Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoangel691
High-level players tend to be too elitist and don't even bother to think about the little guy. Sorry but it's true.
|
This isn't a fair assessment at all considering how the difficulty shifts transpired.
stavie33 and I were put in charge of the initial shift from 1-12 to 1-100. Stavie claimed the lower half as he wanted to replay those charts and AAA files he had left unplayed at the time. I had no qualms with this so I took to the upper half. After the initial shift I noticed a lot of charts in the lower half out of place compared to where I believed they belonged but only mentioned the largest offenders so as not to overstep any boundaries. I also continued to make +/-1/2 adjustments on my end on an ongoing basis. I'm not sure how many adjustments stavie made, if any honestly.
Eventually stavie dropped out and it was public opinion that the lower half scaling made little to no sense in comparison to the upper, and there were several charts rated close to ~10 points off where the community believed they should lie. I spoke to several players that weighed in on difficulty discrepancies in that subforum that appeared to have balanced skillsets, could articulate themselves well with valid opinions for shifts, and were willing to help restructure the lower half. Zapmeister in particular seemed perfect for the job but his activity on the site fluctuated a lot, and I'm not even sure if he responded to the last PM I'd sent him years ago. Eventually ended up adding Zenith and Haku with Zenith having played through the entire lower half already and completing a revision combover a few years back. This was a substantial improvement from what the lower half used to look like. But I don't believe many revisions were done on an ongoing basis past this, and there's still a considerable number of outlier charts in that range, to the point where it becomes evident that rating new files accurately in the lower half of the spectrum is next to impossible when attempting any sort of proper comparative analysis.
Almost any new chart added under 50 effectively has nearly a 5 or 6 point confidence interval that it can be added as and people likely won't complain. On the high end, anything off more than 2 points gets laughed at. I don't think that's elitism, I think that's a testament to how well-maintained and curated the high end has been. This is evidenced by players with 90+ skill ratings still weighing in when a 60-something seems off: something in that difficulty range ultimately doesn't matter much to them, but it's still obvious enough to point out. Higher skilled players don't often bring up misrates on the lower half, not because they don't care, but because that large confidence range exists when it shouldn't.
I also agree with op, and will try to avoid typecasting all lower level players because exceptions surely exist (again going back to Zapmeister, he was perfect for this), but lower level players are generally unable to acknowledge how unbalanced their skillsets might be to the degree of D6+, which will likely lead to a lot of misrates. There are D6+ players entirely capable of the analysis required to add increased linearity to the lower difficulties that shouldn't be dismissed simply because they're too good at the game. They just need to put the time in to re-familiarize themselves with those charts.