[Matthia]

Originally Posted by Dinglesberry

I disagree with this, suppose theres a seperate leaderboard for rates etc, and each song has a "highest rate AAAd" on it, if you dont get rating or w/e and theres no benefit like avgrank etc then theres no reason for people to farm it, it would just show a cool baseline for how far a file could be pushed, and would encourage people to push it to further rates

Alright I guess, my path was just leaned towards not grinding as much given that I recently finished all of my unplayed songs a little ago, but it’s likely my own problem

If there arent stats or whatnot that you gain, and it was purely just a metric of how far a song could be pushed speedwise, then imo its fine

Any form of data that can save rates is always fine

Just to clean stuff up we need to make sure that we can only allow fixed rate intervals like .1 .05 or .025 etc. to avoid some phenomenon that would literally look like an auction bidding and still prioritize by whoever AAA’d it on x rate first is first

“Highest rate AAA’ed on ______”

1. Player1 ——— 1.4003
2. Player2 ——— 1.4002
3. Player3 ——— 1.4001
4. Player4 ——— 1.4
5. Player5 ——— 1.4
6. Player6 ——— 1.311
7. Player7 ——— 1.31
8. Player8 ——— 1.301
9. Player9 ——— 1.3
10. Player10 ———1.3

And then Players 1 and 2 keep grinding up +0.0001 each time fighting for first place etc. The End

With that being said, if "highest AAA'd rate" became a thing, then at that point you might as well credit scores >1.0 with it registering as 1.0 or w/e, i dont see any issue this would make lol, again its just "but i spent so long playing every file!!! god forbid my time is discredited!!!!"

No. You’re ignoring all kinds of lurking factors such as some songs being easier to AAA on 1.1 than 1.0, which is unfair

Btw haven’t we literally already had this whole discussion before??? AAA’ing easy files on high rates counting as a 1.0?? God

Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx

These are non-problems though.

In fact, all your post is basically "I want rates to count in a different way than avrank". It's totally fine that you think that way, but it doesn't mean that the "total rates AAAs" is bad. It is still a very good idea for completionists; however one could debate that it's not a priority in terms of dev work. I do believe that a sum of all rates AAAs isn't much work on the backend AND frontend, so that's pretty hot. So yeah, if some people dont have the time to work on that new avrank, they just dont do it, simple as that.

My point into designing a short-run stat type is that everyone can be easily involved, I was just afraid that I would leave out a whole group of players (the non-completionists), in which they might start presenting complaints about long-running when update hits. If you think it’s fine that one who doesn’t have the intention to play long-run deserves to not be ranked in that category at all, then I will let you win that statement. Again I was just attempting to help at gathering any ideas at all

Your idea, on the other hand, seems fine on paper (I would be interested in it at least) but it become another metric based on the difficulties which have been, well, quite wonky lately and a big source of debate. Your idea will most definitely make it so that only a few select files are played on rates because those would scale very well while others would be way too hard.

The difficulties are still an ongoing issue, so yes you’re correct.
Should’ve stated this earlier but the metric can depend on something else that might make sense instead of difficulty if debating says otherwise, and I know it will affect my idea enough that I would have to completely change it up.