Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

[GG_Guru]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

What? Not what I mean at all -- I'm talking about a total revamp of the difficulty evaluation system.

But that was embedded in your post? You used NWE as an example saying it would be better off as a VC because of it's fixed patterns. I agree that since the AV miss glitch isn't present, levels seem less intricate than they were before but under allocating it just because of that doesn't mean it's still not a hard file to get by, and that's why they need to redeem the song's respective levels back to how they first were established.

I +1 this thread.

edit: @norsegod: I'll debate with you once you are more mature in your posts.

edit2: Fixed some typos.

[qqwref]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

And I'm sitting here listen to people say that Slaytronic should be a VC when I'm the "elitist" saying that it should be FMO.

I have said that Slaytronic should be VC... but that's because low FMO doesn't exist anymore. As far as I can tell, everything which isn't at least mid FMO is eventually going to be VC, so why not just move the process along? I'd rather just get it over with and dump everything in VC than have to waste time arguing if the process is inevitable.

[T-Force]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

Actually, norse is right. The whole Mid, Low, High tag is stupid. One of the key points of the 20 difficulty scale is to get rid of those tags.

[GG_Guru]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

I have no problem with Rubix's 1-20 level system. I just think it's a bit more farfetched than it's portrayed to be but if that's what spins your wheels then it wouldn't hurt to try. All I want is for those VC's that were once FMOs to be put back in their FMO state. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

I'll also toss in that changing the rating system based on player level is a really stupid thing. Totally forgot to let everyone know how I felt about that.

[MrRubix]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

The only time you'd have to statistically account for player performance as a selection bias is if there's no significant difference in the average performance of the song when the difficulty is harder on statistically significant basis. Again, the primary issue of difficulty ratings rears its head at the higher levels.

[MrRubix]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

It's easier to mentally modularize patterns if they have a sufficient level of color diversity. Silence is hard to read for most. When properly noteskinned, it's an obvious VC.

[qqwref]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

It's easier to mentally modularize patterns if they have a sufficient level of color diversity. Silence is hard to read for most. When properly noteskinned, it's an obvious VC.

I agree completely, but it's *not* properly noteskinned, so I think most people have even more trouble with it than they would normally. Same problem applies to Molto, OMW, Caprice, etc. They should always be ranked a bit higher than the pattern/steps alone deserve to be.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Re: Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

A more practical solution would be to just set up a system that is "well-variegated and reasonable." E.g. "What is the average accuracy-breakdown for people who play this song?" accounting for selectivity bias (e.g. maybe most people who play this file are of a certain skill level).

The main problem is that there is often so much debate over "This file should be 9! No, 10!" when it might be easier if we define what exactly those numbers entail. It's a classic problem of using numbers as ratings -- they have no inherent meaning unless we give the numbers meaning, and I think we can give a more accurate meaning if we define what difficulty is.

We need to know what entails a 9 or a 10 before we put a label on it. Similar to stepmania/ddr, songs could be ranked on voltage (highest step density), Stream (average step density), "air" (jumps), and "chaos" (step pattern difficulty). Songs like Crowdpleaser are high because of voltage, certainly not stream, but guitar vs. piano is an 8 instead of a 7 because of stream. I don't mind there being variations between 7's 8's 10's ect. if they are in the ballpark. Some songs, like the games we played part 3, I think are overrated (I FC'd it, a 10, before I did any 9's). I don't mind some FMO's being downgraded if it puts them in the ballpark of the other VC's.