Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[EzExZeRo7497]

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.

Yup.

[foxfire667]

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.

I feel the same way.

[Choofers]

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

sounds lazy to blast through level ranks just using rates.

Also I kinda want to touch on this point as well.

Let's assume, for the sake of ease, that there are 2000 files exactly in FFR, and, on average, each file is 3 minutes long. Let's also assume that you have an account with no scores in level ranks.

If you played with 1.0 rate, a full play through of every file would take, at minimum, 100 hours of playtime. Factor in time taken to FC/AAA every file in level ranks, and that can increase by quite a bit.

Now let's do it at 1.5 rate. A full play through of every file would take, at minimum, 67 hours. Again, factor in the time to FC/AAA every file, and the overall time increases.

So, saying that playing on rates is "lazy" is completely irrelevant. 67 hours. Factor in FC/AAAs and you can get close to 3 full days of game time. 3 days.

3 days playing a rhythm game for fun.

Lazy.


i'm drinking so please tell me if my math is off

[TheSaxRunner05]

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

The main argument I see against is that the song artists might feel gyped for having their song played through at the intended tempo.

My thoughts:

1) How many artists actually CARE if their song is played on a higher rate?

2) The artists songs will actually be played MORE if they allow it to record on higher rates.

3) FFR activity is far less than it used to be, at it will continue to dip without ways to keep experienced players engaged in playing the game.

4) Quick, someone go tell Disturbed that a song that has only been played on FFR less than 150 times might soon be able to be played sped up (edit:// and record! they can already be played sped up) by a small percentage of a small rhythm gaming community. Oh, I'm sure they'll revoke their permissions right away.

[mi40]

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

down with the chipmunkness

[Choofers]

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

david draimunk

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

@Choof: It's 250 hours and 167 hours respectively, what r u doin

[YoshL]

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

what how? he's assuming 2000 songs at 3 mins each, 6000 minutes of playing / 60 minutes in an hour = 100 hours

also, factor in like, the 10 seconds to pick a new song if you do it fast that's another like 6 hours of just menu

[alloyus]

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

Also I kinda want to touch on this point as well.

Let's assume, for the sake of ease, that there are 2000 files exactly in FFR, and, on average, each file is 3 minutes long. Let's also assume that you have an account with no scores in level ranks.

If you played with 1.0 rate, a full play through of every file would take, at minimum, 100 hours of playtime. Factor in time taken to FC/AAA every file in level ranks, and that can increase by quite a bit.

Now let's do it at 1.5 rate. A full play through of every file would take, at minimum, 67 hours. Again, factor in the time to FC/AAA every file, and the overall time increases.

So, saying that playing on rates is "lazy" is completely irrelevant. 67 hours. Factor in FC/AAAs and you can get close to 3 full days of game time. 3 days.

3 days playing a rhythm game for fun.

Lazy.


i'm drinking so please tell me if my math is off

It is lazy :P Considering the type of game it is and how many other people have already gone through it. You don't have to do it in one sitting. Over several years you really can't do that? I've already put most of my thoughts about this out there and I've actually come closer to your side, but it definitely shows laziness to want rates to record simply for that reason, and I won't budge on that. People in a few months can put that much play time into console/PC games as it is (if not less than that), but a lot of these "experienced" players have been here for soooo many years.

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

what how? he's assuming 2000 songs at 3 mins each, 6000 minutes of playing / 60 minutes in an hour = 100 hours

also, factor in like, the 10 seconds to pick a new song if you do it fast that's another like 6 hours of just menu

i'm not sure what the fuck I was doing just now, my bad

[Choofers]

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

fucking lmao

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

i just woke up okay

[Xx{Fallen}xX]

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.

I feel this way too

[Choofers]

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

i just woke up okay

oh I was "lmao"ing alloyus, you're good mango

[Choofers]

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

if you're having fun but being lazy, you're playing the game wrong !!