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

[awein999]

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

There's not a set threshold for AAA counts to make a song to become easier.

What if we had 10 times the number of active members than now and about half of the FMOs had more than 300 AAAs?

very true, but if the definite vc's had 600 AAA's at the same time then we'd be able to distinguish between fmo and vc. When you see a former fmo like none would escape has over 200 AAA's, more than even some of the older vc's currently that's when you have to start to think maybe it's not fmo. I should have explained what I meant by look at the AAA count.

[kjwkjw]

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

There's not a set threshold for AAA counts to make a song to become easier.

What if we had 10 times the number of active members than now and about half of the FMOs had more than 300 AAAs?

Adding on to that, we would also need to take into effect the number of people who played a given song, which obviously varies from song to song.

songs that were lowered....lawn wake IV, southern cross, silence, none would escape. Any others?

Silence and None Would Escape I can see as being a very high VC, maybe. But I really am afraid that if we downgrade Southern Cross, LW4, and K8107, which are slightly harder, we would be inclined to downgrade harder and harder FMO's gradually until the entire fixed 12-point difficulty scale needs to be redone... xD

Oh, and of course, the ultimate cause of this downgrading would be people's skill, which, like bmah, Niala, and leonid already said, varies constantly.

/2 cents

[bmah]

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

Agreeing with Gigispackles. Read that awein. Everything's relative. The skill level of the community can increase till songs we find harder now become easier. It's better to take the issue from a static point of view, despite "apparent indicators" that show how well people can play.

[awein999]

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

.......no...just...no. You aren't everyone. I'm sorry, but you just really aren't everyone. If what you sa is correct, then Niala wouldn't have made this thread...possibly. But again, EVERYONE GOT BETTER! That does NOT make the song magically become easier than it was a week ago. It is easier in terms of YOUR skill but not EVERYONE. You are forgetting about EVERYONE ELSE. Say some beginner comes in and plays the song. It won't be easier for that person to FC/AAA because you lowered the difficulty. It's just as difficult was it was before. But that person will get better at the song eventually and they will consider it easier. Soooo...by using that logic, since I've AAA'd Emerald Hill Zone, I should have the right to say it's a level 5 or something because I'm good at it?

AAA counts also mean that more people can do it. Like I said before, it doesn't make it any easier for a beginner to FC/AAA it. If we keep playing, A TON of people will be able to AAA almost all FGO/FMO's. So when that happens, are we going to lower the difficulty? Why not just add songs of higher difficulty? Is it THAT hard? You may have to tweak the names, but it'll make the song difficulty fair.

yeah I'm not everyone. I asked you guys if you agree with me. That's all.

true true the beginners coming to the game for the first time.....that's true. But we are only talking about the switching of what like 5 fmo songs to vc? That's all I'm refering too. Not a huge change in the game, nothing in the lower end. A vc and a fmo to a newbie is probably going to appear the same to them. WE (the people in charge of the decision), the experienced players see the difference in that which is why we came to this conclusion for the higher levels.

[Niala]

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

Thanks to bmah and Rubix, that's pretty much summing up what I'm saying. People got better, that shouldn't change anything. Also, there haven't been significant changes in the gameplay, so how can the skill needed to play a level have changed. As leonid said, arrows don't just disappear from a file as you get better.

[MrRubix]

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

Honestly, I'm in favor of a 20-point scale. I feel like 20 would be a good number to account for the variance of different patterns/song lengths/speeds/etc while still being clearly-definable.

[Gigispackles]

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

+1 support for the 20 difficulties system.

[awein999]

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

Honestly, I'm in favor of a 20-point scale. I feel like 20 would be a good number to account for the variance of different patterns/song lengths/speeds/etc while still being clearly-definable.

this would be the best solution raised so far, definitely. Agreed

[bmah]

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

Will have to question the chosen number as "20" before I support that. Can't just be an arbitrary number. It sounds like we're heading in a better direction though.

[kjwkjw]

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

Honestly, I'm in favor of a 20-point scale. I feel like 20 would be a good number to account for the variance of different patterns/song lengths/speeds/etc while still being clearly-definable.

Still not sure if this will allow difficulties to be more fixed even when people get better. Which is the reason why some of the FMO's got downgraded anyways.

Of course, a 20-point scale would work as a better indicator of the difficulty of the file itself.

[MrRubix]

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

Difficulty can be defined as a function of certain variables, and an accurate weighting of these variables should naturally account for WHY we find certain songs hard, and should also correctly account for expected number of AAA's given how many plays are done by a certain number of players of certain skill levels.

We should be asking "what makes a song easy/hard" and then trying to relatively quantify it.

[Niala]

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

Honestly, I'm in favor of a 20-point scale. I feel like 20 would be a good number to account for the variance of different patterns/song lengths/speeds/etc while still being clearly-definable.

The only REAL problem I see with this is that it's not going to indefinitely solve the problem. While what you say is true, eventually, there will be enough people getting to a really good skill level, and will say "Hey, this song's not actually a mid-19, it's a low-19, and this song isn't a low-14, it's a high-13." It just seems like this would, more or less, just prolong the issue.

ALSO! I would like to point out that people don't seem to much care about any difficulties OTHER than FMO's. It makes it seem like people who are above a certain marker (Not everybody, just some) are trying to keep it to a select few, and make that marker higher for people who have trouble reaching it. The FMO difficulty gets constantly debated on, while the other difficulties are just left be, which doesn't make sense, as they're equally as important to the overall schematics of our system as FMOs are.

[MrRubix]

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

It doesn't even have to be 20 -- any number we choose is inherently arbitrary. But I just feel like we need to set 1 = easiest song we can think of and 20 = maybe something we can't hope to accomplish yet. If we wanted to make it something like 100, I feel like the variance in defining each level would be too great. 20 seems like a number high enough to account for the different levels of skill, yet low enough to not fall victim to the variance issue. This number may need changing. I'm just trying to explain how we SHOULD be judging difficulty.

EDIT: I am saying each level would need to be properly DEFINED, not just arbitrarily associated.

For example, we should try out a song-length weighting, a pattern-type weighting, a song background-weighting, a note-color weighting, a BPM weighting, etc -- which should accurately predict the average performance. The various levels of performance would be defined by these difficulty scales (I am picking 20 just because I predict that going too high would result in overlapping variances). By this I mean a "98" is really no different from a "99". How do we define such a small change? It's almost meaningless. But something like 20 is psychologically and mathematically/statistically more satisfying.

[awein999]

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

The only REAL problem I see with this is that it's not going to indefinitely solve the problem. While what you say is true, eventually, there will be enough people getting to a really good skill level, and will say "Hey, this song's not actually a mid-19, it's a low-19, and this song isn't a low-14, it's a high-13." It just seems like this would, more or less, just prolong the issue.

it would expand the range of songs so that it is less of an issue today. And when it becomes a big issue again like it is now, you can make the scale higher, maybe 30. Or better yet we could just go with the actual song difficulties thread already

if this wasn't an option I am still in favor of those select former fmo's being downgraded

[kjwkjw]

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

EDIT: I am saying each level would need to be properly DEFINED, not just arbitrarily associated.

For example, we should try out a song-length weighting, a pattern-type weighting, a song background-weighting, a note-color weighting, a BPM weighting, etc -- which should accurately predict the average performance. The various levels of performance would be defined by these difficulty scales (I am picking 20 just because I predict that going too high would result in overlapping variances).

So the overall improving trend of FFRers won't really be factored into this system?

/confused like an idiot >.<