[storn42]

Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx

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.