Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[arcnmx]

Originally Posted by Fission

just put a cap on allowed rate, or don't allow this many keys to be pressed simultaneously while in a song, or both. not sure what the big deal is.

Hm? I didn't say it was a problem, I was just explaining what causes that particular bug to happen. (however, the keys aren't quite being pressed simultaneously, it'd be spamming the game with hundreds of keydown+keyup events in the span of milliseconds)

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on having different leaderboards for different rates.

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards, we'd want a single one spanning all rates at most - then somehow factor the rate into the score without pissing off people over its balance.

EDIT: Nice post, Tarrik.

[Plan_Bsk81127]

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

[benguino]

Originally Posted by arcnmx

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards, we'd want a single one spanning all rates at most - then somehow factor the rate into the score without pissing off people over its balance.

Yeah, it'd be a lot of leaderboards, but I don't see the issue with it? It lets people on 1.1x rate compare scores against others that also played on 1.1x rate, it lets people on 1.2x rate compare scores against others that also played on 1.2x rate, etc. If it's server space that is the issue, I understand but I wouldn't think a list of 5 numbers (P/G/A/M/B) would take up too much space for each recorded score.

Trying to factor in how rate would be tied into score is going to be a mess because no matter how you do it, someone is going to complain and more likely than not it's going to be hard to find a formula with rates that works fairly for all songs.

Originally Posted by Plan_Bsk81127

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

Thank you, I was going to say something along these lines but I couldn't find the words for it, thanks again.

[Choofers]

Originally Posted by Plan_Bsk81127

It seems the first thing that comes to mind when talking about rates making charts easier is jumptrilling rolls. While yes this is one of the things that can possibly be made easier by rates, there are plenty of other things other than rolls that can be benefited by rates. For example, players who lack control or have a hard time with slower patterns. I personally have this issue on some patterns being at a higher playing level and Im sure some others have or had the issue as well. Sometimes things like trills, runningmen, non jumptrillable rolls, hell maybe even stream, etc are just too slow and are hard to control being used to faster songs. So using rates would place the chart at the comfortable, faster speed and play into your benefit in AAA'ing or getting a better score on a song.

This is probably not the norm at all.

The main issue I have with rates recording was the idea of rates replacing scores in the current level ranks if one got a better score on rates. I have no problem if there was one new level ranks page just for rate scores where anything above 1.0 rate could replace each other if a better score were achieved. I just do not approve of rates recording and messing with the current level ranks.

Not sure if you actually read the thread. Rate scores would record as 1.0 scores. There would be no "messing with the current level ranks."

[YoshL]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

I challenge anyone to AAA a file that they cannot already AAA on 1.0x on a higher rate (that is actually noteworthy, not like 1.00000001x or something).

[ with proof (o: ]

[Choofers]

i cent aaa fre space bcuz 2slow5me

[Fission]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Perhaps they just don't hold up to your scrutiny, which is fine since that's why you have your opinion.

if the same argument is rehashed over and over and it doesn't get defended when it is countered, that's the definition of not holding up under scrutiny.

[benguino]

Proof by example is not a proof. Likewise, not being able to find a counter example is not a proof against the contrary either.

[benguino]

Originally Posted by Fission

if the same argument is rehashed over and over and it doesn't get defended when it is countered, that's the definition of not holding up under scrutiny.

I am still defending it and there are other people as well but they are just not as outspoken about the subject. Anyways, I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

[EzExZeRo7497]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

I am still defending it and there are other people as well but they are just not as outspoken about the subject. Anyways, I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

Objectively speaking a file on a rate will be HARDER for a player on a rate.
Take Skeletor's wall for example. 180 BPM jumptrilling on 1.0.

Now play it on 1.3. 234 BPM jumptrilling. Keep in mind, although it's technically "easier" to PA for some players, that's really because they're not able to rush it. They still require FAST jumptrilling speed, much faster than the one on 1.0. So objectively speaking, yes, every file is harder on a rate because it demands more speed.

[popsicle_3000]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

I like this the best

Originally Posted by arcnmx

Well, what you suggested is just plain way too many leaderboards,

what's the problem with that? a new leaderboard is created when someone plays on a rate of a.b X where a&b are integers. Sure leaderboards are massive now, but we're starting from scratch with these. it's not gonna be a heap of data

and again, ave rank, FCs, AAAs, TPs, token unlocks etc... only count on 1.0x rank

[Choofers]

the problem with having too many leaderboards is that the site is a shadow of it's former self

those leaderboards for the most part would go totally unused

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Anyways, I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

Stop shifting the burden of proof. It is pretty obvious what happens when a file is sped up, the patterns become faster, and therefore technically more difficult. This is a pretty simple thing to grasp, otherwise there would really be no difference between files at any rate, or difficulty level on any file for that matter, and a skill system really wouldn't even need to exist (or leader-boards). If you agree that files get harder as the patterns get faster, then you are the one who will have to provide the evidence to show that there are exceptions to this rule (within the confines of FFR mind you, no file is going to only consist of an awkward tough to jump-trill roll and be accepted).

Give examples, and they will be tested. If results cannot be generated in your favor, I don't see any reason to believe your claims. From what people have posted (including myself) it seems the opposite is true when it is put to the test.

Honestly, some of you are so worried about people somehow getting better scores on rates, and it really isn't going to happen. The only reason I even care about rates recording in the first place (aside from getting GTS / credits) is to encourage people to play easier files and be rewarded for it while having fun. Since I know I will never achieve a higher rated score on a file than on 1x though, I wouldn't mind a slight compromise. How would you feel about having rates give GTS and credits for all songs, but only record scores up to a certain difficulty limit (like ~45 or something?) Having rates record for leader-boards (the way I see it) pretty much would only be useful for motivating people to play FFR's easier charts, so I would be perfectly fine with this. Don't actually see any compelling evidence it makes any chart easier, but if that is the only thing getting in the way of people letting this happen then why not "fix" it.

[Fission]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

I still fail to see evidence that every single file is harder on every single rate greater than 1.0x (compared to 1.0x) for every single player.

so by this logic, fps above 30 shouldn't count because it can't be proven for every single player that it doesn't give an unfair advantage.

you are requesting a formal proof, yet other changes have been made to ffr that haven't required a formal proof, and it's absurd that this one does.

[benguino]

Originally Posted by EzExZeRo7497

Objectively speaking a file on a rate will be HARDER for a player on a rate.
Take Skeletor's wall for example. 180 BPM jumptrilling on 1.0.

Now play it on 1.3. 234 BPM jumptrilling. Keep in mind, although it's technically "easier" to PA for some players, that's really because they're not able to rush it. They still require FAST jumptrilling speed, much faster than the one on 1.0. So objectively speaking, yes, every file is harder on a rate because it demands more speed.

I don't see how this argument works. I mean one could have infinite speed but not be able to even AAA excite bike. For a lot of newer players especially, it's not speed that's the issue, it's the level of coordination and control they currently have that prevents them from scoring well. People who came to FFR as their first rhythm game aren't able to immediately AAA low level songs not because they are slower than a sloth, but because they just lack the hand-eye coordination and the control required to score well on such files.

Now your argument works well for high level players on high level songs because they are already well coordinated and have great levels of control; the only things usually holding them back when the play a file is their speed and/or stamina. However, not everyone playing ffr has mastered their control/coordination yet the argument doesn't work for everyone.

EDIT: @Fission: Ok, I'll admit, that was a cheap shot of an argument on my part.

[EzExZeRo7497]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

For a lot of newer players especially, it's not speed that's the issue, it's the level of coordination and control they currently have that prevents them from scoring well. People who came to FFR as their first rhythm game aren't able to immediately AAA low level songs not because they are slower than a sloth, but because they just lack the hand-eye coordination and the control required to score well on such files.

...And they would score worse on higher rates because the file on a higher rate require more speed and since they lack even more speed required for the file. They would score worse on a higher rate because they lack the control and coordination demanded from the file on the higher rate.

[benguino]

Originally Posted by EzExZeRo7497

...And they would score worse on higher rates because the file on a higher rate require more speed and since they lack even more speed required for the file.

I don't think you understand my point.

Ok, I'm going to use some made up units, bear with me.

Say in order to AAA a file, that a player must have more speed and more control/coordination than the file requires. So let's go through an example.

Say we have a player, who has the following speed and control/coordination levels:
Speed: 100
Control/Coordination: 30

Now let's say we have a file with the following stats on 1.0x.
Speed: 30
Control/Coordination: 35

Now obviously, the player can't AAA the file on 1.0x because he doesn't satisfy the control/coordination requirements.

Now let's take a look at the same file on 2.0x:
Speed: 60
Control/Coordination: 25

Now the speed required has doubled in the file, however the player still has the speed level to not worry about speed being an issue. Also, due to the nature of the chart, the amount of control and coordination in the file has gone down a bit because of the rate. Since both the speed and control/coordination level of the file are lower than that of the player, now the player can AAA the file.

Now this is just a theoretical example, but I hope I've shown what I my point was.

[EzExZeRo7497]

Except there are no files out there that actually require less control and coordination on higher rates. I've yet to play any file that actually requires LESS control and coordination on a higher rate compared to the original rate.

[TC_Halogen]

So...

I will preface this post with the fact that I am relatively indifferent on this issue, because I have reasons for and against wanting rates to record. So, my post may show some bias towards one side or the other, but it's not intentional under any circumstance.

As a really high level player, rates promote competition. I have rank 1 on more than 98% of the songs publicly released, and if I want to play the game for some sort of self-improvement without rates, I have to play songs that I have absolutely horrible habits on, or I have to play songs that I absolutely despise. With the exception of the songs that I have yet to play due to being newly released, someone can go into my level ranks and see that I have some pretty nasty songs that aren't AAA'd. There's not a lot of motivation for me to improve. While I am a D7 player, I'm not quite known for my excessive speed -- I'm known for having pretty strong technical skills and being able to do stupid things at dumb times. A few days ago, I started playing some of my favorites on rates, and jesus shit I was hauling ass. I didn't think I was capable of hitting 8th notes jumps at 280 BPM while streaming 16ths, but man -- I was wrong. Being able to track my scores on rates would be awesome for this reason.

At the same time, I am largely against rates because I spent a -lot- of time cleaning out my level ranks at normal pace as a very high level player, wishing that I was able to speed songs up. It absolutely frustrates me that players who were too lazy to go about finishing their ranks will have the potential opportunity to blast through them 1.5x, 1.75x, even 2x faster than those who didn't have that opportunity. That's one of the reasons why I feel like a player should be required to play a song fully at least once -- it doesn't give an inherent advantage of time for those who are playing the game for completion. There are a number of really high level players that are very strong players who refuse to touch the easier files for completion of the game, and I don't feel like they should be rewarded with a lack of patience. The argument of files being objectively harder does not apply to this, because the files don't become objectively hard enough to pose any sort of problem to these players; the mod becomes used advantageously.

[Choofers]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

players who were too lazy

You do realize that this is absolutely hilarious?