Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[mi40]

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

Cause I don't you fuckers anything.

anyways other poll thread is gone now but

what kind of a response did you expect after posting a thread with a closed poll and 1 vote in it

[Fission]

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

Rebound just said he read through the thread. It's very possible he simply disagrees with those arguments. People can disagree, ya know?

it's one thing to disagree, but to say something is a solution because you don't agree with the opposing argument is immature.

[TheSaxRunner05]

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

People can have different opinions?!?!? :O

[Fission]

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

again, you missed the entire point of my post.

i don't care if people have different opinions, but your opinion isn't fact just because you say it is.

[PriestREA]

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

anyways other poll thread is gone now but

what kind of a response did you expect after posting a thread with a closed poll and 1 vote in it

will remember you :'(

[Tim Allen]

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

i guess the thread is over

[foxfire667]

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

i guess the thread is over

You thought this was for real? Lol rates recording isn't gonna get added period, just wait for the thread to die and we can all move on like usual.

Just like that legacy thread that had some interesting ideas in it, if anyone remembers that dead thing, or the other prior dead threads about other suggestions.

[Choofers]

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

can we at least get a reply from velo or arc

[popsicle_3000]

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

if rates are gonna be recording, i think at least 1 playthrough before rates scores can record. A lot of this talk has seemed to be "oh, i cbf to play all the easy songs, let me be able to go through them faster..."

[YoshL]

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

if rates are gonna be recording, i think at least 1 playthrough before rates scores can record. A lot of this talk has seemed to be "oh, i cbf to play all the easy songs, let me be able to go through them faster..."

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.

I repeat:

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

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

ok

[benguino]

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

Rates shouldn't record (at least not yet) because of stuff like this:


EDIT: I still don't support it, but if it were to be implemented, further testing needs to be done

[Choofers]

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

If rates were recorded, that score and an AAA on 1.0 would be indistinguishable everywhere on the site, as long as you don't post that screenshot.

[benguino]

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

I'm saying that rates are still glitchy (I don't think a 10000x rate quad on excite bike is feasible).

[TheSaxRunner05]

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

The glitch with reallllly high rates only works with charts with very small note counts
like <100

[benguino]

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

It's still a glitch nonetheless. That isn't to say that there could potentially be even more glitches we haven't found yet because I don't think rates have gone through intensive testing/debugging yet.