Definition of a FFR AA

[123kappa3]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

Just like tokens, skill tokens, tier points, badges or any other secondary element of FFR that is not the main skill measure, AA would give another optional metric to track/work towards.

I guess, its fine, but it feels like you could just calculate it on your own? idk why getting a aa is that important for ffr.

[Fantasticone]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

2% raw goods / total notes in song

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

I guess, its fine, but it feels like you could just calculate it on your own? idk why getting a aa is that important for ffr.

You could also count your AAAs by going through the list in level ranks of your profile.

It's not -important-, it's a suggestion to implement a feature which may incentivize some people to work towards instead of focusing on AAAs. Nobody asserted that it's a necessity nor that it will be relevant for all players (just like the other optional things I mentionned that FFR has).

[benny58624]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

If we start doing everything exactly like other games do, what's the point of being a different game ? Sure there's common sense like don't make "AA" mean you passed a song, but the point still holds.

Fun fact: FFR did show these AA/A/B/C/D/E rates already on the results screen, but then it got removed. I don't remember how it exactly worked, it likely went off combo score. They weren't tracked anywhere else AFAIK.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

Fun fact: FFR did show these AA/A/B/C/D/E rates already on the results screen, but then it got removed. I don't remember how it exactly worked, it likely went off combo score. They weren't tracked anywhere else AFAIK.

Yep, I'm aware of that

They were only part of the game engine and not tracked anywhere, so it seems very normal that it never was interesting enough for anyone to care about.

Reason why I only suggested some kind of AA equivalent is twofold:
1. On FFR, as we've discussed in this thread, you can relatively easily mash your way to a % as high as 95%-ish, because of how our judgements work. Therefore anything worse than that AA metric would converge to the same required effort to obtain for even less significance than the AA compared to AAA.

2. In some other games, AA is a very common metric for players to determine if they did decent on a file. Very rarely do we see players go for the lower grades.

[benny58624]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

I can see an A rating for 95% or 96% working along with an AA rating of 98%, but more than that indeed seems redundant.

- A rating: shows you played well.
- AA rating: shows you played great.
- AAA rating: shows you played perfectly.

It's true AA would be a more popular metric but I don't see a bad thing in adding A too.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

I can see an A rating for 95% or 96% working along with an AA rating of 98%, but more than that indeed seems redundant.

- A rating: shows you played well.
- AA rating: shows you played great.
- AAA rating: shows you played perfectly.

It's true AA would be a more popular metric but I don't see a bad thing in adding A too.

I gave the idea some thoughts, and although I personally dont disagree with it entirely, lets focus on AA only for this thread. You know, if AA is ultimately deemed to be a bad thing to add, A will certainly not be better.

[One Winged Angel]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

2% raw goods / total notes in song

If I'm interpreting this correctly then this is essentially what I'd been pitching as well: 99% max raw score. A 2000 note chart produces a score of 100k for a AAA, so setting the AA bar at 99k allows for leniency of 40 raw goods.

I don't think it's an issue setting a stricter AA% grade relative to other games with similar metrics given how acc-focused FFR has been for so long, in addition to the already wildly high raw score percentages a player could obtain mashing through most of a chart. Setting the threshold looser than 99% very quickly takes a nose dive when the point of the metric is to establish player competency in playing a chart. E.g. establishing AA at 98% max score doubles the raw good threshold to 80g on a 2k note chart. I feel many players would argue a major lack of file competency is still present if someone is just skirting past that proposed AA line with 77 or 78g.

Obviously charts with very low notecounts run into the issue of having a AA grade that already forces a SDG or better. But for the large majority of charts in game, I think this threshold is likely optimal for what the grade is intended to represent.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

If I'm interpreting this correctly then this is essentially what I'd been pitching as well: 99% max raw score. A 2000 note chart produces a score of 100k for a AAA, so setting the AA bar at 99k allows for leniency of 40 raw goods.

I don't think it's an issue setting a stricter AA% grade relative to other games with similar metrics given how acc-focused FFR has been for so long, in addition to the already wildly high raw score percentages a player could obtain mashing through most of a chart. Setting the threshold looser than 99% very quickly takes a nose dive when the point of the metric is to establish player competency in playing a chart. E.g. establishing AA at 98% max score doubles the raw good threshold to 80g on a 2k note chart. I feel many players would argue a major lack of file competency is still present if someone is just skirting past that proposed AA line with 77 or 78g.

Obviously charts with very low notecounts run into the issue of having a AA grade that already forces a SDG or better. But for the large majority of charts in game, I think this threshold is likely optimal for what the grade is intended to represent.

I personally dont find 80g on a 2k notes file to be necessarily out of a subjective "good enough" range.

I'd like to know how you measure optimality though; do you have anything to say about the suggestion of using the current average notecount of ffr charts and setting a % relative to that ?

[TheSaxRunner05]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

There's really nothing to lose by adding a SDG bar. The players like me who would want to farm the progress bar have a new goal, and the players that don't care won't be affected at all. The benefit a lot of people don't see, as in those who don't like to farm stuff like this anyways, is that the gap from 9 raw goods or less to AAA is relatively small. This change, for example, would give me incentive to grind "FMO's" for AA's when SDG's are very hard to come by at my skill level in that range. AA bar is better than an SDG bar for players like myself because it gives a slightly wider gap than between SDG and AAA and gives a new goal to aim for on charts that are still mostly manageable skill wise but not consistent enough yet to AAA. Also, percentage wise it should probably fall between 98-99% in my opinion, especially when SDGs are a bit over 99%. Also, the fact it would be a percentage is great for long difficult songs and helps balance the stamina required with the relative to the difficulty of the chart.

And no, I would not expect "AA's" to have any impact on a player's level or skill rating.

If this was implemented, I would probably start playing again. It's great for people who like to play the game the way I do (setting personal goals through in game metrics) and can just be ignored by those who don't care about it.

[storn42]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

I dont think having AAs makes much sense when we already have SDGs, and i'd rather see an SDG bar added before we add an AA one. I think the main problem with AAs is that there seems to be a focus on % when thats not at all what FFR is about. Chart difficulty is judged on how hard a chart is to AAA and you are award points based on how many goods you are off from that AAA. If i AA a 22 on etterna, i'll get roughly the same score on both of them, however the AAA eq from AAing a really short 80 vs a really long 80 will be completely different. With the conversation of possibly removing FCs i think this moves in the opposite direction. instead of removing an arbitrary metric its adding another one. I just dont see AAs as a metric working under the current system unless they are decided by a flat raw good count.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

I dont think having AAs makes much sense when we already have SDGs

Let me address a few points you make one by one. So this first statement implies that SDG and AA test the same thing, essentially. Otherwise if they didn't, it'd obviously make sense to have both.

Now as it's been said, SDG is extremely limited on many charts, being around at least 99.5x% raw score on most of them. Also, it's been shown that scores considered relatively "mash-y" could yield up to 95%-ish raw score. We're talking scores with over 100+ raw goods most of the time.

I think it's fair to say that there's a Wide margin between 10 raw goods and 100+ raw goods. Over in the FC thread, you can see the general sentiment from some players regarding "getting decent scores which may be a bit far from SDG still". An AA metric would effectively bridge that gap where players can also focus on that metric when it comes to charts just a bit outside of their comfort range, and it'd do so in a fun gamified way (being tracked and displayed).

i'd rather see an SDG bar added before we add an AA one

Yeah that should be the case since it has less split opinion.

I think the main problem with AAs is that there seems to be a focus on % when thats not at all what FFR is about.

What is FFR about ? That sounds Extremely close-minded ngl, especially given these three facts:

1. Some people will enjoy that metric (as seen by the poll);
2. It affects in absolutely no way the way You, as someone who's not interested in it, play the game.
3. It's still a metric of performance, which seems to be something people focus super hard on (i.e. "don't put random metrics that aren't relevant to performance" etc)

Chart difficulty is judged on how hard a chart is to AAA and you are award points based on how many goods you are off from that AAA.

That is a fact, yes. Has nothing to do with AA though, it's just how we compute AAA equivalency, which is FFR's main measure for skill (with skill rating).

If i AA a 22 on etterna, i'll get roughly the same score on both of them, however the AAA eq from AAing a really short 80 vs a really long 80 will be completely different

You're making AA be tightly coupled with AAA equiv, which it doesn't have to (for the reasons mentionned above) and won't be. Also, I did go over chart structure in the OP; our AAA system is actually the one suffering the most in its current state, so that argument about a short/long 80 file is even less relevant given the fact that AA will Not be the main measure of skill FFR uses anyway.

With the conversation of possibly removing FCs i think this moves in the opposite direction. instead of removing an arbitrary metric its adding another one.

I'd like to know how SDG isn't arbitrarily defined ? 10 raw goods on charts that can be full on stamina, where you either get 100 goods or AAA, VS 10 raw goods on a chart with a single hard spike, where you either get 15 goods or 5 goods.

I find it really selfish that Despite people explicitely saying they'd be motivated be the metric, others say it shouldn't be implemented because They find it arbitrary and pointless. I really fail to see how such a mindset can ever help making a game evolve and be less stagnant.

I just dont see AAs as a metric working under the current system unless they are decided by a flat raw good count.

Would you care if it was implemented, and then based on the response and how much attention it gets from the users who like it, we keep/remove it ? Also the point about absolute vs relative raw good counts was made already: it alleviates the major problem I stated about chart structure.

[Lights]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

The pushback on this proposal is a bit confusing to me. There are a lot of ways to play a 4key VSRG, as demonstrated by the variety of games that have risen to popularity these days. Over time these games are seeing more and more overlap in their playerbase and with that will come gradual changes in what players would like to see.

AA (or S-rank if youre from one of those games) is a pretty fundamental competency benchmark that simply has no equivalent in FFR at the moment. Neither FC nor SDG work as a viable substitute for this particular benchmark. And regardless of how one feels about FC or SDG, I don't think that has any strong impact on the AA benchmark and whether or not it'd be a useful inclusion.

Personally, I have no strong opinion about whether or not its based in raw goods or raw score, It doesn't matter to me how its reflected in the stats on the website (at least in the near future), and it doesn't particularly matter to me that an AA score isn't going to be particularly relevant to one's ranking- the important part is the utility and engagement it provides when playing stuff a bit outside of one's AAA / SDG range.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

Maybe just have one bar that fills AAA / SDG / AA with different colors for each and then leave the FC bar as is (with FC* included)

[storn42]

Re: Definition of a FFR AA

Let me address a few points you make one by one. So this first statement implies that SDG and AA test the same thing, essentially. Otherwise if they didn't, it'd obviously make sense to have both.

Now as it's been said, SDG is extremely limited on many charts, being around at least 99.5x% raw score on most of them. Also, it's been shown that scores considered relatively "mash-y" could yield up to 95%-ish raw score. We're talking scores with over 100+ raw goods most of the time.

I think it's fair to say that there's a Wide margin between 10 raw goods and 100+ raw goods. Over in the FC thread, you can see the general sentiment from some players regarding "getting decent scores which may be a bit far from SDG still". An AA metric would effectively bridge that gap where players can also focus on that metric when it comes to charts just a bit outside of their comfort range, and it'd do so in a fun gamified way (being tracked and displayed).



Yeah that should be the case since it has less split opinion.



What is FFR about ? That sounds Extremely close-minded ngl, especially given these three facts:

1. Some people will enjoy that metric (as seen by the poll);
2. It affects in absolutely no way the way You, as someone who's not interested in it, play the game.
3. It's still a metric of performance, which seems to be something people focus super hard on (i.e. "don't put random metrics that aren't relevant to performance" etc)



That is a fact, yes. Has nothing to do with AA though, it's just how we compute AAA equivalency, which is FFR's main measure for skill (with skill rating).



You're making AA be tightly coupled with AAA equiv, which it doesn't have to (for the reasons mentionned above) and won't be. Also, I did go over chart structure in the OP; our AAA system is actually the one suffering the most in its current state, so that argument about a short/long 80 file is even less relevant given the fact that AA will Not be the main measure of skill FFR uses anyway.



I'd like to know how SDG isn't arbitrarily defined ? 10 raw goods on charts that can be full on stamina, where you either get 100 goods or AAA, VS 10 raw goods on a chart with a single hard spike, where you either get 15 goods or 5 goods.

I find it really selfish that Despite people explicitely saying they'd be motivated be the metric, others say it shouldn't be implemented because They find it arbitrary and pointless. I really fail to see how such a mindset can ever help making a game evolve and be less stagnant.



Would you care if it was implemented, and then based on the response and how much attention it gets from the users who like it, we keep/remove it ? Also the point about absolute vs relative raw good counts was made already: it alleviates the major problem I stated about chart structure.

I'm not as harshly against this as you seem to be implying. My main concern is that i dont think AAs as described compliment the systems FFR currently has in place. Grades are usually based on score and the score people "care" about is raw goods. In a world where the "goal" of FFR shifts away from flat goods, to a more % based scoring system, i'd agree that AAs are much more fitting there (and that shift might not be a bad thing). If graded scores fully make a comeback on FFR so be it, but i'm starting to get concerned that there are too many different flags, and i'm not sure i'd enjoy my game suddenly being filled with AA next to every song.