Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[foxfire667]

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

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

I would certainly imagine it's possible, and it would be a neat little feature if it was added.

What I personally want to know is if it will ever be possible to get GTS and credits from an alternate engine song play through. As it stands now, I have lots of fun playing alternate engine songs, but I feel like (at least in terms of working on overall rank) I'm wasting a pretty good song session. Not expecting this to happen, but I'd be interested if anyone else would be for / against this and why.

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)

Sorry, it takes a while to write long posts, sometimes things happen in between I overlook.

As for knowing if a player is good, that is true, but I mainly was referring to visually (ie: having an average rank of like 10000, even though you already have oni / scarhand or something). Having a good public rank is also a solid indicator you are playing lots of files on FFR, which seems like a very good thing to encourage players to do. I suppose the problem lies in how FFR itself perceives skill in ranks, considering it's just a big average of everything.

As for tedium, I would say games like RPG's (and what you said about CoD) and whatnot reward time, not tedium. From what I recall, it doesn't take all that long to level up in CoD, and if you prestige, most of your stuff is removed and you have to start over again. Chances are, if you are playing CoD and leveling up a lot, you are probably enjoying it. If I thought playing game after game of CoD was boring and tedious, I just wouldn't buy or play CoD, period. Don't really play many RPG's, so I'm not sure if leveling in most of them would be boring, but I do know if leveling was integral to the game, and it was boring to do so, I wouldn't play the game. Would you honestly play something that bored you (unless you really really enjoyed other major aspects of it?)

[mi40]

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

anti bottompage

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

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?

[alloyus]

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

I actually do enjoy working on level ranks when I choose to xP And if I get upset with something I either move on from it, disappointed, or stop. I really don't get bored because I actually choose to do it, I don't view it as a chore (I'm one of the weird ones)

[Tarrik]

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

This thread feels like a pissing contest now lol. There's enough points from everyone that i think Velo and Arc could discuss possibilities and possibly make a poll or something.

[Plan_Bsk81127]

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

Rates replacing 1.0 scores: no
Rates recording GT/credits: yes (with adjustments)

While I can see peoples arguments for wanting scores on 1.x to replace 1.0 scores, all this will do is lead to people abusing it on songs below their skill level or a song that is lengthy for the sake of laziness. Level ranks are not something a person HAS to do, it is something you do by choice to see how well you can rank based on all of the songs in the game which includes songs that are below your skill level. If you have a problem sitting through easy songs or long songs then guess what, that's your problem and I guess working on playing for a good average rank is just not for you, stick to getting the best scores you can on songs within your skill range. No need to allow something like this just because you dont have the patience to sit through a long song or play something so easy to where it bores you and you cbf to play it. Those are your problems and you need to just deal with it.


However, I do think playing on rates should allow GT/credits. You are still playing through a song, so you should be receiving credit for playing through a song by keeping the GT and credits. By allowing this though some adjustments need to be made. A reduction formula for GT/credits need to be placed in order to avoid gt/credit whoring being super easy. Some formula that will bring down the GT/credits earned close to what it would be as if you played the song on 1.0 rate. Saw a few options mentioned already in here which could work, but overall, players should still be awarded for playing the song despite it being on rates.

[mi40]

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

how can you abuse these songs to blast through levelranks when most people on the site aren't even at that level

not everyone is d5+, we're trying to open up options for players of all skills to all songs instead of forcing them to play a subset of songs in their skill level

i dont even play ffr much and i can honestly say when i was improving from newbie to intermed, i didn't look back at easier songs because they soon were too far out of my skill level

not rewarding people for accomplishing something is stupid, and creating artificial difficulty (tedium) is the worst idea i've ever heard

just because YOU played through hundreds of easy songs to get a lower average rank doesn't mean everybody else should not be rewarded for trying something new

[mi40]

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

No need to allow something like this just because you dont have the patience to sit through a long song or play something so easy to where it bores you and you cbf to play it. Those are your problems and you need to just deal with it.

this is a game dude, if a game is boring then there is probably something wrong with the game
you make it seem like a job, and that's the single worst thing a game can become

[Fission]

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

if moving DP and RATO to token ranks got a poll, why doesn't this have a poll too?

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

I didn't read all of the thread, but I'm just going to say that if you reach a particular skill level to AAA a file on a rate, you deserve the AAA. If you have the ability to AAA songs at the lower difficulty spectrum on rates, you should be able to plow through everything at the lower end on a faster rate because it doesn't just clean up level ranks, it also gives more of a challenge.

I don't see anything wrong with it to be honest, you can still AAA it on 1.0 and still have the same ranking as someone who AAA'd it on 1.6, so I really don't see what's the big issue about this. Besides, most people usually AAA files in the lower end first before getting to a higher skill level (D5/D6/D7) anyway...

[TheSaxRunner05]

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

+1 to at least allow credits/GT for rates

(I'm also for allowing scores to record)

[Choofers]

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

all this will do is lead to people abusing it on songs below their skill level or a song that is lengthy for the sake of laziness

Because laziness = willingness to grind out a 4+ minute chart that's way below skill level, in order to complete level ranks?

Ever since I started playing again recently on R^3, I've been having a blast. Partially because the engine is fuckin great, but also because of rates. I am having loads of fun playing low difficulty files on rates.

I want to complete my level ranks, but if I do that, I'll be forced to play files that I think are terribly un-fun and boring. And for anyone that has been playing for even a week or two, that sucks. That's not fun. And, ultimately, will detract from the overall fun of FFR.

I mean hey, if you want to play a 4+ minute chart that's rated at a 13 on the new scale, more power to you. To a lot of players, and newer players that are playing at a D1 level can probably agree as well, this is not fun.

Except maybe for musical purists, this really should not be an argument. People are having fun playing easier files on high rates and are being punished for it.

[Choofers]

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

I repeat:

People are having fun playing easier files on high rates and are being punished for it.

[YoshL]

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

i repeat:

people are having fun playing easier files on high rates and are being punished for it.

(ﾉ´ヮ´)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

[foxfire667]

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

this is a game dude, if a game is boring then there is probably something wrong with the game
you make it seem like a job, and that's the single worst thing a game can become

This is very true. Above all else, FFR should be entertaining, because it's a game. Making songs of lower difficulty levels enjoyable to all levels of players (and giving them adequate rewards, like those received when playing normally) makes the game more fun. Likewise, it makes going after public ranks a trial of actual skill (not boredom and time wasting) for a decent player, and gives more incentive to give the rest of FFR a shot. That is, instead of a few songs around their difficulty range and perhaps a few random rate scores like now.

This gives FFR a chance to make all songs a challenge (and likewise entertaining) and even give stuff in return for it, stuff which I feel players are completely deserving of. It makes the game more entertaining, and feel more worthwhile because you'd be actually receiving something while having the additional entertainment and challenge. Make FFR more fun and worthwhile, more people play a broader spectrum of the game, and perhaps more people would play in general. This would make the game better, and convince people to spend more time playing it, simply put.

[Choofers]

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

I think at this point I'd even say I'm having more fun with rates than I am with 80+ files.