Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
Eh, maybe not a "couple" plays. I think at least once would suffice though.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Eh, maybe not a "couple" plays. I think at least once would suffice though.
EDIT: Ninja'd
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
i think it should be 0, but whatever
not everybody wants to sit through stuff, and by forcing people to complete one full play in order to cater to the music artists doesn't make sense, if their song is good then people will naturally play it on 1.0 and sometimes on higher rates
also most people don't even touch most of the easy songs, so once again - by forcing people to complete one full playthrough of any song before rates can be recorded for that song, the whole point of having higher rates record is effectively nullified
let's be honest - when's the last time you went "hey this 5 minute rock song that's totally below my skill level looks FUN to play!"
neverLast edited by mi40; 08-5-2013, 07:39 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
"it's not the song that sucks, it's the file"
Comment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
i wouldn't be opposed to 0, but i'm trying to be as reasonable as possible.Comment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
I think it should be 0, too. But some people care about the music so idk.
Comment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
if you force one playthrough, the rock artists get shafted (some of the trance/techno artists too)
most peeps don't play the 6 minute rock songs way below their skill level not because the song sucks.. it's because the charts are too boring for their skill levelsComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
i don't necessarily agree with having a full playthrough, but I brought it up from my talk w/ bmah as a possible compromise that came up
Originally posted by CharuComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
what's this compromise, this isn't a trade or anything
just additional features to keep the game more exciting for everyone
if anything having rates record is giving those artists that were glazed over another chance at being heard
and by forcing at least 1 full playthrough before having rates record smashes that 'another' chance for a lot of artists
like when's the last time you played a file way outside your skill range? probably a long time ago, if at allComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
Yeah I find that playing a song on rates doesn't typically make the song sound terrible (unless the rate is ridiculously high). Accompanied with a nice rated step, I generally enjoy files a lot more sped up.
One big reason why I'd like rates to record in the first place is to encourage players to play easier songs to begin with, by making them more difficult. If you force people to play an easy file normally several times before rates can be used, it completely defeats the purpose. If anything, it would probably annoy players more, and that annoyance might become associated with the song and file they are playing. Plus they'd probably AAA it before being able to use rates, effectively eradicating that entire incentive / benefit from having rates record in the first place.
How I see it is either:
1) Higher tier players have played the easier files, and probably didn't care for them or disliked them because of obvious lack of replay value to them (skill wise).
2) Higher tier players outright refused to play the files, and probably never will for these reasons.
Placing this restriction changes absolutely none of this, but not having it would allow for:
1) Players who only played the files once to ramp up the rate and enjoy it much more due to the speed increase.
2) Players who never played the files to want to try it out, and probably get a bit of enjoyment out of it due to the speed increase.Comment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
In the case of rock songs, it's really not the song that's the issue, it's the file
I mean, I like rock as much as the next guy but if I'm forced to play dore's simography once in it's entirety before I'm allowed to have fun then fuck meComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
bmah is avidly sticking to
my povI really think it's a combination of author's intention as well as player's enjoyment. Not just one or the other.
[10:26:02 PM] Daikyi: i wouldn't feel disrespected at all
[10:26:08 PM] Daikyi: honestly, if they can find more enjoyment in my files
[10:26:14 PM] Daikyi: then i'm satisfied
[10:26:25 PM] Daikyi: because honestly, that's why i care about other people's opinions
[10:26:35 PM] Daikyi: cause i'm not making files to show how good i am at making files, or to make myself feel good
[10:26:44 PM] Daikyi: but i like, care about the fact that other people can enjoy them
basically, bmah thinks that it's a major matter of respect to the song artist to not have rates record, because people may not play a chart on a normal 1.0x rate, and as a music and stepartist, i seriously couldn't disagree more. but, opinions of everyone else?
Originally posted by CharuComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
i dont know why rates would be an issue to music artists
we are not forcing anyone to play on higher rates, simply giving them an option to play on any rate (and having higher ones record)
also, what is a music artist's "intent" when they give permission for music? it's letting us utilize their music for enjoyment and gameplay
i don't see anything wrong with thatComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
Perhaps the issue of playing it in another form such as slower or faster being "Modification" which Im pretty sure isnt covered by permissions idkComment
-
Re: Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?
bmah - "playing a song normally at least once is something I consider a matter of standardization. basically a "do it the normal way once and then go wild on whatever"
Originally posted by CharuComment
Comment