Leaderboard D9 new name and color

[Lights]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

shift D7 and D8 titles up and rename D7 to Grand-Master.
Novice D1
Intermediate D2
Advanced D3
Expert D4
Master D5
Guru D6
Grand-Master D7
Legendary D8
Godly D9

"Revolutionary" comes off as cheesy / gimmicky and doesn't fit the skill bracket IMO.

+1

[Gradiant]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

Stick to the D[Number]

This

shift D7 and D8 titles up and rename D7 to Grand-Master.
Novice D1
Intermediate D2
Advanced D3
Expert D4
Master D5
Guru D6
Grand-Master D7
Legendary D8
Godly D9

"Revolutionary" comes off as cheesy / gimmicky and doesn't fit the skill bracket IMO.

This sounds alright I suppose if it does happen to go this way. Never really liked anything after master as it comes across really cringe imo, and 'revolutionary' is even more so to me.

[s1rnight]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

That's largely done by just weighting the top scores such that one or two spiked scores, while they would be the largest contributors aren't the sole contributors.

And while it is definitely possible for somebody who can AAA a 114 to continue to gain ranking as more songs at 112+ are added resulting in the kind of inflation you're discussing, the MAIN reason there's division inflation is just that one player's score going up does not result in another player's score going down, so naturally over time, the top end gets larger and larger.

Whether that justifies making more divisions is a different question, but it's inevitable that more and more people will be in the current top division both over time, and as more high difficulty songs are added.

well it is the opposite that is happening... (wrt your second paragraph) - there are people who can AAA a few 96s and 97s getting fortuitous low-raw good scores on 101s and 102s...! if even four songs are scored on that way, it accounts for over 60% of the equiv weightings. "one or two spiked scores" is already over 40%! that caveat is no joke!

its a tension primarily because song difficulties are rated relative to their "ability to AAA", and not "ability to low raw good"... (maybe its partially related to "ability to blackflag or booflag", but i've seen so many people "stuck needing a skillboost to get past a blackflag" that it seems reasonable to assume "no" even there... though maybe it is "mindblocks"...?) so songs that are "+standard deviations in rarity/extremity" for "easier to low raw good than to AAA" can easily show up given the increase in songs, and since the weighting for equivs stay the same, it is also easy for those rare songs to influence the levelrankings...

(making people AAA songs for division cutoffs might be a little intense considering how much trouble people have with that... but i do think it is the only sensible way to structure it, since the difficulty system itself is based on it! another other option would be for each individual song to have an "equiv curve" relative to how difficult it is to attain each relative range of scores. but thats kind of a lot of work/things to keep track of...! but otherwise, the lack of individual touch is bound to cause issues like this...)

[sff_writer_dan]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

Just use the existing skill rating system for everybody at say, 80 and under, and for everybody 80 and over, adapt something like the tier point system to score the top 15 songs on specifically chosen song-by-song score values to account for the difference between which songs are harder to SDG vs AAA :P

Easy peasy right?

making people AAA songs for division cutoffs might be a little intense considering how much trouble people have with that... but i do think it is the only sensible way to structure it

My best AAA is my 23rd score on my dashboard, and 25 skill ratings lower than my best score.

[s1rnight]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

oh i like that idea...! and it surely seems like that was the original intention of "tier points" as well - "equiv-based" division placing wasnt around until about... well, at least 2015 since that is when the skill rating came into being. but there have been like ten tournaments without it!

and yeah LOL... i fei longered myself into a 38 equiv... but my best AAA is one time on a 27! and then one time on a 24, and one time on a 21... its not for lack of trying, those things are hard...!

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

easier to low raw good than to AAA

I'll address this quickly, since I don't want to derail this thread: the goal here is to make this little step to normalise our existing concept of divisions, not rewrite the entire system in one go. While I agree that the current AAA equiv system is flawed, here is not the best place to discuss it. Please hop on #difficulty-system in the discord and drop your thoughts on that topic. ^^

[s1rnight]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

well, its relevant to specifically how divisions are classified... simply it is a post stating "equiv is not a necessarily good way to mark divisions". certainly we could add another category on top, and so on, but largely it does seem to me that the same divisions have been shifted up one, and that this may just continue (especially since d1 has... mysteriously disappeared?!)

(i know that this is specifically a "LEADERBOARD D9" and not a tournament division, though...? i'm assuming that the equiv system goes a long way to picking people for tournament divisions, though!)

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

the same divisions have been shifted up one, and that this may just continue

The skill ceiling got higher, and it's now even more difficult for the average player to reach the top. This assertion holds simply because we didn't shift down the difficulty of songs that were previously considered as the skill ceiling, yet new top players do better on them than anyone before.

This new division aims to mark this new achievable milestone that is a logical continuation of our arbitrary level ranges (divisions). If somehow some people in the future get even better and push the ceiling again, we can/should consider adding more because then it would be even more difficult for the average player to reach that, again. Why change the whole system instead of just letting new generations push the ceiling?

Take a random D3 player, say they've played for over 5 years and stalled at D3 for like another 5 years up until now. Despite the fact that new players achieve AAAs on 110s, then 2 years after on 113s, then 2 years after on 116s... that D3 player's surroundings in terms of files and milestones dont change. However over time, it definitely gets harder and harder for him to "theoretically" reach the very top. So yes, divisions/milestones can and should be an extandable thing over time, as long as we dont make them super small in terms of level range where a player in low DX and one in low DX+1 are considered potentially comparable (otherwise the concept of milestone wouldn't hold).

especially since d1 has... mysteriously disappeared

This is tourney related and not relevant to this thread. D1 was removed from the OT because of a lack of participation in that level range.

[Lights]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

well, its relevant to specifically how divisions are classified... simply it is a post stating "equiv is not a necessarily good way to mark divisions". certainly we could add another category on top, and so on, but largely it does seem to me that the same divisions have been shifted up one, and that this may just continue (especially since d1 has... mysteriously disappeared?!)

(i know that this is specifically a "LEADERBOARD D9" and not a tournament division, though...? i'm assuming that the equiv system goes a long way to picking people for tournament divisions, though!)

Ultimately, no matter which way you look at it, there is a massive gap between a low d8 player (say, 102) and a low D9 player (say, 108). Equiv system being flawed or not the difference here is large enough that, in a competitive environment, the matchup is going to tend to be incredibly lopsided. This change isn't directly impacting tournaments right now, but at least recognizing the difference between D8 and D9 is step 1.

Don't be so quick to write off how far players have come, D9 today is very much breaking new ground that, up until now, hasn't been achieved on FFR such that a Division at this level was worth considering.

You give the example of Dossar, at high D7, getting a strong score on Death Piano, but for a variety of factors that is an exception to the rule. Death piano is a very niche kind of file that appeals to one particular skillset. One which dossar was prodigiously good at. If you look at the culmination of top player scores on every other high level file, you'll find a much different story.

[s1rnight]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

ok, thats acceptable to me...! (i do like poking around though lol. so i might test a few of these statements)

(specifically the factor i am trying to rule out is this one:

)

[Wind0ze]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

personally i think the titles associated with divisions could used a rework entirely. since after D3 divisions have kept being tacked on after players have gotten better and tournaments have required more divisions, each new division has been given a grandiose name, even if by modern standards the skill level associated with the name isn't particularly impressive anymore. D4 players being qualified as "experts" and D5 players as "masters" is not accurate in the slightest now considering how much further the game has been pushed since those divisions were the peak of player skill, and as a result of this the division names have gotten increasingly ridiculous as we've had to figure out how to make something that sounds more impressive than "master" 4 times now, and we've now reached a point where there aren't many more superlatives in the dictionary to run through

[ToonE156]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

personally i think the titles associated with divisions could used a rework entirely. since after D3 divisions have kept being tacked on after players have gotten better and tournaments have required more divisions, each new division has been given a grandiose name, even if by modern standards the skill level associated with the name isn't particularly impressive anymore. D4 players being qualified as "experts" and D5 players as "masters" is not accurate in the slightest now considering how much further the game has been pushed since those divisions were the peak of player skill, and as a result of this the division names have gotten increasingly ridiculous as we've had to figure out how to make something that sounds more impressive than "master" 4 times now, and we've now reached a point where there aren't many more superlatives in the dictionary to run through

TBF people in D5 or D4 are much better than most average people at the game. So to an outsider a D5 player is most definitely a "master". Im just thinking with the same mindset of an outsider who's only seen that AGDQ Etienne Stepmania Showcase, I'm not 100% defending it

[xXOpkillerXx]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

TBF people in D5 or D4 are much better than most average people at the game. So to an outsider a D5 player is most definitely a "master". Im just thinking with the same mindset of an outsider who's only seen that AGDQ Etienne Stepmania Showcase, I'm not 100% defending it

Yes but going along with their idea, if an outsider sees D5 as a "master", shouldn't that still represent something quite close to "perfection"? Just thinking out loud. I'm not against a complete rework of the divisions/milestones names if they can better represent the progression. As for the "cringe" aspect, I think there's a fine line where we can make it not too cringe but still not unnecessarily get rid of FFR's history by using entirely different namings for every division for example.

[Wind0ze]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

TBF people in D5 or D4 are much better than most average people at the game. So to an outsider a D5 player is most definitely a "master". Im just thinking with the same mindset of an outsider who's only seen that AGDQ Etienne Stepmania Showcase, I'm not 100% defending it

considering the purpose of naming divisions is to give a contextualization of skill and an honorary title showing acknowledgement of skill by the community, i don't think basing it off the opinion of the least informed individuals makes much sense

As for the "cringe" aspect, I think there's a fine line where we can make it not too cringe but still not unnecessarily get rid of FFR's history by using entirely different namings for every division for example.

i don't think renaming divisions is erasure of FFR history, it will still be known in history that the names used to be different, so i think what you really meant here is current usage aka culture. i've never really been an ffr player so i don't think my take on this holds much weight, but i don't really see the division names used much in speech besides the fairly antiquated FMO/FGO terminology that i generally see used only by a handful of veterans, so i don't think it would be a significant loss of culture

i will say though i really don't care about the "cringe" aspect as much as i do the fact that it's inaccurate. i don't think the titles need to be professional like we're e-sports now (and i think doing so would be damaging to the aforementioned culture), they just need to get across the idea of what the skill levels really mean to the community better than the way the system currently works

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Leaderboard D9 new name and color

I understand why the amount of skill levels per division decreases as you go up, considering it becomes harder and harder to improve to reach higher skill levels, but consider this theoretical argument. Suppose that in a decade from now, we will have a D12 for skill levels 120-122. And a D13 for 122-124 and a D14 for 124-126.

That would be absurd: why would you make a D13 when it is already such a huge achievement at that level to go up one or maybe two skill levels? Reaching level 122 would be a celebration, as well as reaching level 123 and so on. You don't need divisions anymore at that point.

I've been away for a really long time so I might be completely misjudging this, but I have the feeling that at the current top of the game, we have already reached this situation (or got real close): that going up even just one skill level is a huge feat on its own, and therefore no new labels or groups are required to make people at the very top feel a sense of progress when they improve. But I might be completely off here so take this argument with a grain of salt