Should FFR have D8?

[Bach96]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

I think we do not need a D8 until we have the ability to judge that there are players who need it. I liked the idea of having more 95/96+ files. We can't really make a decision on that until there are more of those difficulty files. So, this argument is arbitrary until there is more evidence. I don't think anything needs to be done yet. This problem is still in the future imo. Once the difficulties get changed to the 1-120 scale and more of the higher level files come out, maybe this can be looked at again. But until then, I think what we have right now is the best option for the current state of the game.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

I see no other way to run a tournament on here other than divisions. If everyone was generally the same skill i can see a mass tournament where you aim to be the top 100/50/25 or so... but there is no competing for those spots when you can clearly see that D1/2/3/4/5 player would most likely be eliminated by round 2 or 3. much less time for that player to skill boost. And what song difficulty would be used... like start off at a 30 so the D1 players stand a chance while the rest of the community plays the file bored out of their mind?

In a tournament where all players are grouped together in a single division, you can either a.) make cutoffs equal to the average number of players in a given division until prize rounds or b.) do linear cutoffs based off of the total number of players in a given division. Admittedly, both of these results do not bode well for players who are at the bottom end of the divisional pool.

However, breaking away from divisional structure is logical because it legitimately showcases players at their current skill. You would never need to worry about accommodating for skill drops or skill boosts if divisional structure ceased to exist. If anything, the tournament experience would be improved because players would not have to worry about having to dodge a particular skill-set that they are bad at: you could pick a certain number of songs per round that emphasize multiple skills, which will inevitably guarantee that stronger, more well-rounded players will proceed further into the tournament.

Additionally, because there's no divisions, sandbagging would be considerably mitigated (not eliminated, though).

Another advantage to a divisionless structure is that players who get put in the lower-end of a division don't get the complete shaft, either. I've always found it absolutely strange that low-end players of higher divisions have to feel like they're completely worthless because they can't proceed past the early-game of the tournament, when the reality is that they are better than a large majority of users on the site. The argument that prizes aren't guaranteed for players in a division holds well here: you might be guaranteed a prize in your division when a player in the lower-end of a division isn't -- but, in a divisionless structure, you're playing at roughly the same playing field as your lower-end competitor due to both of you being exposed to large numbers of players both above and below you. The low-end D(x) player is going to enjoy being able to survive the tournament and have that tournament pressure for longer periods, and they'll be able to say that they made it to round y, where they beat out z% of the field (as opposed to being eliminated early and beating a much smaller group of players).

Divisionless structures guarantee that the best players actually get the opportunity to show themselves, and additionally guarantee a finish in the tournament that is representative of their skill level with respect to other players participating in the tournament. The tournament structure would of course require some modification, but it should be ideally done such that the average D(x) player gets eliminated roughly one round before the ideal D(x+1) player.

There are tournament structures that utilize an elimination-less format, if the concern is lower-level players being dropped too early. Swiss-style tournaments are not bad, but FFR's skill level is so incredibly vast that there will literally be a bunch of slaughter pairings, over and over and over again. A modified swiss-style structure that seeds off of skill rating can be created so that players of generally close skill can face off against one another throughout the duration of the tournament (see: McMahon-style swiss brackets) - the interesting thing about this is that it would break the traditional tournament style by actually using competitive pairings, and a bracket as well. The toughest part with that tournament style is accommodating for byes when the bracket doesn't have players equal to an exponential of 2.

There are many ways to contend with this situation, but I feel like FFR has grown complacent in divisional structure (and why shouldn't the community be? It's been the norm for 9 and a half years).

[SpaceGorilla]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

In a tournament where all players are grouped together in a single division, you can either a.) make cutoffs equal to the average number of players in a given division until prize rounds or b.) do linear cutoffs based off of the total number of players in a given division. Admittedly, both of these results do not bode well for players who are at the bottom end of the divisional pool.

However, breaking away from divisional structure is logical because it legitimately showcases players at their current skill. You would never need to worry about accommodating for skill drops or skill boosts if divisional structure ceased to exist. If anything, the tournament experience would be improved because players would not have to worry about having to dodge a particular skill-set that they are bad at: you could pick a certain number of songs per round that emphasize multiple skills, which will inevitably guarantee that stronger, more well-rounded players will proceed further into the tournament.

Additionally, because there's no divisions, sandbagging would be considerably mitigated (not eliminated, though).

Another advantage to a divisionless structure is that players who get put in the lower-end of a division don't get the complete shaft, either. I've always found it absolutely strange that low-end players of higher divisions have to feel like they're completely worthless because they can't proceed past the early-game of the tournament, when the reality is that they are better than a large majority of users on the site. The argument that prizes aren't guaranteed for players in a division holds well here: you might be guaranteed a prize in your division when a player in the lower-end of a division isn't -- but, in a divisionless structure, you're playing at roughly the same playing field as your lower-end competitor due to both of you being exposed to large numbers of players both above and below you. The low-end D(x) player is going to enjoy being able to survive the tournament and have that tournament pressure for longer periods, and they'll be able to say that they made it to round y, where they beat out z% of the field (as opposed to being eliminated early and beating a much smaller group of players).

Divisionless structures guarantee that the best players actually get the opportunity to show themselves, and additionally guarantee a finish in the tournament that is representative of their skill level with respect to other players participating in the tournament. The tournament structure would of course require some modification, but it should be ideally done such that the average D(x) player gets eliminated roughly one round before the ideal D(x+1) player.

There are tournament structures that utilize an elimination-less format, if the concern is lower-level players being dropped too early. Swiss-style tournaments are not bad, but FFR's skill level is so incredibly vast that there will literally be a bunch of slaughter pairings, over and over and over again. A modified swiss-style structure that seeds off of skill rating can be created so that players of generally close skill can face off against one another throughout the duration of the tournament (see: McMahon-style swiss brackets) - the interesting thing about this is that it would break the traditional tournament style by actually using competitive pairings, and a bracket as well. The toughest part with that tournament style is accommodating for byes when the bracket doesn't have players equal to an exponential of 2.

There are many ways to contend with this situation, but I feel like FFR has grown complacent in divisional structure (and why shouldn't the community be? It's been the norm for 9 and a half years).

The proposition of this idea seems pretty strong, but I think believe that if a different official tournament style is in order, we would need to run a test tourney to see how the community reacts, and how effective the style is. Comparative analysis between divisional tournament and this bracket style would be necessary to deem one better than the other.

I say this because a quick change like that could cause "unrest" in the community; such is seen with the 'scorev2' changes the osu! developers are putting into place. A test with a considerable competitor pool would (I feel) be a good general indicator of how a change from divisional tournaments could benefit FFR.

[kmay]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

I mean it would be possible to have a cut off like playing until you can't SDG the round you're out or something. So instead of it being based off your comparison its based off your skill

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

hmmm... I may run a user tournament with this concept to see how it works, just as a tester.

No idea should ever go untested.

I mean it would be possible to have a cut off like playing until you can't SDG the round you're out or something. So instead of it being based off your comparison its based off your skill

Comparison is used loosely in that previous post -- the comparison implicitly happens by your overall performance on a pool of songs against other players who are in the same general skill level as you. You can more easily gauge player skill through a pool of songs that tests different skillsets, because you're more likely to find strengths and weaknesses at the same time if you create diversified pools of songs.

Again, this is all speculation. I like to brain-storm too, y'know. :P

[kmay]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

i'd have to see this in action might be a tourney other than the official i play in

[Walrusizer]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

we dont need d8 because we dont need any divisions, thats the only way the tournament would be fair because even if we add 5 more divisions above d7 the difference between the highest and lowest player in each division would still be larger than the difference between the lowest d6 player and the highest d6 player

[EtienneSM]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

Why doesn't every player get their own division





woah

[rayword45]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

Even though D5 represents a larger numerical range of difficulties than D6, it's fine imo as the amount of time that a player on average will need to invest to become comfortable (starting at the lowest point in that range and working towards the highest) is less than what on average is required to do so for D6.

FFR's range for D7 (prior to the 11th tourney files) was 87+.

I don't remember anyone entering D6 with anything above an 84 but again I'm probably wrong. Someone could be in D6 with a Maniera AAA?

The gap from Shitsubo Choco to Mourning the Lost or Goblin, or even the gap from Reality to TLDNE or Pandora isn't that huge. I can see someone struggling with SC more than Mourning very easily.

I can't see ANYONE being able to do better on Radical Rat, Chaoz Japan v2 or Gymnastics than 0 Piano Version, Rottel or Arrogant Cobbler.

[j-rodd123]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

I don't remember anyone entering D6 with anything above an 84 but again I'm probably wrong. Someone could be in D6 with a Maniera AAA?

The gap from Shitsubo Choco to Mourning the Lost or Goblin, or even the gap from Reality to TLDNE or Pandora isn't that huge. I can see someone struggling with SC more than Mourning very easily.

I can't see ANYONE being able to do better on Radical Rat, Chaoz Japan v2 or Gymnastics than 0 Piano Version, Rottel or Arrogant Cobbler.

but the mindblocks in rottel are real!!!

[IwasAsquidOnce]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

D8 me M8

[Charu]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

D8 me M8

I changed my mind. Please make D8 so we can do this awesome pick up line.

[Spenner]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

Isn't it procedural according to some kind of standard increase in skill level...? Sounds only natural.

Change it to "D8 night" where the winner is chosen in a Big-Brother style reality thread with the supposed qualifiers.

[Precarious]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

So, I guess I'll provide some perspective from the other half.

Obviously, whether or not there's a D8 doesn't affect me, and almost certainly never will. But the talk of abolishing divisions altogether does, so I'll discuss that as well. As far as a prospective D8 is concerned, the obvious issue is that even that new super-division could just get stretched out again, as more people reach its requirements and the very top continues to improve. Eventually there would be a call to put people like Etienne in a D9, and so on.

If there's going to be a D8, I suggest making it an Official Tournament-only thing, and hardcapping the number of entrants. Officially, all D8 players would still be D7; the prestige of achieving D7 as the final "rung" would be preserved. Instead, D8 would be a tournament-only elite rung with what amounts to a relegation system. Only the top nine players at that time (however you'd want to determine that) would be eligible to compete in D8. The composition of D8 would thus vary from tournament to tournament, providing an incentive both for current and prospective D8 players to reach that fleeting pinnacle, while also removing any issue of rust (a rusty player wouldn't be placed in that particular edition of D8, obviously). This would give the absolute best players their own arena, while preventing the concept from being watered down in the future, and still allowing "normal" D7 players to be at their hard-earned apex all the rest of the time.

***

Obviously, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that divisions be removed. That serves only to further emphasize the difference between existing divisions. We get it; D7 is better than everyone else at this game. But unless you're only concerned with turning FFR into your own exclusive fiefdom, it hurts the community. I've been playing a ton of FFR the past few weeks, and I've improved substantially. I may still be terrible by the standards of everyone else that's posted in this thread (in fact, the may isn't necessary--I am terrible), but competing against other people at my level has provided an impetus for real improvement, and helped to generate a passion for the game. That D1 had the fewest entrants of any division should be alarming. It suggests that not enough new blood is being introduced to the game. Ideally, players advance through the structure, but it's not healthy for the site to be so top heavy in my opinion, and D1-D3 players would have little hope of achieving anything even remotely meaningful in an expanded tournament.

Moreover, the songs themselves become problematic. To me, it's interesting to see what the different divisions play each round. I'm left in awe that anyone can even read the D7 songs. But that gap, if brought together, creates a user-unfriendly environment. Take, say, a low 60s song. To a D7 player, this would probably be boring, hardly worth their time. To me, it would represent an impossible challenge, reducing me to mashing during dense sequences. I'd barely be playing the game at those times, instead just emptily pounding keys with little rhythm, hoping to hit as many notes as possible by chance. Perhaps I'd be eliminated before that moment arrives, but that means boring high division players with songs they can sleepwalk through. It would also, I suspect, reduced the variety of difficulty produced during a tournament. Sure, there have been workarounds suggested, but turning this place into even more of playground for high tier players ossifies the community, scaring off or discouraging lower players who are made to feel meaningless.

If I win my division, I won't get a keyboard or headphones or a t-shirt. That's fine; I'm more than aware that the reason I'm still in the official is because I'm bad at the game, not because I'm good at it. I can assure you that anyone at my skill level realizes this. But this is the opportunity we get to show what we can do against people of our own skill level, and that means something. The same holds true for middle division players, and, I would hope, even the highest divisions. Yes, the current format has issues--right now, anyone who just slips into the next division up suffers structurally--but all a divisionless tournament would be is a rapid winnowing to the D7 players, at which point it would just become the D7 bracket we are already seeing. Even a non-elimination tournament would result in players playing songs that, instead of pushing them to their limits, either goes way past them or doesn't challenge them at all. In a community that counts a gigantic range of skills, the division structure works. You guys are in the majors. There's no reason to kill minor league baseball.

[MinaciousGrace]

Re: Should FFR have D8?

So, I guess I'll provide some perspective from the other half.

Obviously, whether or not there's a D8 doesn't affect me, and almost certainly never will. But the talk of abolishing divisions altogether does, so I'll discuss that as well. As far as a prospective D8 is concerned, the obvious issue is that even that new super-division could just get stretched out again, as more people reach its requirements and the very top continues to improve. Eventually there would be a call to put people like Etienne in a D9, and so on.

If there's going to be a D8, I suggest making it an Official Tournament-only thing, and hardcapping the number of entrants. Officially, all D8 players would still be D7; the prestige of achieving D7 as the final "rung" would be preserved. Instead, D8 would be a tournament-only elite rung with what amounts to a relegation system. Only the top nine players at that time (however you'd want to determine that) would be eligible to compete in D8. The composition of D8 would thus vary from tournament to tournament, providing an incentive both for current and prospective D8 players to reach that fleeting pinnacle, while also removing any issue of rust (a rusty player wouldn't be placed in that particular edition of D8, obviously). This would give the absolute best players their own arena, while preventing the concept from being watered down in the future, and still allowing "normal" D7 players to be at their hard-earned apex all the rest of the time.

***

Obviously, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that divisions be removed. That serves only to further emphasize the difference between existing divisions. We get it; D7 is better than everyone else at this game. But unless you're only concerned with turning FFR into your own exclusive fiefdom, it hurts the community. I've been playing a ton of FFR the past few weeks, and I've improved substantially. I may still be terrible by the standards of everyone else that's posted in this thread (in fact, the may isn't necessary--I am terrible), but competing against other people at my level has provided an impetus for real improvement, and helped to generate a passion for the game. That D1 had the fewest entrants of any division should be alarming. It suggests that not enough new blood is being introduced to the game. Ideally, players advance through the structure, but it's not healthy for the site to be so top heavy in my opinion, and D1-D3 players would have little hope of achieving anything even remotely meaningful in an expanded tournament.

Moreover, the songs themselves become problematic. To me, it's interesting to see what the different divisions play each round. I'm left in awe that anyone can even read the D7 songs. But that gap, if brought together, creates a user-unfriendly environment. Take, say, a low 60s song. To a D7 player, this would probably be boring, hardly worth their time. To me, it would represent an impossible challenge, reducing me to mashing during dense sequences. I'd barely be playing the game at those times, instead just emptily pounding keys with little rhythm, hoping to hit as many notes as possible by chance. Perhaps I'd be eliminated before that moment arrives, but that means boring high division players with songs they can sleepwalk through. It would also, I suspect, reduced the variety of difficulty produced during a tournament. Sure, there have been workarounds suggested, but turning this place into even more of playground for high tier players ossifies the community, scaring off or discouraging lower players who are made to feel meaningless.

If I win my division, I won't get a keyboard or headphones or a t-shirt. That's fine; I'm more than aware that the reason I'm still in the official is because I'm bad at the game, not because I'm good at it. I can assure you that anyone at my skill level realizes this. But this is the opportunity we get to show what we can do against people of our own skill level, and that means something. The same holds true for middle division players, and, I would hope, even the highest divisions. Yes, the current format has issues--right now, anyone who just slips into the next division up suffers structurally--but all a divisionless tournament would be is a rapid winnowing to the D7 players, at which point it would just become the D7 bracket we are already seeing. Even a non-elimination tournament would result in players playing songs that, instead of pushing them to their limits, either goes way past them or doesn't challenge them at all. In a community that counts a gigantic range of skills, the division structure works. You guys are in the majors. There's no reason to kill minor league baseball.

I'm actually pretty down with the idea of having d8 be a perpetual top 8 bracket for official tournaments

I do think however that you're over-emphasizing the importance of the official tournament with respect to showcasing your skills against other players of your general skill level and providing an opportunity to engage in mutually constructive competition. The OT isn't the only platform to do those things and while it may be the biggest draw the reality is that there are many systems in place including user run tournaments and the skill-rating leaderboard system that are comparable, and exist outside the range of a few months a year.

Removing divisions in the OT is less like killing minor leagues and more like killing nationally televised minor league playoffs while still keeping the regular season intact.