Rates higher than 1.0 should record

[qqwref]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

If the main reason you want to record with rates is so you can get your levelrank down in less time, you're basically just demanding the admins let you cheat your way to an accomplishment. What's next, choof, asking for 5x the grandtotal when you AAA stuff, because having to play that much to get 50 billion is just not FUN enough for you?

I'll reiterate what I said earlier, if you won't to spend the time to do the accomplishment the way you're supposed to do it, you don't deserve to have that accomplishment.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

"the way you're supposed to do it" is defined by however the rules are set. I think the point of this thread is to suggest changing those rules

[leonid]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

it's more the fact that playing on rates doesn't contribute anything to someone's public display of achievement


wait, so accomplishment and fun are exclusive?

By putting your rate score in public rank you affect everyone else's public display of achievement

If you want it to happen, you need to prove that playing on rates is the exact same deal as not playing on rates (it's not)

Also, your last sentence is as clueless as complaining that you are having fun but can't get to the top 10 ladder in D2.
Accomplishment very often requires dedication, and in many times it's not always fun.
Getting grade A in your class is not fun if studying/cramming is not your thing.
Getting a job is a cool accomplishment, but going through interviews and whatnot is not found fun by many people.
My journey to all 8 challenges in path of exile was the exact opposite of fun.
Trying to get that semi perfect score in Stepmania can be very not fun (we all know TeRage)

Again, this is ranks we are talking about. If you find playing on rates fun, very cool! keep playing on rates and have fun. Just don't mess with our level ranks.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

piggybacking on what qqwref said:

ffr is a game. generally, people want to have fun while playing games.

Enjoying the game and having rates record is not correlative at all; having recorded scores on rates has nothing to do with having fun on rates -- players can have fun playing files on rates without score recording. The moment that it becomes allowed to record scores, you can bet that players will exploit this to increase their grand total faster, and even potentially cheat files by tightening frames (Vertex BETA is a good example of very slightly increasing the difficulty overall to make the one-handed trills all 2-framers, making it possible to jump for example).

The lack of interoperability between engines is also a bad thing, especially for site-wide competitions like the Game Whore competition, where players using R^3 would have an advantage over those who can't grasp the engine because of the capability of using rates. Saying that a player should just sit down and learn the new engine is unfair; just because one was able to transition easily doesn't mean others will be able to.

[iironiic]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Quite honestly, I find it really silly to add statistics like "1.1x average rank", "1.2x average rank", etc. What do those numbers signify and why do they matter? Even if rates record, it would be really foolish to have 10 seperate average ranks for one player.

In my opinion, I also find rates really disrespectful to stepcharts. Rates only emphasize the complexity of the step patterns and nothing more. You can't appreciate the music and the steps if you play the game on 2.0x. I don't think this is what FFR wants to emphasize.

[choof]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

If the main reason you want to record with rates is so you can get your levelrank down in less time, you're basically just demanding the admins let you cheat your way to an accomplishment. What's next, choof, asking for 5x the grandtotal when you AAA stuff, because having to play that much to get 50 billion is just not FUN enough for you?

I'll reiterate what I said earlier, if you won't to spend the time to do the accomplishment the way you're supposed to do it, you don't deserve to have that accomplishment.

i'm at work so i'll also keep this short

firstly, how did you make the step from rates to cheating?
secondly, dat slippery slope fallacy

[Dynam0]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Quite honestly, I find it really silly to add statistics like "1.1x average rank", "1.2x average rank", etc. What do those numbers signify and why do they matter? Even if rates record, it would be really foolish to have 10 separate average ranks for one player.

The numbers matter because it's another way of measuring skills, that being how well a certain player can handle a file on a faster rate. Since raw score will be the determinant for scoring somewhere down the line, it will allow for FFR to accurately judge how well people can handle files outside their comfort zone of FCing/AAAing. I admit that 10 separate pages are a bit much, but some serious thought could be given to how we can integrate a music rates ranking system (this discussion should happen after raw scoring implementation imo).

In my opinion, I also find rates really disrespectful to stepcharts. Rates only emphasize the complexity of the step patterns and nothing more. You can't appreciate the music and the steps if you play the game on 2.0x. I don't think this is what FFR wants to emphasize.

This is a touchy subject just like shuffling and other mods that change the way a file is played so I know there will be mixed emotions for this belief. On this I can agree with you though, music rates serve no purpose other than to blast through easy songs quicker (quite insulting to the notecharter) or as a form of challenge for players (not as bad but still not what notecharter intended).

[iironiic]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

firstly, how did you make the step from rates to cheating?
secondly, dat slippery slope fallacy

Any modification to making the stepfile more accessible to you is cheating. This is obvious for rates less than 1x.

This is less obvious for rates greater than 1x. Someone can abuse the game using higher rates to a) cheat their way to the Top Daily, All Time Statistics tables, b) make it easier for the more skilled to AAA files that are very long and monotonous. A good handful of people mentioned this here.

The numbers matter because it's another way of measuring skills, that being how well a certain player can handle a file on a faster rate. Since raw score will be the determinant for scoring somewhere down the line, it will allow for FFR to accurately judge how well people can handle files outside their comfort zone of FCing/AAAing. I admit that 10 separate pages are a bit much, but some serious thought could be given to how we can integrate a music rates ranking system (this discussion should happen after raw scoring implementation imo). .

I understand, but is there any necessity to measure skill off of rates? The numbers are meaningless to anyone except to the top 1% of FFR. All of these rankings will only cater them and no one else. I suppose it would be interesting in some aspects to see who scores the best on rates, but I don't think there should be any rankings since there is probably no "objective" way to incorporate that into public ranks.

[leonid]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

On an unrelated note, a person once told me that one of my files was very fun on rates and I was offended by that xd

[Izzy]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

yes, not like they are getting easier by being on 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, etc lol

On easier songs it is.

[choof]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Yo if raw scoring is actually going to be implemented, I'd be up for waiting until then to continue this discussion.

[Dynam0]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

I understand, but is there any necessity to measure skill off of rates? The numbers are meaningless to anyone except to the top 1% of FFR. All of these rankings will only cater them and no one else. I suppose it would be interesting in some aspects to see who scores the best on rates, but I don't think there should be any rankings since there is probably no "objective" way to incorporate that into public ranks.

There isn't a necessity for this, it would just be a nice add-on and wouldn't hurt anything to have if it isn't hard to implement in the future so why not? *shrugs*. Objectivity is the largest issue I have with this as well so I think this would be something to talk about once FFR has been improved in other areas first.

To the topic at hand though, I still don't see any reason why rates should be included in normal public rankings. I am still torn sometimes about having mirrored scores count to public ranks as well but we can't really go back from that now. Clearly, the modifier being used is to allow the person an advantage when going for a score as stated by a ton of people already. Is choof the only person actually arguing for this still? Kinda ironic when he makes a topic a couple days ago highlighting that he's working on his public ranks lmao

Yo if raw scoring is actually going to be implemented, I'd be up for waiting until then to continue this discussion.

Now this seems a lot more reasonable

[iironiic]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

I am still torn sometimes about having mirrored scores count to public ranks as well but we can't really go back from that now. Clearly, the modifier being used is to allow the person an advantage when going for a score as stated by a ton of people already.

Mirror doesn't change the structure of the file. Jacks are still jacks, streams are still streams, one-hand anchors are still one-hand anchors, and rolls are still rolls. Yes, one may argue that it's advantageous for someone to AAA Club if one hand is stronger than the other, but at the end of the day, you are essentially executing the same patterns.

Also keep in mind that we worked hard to get a bunch of permissions for the music we offer here on FFR. I don't think many artists would be happy seeing their music disrespected by speeding up the song. It kind of defeat the purpose of getting permissions if we allow rates in the game.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

at the end of the day, you are essentially executing the same patterns.

I would make this same argument in favor of allowing rates higher than 1.0.

Also keep in mind that we worked hard to get a bunch of permissions for the music we offer here on FFR. I don't think many artists would be happy seeing their music disrespected by speeding up the song. It kind of defeat the purpose of getting permissions if we allow rates in the game.

would you also advise removing the restart button and the autofail feature, because the artist did not intend for only the intro to be listened to repeatedly? I feel like you're going a little overboard.

[ssbmchamp]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Here's my two cents (I didn't read every comment so maybe I'm repeating something, but if not then):

-Rates under 1.0 should not count towards levelranks, but rates higher should. I would say increasing the rate makes like 95-98% of the songs harder and it keeps the files (patterns) the exact same.

-To somewhat motivate players of ALL skill levels I think rates above 1.0 should affect your position on the leaderboards for AAA's ONLY, but still keep your rank as if you got it on 1.0 rateand here's an example of what I mean by that:
EXAMPLE 1 -Let's say smartdude has a AAA on Frictional Nevada (so rank 1) from playing it on 1.0 (normal rate) and then let's say samurai plays Frictional Nevada on 1.1 rate and get's a AAA, samurai would then move above smartdude on the leaderboard but they would both have the same rank (1). Also I know that being the last person to AAA a song puts you on top of the leader board but anyone who AAA'd Frictional Nevada on 1.0 rate after samurai got his AAA on 1.1 would still have rank 1, but they would be put under him. So essentially what I'm saying is your position on the leaderboards would be based on your AAA score with the highest rate, but you would still have rank 1 regardless if 10 people had faster rate AAA's above you. For non-AAA scores your rank is what it would normally be without moving in front of people. By doing this it allows the higher tier players to stay involved with FFR rather than saying "I AAA'd this file, I'm never playing it again" and could motivate them to keep pushing themselves. It also doesn't affect the lower tier players because in terms of rank, a 1.8 rate AAA on excite bike has the same value as a 1.0 excite bike AAA.

- I see peoples side with credits/GT and I think if you play on rates higher than 1.0 your score at the end and also your credit count should be reduced by value "X" depending on what rate you used.

-I also don't support the argument "Some players can't play on R^3." It's like anything else, you have to practice. I personally had never played on R3 once and then Badman had his darkness tournament so I had to switch from Velo to R3 and get used to that. Just suck it up and put the time in to practice. I couldn't see it taking anyone longer than a week to get used to it honestly...it took me less than 2 days to make the adjustment.