Rates higher than 1.0 should record

[omega_grunt666]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

On the topic of GTS/Credits, what is the official stance on earning them?

As of right now you cannot earn either from anything that significantly changes the chart from what was approved. Rates, but also Random/Shuffle/Scramble or Reverse (Mod not scroll, in R^3). But is that intentional or just a side effect of not registering to the leaderboards? (All or none in the current system)

Shouldn't anything achieved in an official engine be qualified for both? Even if the settings were to disqualify you from leaderboards (And understandably so), is there a reason it should be treated as though you've played nothing at all? Its still time spent in the official engine playing official charts. With the exception of rates, all the other mods have you hitting the same amount of arrows, pattern difficulty doesn't effect credits directly (just combo scoring). The argument to exclude rates from that treatment is only GTS farming, but it doesn't really make it any easier. You still have to physically hit all of those arrows, spending 24 hours playing songs like vrofl/thinking of you/extratone in a perfect world/etc, or various easier songs on higher rates to match the NPS.

Should the limit be imposed by what the hardest/most efficient charts are that get approved and added to the game, or should it purely be the persons ability and determination?

I wouldn't argue to let any of these count towards leaderboards or level ranks because you are basically playing a different chart all together, but is there any real argument as to why they should be ignored outright? Playing the game should be rewarding, no matter what you choose to do within it.

[iironiic]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

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

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.

There is a difference between 50 bpm rolls and 5000 bpm rolls. You have to hit patterns differently because of how the engine functions. There's also a difference between changing the speed of a song and merely restarting a song. How are you changing the contents of a song just by restarting it or by putting it on autofail?

I'm just offering my two cents and some food for thought to consider... Sorry if it seemed a bit overwhelming lmfao.

[Izzy]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

I would say increasing the rate makes like 95-98% of the songs harder and it keeps the files (patterns) the exact same.

Still not 100%. Annoyingly slow songs and some legacy files would become easier.

[YoshL]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

we should have a system where you pay credits to have a certain rate song run recored.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

There is a difference between 50 bpm rolls and 5000 bpm rolls. You have to hit patterns differently because of how the engine functions.

thanks for pointing that one out. I'm not very aware of the technical details.

There's also a difference between changing the speed of a song and merely restarting a song. How are you changing the contents of a song just by restarting it or by putting it on autofail?

you mentioned that using a higher rate would disrespect the music. my guess is that you are assuming that the music artist would not want the music to be sped up and would find it disrespectful. I'm also guessing that this line of thinking is based on the idea that the artist intended for all listeners to hear it exactly as it was composed.

similarly, cutting a track to reduce simfile repetitiveness or stopping the music abruptly after getting a good would probably be outside of the artist's scope they had when creating the music.

[iironiic]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

you mentioned that using a higher rate would disrespect the music. my guess is that you are assuming that the music artist would not want the music to be sped up and would find it disrespectful. I'm also guessing that this line of thinking is based on the idea that the artist intended for all listeners to hear it exactly as it was composed.

similarly, cutting a track to reduce simfile repetitiveness or stopping the music abruptly after getting a good would probably be outside of the artist's scope they had when creating the music.

Generally speaking, I dislike cutting tracks for this very reason [bolded statement] when I step a file. bmah can vouch me for this haha. When I am sending permission emails to an artist, I generally make a note asking if I have their permission to cut tracks simply because I really do want to respect their work. Some artists are fine with it, and others aren't. Regardless, I think it's really important to respect and appreciate their work, but putting songs on rates for public enjoyment isn't a step towards that direction (at least in my opinion).

[ssbmchamp]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Still not 100%. Annoyingly slow songs and some legacy files would become easier.

I agree. Not sure if this would be possible to do but what if we had it so rates would only record on songs of difficulty 66 and higher and would still take your final score/credits and reduce them by value "X" based on the rate you used. This way it would make virtually every file applicable harder rather than easier. It would increase the number of songs upper tier players could challenge themselves without affecting the lower tier players.

I think the most important thing to focus on (whether or not my idea would even be possible) is keeping people active on the site. I would rather we allow rates above 1.0 to count fully towards GT and get full credits and see a lot more people playing on the site, since there would essentially be endless difficulties of songs and people wouldn't AAA and never play songs again then get bored of FFR and quit altogether. I get that it alters files and makes some easier than others but like I said I'd rather see the site active with players rather than it dying off because people got bored.

[arcnmx]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Well, I'm just going to point to this:

"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

Personally, I feel like this is all somewhat of a moot discussion. Levelranks are essentially pointless right now, scores below AAAs are meaningless due to combo scoring, and average rank is a terrible way to rank people even when we do transition over to raw scoring. The ranking system needs a complete rehaul IMO, and I feel like that's where the discussion should be heading instead.

On the topic of GTS/Credits, what is the official stance on earning them?

I believe we decided after the last thread that modded/unrecorded scores should still grant GTS/credits, there just isn't a system in place to provide that yet.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Rates higher than 1.0 should record

Generally speaking, I dislike cutting tracks for this very reason [bolded statement] when I step a file. bmah can vouch me for this haha. When I am sending permission emails to an artist, I generally make a note asking if I have their permission to cut tracks simply because I really do want to respect their work. Some artists are fine with it, and others aren't. Regardless, I think it's really important to respect and appreciate their work, but putting songs on rates for public enjoyment isn't a step towards that direction (at least in my opinion).

fair enough! point taken. I don't think I fully agree that speeding up or cutting a track reduces appreciation of the artist's work, but I'm absolutely with you that being completely clear with the artist about how the music will be used when trying to obtain permission is the way to go.

Well, I'm just going to point to this:

Personally, I feel like this is all somewhat of a moot discussion. Levelranks are essentially pointless right now, scores below AAAs are meaningless due to combo scoring, and average rank is a terrible way to rank people even when we do transition over to raw scoring. The ranking system needs a complete rehaul IMO, and I feel like that's where the discussion should be heading instead.