Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[axith]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

Also, no matter what happens with this whole rates thing, can we at least all agree that rates should give GTS and credits? Can we at least give some sort of reward for playing the files?

Honestly, creds and gts for playing songs with rates is the important thing to me. Preferably at the same gain as their counterparts at 1x. Let the daily gts board climb higher. VS Boss Battle helped along gts whoring for the common player. I don't see how giving gts and creds on songs with higher rates is any different than letting another high density song into the game in terms of gts whoring. Recording rated scores would be cool, but it's not that big of deal.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by axith

Recording rated scores would be cool, but it's not that big of deal.

Being completely realistic here, recording rated scores as 1x would only matter to a fraction of the FFR community (that being those of very high skill who skipped over easier songs). It would just be a way to encourage those people to play the rest of the game really, but outside of that, it really does nothing else.

I want GTS and credits for rate plays, because I'm playing FFR and I feel that should be rewarded to some degree. An ability to play a bunch of tough fun files with a new perspective, and work on my overall rank while I'm at it. Not that overall rank is particularly super important, but it is a goal to strive for, especially if you are having lots of fun while doing it. Honestly I feel GTS and credits should be gained under any circumstance when playing FFR (alternate engines, rates, non recording mods, etc) just because the only requirement to gain those things really should be to play the game. Anyone else feel opposed to this (not considering any sort of difficulty implementing the feature)?

[PaperclipGames]

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with rates overwriting scores made on 1.0 (as in, rates affecting the normal levelranks). People will have scores, but you won't be able to tell what rate they achieved it on, and thus you don't really know whether they are "better" than you. If I compare my score on a song with someone else's and the other person has a worse score, I'd normally be happy that I am better at him on that song... but what if the other got it with some rate?

I'd support an alternate levelrank where there's some sort of formula for rates to affect the total score. Having a seperate leaderboard for every rate (1.1, 1.2, 1.00001, 1.02249...) would result in a way too large total database; but having one extra full leaderboard for all rates together could be a reasonable solution. I wouldn't know how exactly to implement this though (as in what type of formula that should be used to keep things balanced).

Originally Posted by foxfire667

Being completely realistic here, recording rated scores as 1x would only matter to a fraction of the FFR community (that being those of very high skill who skipped over easier songs).

I think that fraction is larger than you think. Probably anyone who's like high D3 or higher and an active player would be able to take advantage of rates. I don't know how many people this actually is, but it's definitely not restricted to "very high skilled players".

I mean, I'd abuse the shit out of it and I'm like low/mid D5.

On a side note, I do support credit and GTS for rated scores. One should obviously not get more credits or GTS while playing on a rate than otherwise though: the amount of arrows (combined with PA/combo) should be the only factor still.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by PaperclipGames

I think that fraction is larger than you think. Probably anyone who's like high D3 or higher and an active player would be able to take advantage of rates. I don't know how many people this actually is, but it's definitely not restricted to "very high skilled players".

I mean, I'd abuse the shit out of it and I'm like low/mid D5.

On a side note, I do support credit and GTS for rated scores. One should obviously not get more credits or GTS while playing on a rate than otherwise though: the amount of arrows (combined with PA/combo) should be the only factor still.

I should rephrase to say it would only generally affect players who have several songs far under their skill level, and would be able to AAA them on a higher rate. Perhaps there are more people in this situation that I think, if so, to me that just sounds like more people who would play other parts of FFR and enjoy themselves more.

As for what you said, yes, rates would give the exact same GTS / credits as they would if you played them on 1.0 from my suggestion. Anything you could do or play on FFR with any settings would be treated as if you played the song normally (in terms of getting GTS and credits).

[TC_Halogen]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

Also, no matter what happens with this whole rates thing, can we at least all agree that rates should give GTS and credits? Can we at least give some sort of reward for playing the files?

In correlation with my previous point: no, because it allows players to speed up their GTS farming.

The reason why I said "in correlation with" is because I feel differently about GTS in this aspect of rate mods (but I feel like I should mention it to not sound hypocritical). I personally don't have an issue with GTS/credits being recordable. Technically, grand total score has no upper bound -- therefore, there's no measure of "completion" to achieve, as ranking by grandtotal does fluctuate based off of other players. Because there's no upper bound for scores, or credits, it's not quite as detrimental. It also helps that GTS really isn't very useful in determining overall player skill.

@ Paperclipgames: The amount of credits shouldn't change whatsoever because it's on the basis of score; it'll just increase the speed of which you can receive the credits because you're playing the song at an accelerated rate.

[Untimely Friction]

1.0 rate 100% GTS 1.1 rate 90% GTS etc etc 2.0 0% score is curious, but yeah, something to that effect (At least till 2.0 rate) should keep the GTS Scaling fair... idk 10% faster, 10% less GTS (Keep raw for leaderboards do -10% math as very last calculation or something)

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

In correlation with my previous point: no, because it allows players to speed up their GTS farming.

The reason why I said "in correlation with" is because I feel differently about GTS in this aspect of rate mods (but I feel like I should mention it to not sound hypocritical). I personally don't have an issue with GTS/credits being recordable. Technically, grand total score has no upper bound -- therefore, there's no measure of "completion" to achieve, as ranking by grandtotal does fluctuate based off of other players. Because there's no upper bound for scores, or credits, it's not quite as detrimental. It also helps that GTS really isn't very useful in determining overall player skill.

So basically you agree, but not really because you want to not be hypocritical about your prior point?

GTS farming is an endeavor I don't think too many people would ever seriously consider, and even if they did, it really doesn't matter because the only thing you need to do to accumulate GTS is to play the game. If you are playing the game, you are accumulating GTS, you just get more as you play harder files and combo. People who actually want to boost GTS can already do so rapidly with RATO or vROFL without any hesitation, so that shouldn't be a big deal anyway. Worst case scenario, people might actually give slightly more of a crap about overall rank, and some competition might eventually spark. I would say a large portion of my current FFR runs have been rates, which means that I'm losing out on GTS and credits I really shouldn't be for playing the game. I honestly don't think that is fair, restricting GTS or credits under any circumstances doesn't really seem fair to me, as long as you are actually hitting the notes and getting the scores.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Untimely Friction

1.0 rate 100% GTS 1.1 rate 90% GTS etc etc 2.0 0% score is curious, but yeah, something to that effect (At least till 2.0 rate) should keep the GTS Scaling fair... idk 10% faster, 10% less GTS (Keep raw for leaderboards do -10% math as very last calculation or something)

So what you are actually saying here is that people should be punished for playing harder files? Should I get less GTS for playing a difficulty 70 file as opposed to a difficulty 30 with a similar note count? Does that seem fair?

[Untimely Friction]

No but GTS rankings are more important than that, and that solves that. At least this way you get roughly the same GTS/hour if you're grinding GTS, and you're still rewarded for playing the song on rate.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by Untimely Friction

No but GTS rankings are more important than that, and that solves that. At least this way you get roughly the same GTS/hour if you're grinding GTS, and you're still rewarded for playing the song on rate.

Are they? From what I can tell, there really aren't that many who seriously take on overall ranks as any sort of competition. Generally, it seems like people who have lots of GTS, have it because they are constantly playing FFR, not because GTS is their main priority. Overall rank really isn't a sign of skill anyway, it's just a sign of how much arrows you smashed throughout your career. If anything, having limitations that prevent score recording when you are actually playing FFR seems like it is misrepresenting your overall play time, and dedication to the game.

People gaining lots of GTS with rates would be doing so because they are having lots of fun with rates, not because they are trying to really grind up GTS. Though even if they wanted to GTS whore with rates, that seems rather moot because they are still hitting the arrows and getting the scores. They are dedicating time and energy to play FFR, which really should be the only notable factor here.

If you are against grinding GTS, perhaps we should change it so that any score achieved with more than 50 boos (a most likely mashed score) doesn't give GTS at all. I don't mean with or without rates, I mean period, if you mash, you don't get GTS.

[TheSaxRunner05]

You'd end up with a lot more misses though on rates, which hurts the amount of credits gained. It's a fair trade, and people should get credits when they play FFR period. The purpose of credits is to be a reward for playing.

Also, GWC's would be a lot more interesting and it would help fill in the hole the gambling hall left in so many accounts.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

If you are against grinding GTS, perhaps we should change it so that any score achieved with more than 50 boos (a most likely mashed score) doesn't give GTS at all. I don't mean with or without rates, I mean period, if you mash, you don't get GTS.

This would hurt new players badly. Credits are a reward for playing FFR, let's keep it that way.

[foxfire667]

Originally Posted by TheSaxRunner05

This would hurt new players badly. Credits are a reward for playing FFR, let's keep it that way.

It wasn't a serious suggestion, it was a retort to him not wanting people to grind GTS with rates. If you are against it for rates, you should be against it period.

[Untimely Friction]

Same math for credits oops~