, but haven't played most of the easier files due to them being too annoying or boring. There aren't exactly thousands of people in that position, and I don't think they are going to change their minds about public ranks. So who is really being undermined here, do you think a step author or a musician cares that if rates were enabled without this restriction a few people might play the files without playing on 1.0 first? I honestly doubt it, especially considering they wouldn't have played the file otherwise.

[YoshL]

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

ok here's something to think about

is it possible to enable local score saving for alternate engines on rates

[Xx{Fallen}xX]

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

worst freakin' idea ever.. what's the point of forcing people to "see how it was intended to be on 1.0" when you don't even touch it on 1.0
you can't tell me you went back and played super mario 8bit or this beat is for tha streetz to "see how it was intended on 1.0", this isn't some mona lisa exhibition where we sit back and appreciate how a simfile was intended to be, we're trying to cater to anyone and everyone, and in order to do that any kind of restriction like forcing people to sit through songs is the dumbest, stupidest idea i've ever heard

If this is the only argument for the restriction of rate scores recording, then i completely agree with mi40

[alloyus]

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

Fox if you read my newest post you'd know I'm a little more open to it now, but you certainly don't need to go through level ranks to show you're a good player, a good chunk of the site who's active is a subscriber and can actually look at your ranks and see what scores you have on what files, you can have few AAAs/FCs and still be a good player. Also a pretty decent amount of games award tedium in general (leveling in RPGs/playing game after game after game in CoD, etc)

[mi40]

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

i heard from a little bird that recording rates would be a big pain to code so i don't even know if this idea will go through but hopefully i've laid down some legitimate arguments

[TC_Halogen]

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.

^

agree 100%, considering that would be an advantage that players could have used - that's why I'm for advocating the previous idea that bmah/I had

[mi40]

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

you can't "blast" through levelranks with rates, any song above difficulty 40 on rates like 1.5 (if you were indeed "blasting" through levelranks") become exponentially harder to AAA..
and even if you had the skill to blast through everything on 1.5, you would have to be a D7 player (yes, d7 NOT d6) and have hundreds of hours to invest, FFR isn't a game with 50 songs you know

i don't see the need to pidgeonhole players.. besides without any rewards or incentives people will never even touch songs that are out of their skill range

[mi40]

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

if higher rates were to be implemented all i'm seeing is maybe like 1-3 people at MOST (d6+ players, probably none) blasting through levelranks (it still takes hundreds of hours to play songs on higher rates, and higher rates usually mean it's that much harder to AAA the file)

but what i can imagine are people who have hundreds of unplayed songs eagerly going back to play and enjoy older songs that they previously have never played and would not have played without higher rates recording



rates don't allow people to instantly AAA 2000 songs, it might cut a few hours but what's the price of a few hours for countless hours of fun and enjoyment? i don't see the proper 'tradeoff' here..
why restrict people from having fun and being rewarded for it? are we really that draconian to force people to play through songs that are so obviously out of their skill range, easy or hard?