Ingame Song Information

[XCV]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Silence is listed as an FMO when it's a VC ingame, kthnxbai

EDIT: not sure if that's intentional, my take is borderline/mid VC. It's 2:30 of jumpstream, easier than Vertex Beta which is a VC now.

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Can we PLEASE put Southern Cross at it's rightful 11? I hate having to play it every time I am randoming 10s.

Edit: how the hell is lazer shooter an 8? It's a bloody 9. 14 23 14 23 patterns appear in almost NO 8's if any of them.

[bmah]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Edit: how the hell is lazer shooter an 8? It's a bloody 9. 14 23 14 23 patterns appear in almost NO 8's if any of them.

Borderline.

Some jacks and 24ths in it are kinda hard, yet it's only 134 bpm.

song is rather slow

[Patashu]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

there's plenty of time and warning to move your two hands to 14 and 23 respectively then just trill
and if you're playing spread everything's easy

[Mulie]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

I like XCV's idea for identifying and analyzing a few variables. Also agree with qqwref's observation that variables have to be carefully weighed and relationally defined before balancing an equation. I don't think a rigorous equation is really needed though... Just simplifying the amount of subjectivity in each song is enough to make the task of ranking them considerably easier.

I played around a little and simplified subjectivity into two factors. My numbers could be completely off, but how about something like this?

file placement = relative difficulty * (intensity + length + compensation factor)

relative difficulty: Use an arbitrary scale, like the already established 12 (+1) scale, to approximate the song's difficulty in relation to others. (A slightly larger scale like 15 might work better.) If everything's balanced enough, we could later multiply relative difficulty by the sum of the other factors to determine a solid rank (the equation above).

intensity/density: Some things would be too much of a pain to rigorously derive. Instead, arbitrarily rate density on a small scale (e.g. scale of 5) to approximate density. Since songs have already been categorized by relative difficulty, this should be considerably easier.
I think length should be considered separate because density alone is closer to determining how much you'll have to concentrate per unit of time.

length: Determine on a scale of 4 layers (short, medium, long, very long). Actually define these. Something like 2:19- short, 4:00+ long and 5:30+ very long.

compensation factor: Maybe add points for other difficulty factors? E.g. bad synchronization +1, blue arrow syndrome +1, flaring background +1...

[HoneyMelonCalibrator]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Can we PLEASE put Southern Cross at it's rightful 11? I hate having to play it every time I am randoming 10s.

Edit: how the hell is lazer shooter an 8? It's a bloody 9. 14 23 14 23 patterns appear in almost NO 8's if any of them.

Those jump trills are the only thing somewhat difficult in the song, though. The rest is a easy. I say it stays an 8.

I like XCV's idea for identifying and analyzing a few variables. Also agree with qqwref's observation that variables have to be carefully weighed and relationally defined before balancing an equation. I don't think a rigorous equation is really needed though... Just simplifying the amount of subjectivity in each song is enough to make the task of ranking them considerably easier.

I played around a little and simplified subjectivity into two factors. My numbers could be completely off, but how about something like this?

file placement = relative difficulty * (intensity + length + compensation factor)

relative difficulty: Use an arbitrary scale, like the already established 12 (+1) scale, to approximate the song's difficulty in relation to others. (A slightly larger scale like 15 might work better.) If everything's balanced enough, we could later multiply relative difficulty by the sum of the other factors to determine a solid rank (the equation above).

intensity/density: Some things would be too much of a pain to rigorously derive. Instead, arbitrarily rate density on a small scale (e.g. scale of 5) to approximate density. Since songs have already been categorized by relative difficulty, this should be considerably easier.
I think length should be considered separate because density alone is closer to determining how much you'll have to concentrate per unit of time.

length: Determine on a scale of 4 layers (short, medium, long, very long). Actually define these. Something like 2:19- short, 4:00+ long and 5:30+ very long.

compensation factor: Maybe add points for other difficulty factors? E.g. bad synchronization +1, blue arrow syndrome +1, flaring background +1...

Yes, that's a good idea, I definitely agree.

[XCV]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

I like XCV's idea for identifying and analyzing a few variables. Also agree with qqwref's observation that variables have to be carefully weighed and relationally defined before balancing an equation. I don't think a rigorous equation is really needed though... Just simplifying the amount of subjectivity in each song is enough to make the task of ranking them considerably easier.

I played around a little and simplified subjectivity into two factors. My numbers could be completely off, but how about something like this?

file placement = relative difficulty * (intensity + length + compensation factor)

relative difficulty: Use an arbitrary scale, like the already established 12 (+1) scale, to approximate the song's difficulty in relation to others. (A slightly larger scale like 15 might work better.) If everything's balanced enough, we could later multiply relative difficulty by the sum of the other factors to determine a solid rank (the equation above).

intensity/density: Some things would be too much of a pain to rigorously derive. Instead, arbitrarily rate density on a small scale (e.g. scale of 5) to approximate density. Since songs have already been categorized by relative difficulty, this should be considerably easier.
I think length should be considered separate because density alone is closer to determining how much you'll have to concentrate per unit of time.

length: Determine on a scale of 4 layers (short, medium, long, very long). Actually define these. Something like 2:19- short, 4:00+ long and 5:30+ very long.

compensation factor: Maybe add points for other difficulty factors? E.g. bad synchronization +1, blue arrow syndrome +1, flaring background +1...

Suppose we moved the scale up to 20, a la SM, and round everything up.

If we did this, we'd have to cap the compensation factor at x, where x equals the largest amount that the theoretically hardest song under this system could have and not go above 20.

From there it's just simple equation setup to determine what to divide by.

0 < 13 * (x + 5 + 4)/y < 21

Solving gives

y <= x/8 + 9/8,
161 > x > -9.

Okay, nothing's ever going to get a compensation factor of anything much bigger than 20 under any conceivable system. This is obviously ridiculous, so I propose clearing up the ambiguity of the compensation factor.

Flaring shapes thing = +1
Other distracting BG's (Zelda remix, Funk in G, SkellyBones) = arbitrarily assigned a value from 1 to 3 depending on severity
Offsync steps - Take % of steps that aren't on the beat.

< 1% = 0
1% - 2% = +1
>2% = +2

BNS - +1

The maximum value under this system is 6, therefore, we can redo the evaluation:

0 < 13 * 15/y < 21

Solving:

0 < y < 9.29

If the maximum cap under 1-20 is 9.29, then the cap from 1-13 must be 13 * 9.29/20 = 6.04

That isn't too bad. This is entirely theoretical, though, and of course the days of BNS are over. So, I'll evaluate Death Piano:

Length: 2
Note density: 5
Compensation: 2 for offsyncness (there's no way everything in there is on beat)

So, 13 * 9/6.04 = 19.37. Therefore, DP would score a 20 under this new system.

On the other end of the spectrum, let's evaluate the easiest song in the game, that being Eien Meikyu IMHO:

Length: 1
Note density: 1
Compensation: 0

So, 1 * 2/6.04 = .33, round it up to 1.

Of course, this would allow 21s to exist, but that's not likely.

So, improved equation. This isn't perfect, but it's a better approximation and a heck of a lot easier to work with:

ceil(D * (I + L + C)/6.04)

And we can adjust this as needed.

[jimerax]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

ok can you guys show some examples with that system?

(Songs)
100 bar black out
Rondo Alla Turca
TGWP Part 1
Adventures of lolo
Crowdpleaser

[XCV]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

*obediently substitutes*

Comparing this to ceil(20/13 * D)

100 Bar - 3 * (2 + 2 + 2)/6.04 = 3/4 as opposed to 5
RAT - 9 * (2 + 3 + 2)/6.04 = 11 as opposed to 14
TGWP - 10 * (2 + 3 + 0)/6.04 = 9 as opposed to 16
Lolo - 12 * (1 + 5 + 2)/6.04 = 16 as opposed to 19
Crowdpleaser - 12 * (2 + 4 + 1)/6.04 = 12 as opposed to 19

So, for most songs it scores quite a bit low. Perhaps 6.04 is a bit too large a number to divide by; if we reduce it to 5, we get scores that are more accurate to the proportionate values. Remember that this is a scale of 1 to 20, and 20 is something like vrofl in terms of difficulty. Well, not that extreme, but you get the gist of what I'm saying.

I might bring up my point from a page or so ago that this should be used when it's extremely hard to tell or controversial (of course with some refining,) that comparison should be the most important word. The system is pretty sound as it is, maybe if we can perfect this it can be used to work out the kinks.

[qqwref]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

100 Bar - 3 * (2 + 2 + 2)/6.04 = 3/4 as opposed to 5
RAT - 9 * (2 + 3 + 2)/6.04 = 11 as opposed to 14
TGWP - 10 * (2 + 3 + 0)/6.04 = 9 as opposed to 16
Lolo - 12 * (1 + 5 + 2)/6.04 = 16 as opposed to 19
Crowdpleaser - 12 * (2 + 4 + 1)/6.04 = 12 as opposed to 19

The 100BB rating doesn't place enough value on the Synthlight Factor™, plus that one fast jack in it. I'd say 5 is reasonable.
RAT is a very tricky 9 to AAA (offbeat + weird patterns + jacks) so I dunno about 11.
TGWP songs are all tough to PA because of the huge BPM changes, so while they might not be very dense, they're still hard songs to do well on.
Lolo is fine.
95% of CP is not even VC level, but it has a few bursts which are really hard to FC (and very hard to AAA too), so it should have a correspondingly high difficulty ranking just for that.

I guess the compensation factor should have some extra points for jacks (Fei Longer's ending isn't any more dense than a broken stream pattern, but way harder), and offsync or complicated sync should probably add more points (depending on how bad it is of course).


Incidentally I think the 1-100 scale needs to open up WAY more at the higher levels. Maybe we should just abandon the 100 cap. Having fine distinctions is great on the lower songs, but it's restrictive to only have 10 points to describe the difference between Integraation and Death Piano.

[Mulie]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

I also think placing a cap is unnecessary and cumbersome to the refining process. At the very least it should be left for after the rest is balanced.

Compensation factor needs more conditionals. I'm not as well informed as a lot of you in this meta, and threw those first ones out there as examples. What I can say, though, is that all those factors need to be identified before assigning them values. At first, a base value of 1 would suffice.

Qqwref's right about songs like Crowdpleaser and TGWP. Ultimately everything falls back to the effort required to AAA songs. Rather than approximating intensity by average density, charts should be judged by their hardest portions. Fatigue should already be sufficiently accounted for with song length.

Since song length is a measure of fatigue we may also want to add another layer for songs longer than ~7 minutes.


I'd like to hear more opinions on this. I feel naked and vulnerable =x

[Patashu]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Ultimately, any algorithmic or objective attempts to determine difficulty should not be done from the armchair, but by trial and refinement.

Create an initial method, use it to rate a bunch of songs, and look for discrepancies - in particular, look for the biggest discrepancies, and identify what about them made the rating system go wrong. Edit rating system so it better handles these, rate more songs, repeat ad infinitum.

If you suggest methodologies in a void, then you are essentially groping blindly through the set of all possible methodologies, and giving no results, thus eventually everyone involved will get bored and forget it all.

[qqwref]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Interesting experiment idea:
- start up a new rhythm game site, like a custom FFR or something, with user accounts and some kind of leaderboard/statistics
- at some specific date, add a whole bunch of files with slight enough variations to determine ratings - some should be mostly js that is faster/longer/shorter/slower/denser, some should be more bursty than others, some should have better or more complicated sync than others, etc
- get lots of people to play, wait a while
- look at the stats on various songs and use that to compare their difficulties to actual players

[xXAll-ProXx]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

Interesting experiment idea:
- start up a new rhythm game site, like a custom FFR or something, with user accounts and some kind of leaderboard/statistics
- at some specific date, add a whole bunch of files with slight enough variations to determine ratings - some should be mostly js that is faster/longer/shorter/slower/denser, some should be more bursty than others, some should have better or more complicated sync than others, etc
- get lots of people to play, wait a while
- look at the stats on various songs and use that to compare their difficulties to actual players

good idea, but very time-consuming.

[One Winged Angel]

Re: R1 - Actual Song Difficulties V2

What if we were to link the difficulty of the file to how many AAAs/FCs that file currently has in relation to every other song in the game?

For example, say the number of FCs on a file are worth one point each, and the number of AAAs on the same file are worth three points... every song in the game can be ordered in difficulty with respect to how many 'points' each song has. So, atm (I'm assuming) Trip to the Moon would be 1, and vrofl would be 907...and then instead of arguing if a song should be FMO or VC or whatever when a song has too many AAAs, the song will just move down in difficulty if it begins to accumulate more points than other songs that had a higher number of points previously. Obviously the difficulties would change when new files are introduced into the game but it wouldn't take longer than probably a week or so for those songs to find an area around their rightful difficulties...and if a difficulty scale of close to 1,000 is too high, we could group songs to one difficulty level in groups of 5 or 10, and just the lowest or highest song in each group would move to the next highest/lowest difficulty level when the difficulties change due to increased point totals.

This is probably the closest thing I can think of with respect to a more 'formulaic' approach to difficulty ranking that would address certain files like CP that only have one or two sections of 'wtf' while the rest of file remains pretty much trivial.