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

[MrRubix]

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

I am referring to the way **** was being judged pre-avmiss -- with the avmiss fix, the difficulty of the game was revamped in a major way, re-defining what was a VC and FMO because certain songs were totally nerfed. These changes are correct in spirit and it'd be stupid to argue otherwise. If a file was set from FMO to VC (I haven't paid attention to what those files may be because I AAA'd them eons ago and never looked back) without having any significant difficulty changes as a result of framer nerf, then that is stupid.

And so, after avmisses have been fixed, what is marked as an FMO is an FMO. If a new file fits the same difficulty profile as an FMO, it's an FMO. You do not "move the goalposts" by saying "now an FMO is harder than before" arbitrarily. If a group of people are getting better, then they're getting better than FMO. The community used to have trouble back in early 2000's with files that we'd now consider VC's (BMR's A and V and G2 holla).

Doesn't change the fact that the difficulty of a file can be objectively derived and evaluated. If a file that should be harder ISN'T actually harder, then you're missing an important variable somewhere that should account for why it isn't actually as hard. All relevant variables need to be considered in evaluation.


This isn't even debatable. Vote "no" if you're an idiot. Most files that were nerfed were the result of avmiss, as far as I'm aware. If I am wrong about this, let me know.

[TC_Halogen]

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

Anyone who voted "no" is an idiot. Certain files were made mad-easy with the avmiss fix and were no longer FMO-worthy. The FMO's that were nerfed were basically VC's that have their difficulty from arrow density.

^

Although I've fought for other songs because they were obviously misranked in comparison to files in that general difficulty.

Anyone who still thinks NWE is an FMO needs to hit themself in the head with a frying pan. Anyone who thinks SC is still an FMO needs to hit themself with a head with a keyboard. [etc.]

I do agree that certain songs are borderline between VC and FMO, and I also understand that people's bias toward aspects of the game will determine which way they'll decide a file will tilt in this area--you cannot sit here and say that certain files need to get be raised and dropped. I'm looking at all of these people who are going "IT SHOULD BE THIS BECAUSE I GOT THIS RANK" or "IT SHOULD BE THIS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THIS GOOD OF A SCORE AND THAT MAKES IT EASIER"--no. I'm going to leave this thread now because I've fought about difficulty ratings in other games and I simply hate hearing it.

[Gigispackles]

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

Ah heck, might as well say something. I'm bored. What about the lower level songs? Once 300 AAA's were hit, was a 6 changed to a 5 because of that?

Avmiss was a long time ago. There's been enough time for people to change the difficulties. Just want to know why recently BESIDES that "everyone" is getting better.

I voted no and I'm an idiot. At least I can admit/be fine with it. And you're using lame propaganda with it. As people have said, opinion.

*hits head with his keyboard* =P

[jimerax]

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

silence etc were changed for difficulty adjustment.

and until you show some "objective" method to evaluate difficulty, discussions here don't generate anything.

[MrRubix]

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

Again, I feel like difficulty needs to be stretched out a bit, because I feel it'll correctly account for the variance. Trying to stuff a skill range from Free Space to Death Piano from like 1 to 12 is just not enough. 1 to 20 would be a great way to have a bit more precision with the ratings. It'll likely eliminate most borderline cases. I feel like the current ratings are decent up until you start hitting the VC mark. At this point, the difficulty of songs start to go all over the place from ESC to **** like RATO -- a massive jump compared to, say, level 1 to even 6.

I think much of the problem occurs when a song is overall, very easy, but may have a particular section that skews perception. Take NWE -- overall, it's CLEARLY VC, but many argue it's FMO because of certain ending-chains. Even Runnymorning falls victim to this. If not for the megajack, the file would drop to VC status or lower without a second glance (and it USED to be FGO because the damn file was hard as hell to FC, let alone PA, with all the three-framers, which are now easy as hell with the avmiss fix).

I admit it's a bit harder to evaluate files with localized sections of inconsistent difficulty, but this is why I think we need to determine a rough metric for weighting such things while increasing the difficulty thresholds to give a reasonable accountability system for the fine-tuned differences.

The community has been getting better for years. Anyone who's been here from the start knows this. We used to find Max300 impossible to FC, and now we're quadding it. Road of Oni was considered beastly, but now it's child's play. Even Legend Road has been passed, FC'd, and nearly AAA'd by multiple people now, whereas it was seen as OMG ARE YOU KIDDING when it first came out. People will always get better -- but it doesn't mean it's reasonable to shift the goalposts. It simply means the community is beating the goalposts. They should still be static.

Again, an objective rating can be derived from a simple statistical weighting of different song attributes coupled with market-force performance with selection bias accounted for via level play data.

[GG_Guru]

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

1 to 20?

I dunno that sounds a little overboard Marcus....

[MrRubix]

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

It's not overboard at all -- you absolutely need something that is both forward-looking and broken down enough to account for variance. An idea system would be continuous, but it wouldn't be very psychologically satisfying. Sticking to a more reasonable system of multi-level discrete units would be sufficient, and I think something like 20 would be more than enough to account for everything.

[qqwref]

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

And so, after avmisses have been fixed, what is marked as an FMO is an FMO. If a new file fits the same difficulty profile as an FMO, it's an FMO. You do not "move the goalposts" by saying "now an FMO is harder than before" arbitrarily. If a group of people are getting better, then they're getting better than FMO. The community used to have trouble back in early 2000's with files that we'd now consider VC's (BMR's A and V and G2 holla).

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying, except for some inexplicable reason you disagree with my conclusion. If a song was an FMO for a year after avmiss fix, and unlocked Oni for a year after avmiss fix, it is not fair to suddenly say that it is VC and does not unlock Oni (or worse, that it's still FMO but does not unlock Oni). It's not like FFR just went "hurr durr I bet avmisses change nothing" - a bunch of the songs that were only difficult because they were pretty much straight 4-framers (Sympathizer, Balloon Fever, Vertex BETA) were moved down immediately, and that's fine. But if they didn't think that was necessary, and a song sat at FMO for a long time after avmiss fix, you are NOT moving it down because of avmisses (and the same thing goes for how the Oni requirements sat the same for a long time after avmiss fix). You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

[norsegod666]

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

1 to 20?

I dunno that sounds a little overboard Marcus....

You are obviously not understanding the idea. The 1-20 difficulty range is a wonderful idea. I have noticed several of the newer songs being debated as to what difficulty they are. Sadly, a debate can only be settled by the opinion that receives the largest number of followers. This in turn skews the difficulties of songs. The FMOs that were downgraded were not done so without reason. When the song list for unlocking [Oni] was updated, these songs were removed from the list. I can understand why they were. I am not pretending to be a god or anything but when you study the file itself, the patterns, speed, endurance required, the songs are no harder than VB.

[T-Force]

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

I think the results are starting to speak for themselves. I'm an idiot as well. But only for some songs. NWE can stay VC for all I care.

Oh and I agree with Gigi when I

*hits head with keyboard*

[MrRubix]

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

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying, except for some inexplicable reason you disagree with my conclusion. If a song was an FMO for a year after avmiss fix, and unlocked Oni for a year after avmiss fix, it is not fair to suddenly say that it is VC and does not unlock Oni (or worse, that it's still FMO but does not unlock Oni). It's not like FFR just went "hurr durr I bet avmisses change nothing" - a bunch of the songs that were only difficult because they were pretty much straight 4-framers (Sympathizer, Balloon Fever, Vertex BETA) were moved down immediately, and that's fine. But if they didn't think that was necessary, and a song sat at FMO for a long time after avmiss fix, you are NOT moving it down because of avmisses (and the same thing goes for how the Oni requirements sat the same for a long time after avmiss fix). You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

I don't remember disagreeing with you specifically -- I just disagree with anyone who voted "no."

I agree with your points -- perhaps the poll is a loaded question, because I purely refer to the songs that were nerfed via avmiss, which I know many songs were. If an FMO was changed to a VC for seemingly no reason at all whatsoever, then it was likely not really an FMO to begin with and was mis-judged. Personally, as a stepchart, something like Silence is an obvious VC, patternwise. What makes it difficult is the blue-color overlay that makes the entire thing a bitch to read. I would not say it's quite FMO level, but definitely a high VC. However, if we had more skill levels to account for these kinds of disputes, we'd be able to more accurately categorize these sort of cases.

I agree, in general, that most of the FMO-to-VC changes were appropriate. Stuff like NWE falls into the same category Silence does, but for a different reason. I am all for consistent judging, but I am indeed against changing a file's difficulty level simply because the community is getting better.

[TC_Halogen]

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

You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

I think it's just more of people realizing that the ratings were wrong in the first place. That's the only reason why they should be changed. If something like Novo Mundo gets changed (which I'm hearing from some people say that it should be a VC), go nuts and complain because their definition of what makes an VC is ridiculously off.

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. There's no way to resolve an argument like this other than making a whole new rating system altogether, which isn't going to happen. In other words, people just need to stop complaining.

[GG_Guru]

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

It's not overboard at all -- you absolutely need something that is both forward-looking and broken down enough to account for variance. An idea system would be continuous, but it wouldn't be very psychologically satisfying. Sticking to a more reasonable system of multi-level discrete units would be sufficient, and I think something like 20 would be more than enough to account for everything.

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

[MrRubix]

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

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

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

[norsegod666]

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

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

You are retarded. The debate is about removing those Low- Mid- High- tags. If you add the extra levels it will mentally project how hard the song really is in proportion to the other ones. 12 different levels are simply not enough for the range of difficulties the songs in FFR have. The level 7 songs now would not be the same as the level 7 songs in the new classification. When you talk about the Mid-VC songs, put yourself in the position of someone just starting. The level is 10 so naturally it wouldnt initially seem as hard as some other ones. However, some 10s are piss easy while others are difficult due to certain patterns etc. There needs to be a system that can separate the distinct classifications of all VC level songs.