Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[Fission]

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

Likewise, many of the arguments for rates were also countered.

sure, but none of them stood up to scrutiny. from an unbiased point of view (or as much as i can try to be, however much that means), all of the arguments against rates unraveled really quickly and they never lasted long.

[benguino]

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

sure, but none of them stood up to scrutiny. from an unbiased point of view (or as much as i can try to be, however much that means), all of the arguments against rates unraveled really quickly and they never lasted long.

Perhaps they just don't hold up to your scrutiny, which is fine since that's why you have your opinion.

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier." Now your counter example was of course, that for most people most rates will make most files harder. Most might be enough for you, however we can play the same no-compromise game you guys have been playing and say that your argument doesn't hold because those most's are not all's.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

[YoshL]

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

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier."

examples given were things like master maid trills and skeletor wall.

it's been established that it seriously doesn't make them easier, because the rate at which you must do the rest of the file compensates.

[Tarrik]

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

I've read every single post in this thread and i want to say that it's a pretty lively discussion.

There's lots of points for and against rates, and admins have popped in and out of the thread stating opinions, or just taking a look. This thread is still alive, despite the fact it could have been locked by now, or even deleted. I just don't think we should push our luck anymore, considering we have rates in the first place.

I am for a few things in this thread (Rates recording (1.1, 1.2, etc), GT recording/Credits), but i'm atleast thankful either way that we had rates added in the first place and i am happy to take it as that. The admins know what we want, we've given them valid points and ideas as to how we could go about things. At the end of the day, we don't own this game. We are just the community voicing our opinion, and they've heard it. We should wait it out and see what becomes of the ideas of this thread after it dies, and accept what happens.

TL;DR - I'm for rates recording/GT/credits, the admins know what we want, but this isn't our game. I'm thankful we still have the game to play and that rates were added in the first place.

[foxfire667]

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

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier." Now your counter example was of course, that for most people most rates will make most files harder. Most might be enough for you, however we can play the same no-compromise game you guys have been playing and say that your argument doesn't hold because those most's are not all's.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

Actually, rates always make the song faster, and therefore harder than it normally would be. What people were generally handing up on was FFR's mechanic of being able to bs patterns like rolls with jump-trilling (where people were generally using Skeletor as the example for this). The counter was that whatever small benefits you receive from the slightly easier jump-trilling are easily negated by the difficulty of the rest of the file. I challenge anyone to AAA a file that they cannot already AAA on 1.0x on a higher rate (that is actually noteworthy, not like 1.00000001x or something). I would be highly surprised to see any legitimate results come from this, and even if there was a result or two, do you expect it to be a serious and widespread issue? So much so that probably one of the most fun features added to FFR in years should be treated as if it's a cheat, or too easy compared to songs on normal rates?

Here is a prior post of mine regarding Skeletor and one other file on rates:

These are just rate scores on the fly, and obviously aren't absolute proof or anything. I just wanted to see if I could get any scoring benefits overall, from playing some files on various rates.

Skeletor

This is Skeletor normally:


This is Skeletor on 1.3x rate:


The JS becomes ridiculously fast, and I would be pretty satisfied with myself getting into the wall with a mid SDG. I would definitely NOT use rates on Skeletor to pull the AAA on it, as it is too difficult to get to the wall with an AAA unless you have the speed for it. The reason why I chose 1.3x to post is because the wall on 1.1x / 1.2x for me felt more awkward to hit, and I really couldn't get it down even after several isolation attempts.

Here is the Skeletor wall normally.


Here is the wall on 1.3x rate.


Both of these walls to me pretty much felt like a luck fest, and it was only after several attempts and jumping around between the rates that I actually pulled the AAA's off in the first place. I will say that 1.3 has more reliable jump-trilling, but compared to the rest of the file it really isn't worth it.

Within life:
It was argued at 1.5 the rolls could be jump-trilled. Though within life at 1.5x rate does create some new jump-trilling possibilities, holy crap the rest of the file.

I have a AAA on it normally, and here is 1.5x rate:


My goodness, the jacks, the transitions, and pretty much everything about this file becomes really tough to keep PA at 1.5x. If you haven't AAA'd at 1x, you aren't touching 1.5x, ever.

Having multiple leader-boards for each rate for every song would probably take up an extensive amount of space, or at least that is what the consensus on it seems. I guess FFR doesn't have much server space to work with as it is apparently or something.

Also to Tarrik, I personally am more interesting in seeing (and if possible) refuting those who are against the change. I'm not so much trying to bother the admins as much as I want to put rates in a good light in the community. We all know nothing is going to come from this, but for some reason I just can't help but post in here, because rates on FFR is something I care about quite a bit. The fact rates exist in the first place on FFR is amazing enough, but I suppose it was that miracle that sparked the want to go all the way with it.

[arcnmx]

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

just put a cap on allowed rate, or don't allow this many keys to be pressed simultaneously while in a song, or both. not sure what the big deal is.

Hm? I didn't say it was a problem, I was just explaining what causes that particular bug to happen. (however, the keys aren't quite being pressed simultaneously, it'd be spamming the game with hundreds of keydown+keyup events in the span of milliseconds)

Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards, we'd want a single one spanning all rates at most - then somehow factor the rate into the score without pissing off people over its balance.

EDIT: Nice post, Tarrik.

[Plan_Bsk81127]

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

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

[benguino]

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

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards, we'd want a single one spanning all rates at most - then somehow factor the rate into the score without pissing off people over its balance.

Yeah, it'd be a lot of leaderboards, but I don't see the issue with it? It lets people on 1.1x rate compare scores against others that also played on 1.1x rate, it lets people on 1.2x rate compare scores against others that also played on 1.2x rate, etc. If it's server space that is the issue, I understand but I wouldn't think a list of 5 numbers (P/G/A/M/B) would take up too much space for each recorded score.

Trying to factor in how rate would be tied into score is going to be a mess because no matter how you do it, someone is going to complain and more likely than not it's going to be hard to find a formula with rates that works fairly for all songs.

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

Thank you, I was going to say something along these lines but I couldn't find the words for it, thanks again.

[Choofers]

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

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

This is probably not the norm at all.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

Not sure if you actually read the thread. Rate scores would record as 1.0 scores. There would be no "messing with the current level ranks."

[YoshL]

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

I challenge anyone to AAA a file that they cannot already AAA on 1.0x on a higher rate (that is actually noteworthy, not like 1.00000001x or something).

[ with proof (o: ]

[Choofers]

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

i cent aaa fre space bcuz 2slow5me

[Fission]

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

Perhaps they just don't hold up to your scrutiny, which is fine since that's why you have your opinion.

if the same argument is rehashed over and over and it doesn't get defended when it is countered, that's the definition of not holding up under scrutiny.

[benguino]

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

Proof by example is not a proof. Likewise, not being able to find a counter example is not a proof against the contrary either.

[benguino]

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

if the same argument is rehashed over and over and it doesn't get defended when it is countered, that's the definition of not holding up under scrutiny.

I am still defending it and there are other people as well but they are just not as outspoken about the subject. Anyways, I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

I am still defending it and there are other people as well but they are just not as outspoken about the subject. Anyways, I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

Objectively speaking a file on a rate will be HARDER for a player on a rate.
Take Skeletor's wall for example. 180 BPM jumptrilling on 1.0.

Now play it on 1.3. 234 BPM jumptrilling. Keep in mind, although it's technically "easier" to PA for some players, that's really because they're not able to rush it. They still require FAST jumptrilling speed, much faster than the one on 1.0. So objectively speaking, yes, every file is harder on a rate because it demands more speed.