New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

[bmah]

Well if only one thing changed in the system, I'd say it'd HAVE to be "For Stepmen Only". I don't even know who coined that term.

[Marshazle]

1 Cakewalk
2. Simple
3. Mediocre
4. Average
5. Moderate
6. Tricky
7. Aggressive
8. Expert
9. Challenging
10. Very Challenging
11. Extremely Difficult
12. Insane
13. Brutal
14. Very Brutal
15. Ledgendary
16. Armageddon
17. For Masters Only
18. For Gurus Only
19. For Gods Only
20. Impossible

[alloyus]

I'd probably be cool with keeping old names but spread across multiple difficulties.

[1mpuls3]

01- Beginner
02- Very Easy
03- Easy
04- Light
05- Mediocre
06- Moderate
07- Tricky
08- Grand
09- Difficult
10- Very Difficult
---
11- Ultra Difficult
12- Challenging
13- Very Challenging
14- Prodigy
15- Expert
16- Master
17- Guru
18- Ridiculous
19- Legendary
20- God-Like God-Like (It is in white)


I also like Extreme and or majestic as names

[demonllama6124]

Why is everyone putting beginner ahead of very easy? Think about what beginner means for a second and you will all understand that it needs to be the lowest of the totem pole here.

[Ghakimx]

Why do we call the 01 'Training'? I think its better off as Beginner.

[nois-or-e]

Originally Posted by i love you

It was a big mistake for nois-or-e to just start this thread and immediately have people come up with names blindly without any discussion/debate about the changing of the names etc.

We created placeholders during the last few months of discussing the new system as it developed. I fail to see how asking the community for their opinion was a mistake. Through the discussions in this thread we've determined that a majority dislike the For ____ Only, and have removed said names from the suggested list in the OP.

As much as people will support qq's idea of just bringing over the old difficulty names, it really defeats the purpose of better defining the difficulties. If you notice in the OP 11 & 12 are populated by the old Challenging files, where 13 = 80% C and 20% VC, so calling it C/VC would be inaccurate and kind of pointless.

I feel it has been a good exercise in brainstorming, seeing players come up with different ideas and then others making suggestions based off those.


Edit: The OP has been updated.

[UserNameGoesHere]

Oh come on, no one liked the Robot or Cyborg ideas for some of the more ridiculous stuff? I expected at least one other person to incorporate those into their list somewhere or something. ...Nothing?

[i love you]

Originally Posted by nois-or-e

We created placeholders during the last few months of discussing the new system as it developed. I fail to see how asking the community for their opinion was a mistake. Through the discussions in this thread we've determined that a majority dislike the For ____ Only, and have removed said names from the suggested list in the OP.

I am just saying that it would have been easier to first ask the community what they wanted first and then have them name difficulties rather then setting up some placeholder and then getting the community to see if they agree with it by blinding coming up with difficulties that most of the community might not even want. You probably would get better results but like I said before, it does not really matter now since it happened already so just carry on with what you are doing since now you are getting somewhere.

As much as people will support qq's idea of just bringing over the old difficulty names, it really defeats the purpose of better defining the difficulties. If you notice in the OP 11 & 12 are populated by the old Challenging files, where 13 = 80% C and 20% VC, so calling it C/VC would be inaccurate and kind of pointless.

Just so we are clear, I never agreed with the list Dossar placed. I only agreed with qq idea of keeping the old names but at the same time I also agree with the people not having difficulty names such as "For ___ Only" since it just sounds dumb and confusing. Sure people will still refer them as a FMO/FGO etc but in the end, I see nothing wrong with just putting something simple such as "Master" or "Guru" as a name. Also, the sentence I highlighted in bold on your quote is definitely something I agree with.

I feel it has been a good exercise in brainstorming, seeing players come up with different ideas and then others making suggestions based off those.

You probably would have seen more brainstorming by asking the community what they prefer first before adding a placeholder. Your placeholder probably would have been more accurate as well thus saving time and effort. Again, just continue on what you are doing since it doesn't really matter anymore.

[Xtreme2252]

I know this doesn't work for what you guys have set up, but this would definitely be the coolest ever.

00- Nickelback
01- Easiest
02- Beginner
03- Very Simple
04- Very Easy
05- Easy
06- Light
07- Moderate
08- Standard
09- Tricky
10- Very Tricky
---
11- Difficult
12- Very Difficult
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- Expert
16- Insane
17- Master
18- Guru
19- God-Tier
20- ???
21- PROFIT!

[moogle443]

Hardest difficulty should be "Bruce Lee Only"

[AlexDest]

Suppose I'll post my ideas.

01- Elementary
02- Novice
03- Basic
04- Very Easy
05- Easy
06- Casual
07- Decent
08- Moderate
09- Tricky
10- Very Tricky
---
11- Difficult
12- Very Difficult
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- For Experts Only
16- For Masters Only
17- For Gurus Only
18- For Brutes Only
19- For Superiors Only
20- ???

[TC_Halogen]

Going to say that I agree with qqwref, and for multiple reasons.

A big reason would be the cliche "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The rating system never needed fixing, but the scaling of the system does. With the system being scaled to twenty points and everyone still referring to the files as FMO/FGO/VC/(etc), things should be more clear-cut and shouldn't be argued about as much.

With twenty different names for twenty different points, you're likely to run into similar difficulty arguments again.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

The rating system never needed fixing, but the scaling of the system does.

I agree with this 100%.

[ilikexd]

I don't think twenty different difficulty names can logically compare difficulty with so many of them being synonyms of one another, and it is hard to keep track of that many. I do like the difficulty name system as it is: people are comfortable and accustomed comparing skill and achievement with the amount of VC, FMO, FGO, etc. AAAs that they have. There are already perceived "low", "mid", and "high" files of each difficulty, particularly the higher ones. This can be used as a guideline for the proposed 1-20 rating system, but I do not think it should take its own set of names. I know it's a different system, but in DDR there are heavy, standard, and light songs that are different footers. FFR can have the same.
tl;dr: It just seems silly to have so many names that are hard to keep track of and that aren't intuitively comparable.

[bmah]

Originally Posted by ilikexd

I know it's a different system, but in DDR there are heavy, standard, and light songs that are different footers. FFR can have the same.

But you're comparing apples to oranges. An "FMO" difficulty on FFR is not equivalent to a "heavy" difficulty on DDR. "light", "standard", and "heavy" are rather different MODES of play, something that doesn't exist on FFR with the exception of a few songs that have multiple difficulties. Instead, FFR has a system that's more comparable to naming each "footer". I'm not going against your general idea; I just felt that I needed to correct this.

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by bmah

But you're comparing apples to oranges. An "FMO" difficulty on FFR is not equivalent to a "heavy" difficulty on DDR. "light", "standard", and "heavy" are rather different MODES of play, something that doesn't exist on FFR with the exception of a few songs that have multiple difficulties. Instead, FFR has a system that's more comparable to naming each "footer". I'm not going against your general idea; I just felt that I needed to correct this.

Yeah, I understand that "heavy" and "light" etc. are actually modes of play, but what I'm saying is they are single difficulty names that don't all represent the same footer. I admit that it's a really bad example, especially since the footers are not fixed (some standard can actually be higher footer than heavy).

[i love you]

Please do not let this thread die.

I apologize in advance if I was the one who caused this to get inactive. From what I have seen, the list on the OP looks pretty soild and looks ready to go for the most part. I think i remember certain people in this thread saying that they would not like any difficulty names with the words "light, standard, and heavy" mainly because those are term names to determine the difficulty level of a file with multiple difficulties HOWEVER it seems like they are more people who would rather keep the old names rather then changing them. There is also more people not wanting the "For ___ Only" stuff either so from looking at those sugguestions/thoughts from the community and combining/balancing them, I guess I can say that the list nois-or-e has right now (on the OP) should be the final list unless if you can think of a way to better balance it.

PS: I learned something today and that is let people who starts threads like this do things their way unless if it gets to the point were the community starts going nuts hehe.

EDIT: I'm curious if majority of the community agrees with the list nois-or-e has on the OP. It looks good enough for me.

[who_cares973]

training should be before easiest it only makes sense

[TheSaxRunner05]

Ridiculous needs to be changed to Legendary; it's so much more epic sounding