Does one average not let you have an FC?

[drakethelegend]

2 or 3 times now completed a song and had just one Average, and I didn't get the FC.

Is an FC require Goods or better?

[woker-X]

You also need to beat your best raw score for your FC to register.

[drakethelegend]

Originally Posted by woker-X

You also need to beat your best raw score for your FC to register.

So no averages, and you need to beat your RAW score? What does that mean?

[Moria]

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...sub=Zapmeister

This is Zap, he mashes. has 100s of averages on most songs he plays. Just to reassure you that your averages have no bearing on whether or not it is an FC.

You only need 0 misses for it to count. Though it won't count unless it's an improvement. : )

[drakethelegend]

Originally Posted by Moria

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...sub=Zapmeister

This is Zap, he mashes. has 100s of averages on most songs he plays. Just to reassure you that your averages have no bearing on whether or not it is an FC.

You only need 0 misses for it to count. Though it won't count unless it's an improvement. : )

Ugh, I don't get it. So averages are okay, it just has to have no misses and has to "be an improvement"?

I have been doing improvements...? Do you mean it has to have less goods than last time, etc.?

Wouldn't the first time I FC'ed it be an improvement?

[TheSaxRunner05]

For improvement, it has to be a better Raw score, the five or six digit score

[Moria]

iirc raw score values are

50pts for every Perfect
25pts for every Good
5pts for every Average
-10pts for every Miss
-5pts for every Boo

[drakethelegend]

Originally Posted by Moria

iirc raw score values are

50pts for every Perfect
25pts for every Good
5pts for every Average
-10pts for every Miss
-5pts for every Boo

Oh okay, that makes sense, thank you! I did the match again a few times and got one average (again lol) but I must have gotten more Goods, because I finally got the FC, lol. Thanks!

[Moria]

No worries, the easiest way to notice whether or not you improved is to just look at the raw goods (its just any deviation from a AAA expressed as goods)
it's in the middle column; the closer to zero, the better

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by Moria

iirc raw score values are
...
-10pts for every Miss

More realistically, a miss is either -15, -35, or -60 since you could have gotten an average, good, or perfect instead of missing. So not only are you penalized with negative points for missing, but you're penalized by the points you missed out on by not hitting the arrow.

[rayword45]

In that case think of it as

-25pts for every Good
-45pts for every Average
-60pts for every Miss
-5pts for every Boo

[rushyrulz]

imean you technically could, but the only deceiving value in the raw score calculation is misses.

[Dinglesberry]

Originally Posted by Moria

iirc raw score values are

50pts for every Perfect
25pts for every Good
5pts for every Average
-10pts for every Miss
-5pts for every Boo

-o24 points for every bob

-o24

[MinaciousGrace]

you know at a certain point after years of this question being asked one might begin to wonder if the current system is perhaps designed badly

[rushyrulz]

itis

[devonin]

The game was built with the emphasis on combo, and the assumption was literally ANY FC was going to be a better overall score than a non FC unless your 1 miss was like in the first or last 10 notes because of that multiplier.

Now with so much scoring done off raw score, there's not even a good reason to count FCs as a stat. They could literally just keep the AAA bar, and replace the FC bar with something that just looked for a raw score over a certain point for the song. Like, even something low like 60% of the max score possible, and count that as a thing to fill a bar.

Like how you can actually get to T1 now just by passing songs without needing to do even vaguely well on them, measure "You did pretty solidly on that" by looking at raw score instead of this weird disconnect where a bad FC scores worse than a good nonFC

[RenegadeLucien]

Or the FC bar could be replaced with a SDG bar

[devonin]

For the VAST majority of users, an SDG is basically the same as a AAA.

The level at which an SDG is like...-very- different from a AAA is very high and very small.

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by devonin

Now with so much scoring done off raw score, there's not even a good reason to count FCs as a stat.

I disagree.

FCing is the first major goal (aside from passing) a large quantity of players gravitate to. The concept of full comboing didn't originate from FFR, nor is FFR the most prominent example of a game including it as an objective. So while, it may actually be meaningless when it comes to scoring in this particular game, I think it should still hold some significance by at least being recognized. Because of this, removing FCs entirely from the game wouldn't induce an out of sight, out of mind effect, but instead make it feel like something is missing, even though FCs really do have absolutely no significance outside of token unlocks in this game anymore.

When you grind away at a song for 30 minutes trying your hardest to hit every note without missing, finally get it, but notice the game didn't give you the two bold, green letters next to the title in song select that you were after simply because you got 3 goods too many on the FC run, it feels unfair and like you've been cheated. I've been a noob, you've been a noob, we've all been noobs and know the feeling of satisfaction from achieving a goal like this, however small, and yes, insignificant. (My grind it til' you get it song was Beethoven Virus btw, and it took a LOT longer than 30 minutes...).

I've been advocating for 'the FC flag' for years now, and it never has gotten off the ground. I don't think it would be hard to implement (since flags for FC, SDG, AAA, etc are already implemented, and a change in how these are reported/recorded would probably be all that is necessary), and it would only help the game, or at least not hurt it. If not for anything else, but to prevent the countless number of threads like these that have come up in the past from continuing to appear in the future.

/rant

Originally Posted by devonin

For the VAST majority of users, an SDG is basically the same as a AAA.

The level at which an SDG is like...-very- different from a AAA is very high and very small.

And it is the players outside of this small window that care about FCing above all else. Being a frequent viewer of newer players' livestreams, full comboing is a very prominent topic.

EDIT: tl;dr: A lot of people truly care about FCing as an objective in this game and others like it, so removing them as a stat probably isn't in our best interest.

[One Winged Angel]

yeah I remember having a convo with either velo or max many many moons ago regarding the FC bar recognizing that a chart has been FC'd regardless of whether the score is your current best...whoever I was talking to made it seem like that would eventually be added

probably was forgotten about with other updates coming out (this was pre-skill rating so that was likely the main project at the time)

harass them again ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Originally Posted by devonin

For the VAST majority of users, an SDG is basically the same as a AAA.

The level at which an SDG is like...-very- different from a AAA is very high and very small.

honestly I could argue that the vast majority of users don't even know what SDGs and AAAs are, and/or don't care too much for measuring these statistics to begin with...once a player hits roughly D3 (which has been demonstrated time and time again by thousands of players to not require massive time investment if you're serious about improving), it's an important enough statistic to warrant measuring and tracking, and is definitely discernible at this skill level as quite different from both an ordinary FC that has no accuracy restrictions outside of zero misses and a perfect score

I'm pretty sure during the same conversation with whichever admin, I had also mentioned an SDG bar should be added with the advent of raw scoring and they were also receptive to the idea