Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[popsicle_3000]

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

I like this the best

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards,

what's the problem with that? a new leaderboard is created when someone plays on a rate of a.b X where a&b are integers. Sure leaderboards are massive now, but we're starting from scratch with these. it's not gonna be a heap of data

and again, ave rank, FCs, AAAs, TPs, token unlocks etc... only count on 1.0x rank

[Choofers]

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

the problem with having too many leaderboards is that the site is a shadow of it's former self

those leaderboards for the most part would go totally unused

[foxfire667]

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

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.

Stop shifting the burden of proof. It is pretty obvious what happens when a file is sped up, the patterns become faster, and therefore technically more difficult. This is a pretty simple thing to grasp, otherwise there would really be no difference between files at any rate, or difficulty level on any file for that matter, and a skill system really wouldn't even need to exist (or leader-boards). If you agree that files get harder as the patterns get faster, then you are the one who will have to provide the evidence to show that there are exceptions to this rule (within the confines of FFR mind you, no file is going to only consist of an awkward tough to jump-trill roll and be accepted).

Give examples, and they will be tested. If results cannot be generated in your favor, I don't see any reason to believe your claims. From what people have posted (including myself) it seems the opposite is true when it is put to the test.

Honestly, some of you are so worried about people somehow getting better scores on rates, and it really isn't going to happen. The only reason I even care about rates recording in the first place (aside from getting GTS / credits) is to encourage people to play easier files and be rewarded for it while having fun. Since I know I will never achieve a higher rated score on a file than on 1x though, I wouldn't mind a slight compromise. How would you feel about having rates give GTS and credits for all songs, but only record scores up to a certain difficulty limit (like ~45 or something?) Having rates record for leader-boards (the way I see it) pretty much would only be useful for motivating people to play FFR's easier charts, so I would be perfectly fine with this. Don't actually see any compelling evidence it makes any chart easier, but if that is the only thing getting in the way of people letting this happen then why not "fix" it.

[Fission]

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

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.

so by this logic, fps above 30 shouldn't count because it can't be proven for every single player that it doesn't give an unfair advantage.

you are requesting a formal proof, yet other changes have been made to ffr that haven't required a formal proof, and it's absurd that this one does.

[benguino]

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

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.

I don't see how this argument works. I mean one could have infinite speed but not be able to even AAA excite bike. For a lot of newer players especially, it's not speed that's the issue, it's the level of coordination and control they currently have that prevents them from scoring well. People who came to FFR as their first rhythm game aren't able to immediately AAA low level songs not because they are slower than a sloth, but because they just lack the hand-eye coordination and the control required to score well on such files.

Now your argument works well for high level players on high level songs because they are already well coordinated and have great levels of control; the only things usually holding them back when the play a file is their speed and/or stamina. However, not everyone playing ffr has mastered their control/coordination yet the argument doesn't work for everyone.

EDIT: @Fission: Ok, I'll admit, that was a cheap shot of an argument on my part.

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

For a lot of newer players especially, it's not speed that's the issue, it's the level of coordination and control they currently have that prevents them from scoring well. People who came to FFR as their first rhythm game aren't able to immediately AAA low level songs not because they are slower than a sloth, but because they just lack the hand-eye coordination and the control required to score well on such files.

...And they would score worse on higher rates because the file on a higher rate require more speed and since they lack even more speed required for the file. They would score worse on a higher rate because they lack the control and coordination demanded from the file on the higher rate.

[benguino]

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

...And they would score worse on higher rates because the file on a higher rate require more speed and since they lack even more speed required for the file.

I don't think you understand my point.

Ok, I'm going to use some made up units, bear with me.

Say in order to AAA a file, that a player must have more speed and more control/coordination than the file requires. So let's go through an example.

Say we have a player, who has the following speed and control/coordination levels:
Speed: 100
Control/Coordination: 30

Now let's say we have a file with the following stats on 1.0x.
Speed: 30
Control/Coordination: 35

Now obviously, the player can't AAA the file on 1.0x because he doesn't satisfy the control/coordination requirements.

Now let's take a look at the same file on 2.0x:
Speed: 60
Control/Coordination: 25

Now the speed required has doubled in the file, however the player still has the speed level to not worry about speed being an issue. Also, due to the nature of the chart, the amount of control and coordination in the file has gone down a bit because of the rate. Since both the speed and control/coordination level of the file are lower than that of the player, now the player can AAA the file.

Now this is just a theoretical example, but I hope I've shown what I my point was.

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

Except there are no files out there that actually require less control and coordination on higher rates. I've yet to play any file that actually requires LESS control and coordination on a higher rate compared to the original rate.

[TC_Halogen]

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

So...

I will preface this post with the fact that I am relatively indifferent on this issue, because I have reasons for and against wanting rates to record. So, my post may show some bias towards one side or the other, but it's not intentional under any circumstance.

As a really high level player, rates promote competition. I have rank 1 on more than 98% of the songs publicly released, and if I want to play the game for some sort of self-improvement without rates, I have to play songs that I have absolutely horrible habits on, or I have to play songs that I absolutely despise. With the exception of the songs that I have yet to play due to being newly released, someone can go into my level ranks and see that I have some pretty nasty songs that aren't AAA'd. There's not a lot of motivation for me to improve. While I am a D7 player, I'm not quite known for my excessive speed -- I'm known for having pretty strong technical skills and being able to do stupid things at dumb times. A few days ago, I started playing some of my favorites on rates, and jesus shit I was hauling ass. I didn't think I was capable of hitting 8th notes jumps at 280 BPM while streaming 16ths, but man -- I was wrong. Being able to track my scores on rates would be awesome for this reason.

At the same time, I am largely against rates because I spent a -lot- of time cleaning out my level ranks at normal pace as a very high level player, wishing that I was able to speed songs up. It absolutely frustrates me that players who were too lazy to go about finishing their ranks will have the potential opportunity to blast through them 1.5x, 1.75x, even 2x faster than those who didn't have that opportunity. That's one of the reasons why I feel like a player should be required to play a song fully at least once -- it doesn't give an inherent advantage of time for those who are playing the game for completion. There are a number of really high level players that are very strong players who refuse to touch the easier files for completion of the game, and I don't feel like they should be rewarded with a lack of patience. The argument of files being objectively harder does not apply to this, because the files don't become objectively hard enough to pose any sort of problem to these players; the mod becomes used advantageously.

[Choofers]

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

players who were too lazy

You do realize that this is absolutely hilarious?

[EzExZeRo7497]

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

At the same time, I am largely against rates because I spent a -lot- of time cleaning out my level ranks at normal pace as a very high level player, wishing that I was able to speed songs up. It absolutely frustrates me that players who were too lazy to go about finishing their ranks will have the potential opportunity to blast through them 1.5x, 1.75x, even 2x faster than those who didn't have that opportunity. That's one of the reasons why I feel like a player should be required to play a song fully at least once -- it doesn't give an inherent advantage of time for those who are playing the game for completion. There are a number of really high level players that are very strong players who refuse to touch the easier files for completion of the game, and I don't feel like they should be rewarded with a lack of patience. The argument of files being objectively harder does not apply to this, because the files don't become objectively hard enough to pose any sort of problem to these players; the mod becomes used advantageously.

I understand what you are saying, but with that logic we shouldn't have fixed with avmiss bug, 1x only, no mirror because it technically required more effort to plow through levelranks compared to it without the restrictions. I'd say the "objectively harder" argument still has some merit since although for higher-level players a higher rate wouldn't pose that much of an issue, if they are able to nail files at that rate, they deserve the AAA. Although the file is shorter on a rate, the file is still harder than it'll still be more tricky to AAA compared to it on 1.0. The "one full play" part is excessive since although it does prevent laziness, it'll also prevent most players from even playing the file to begin with, which defeats the purpose of rate recording altogether since chances are you will NEVER get a better score on a higher rate than on 1.0, aside from accidental flags.

I apologize if it comes off as biased mainly because I'm also a high-leveled player as well, if it does come off as biased, it's unintentional.

[foxfire667]

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

At the same time, I am largely against rates because I spent a -lot- of time cleaning out my level ranks at normal pace as a very high level player, wishing that I was able to speed songs up. It absolutely frustrates me that players who were too lazy to go about finishing their ranks will have the potential opportunity to blast through them 1.5x, 1.75x, even 2x faster than those who didn't have that opportunity. That's one of the reasons why I feel like a player should be required to play a song fully at least once -- it doesn't give an inherent advantage of time for those who are playing the game for completion. There are a number of really high level players that are very strong players who refuse to touch the easier files for completion of the game, and I don't feel like they should be rewarded with a lack of patience.

I've asked this question before, but not directly to you, why do you think that tedium or boredom should be considered a skill factor? Is it merely because you had to deal with the tedium, because if so, that really doesn't seem fair or progressive for FFR.

We seem to be on completely different sides of the spectrum here actually, now that I think about it. The sole reason why I care about rates recording is to encourage people to play easier files (by giving the reward of having fun and having the score record), where you are more in for the competitive side of harder files. I want FFR to be fun for everyone, not just a small part of FFR, but all of it. Rates recording for lower level songs could help accomplish that goal quite well. Otherwise, for a decent player, a pretty large portion of the song list is quite boring, and will never be touched by them because of this. They shouldn't have to be bored or annoyed, the only thing they should have to do is have fun. Hence why, quite a few higher tier players skipped over tons of files, because they want to have fun while playing.

[TC_Halogen]

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

I don't see how that's hilarious at all.

If you have the option of completing a task fully in half of the time, you can't seriously sit there and tell me you wouldn't take advantage of it. There are people making arguments that rates reduce the boredom, but boredom is a subjective term. I strongly feel like a lack of motivation to grind it out is laziness -- full completion of games occasionally have an issue with being tedious; the fact of the matter is that people want to minimize the amount of time spent on playing songs considerably below their skill level, and rates will do just that for files that are considerably easier. There's also the inherent advantage of shifting discrepant frames closer on offsync legacy files, another advantage that I greatly disagree with (despite the whole legacy files even existing, but that's another argument altogether).

[foxfire667]

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

If you have the option of completing a task fully in half of the time, you can't seriously sit there and tell me you wouldn't take advantage of it. There are people making arguments that rates reduce the boredom, but boredom is a subjective term. I strongly feel like a lack of motivation to grind it out is laziness -- full completion of games occasionally have an issue with being tedious; the fact of the matter is that people want to minimize the amount of time spent on playing songs considerably below their skill level, and rates will do just that for files that are considerably easier. There's also the inherent advantage of shifting discrepant frames closer on offsync legacy files, another advantage that I greatly disagree with (despite the whole legacy files even existing, but that's another argument altogether).

That is the entire point, to encourage people to play the files on rates, because they never will any other way (unless they are within their skill range).

FFR isn't a job, where not doing something particularly boring can be construed as lazy, it is a game. What I don't think you are understanding from my perspective is that FFR should be encouraging people to be interested in completing it, because it is a fun and enjoyable task. That doesn't mean it can't be difficult, but it does mean that it shouldn't be tedious. If you don't give people something enjoyable for them, they won't play it, simple as that. We should be doing all we can to make as much of FFR fun for as many players as possible, not trying to push players away from it. We can give players more to do, while having fun doing it, and as an added bonus, give additional recognition to step artists and musicians who happened to meet the fate of being part of an easy file. All we have to do is let this feature slide in without any of this perquisites, and the rest will happen on it's own.

As for the legacy stuff, personally, if it can make the files any less horrific to play, by all means I wouldn't mind that in the least. All that does is make higher skilled players have to spend less time being frustrated with off sync files, and more time enjoying the game as a whole. I mean hell, if we can make the legacy files feel slightly better by essentially doing nothing to them, that sounds wonderful!

[TC_Halogen]

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

That's a point that I'll disagree with too, because the rate mod is a catalyst for people to fill out things they otherwise wouldn't have done. It motivates people to play only because they know they can do it under their own controlled constraints. In my opinion, that argument is irresolvable, and I'm not budging. It has the potential to be fun, but if people want to have fun with the files, they should have to play the file at least once so that they aren't abusing the system and speeding the process up.

FFR isn't a job -- neither is any other game that requires a ton of time to get anywhere. Tell that to people who play RPGs/MMOs/etc. and grind for loot/experience. They're not jobs, they're just games. If you want to encourage the completion of a game, you need to encourage it to as much of the community as possible. I can tell you right now -- offering people the advantage of speeding through the game is not one of them.

What I feel like people aren't understanding is this: playing songs on rates to make the game more enjoyable is a subjective opinion (as is playing the song on lower rates and having it boring is a subjective opinion). Time is an objective metric, is not opinionated, and should not be manipulated for the sake of completion. Anyone here can make the argument that "x rhythm game allows for rates and doesn't disqualify you", but in those other rhythm games, there is absolutely nothing bogging you down if you opt out of playing songs you dislike. On FFR, ranks are calculated for every public song, and have been for a long time. Circumventing long distances of time for further completion is unfair to those who had to complete the game when that option wasn't available. This same argument can be applied for the replacement and removal of legacy files (which I also hold a relative indifference to) in an objective manner (charting standards/availability for making accurate charts).

Step-artists and musicians "meeting the fate of being part of an easy file"... what? If you compare easier files to harder ones, you'll notice that more players actually play the easier files than the harder ones -- it's not like the files are being less enjoyed. Keep in mind that these totals also account for the fact that people avoid lower files due to being "boring".

With how desirable rate mods are, putting a prerequisite of one finished run per song (and NOT retroactively, meaning after this feature is released, players should play the songs they want again) will cause the game to get played considerably more, because people are going to want to rate mod their favorites.

Trust me, this argument is irresolvable. It's easy to defend both sides with objective points.

EDIT: also: @ Eze -- the difference between avmiss and this is that avmiss affected the overall gaming mechanic as a rhythm game - rate mods don't detrimentally affect anything involving the game itself.