Re: The VideoGame MegaPack 4!
I think you misunderstood his question about difficulty scale ratings. What will be the "formula" to figure out what arbitrary number should define how hard each chart is? Regardless of what method you guys choose, there is always going to be an entire subjective factor to the numbers which does leave a margin for error and fuck ups.
With the examples listed, the chancellor scale runs between ratings 1 through 10, with the latter being the absolute hardest. The chancellor scale is a really stupid way to rate because it's impossible to rate files with multiple difficulties in a manner that seems acceptable, so I wouldn't recommend this one at all. Also, beginners or people new to this game will be scratching their heads because there would be an absolute massive difficulty gap between each level, which is a real downside to difficulties being limited to being whole numbers.
The old school "keyboard scale" used in the previous VGMPs and other packs is quite frankly just as awful of a scale because you're essentially slapping a bullshit number to a file with no reason other than simply, "it feels like a #" from playing it once or a couple times. And using DDR/ITG difficulty scale as a basis to this formula doesn't apply well to keyboard files in the case that spread charts are typically way more densely layered and have too many contributing factors that can immediately increase the difficulty of a chart via pattern usage (jacks, jump/hand/hold-stream, trills, etc.), colour note gimmicks, bpm gimmicks, mines, holds, etc.
Notes Per Second scale, isn't that great of scale to use either because there is always a margin for subjective error when deciding on how much to "fudge" (add or subtract from the raw calculated NPS of a chart) when applicable. For example, a very short song of < 1 minute will typically always yield a fairly high raw calculated NPS whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, long songs yield fairly low numbers, which is where "fudging" comes into play. But I guess this scale is acceptable in the way that it produces objective numbers from calculating raw note density in a file, which gives you something to work with when deciding on an arbitrary number to slap onto a chart, and it's flexible enough to work with multiple difficulties.
NPS formula is as follows:
And there's some really complicated formula that Stargroup devised that supposedly works better from an objective standpoint, but it's a really time consuming calculation involving a fuckton of numbers. And I'm pretty sure absolutely no one uses this formula other than him, rofl.
But yeah, enough ranting about this subject—whatever method used to calculate the difficulty of charts is completely up to you guys, lol. Just wanted to I guess clarify on what rCaliber was aiming at.
I think you misunderstood his question about difficulty scale ratings. What will be the "formula" to figure out what arbitrary number should define how hard each chart is? Regardless of what method you guys choose, there is always going to be an entire subjective factor to the numbers which does leave a margin for error and fuck ups.
With the examples listed, the chancellor scale runs between ratings 1 through 10, with the latter being the absolute hardest. The chancellor scale is a really stupid way to rate because it's impossible to rate files with multiple difficulties in a manner that seems acceptable, so I wouldn't recommend this one at all. Also, beginners or people new to this game will be scratching their heads because there would be an absolute massive difficulty gap between each level, which is a real downside to difficulties being limited to being whole numbers.
The old school "keyboard scale" used in the previous VGMPs and other packs is quite frankly just as awful of a scale because you're essentially slapping a bullshit number to a file with no reason other than simply, "it feels like a #" from playing it once or a couple times. And using DDR/ITG difficulty scale as a basis to this formula doesn't apply well to keyboard files in the case that spread charts are typically way more densely layered and have too many contributing factors that can immediately increase the difficulty of a chart via pattern usage (jacks, jump/hand/hold-stream, trills, etc.), colour note gimmicks, bpm gimmicks, mines, holds, etc.
Notes Per Second scale, isn't that great of scale to use either because there is always a margin for subjective error when deciding on how much to "fudge" (add or subtract from the raw calculated NPS of a chart) when applicable. For example, a very short song of < 1 minute will typically always yield a fairly high raw calculated NPS whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, long songs yield fairly low numbers, which is where "fudging" comes into play. But I guess this scale is acceptable in the way that it produces objective numbers from calculating raw note density in a file, which gives you something to work with when deciding on an arbitrary number to slap onto a chart, and it's flexible enough to work with multiple difficulties.
NPS formula is as follows:
And there's some really complicated formula that Stargroup devised that supposedly works better from an objective standpoint, but it's a really time consuming calculation involving a fuckton of numbers. And I'm pretty sure absolutely no one uses this formula other than him, rofl.
But yeah, enough ranting about this subject—whatever method used to calculate the difficulty of charts is completely up to you guys, lol. Just wanted to I guess clarify on what rCaliber was aiming at.
Comment