A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Feedback greatly appreciated.

As the Hard Songs Batch nears completion, I would like to migrate from the 1-99 difficulty scale to 1-120 in order to expand and create additional breathing space for the upper echelon of files that will queued. In combination with this, I would also like to reinstate the 1-13 title scale, and attribute range AAA token unlocks (Otaku Speedvibe, Scarhand, Derby) to a complete title range.

A few questions for players:

I am unsure as to whether or not there is enough of a substantial gap from current 79 (beginning of FGO) to 89 (high FGO, min range for Derby unlocks) in order to reclassify 89 as the start of the 13th title (formerly FSO). Some players I've spoken to believe there is, others (myself included) believe there isn't. FSO is planned to be anything 100+ after the expansion occurs.

If you agree, let me know. If you disagree, please state where you believe current FSO should begin. I am torn between current 92 (minus AQD, which should move down) and current 93. Ideally I would like to attribute the Derby token to the entire FSO range and nothing more, so if most players agree that 89s are enough of a gap to start the new title at, that would prove optimal. Otherwise, current 89s will probably shift to 95ish with either 92 or 93 becoming the FSO start at 100, and the Derby range will remain at 95+ (kinda shitty for my OCD because I'd prefer no overlap in title ranges but eh). Please let me know which starting point for the 13th title makes most sense to you.

Current 79 (the starting point for FGO) will shift to 85. Current 66 (the starting point for FMO) will shift to 70. Both will remain the minimum unlock difficulties for Scarhand [Heavy] and Otaku Speedvibe [Oni] respectively.

Very Challenging and Challenging ranges are what I'm currently toying with, and whether or not Scarhand [Standard] and Otaku Speedvibe [Heavy] should be awarded for AAA'ing any file in those respective ranges. Currently, Scarhand [Standard] is awarded two difficulty points ahead of where the VC range begins, and Otaku Speedvibe [Heavy] is awarded about midway through the C range. I would like feedback as to whether or not players would be alright with extending those unlock ranges slightly downward to the beginning of each title range (for reference, Scarhand currently is awarded for 58-65 and [Heavy] 50-57...after the shift it would look something like 56-65 and 46-55 using the current ranges [and 60-69 and 50-59 after the difficulty expansion]).

Again, any and all feedback greatly appreciated. If you could touch upon all points discussed that would be great, but I could understand some lower division players not wanting to provide feedback on the high end and perhaps vice versa.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Wouldn't it be easier to work with the 1-99 difficulty range and move down the difficulty of everything to compensate the lack of space for the 89+ ?

Doing the difficulty for 1900+ songs from zero makes me want to faint because just playing each song once takes literally a month at a pace of 60~80 songs per day.

I'm just curious of the reasons behind extending 1-99 to 1-120. Afaik, the less difficulties, the easier it is to properly judge them as well because the margin for error become smaller.

e.g:

Beginner/Easy/Very Easy: 1-20
Standard/Tricky: 21-30
Difficulty/Very Difficulty: 31-40
Challenging/VC: 41-50
FMO range: 51-60
FGO range: 61-70
FSO range: 71-99

Of course, you pick the numbers of how you want to make it work.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

We're going to be getting a good handful of songs that are more difficult than RATO.

The only way to slot them appropriately is to expand. At the moment, RATO and Death Piano are not rated appropriately, they should rightfully extend into the 100s.

If we were to extend downwards instead, the low end would become incredibly compressed in order to slot the very difficult files appropriately. It's more work this way of course but it will make more sense at the end.

I also want a somewhat normal distribution of files over the range covered. Most files in the game are in the C-VC range and thus that's an excellent midpoint for the scale. Shifting things downwards would result in the most populated difficulty being slightly ahead of the first third of the range, which is pretty ugly (and would result in a pretty barren upper half compared to an incredibly populated lower half)

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

With charts becoming not only more technically difficult as the skill of the general population of players increases but structurally more unique, the difficulty scale increasing would further provide more accurate ratings.

The stretching of the spectrum as well would relieve misplaced people on the leaderboards for getting a score on a chart that isn't on par with its rating (This happens more frequently around D2-D4). In other words, the increased scale would put players more accurately to where their skill is.

FSO should be 100-120 in my opinion as the current 92-99 is where the upper percentile is currently at and those ranges would be stretched if/when the scale increases. 92s would not be stretched above 100 whereas DiS, Husigi, Miku, SoS, and Hetero would be imagined above 100 at the end of the increase (I cannot confirm this but I would believe those charts would definitely make the cut above 100 compared to Unconnected or System Doctor).

I have more to say but I want to finish what I'm working on before I do so.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

This difficulty overhaul will definitely improve the accuracy of leaderboard standings. Since skill rating and levels are difficulty-based, Trumpet and I are planning to release a skill rating algorithm update, which combined with the overhaul will mean lots of shuffling around in ranks.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

but listen here u lil shit answer my questions (heidy)

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Well, I agree with that system then. Looks like you're already a little ahead implementation-wise as well with leaderboards. I think you will be able to answer your own questions while working on it tbh.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Is 1-99 for 2k songs REALLY not enough to work with?

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Potentially extending AAA token ranges downwards slightly compromises the skill level needed to have obtained them previously. I would much prefer getting feedback as to why this may be a bad idea now instead of just making the shift and having people complain after the fact (which would be an inevitability).

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

I think it would depend on how far downwards they were shifted, if it's something like 1-2 points or very close to, I don't think it's a big deal.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

I agree with your assessment of the current 92 being the start of the FSO range in the new system.

Also, leave the home run derby requirement where it is for 20 minutes after you release the new system so I can quick go and unlock it. Thanks

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

1-999 or bust

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

in terms of division placements for tournaments, heavy, scarhand (both) and oni tokens are sort of heavily tied to division placements for d3+, like getting the token has always been sort of the benchmark measure. if you move the unlock requirements down a bit you have to decide whether or not you want to keep it like that (i.e. you'll be moving the division boundaries down a bit too), or whether you want to keep the division boundaries where they are and instead argue that the new-fangled leaderboard thingamabob thingy-thing is enough to determine division placements accurately enough without using those tokens as a yardstick.

having thought about it for a bit, i wouldn't be too opposed to moving the division boundaries for d3 and 4 down a bit, since in official tournaments in the recent past, d2 and d5 have always been by far the largest divisions. so if you move unlock requirements down a bit, d3 and d4 get bigger and d2 gets smaller, which evens things out. you still have the problem of what to do with a highly over-inflated d5. incidentally i feel like the d1-d2 boundary could do with a bit of a bump upwards

oh and finally: i've read about the phenomenon of grade inflation, which is exactly what it looks like you're doing. here's my prediction: by 2060, it will be considered socially acceptable for humans to use robotic implants in their fingers for video gaming. in light of this, ffr difficulties will have expanded by then to include the full 1-999 scale with vrofl at the top.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Agreed. VROFL is lonely up there. :(

-o24

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Expansion proposition seems fine but I think derby range starting at new FSOs (100+) would be more appropriate. Because reasons.

1-999 seems good too.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

I wish it would've been like that from the start as it's quite a considerable bump in difficulty to shift from 89 to 92/93 now.

For reference, there's around 25 players that have an 89+ AAA but only 7ish with a 92/93+ AAA. I don't think it'd be fair to make the requirements significantly harder without removing the token from players that don't qualify for the new reqs, nor do I want to strip the token from anyone.

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

I don't really see a downside to expanding other than the amount of work needed to do so. Also the possibility of "expansion" becoming a norm.. kinda like what zap mentioned. In time we will thirst for harder files, and eventually expand again, and again. But tbh that seems fine.

About the token thing... it's kinda like pianocore. and that other token.. I don't remember them quite well, but they require % amounts of fc/aaas and as we add more files to the game, the amount of charts needed to be aaa'd/fc'd increases, and if you aint played ina while you will fall under the required amount.
I'm not sure how that's being handled currently, or if it's even still an issue BUT

1. I wouldn't mind losing a few tokens if I no longer deserve them. Times are changing, ffr is becoming more and more challenging and the average player's skill cap has increased with it. It'd be an incentive to keep playing and eventually become a better player to achieve those lost tokens once again. It also wouldn't be fair to newer players who have to work harder for the tokens that I got before the new requirements.

2. I worked hard for those feats.. You think I wanna AAA club again?
There have been no indications of the tokens we unlock having the potential to be locked once again. it wouldn't be fair to those who have already proved themselves worthy.


I'm gonna stand by point 1. here. i know most of our community consist of vets, but we do need to cater to future players, and not give older players any "special" treatment.

;;;

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

I'm not too concerned with how many levels are in ffr tbh. Like I think you can make a reasonable scale starting from 1-10, 1-40, or 1-120, or 1 for every single song rated in order of how hard each song is. You do you, I know that you'll take good care of the difficulty system <3

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Regarding range AAA tokens being benchmarks for division placement:

Yeah, they feel awesome when you get them, and the fact we still refer to C and VC, artifacts from before the 1-99 system was a thing (hell, Oni get still explicitly uses the FMO title in the pop-up) tells me that we'll continue to be using them as rough groupings for a while.

However, with advancements in ranking algorithms being what they are, I'm in favor of the current plan to expand up to 120. The possibility of songs that are objectively harder than DP and RATO blow my mid-D5 mind (namely, HOW), but I'm against bumping the D4 skill window lower because it's already infamous for being AAA or die in the early going.

Regarding Frankie's post:

I see no reason to lock tokens because the requirements have changed. Imagine my surprise when I AAAed Makiba before it was added to the list. Then about 2 hours of whoring later, Oni was finally mine. Just because a song isn't on the unlock list anymore doesn't mean we didn't get it fair and square. Besides, only a scumbag would pull a douche move like "I got the AAA on this song, but now it gives a different token instead, so can I have that manually unlocked?"

Re: A Few Points Concerning Difficulties
 

Is the situation with the Makiba example that:
-you aaa'd makiba.
-2 hours later makiba was added to the oni-get list
-you in turn unlocked oni from the makiba aaa beforehand?

that seems fine and understandable but isn't what i discussed.

I feel i'm misunderstanding all this because these two sentences express your preference,
"I see no reason to lock tokens because the requirements have changed."
"Just because a song isn't on the unlock list anymore doesn't mean we didn't get it fair and square."
essentially : I want to keep the tokens i unlocked even though i no longer meet the requirements.
-if you kept the token(s)/benefit(s) of something when you no longer have the required feats for them it would no longer be fair, or square.
-I believe you should not sustain any benefits until you meet the requirements again, just like everyone who must succeed you

compared to these two examples which don't really compliment your preference
"Imagine my surprise when I AAAed Makiba before it was added to the list. Then about 2 hours of whoring later, Oni was finally mine."
"Besides, only a scumbag would pull a douche move like "I got the AAA on this song, but now it gives a different token instead, so can I have that manually unlocked?"
they express a situation where : you achieved a feat on a file before the feat was accessible through the file, and in turn you want to be rewarded the benefits.
-that is fine, it's understandable with reason of you met the current requirements, so you get the prize.