The "15" difficulty scale thread

[TheSaxRunner05]

Wow so many viewing ....

I think 1-15 is alright as long as you only adjust the 9's and higher, leaving the 8's and under alone. The rating system can be more consistent though, all the newer songs are harder than the older songs of the same difficulty.

[DossarLX ODI]

More details about this will be posted later.

[bmah]

Posting to say that I highly approve of this proposed change. Can't think of anything else right now...

[nois-or-e]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

because splitting the scale directly in half will solve absolutely anything? It'll create problems in the even number areas where all of the current borderlines will reside.

Will keep 2c to self next time.

[remedy1502]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

And if I recall correctly, remedy and yo man im awesome were also doing difficulties in this scale, but I could be wrong.

Nope not me.
Personally I don't really care how we choose to rate song difficulties. The number rating doesn't make the same file any harder (disregarding nerves obviously).

[iironiic]

Hmm that would be interesting to have a feature to hide all of the difficulties of the song in the engine.

Also, I like this idea!

[PrawnSkunk]

+100 to the 100-difficulty scale.


:l I love it.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX

No the DF 1-50 scale is a lot better than a 1-15 scale.

A 1-50 scale (or 1-100, etc) is poorly defined. What's a 37, for instance? And how could you possibly place files that vary greatly in perceived difficulty, from (say) 30 to 40, depending on who plays them? In the FFR scale there's less variation in where an individual file can be placed, and thus less bickering.

Originally Posted by psychoangel691

I was asking Velo about the chance of an automated system for difficulty ratings sorta like TS has to kinda eliminate the "subjectivemanias" and it would go off scoring ability. He said if someone wrote him a nice formula he'd consider it.

hi~~
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...postcount=3713
All we'd need to do is choose a lowest (or highest) file for each difficulty, and then run our formula. I suggest Over the Frail Dream, Vertex BETA, Piano Etude (Gymnastics), and Revolutionary Etude as the highest songs for 9-12.

[25thhour]

I like this idea. :P

[PrawnSkunk]

naming the 1-100 scale is obviously out of the question, or you'd run into this problem:

1 - Infinitely Easy
2 - Ridiculously Easy
3 - Stupidly Easy
4 - Incredibly Easy
5 - Extremely Easy
6 - Amazingly Easy
7 - Very, very easy
8 - Very Easy
9 - Highly Easy
10 - Really Easy
11 - Easy-ish
12 - Easy
13, 14, 15 .. 99, 100. etc.

...unless you do groupings, of maybe 10, of course.

[who_cares973]

I'm liking those song choices for the highest of those difficulties

[leonid]

Let's use 1~43 like Pop'n

[Sweet_Feet]

I'd be cool with a 15 scale.

Originally Posted by Choofers

how about some kind of 1-10 scale that gives separate scores for jacks/stream/jumpstream/bursts/etc

Kinda like this?

[Emithith]

Or 1-100% 1 being too easy and 100 being impossible.

[itsmeraph]

I don't really know the criteria behind what belongs in each difficulty currently, but I don't see how this will change anything long term. It will only work given the assumption that people will still regard the scale as being "modified" old difficulties. If it works kudos, but imo somewhere down the road, people will stop thinking of high FMOs as high FMOs, and start thinking of them as being "12s" only. Once this is established, the same disagreements will break out again. 15 is not much more than 13, and I guess in a way, having something like 50 or 100 difficulties sorts the picayune conflicts out. However, then the meaning of the difficulties are more diluted, and I feel it would just be silly to have so many when everybody is used to 13. It would be confusing for some people I'm sure.

In general difficulties are just too...well, difficult, to sort out accurately; there is just far too much to take into account. More than just patterns and speed are in question here. It comes down to even smaller things such as the play style of each individual player, and other external factors. People should just be happy with what exists currently, as it really isn't a terrible system...and honestly, who cares what number is listed next to a song. If you feel like that VC is a mid to high FMO, just remember that and take it into account when you are playing it for yourself. It will save the community a lot of time and energy.

[Mike Weedmark]

but imo somewhere down the road, people will stop thinking of high FMOs as high FMOs, and start thinking of them as being "12s" only. Once this is established, the same disagreements will break out again.

A few people have said this, and I disagree. The problem right now isn't the fact that there are borderline songs, it's the fact that the borders are so far apart. Increasing the number of difficulties would reduce the difficulty gap of songs in the same level, like the gap between Novo and corecore. It would be a lot easier to accept the subjectivity of songs in their levels when you reduce the gap, and the arguments would decrease.

Not TOO many levels though. I think 15 is enough. No need to give every song its own level now.

[bmah]

Originally Posted by Sweet_Feet

I'd be cool with a 15 scale.


Kinda like this?

This has been suggested before, but there are far too many factors to take into consideration. That's not even mentioning the coding, as well as calls against "lack of originality" (too much like SM).

[psychoangel691]

I just think that doing this like this is going to leave us open to problems again in the future. I also saw someone mention only do 9s+ and leave the 8s and below alone, yet there are problems in those areas too. The little guy doesn't matter? I just think it would be a good idea to try to come up with something that will hopefully eliminate this problem coming up again in the future as well.

[leonid]

Originally Posted by bmah

This has been suggested before, but there are far too many factors to take into consideration. That's not even mentioning the coding, as well as calls against "lack of originality" (too much like SM).

I don't think normal FFR players play FFR due to its originality. Most of them would probably be considering FFR as nothing more than 'some DDR thingy you can play on the browser'

[bmah]

Yeah I'm not so much concerned about the aesthetics as I am about what factors to take into consideration, how exactly to amount the degree of [insert parameter here], etc. The character of a file is a bit too qualitative to evaluate with some sort of graph.