Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

I'm saying that rates are still glitchy (I don't think a 10000x rate quad on excite bike is feasible).

What actually happened in that screenshot? How can the glitch be replicated? I will personally test this further to see if it has any serious implications to prevent rates recording in their current state.

[NocturneAunamic]

I've definitely seen leaderboards from other sites that have rate scores included. Would be cool to see something like:


1 Player A 1.55x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
2 Player D 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
3 Player C 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
4 Player B 1.0x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117

[rayword45]

This reminds me of the ave-miss debate except even less sensical.

"Don't get rid of the glitch! What about those who got 9g on Nova Pulsur? What about those who blackflagged HELLBEAT! You're nullifying their effort!"
"Don't let high rates count! You're nullifying the people who wasted hours of their life playing 2s and 3s when they could AAA FGOs! Why make the game more enjoyable?"

[Choofers]

Imo having rates show up publically would undermine the achievements of newer players.

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by NocturneAunamic

I've definitely seen leaderboards from other sites that have rate scores included. Would be cool to see something like:


1 Player A 1.55x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
2 Player D 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
3 Player C 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
4 Player B 1.0x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117

I've seen this as well,
but
then we would need to figure out how scores with rates would be outputted.

Since a 1.5x AAA is obviously better than a 1.0x AAA
then a 1.5x bf would be better than a 1.0x bf
then would a 1.5x 65 good run with 9 avgs and 0 misses and 8 boo's be better than say a 1.0x 30g clean run?

[HalfStep]

Originally Posted by Frank Munoz

I've seen this as well,
but
then we would need to figure out how scores with rates would be outputted.

Since a 1.5x AAA is obviously better than a 1.0x AAA
then a 1.5x bf would be better than a 1.0x bf
then would a 1.5x 65 good run with 9 avgs and 0 misses and 8 boo's be better than say a 1.0x 30g clean run?

Your highest score on any rate would record, and rates would have no advantages over than being placed higher in the case of ties. I really like this idea and would make the high scores more meaningful. (1.1 AAA > 1.0 AAA , 9001x BF < 1.0 AAA)

Too bad none of this is ever happening lol.

[arcnmx]

Originally Posted by Choofers

can we at least get a reply from velo or arc

Eh, you don't want one from me. I'm certainly for it, but it's not my decision to make. In general I'm probably much too in favour of ditching old ways to be given free reign over anything :P

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

It's still a glitch nonetheless. That isn't to say that there could potentially be even more glitches we haven't found yet because I don't think rates have gone through intensive testing/debugging yet.

Well, part of the point of making fps mode count for scores in the first place was to encourage people to actually use it so it could undergo the testing needed to be deemed stable. That really applies to all of R^3; it's a given that there will be bugs, but if it didn't record scores no one would use or test it in the first place. I don't believe there are many rate-related issues though, rates themselves do very little. The issue really revolves around people exploiting what rates do for better scores, like squish rolls together and such.

The thing about this bug is that it's kind of working as intended. High rates create a song entirely composed out of zero-framers (well, not really, more like super-sub-1ms-spaced-notes but same thing), that's expected. And guess what happens if you can make Flash think you hit 100 keys all at the exact same time?

Originally Posted by HalfStep

Your highest score on any rate would record, and rates would have no advantages over than being placed higher in the case of ties. I really like this idea and would make the high scores more meaningful. (1.1 AAA > 1.0 AAA , 9001x BF < 1.0 AAA)

Too bad none of this is ever happening lol.

Hm, I kind of like this. It would encourage some nice competition in the leaderboards beyond just getting 1st place.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by NocturneAunamic

I've definitely seen leaderboards from other sites that have rate scores included. Would be cool to see something like:


1 Player A 1.55x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
2 Player D 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
3 Player C 1.4x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117
4 Player B 1.0x 1,813,500 1170 0 0 0 0 117

I don't think we have the server space.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by arcnmx

Hm, I kind of like this. It would encourage some nice competition in the leaderboards beyond just getting 1st place.

Though as Frank Munoz pointed out, once you get past the AAA's and obvious scores, it would be very difficult to actually factor in where people should be placed rank wise.

What I personally think could be interesting is if someone AAA'd a file with rates, it could be noted somehow, and if you hovered over their score, it could show what their highest rated AAA on it was. Or a sort by rates section that could show who AAA'd a file at the highest rate (and from there downwards). If something like that wouldn't get people interested in playing countless files over and over again, I don't know what would. Of course in terms of public rank it means nothing more than AAA'ing on 1.0, but for those looking to have the additional competition, it should give them even more reason to attack some easier files on rates. Plus if info like that were recorded, perhaps future skill tokens could be made on the subject, which seems like a grand idea.

[HalfStep]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

Though as Frank Munoz pointed out, once you get past the AAA's and obvious scores, it would be very difficult to actually factor in where people should be placed rank wise.

No it isn't, it's just a double sorted list.

First sort by score(high to low), then sort all the ties by rate(high to low). Nothing else.

As for what you suggested, It's a lot more work to add a separate leaderboard than to add 1 piece of metadata to scores. And like sax mentioned, we're low on server space.

Originally Posted by TheSaxRunner05

I don't think we have the server space.

Did some calculations.
Worst case scenario: Save an extra "float" data-type for rate on every song played every since the beginning of time.
27792.9568 Average Rank * 1412 Public songs * 4 bytes = 149.703 MB
6,502.6180 Token Average * 178 Token songs * 1 byte = 4.414 MB
Best case scenario: Same with but saving as a byte which translates to a rate (would force people to play on multiples of 0.5 or something, with a max rate of 128x or something)
27792.9568 Average Rank * 1412 Public songs * 1 byte = 34.737 MB
6,502.6180 Token Average * 178 Token songs * 1 byte = 1.103 MB

That's not much space at all (and you could save even more space by having a 1bit check to see if it's on 1.0 or not, which would return true for 99.9% of scores)

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by HalfStep

First sort by score(high to low), then sort all the ties by rate(high to low). Nothing else.

As for what you suggested, It's a lot more work to add a separate leaderboard than to add 1 piece of metadata to scores. And like sax mentioned, we're low on server space.

I guess in a raw sense the scores would be sorted, but small differences in score over even .1 rate can actually be quite a leap in skill. Also, what if they get a seemingly much better score in a higher rate, but the score itself is slightly lower due to the difficulty increase? I should also note, sorting by score first seems to imply encouraging people to go for the highest possible rate they can AAA, which is pretty much what I was suggesting.

It really wouldn't be a separate leader-board, it would just be a single sorting mechanic. In terms of server space, the difference between our suggestions seems negligible. You want to add a slightly different sorting mechanic than me pretty much, where you want to include all scores, where I was merely talking about AAA's. If anything, your suggestion would probably take up more space, merely because it would encompass recording more scores (and likewise data) to FFR.

[HalfStep]

I must've misunderstood what you mean't then. I thought you wanted a separate rates leaderboard. Either way doesn't matter, Velo doesn't like rates lol

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by HalfStep

Either way doesn't matter, Velo doesn't like rates lol

I'm not surprised there is a snag in the line for getting this feature off the ground. I also wouldn't be surprised if the opposition really didn't have much to defend itself in the first place (save for what was already mentioned and pretty much shot down time and time again in here). I wouldn't be surprised if rates don't record scores ever, since progression is a joke.

I guess I should be happy with the pleasant surprise of rates existing on FFR in the first place, and the feature being refined so well. I guess I should just take what I can get and deal with it.

I will honestly say though, usually these kind of threads die by now, so at least that is something. I should also say that for the most part people were pretty civil about things, which was great. Good stuff guys, better luck for us next time I guess.

[Fission]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

I'm not surprised these is a snag in the line for getting this feature off the ground. I also wouldn't be surprised if the opposition really didn't have much to defend itself in the first place (save for what was already mentioned and pretty much shot down time and time again in here). I wouldn't be surprised if rates recorded scores ever, since progression is a joke.

I guess I should be happy with the pleasant surprise of rates existing on FFR in the first place, and the feature being refined so well. I guess I should just take what I can get and deal with it.

I will honestly say though, usually these kind of threads die by now, so at least that is something. I should also say that for the most part people were pretty civil about things, which was great. Good stuff guys, better luck for us next time I guess.

can't possibly agree more with this post. every argument against rates was countered, yet the admin activity in this thread is nearly nonexistent and nothing changes, as usual.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by arcnmx

High rates create a song entirely composed out of zero-framers (well, not really, more like super-sub-1ms-spaced-notes but same thing), that's expected. And guess what happens if you can make Flash think you hit 100 keys all at the exact same time?

just put a cap on allowed rate, or don't allow this many keys to be pressed simultaneously while in a song, or both. not sure what the big deal is.

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by Fission

can't possibly agree more with this post. every argument against rates was countered, yet the admin activity in this thread is nearly nonexistent and nothing changes, as usual.

Likewise, many of the arguments for rates were also countered. It's not like it was proven that rates should be on ffr; a lot of the arguments against rates still hold some merit (how much merit is subjective to which side of the argument you're on) and even though there were also counter-arguments that also had some merit against those arguments, I wouldn't say those counter-arguments are enough to completely demerit said arguments into having zero value.

Anyways, here's what I think would be best. We let rates record in intervals of 0.1x. Each song has a leaderboard for every recorded rate. By default, the 1.0x rate shows, but you can choose to see leaderboards for other rates as well. Likewise, in one's own levelranks, by default it'll show your 1.0x levelranks, but you can choose to view your 1.1x levelranks etc. However, average rank still only pulls from 1.0x rates to preserve the integrity of how things currently are, but everyone's rates are still recorded for everyone to see. I see this as a fair compromise, but I'm not too sure since a lot of people seem to be all or nothing on this topic.

[Fission]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Likewise, many of the arguments for rates were also countered.

sure, but none of them stood up to scrutiny. from an unbiased point of view (or as much as i can try to be, however much that means), all of the arguments against rates unraveled really quickly and they never lasted long.

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by Fission

sure, but none of them stood up to scrutiny. from an unbiased point of view (or as much as i can try to be, however much that means), all of the arguments against rates unraveled really quickly and they never lasted long.

Perhaps they just don't hold up to your scrutiny, which is fine since that's why you have your opinion.

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier." Now your counter example was of course, that for most people most rates will make most files harder. Most might be enough for you, however we can play the same no-compromise game you guys have been playing and say that your argument doesn't hold because those most's are not all's.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

[YoshL]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier."

examples given were things like master maid trills and skeletor wall.

it's been established that it seriously doesn't make them easier, because the rate at which you must do the rest of the file compensates.

[Tarrik]

I've read every single post in this thread and i want to say that it's a pretty lively discussion.

There's lots of points for and against rates, and admins have popped in and out of the thread stating opinions, or just taking a look. This thread is still alive, despite the fact it could have been locked by now, or even deleted. I just don't think we should push our luck anymore, considering we have rates in the first place.

I am for a few things in this thread (Rates recording (1.1, 1.2, etc), GT recording/Credits), but i'm atleast thankful either way that we had rates added in the first place and i am happy to take it as that. The admins know what we want, we've given them valid points and ideas as to how we could go about things. At the end of the day, we don't own this game. We are just the community voicing our opinion, and they've heard it. We should wait it out and see what becomes of the ideas of this thread after it dies, and accept what happens.

TL;DR - I'm for rates recording/GT/credits, the admins know what we want, but this isn't our game. I'm thankful we still have the game to play and that rates were added in the first place.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

One of the arguments for example is "rates will make some files easier." Now your counter example was of course, that for most people most rates will make most files harder. Most might be enough for you, however we can play the same no-compromise game you guys have been playing and say that your argument doesn't hold because those most's are not all's.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

Actually, rates always make the song faster, and therefore harder than it normally would be. What people were generally handing up on was FFR's mechanic of being able to bs patterns like rolls with jump-trilling (where people were generally using Skeletor as the example for this). The counter was that whatever small benefits you receive from the slightly easier jump-trilling are easily negated by the difficulty of the rest of the file. I challenge anyone to AAA a file that they cannot already AAA on 1.0x on a higher rate (that is actually noteworthy, not like 1.00000001x or something). I would be highly surprised to see any legitimate results come from this, and even if there was a result or two, do you expect it to be a serious and widespread issue? So much so that probably one of the most fun features added to FFR in years should be treated as if it's a cheat, or too easy compared to songs on normal rates?

Here is a prior post of mine regarding Skeletor and one other file on rates:

Originally Posted by foxfire667

These are just rate scores on the fly, and obviously aren't absolute proof or anything. I just wanted to see if I could get any scoring benefits overall, from playing some files on various rates.

Skeletor

This is Skeletor normally:


This is Skeletor on 1.3x rate:


The JS becomes ridiculously fast, and I would be pretty satisfied with myself getting into the wall with a mid SDG. I would definitely NOT use rates on Skeletor to pull the AAA on it, as it is too difficult to get to the wall with an AAA unless you have the speed for it. The reason why I chose 1.3x to post is because the wall on 1.1x / 1.2x for me felt more awkward to hit, and I really couldn't get it down even after several isolation attempts.

Here is the Skeletor wall normally.


Here is the wall on 1.3x rate.


Both of these walls to me pretty much felt like a luck fest, and it was only after several attempts and jumping around between the rates that I actually pulled the AAA's off in the first place. I will say that 1.3 has more reliable jump-trilling, but compared to the rest of the file it really isn't worth it.

Within life:
It was argued at 1.5 the rolls could be jump-trilled. Though within life at 1.5x rate does create some new jump-trilling possibilities, holy crap the rest of the file.

I have a AAA on it normally, and here is 1.5x rate:


My goodness, the jacks, the transitions, and pretty much everything about this file becomes really tough to keep PA at 1.5x. If you haven't AAA'd at 1x, you aren't touching 1.5x, ever.

Having multiple leader-boards for each rate for every song would probably take up an extensive amount of space, or at least that is what the consensus on it seems. I guess FFR doesn't have much server space to work with as it is apparently or something.

Also to Tarrik, I personally am more interesting in seeing (and if possible) refuting those who are against the change. I'm not so much trying to bother the admins as much as I want to put rates in a good light in the community. We all know nothing is going to come from this, but for some reason I just can't help but post in here, because rates on FFR is something I care about quite a bit. The fact rates exist in the first place on FFR is amazing enough, but I suppose it was that miracle that sparked the want to go all the way with it.