Should the old FMO's have been downgraded to VC's?

[GG_Guru]

1 to 20?

I dunno that sounds a little overboard Marcus....

[MrRubix]

It's not overboard at all -- you absolutely need something that is both forward-looking and broken down enough to account for variance. An idea system would be continuous, but it wouldn't be very psychologically satisfying. Sticking to a more reasonable system of multi-level discrete units would be sufficient, and I think something like 20 would be more than enough to account for everything.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

And so, after avmisses have been fixed, what is marked as an FMO is an FMO. If a new file fits the same difficulty profile as an FMO, it's an FMO. You do not "move the goalposts" by saying "now an FMO is harder than before" arbitrarily. If a group of people are getting better, then they're getting better than FMO. The community used to have trouble back in early 2000's with files that we'd now consider VC's (BMR's A and V and G2 holla).

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying, except for some inexplicable reason you disagree with my conclusion. If a song was an FMO for a year after avmiss fix, and unlocked Oni for a year after avmiss fix, it is not fair to suddenly say that it is VC and does not unlock Oni (or worse, that it's still FMO but does not unlock Oni). It's not like FFR just went "hurr durr I bet avmisses change nothing" - a bunch of the songs that were only difficult because they were pretty much straight 4-framers (Sympathizer, Balloon Fever, Vertex BETA) were moved down immediately, and that's fine. But if they didn't think that was necessary, and a song sat at FMO for a long time after avmiss fix, you are NOT moving it down because of avmisses (and the same thing goes for how the Oni requirements sat the same for a long time after avmiss fix). You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

[norsegod666]

Originally Posted by GG_Guru

1 to 20?

I dunno that sounds a little overboard Marcus....

You are obviously not understanding the idea. The 1-20 difficulty range is a wonderful idea. I have noticed several of the newer songs being debated as to what difficulty they are. Sadly, a debate can only be settled by the opinion that receives the largest number of followers. This in turn skews the difficulties of songs. The FMOs that were downgraded were not done so without reason. When the song list for unlocking [Oni] was updated, these songs were removed from the list. I can understand why they were. I am not pretending to be a god or anything but when you study the file itself, the patterns, speed, endurance required, the songs are no harder than VB.

[T-Force]

I think the results are starting to speak for themselves. I'm an idiot as well. But only for some songs. NWE can stay VC for all I care.

Oh and I agree with Gigi when I

*hits head with keyboard*

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by qqwref

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying, except for some inexplicable reason you disagree with my conclusion. If a song was an FMO for a year after avmiss fix, and unlocked Oni for a year after avmiss fix, it is not fair to suddenly say that it is VC and does not unlock Oni (or worse, that it's still FMO but does not unlock Oni). It's not like FFR just went "hurr durr I bet avmisses change nothing" - a bunch of the songs that were only difficult because they were pretty much straight 4-framers (Sympathizer, Balloon Fever, Vertex BETA) were moved down immediately, and that's fine. But if they didn't think that was necessary, and a song sat at FMO for a long time after avmiss fix, you are NOT moving it down because of avmisses (and the same thing goes for how the Oni requirements sat the same for a long time after avmiss fix). You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

I don't remember disagreeing with you specifically -- I just disagree with anyone who voted "no."

I agree with your points -- perhaps the poll is a loaded question, because I purely refer to the songs that were nerfed via avmiss, which I know many songs were. If an FMO was changed to a VC for seemingly no reason at all whatsoever, then it was likely not really an FMO to begin with and was mis-judged. Personally, as a stepchart, something like Silence is an obvious VC, patternwise. What makes it difficult is the blue-color overlay that makes the entire thing a bitch to read. I would not say it's quite FMO level, but definitely a high VC. However, if we had more skill levels to account for these kinds of disputes, we'd be able to more accurately categorize these sort of cases.

I agree, in general, that most of the FMO-to-VC changes were appropriate. Stuff like NWE falls into the same category Silence does, but for a different reason. I am all for consistent judging, but I am indeed against changing a file's difficulty level simply because the community is getting better.

[TC_Halogen]

Originally Posted by qqwref

You are moving the song down because you have gotten better and you don't understand that the speed is tricky for people who are not as good, or because you have already AAA'd all the low FMOs and they don't feel like you think FMO does, or because you think the 400+ users who have Oni should remain an "elite" group. Whatever it is, it's not because of avmiss fix... that was corrected for at the time.

I think it's just more of people realizing that the ratings were wrong in the first place. That's the only reason why they should be changed. If something like Novo Mundo gets changed (which I'm hearing from some people say that it should be a VC), go nuts and complain because their definition of what makes an VC is ridiculously off.

And I'm sitting here listen to people say that Slaytronic should be a VC when I'm the "elitist" saying that it should be FMO. There's no way to resolve an argument like this other than making a whole new rating system altogether, which isn't going to happen. In other words, people just need to stop complaining.

[GG_Guru]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's not overboard at all -- you absolutely need something that is both forward-looking and broken down enough to account for variance. An idea system would be continuous, but it wouldn't be very psychologically satisfying. Sticking to a more reasonable system of multi-level discrete units would be sufficient, and I think something like 20 would be more than enough to account for everything.

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by GG_Guru

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

What? Not what I mean at all -- I'm talking about a total revamp of the difficulty evaluation system.

[norsegod666]

Originally Posted by GG_Guru

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but increasing the level difficulty to a higher amount worth more than it's absolute measure doesn't really make a dent of a difference. Each song level has already been assigned a specific level and has been given branches to justify where that individual song needs to be placed. If you one upped Momentary Life to a 12, then the proportionate has been raised to a new degree and now the song is no longer considered to be an FMO because you removed that distinct identification. Basically, you just moved it into the FGO category, so now it won't be considered an FMO. If you were to add more levels, rather than making things easier this would cause more confusion because now you're inserting multiple unrecognized characters that need to be re-instated for each selected song.

This is why we have sub branches that manifests it's own genuine classification which are, Low, Mid, and High VC, FMO, FGO, etc..

You are retarded. The debate is about removing those Low- Mid- High- tags. If you add the extra levels it will mentally project how hard the song really is in proportion to the other ones. 12 different levels are simply not enough for the range of difficulties the songs in FFR have. The level 7 songs now would not be the same as the level 7 songs in the new classification. When you talk about the Mid-VC songs, put yourself in the position of someone just starting. The level is 10 so naturally it wouldnt initially seem as hard as some other ones. However, some 10s are piss easy while others are difficult due to certain patterns etc. There needs to be a system that can separate the distinct classifications of all VC level songs.

[GG_Guru]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What? Not what I mean at all -- I'm talking about a total revamp of the difficulty evaluation system.

But that was embedded in your post? You used NWE as an example saying it would be better off as a VC because of it's fixed patterns. I agree that since the AV miss glitch isn't present, levels seem less intricate than they were before but under allocating it just because of that doesn't mean it's still not a hard file to get by, and that's why they need to redeem the song's respective levels back to how they first were established.

I +1 this thread.

edit: @norsegod: I'll debate with you once you are more mature in your posts.

edit2: Fixed some typos.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

And I'm sitting here listen to people say that Slaytronic should be a VC when I'm the "elitist" saying that it should be FMO.

I have said that Slaytronic should be VC... but that's because low FMO doesn't exist anymore. As far as I can tell, everything which isn't at least mid FMO is eventually going to be VC, so why not just move the process along? I'd rather just get it over with and dump everything in VC than have to waste time arguing if the process is inevitable.

[T-Force]

Actually, norse is right. The whole Mid, Low, High tag is stupid. One of the key points of the 20 difficulty scale is to get rid of those tags.

[GG_Guru]

I have no problem with Rubix's 1-20 level system. I just think it's a bit more farfetched than it's portrayed to be but if that's what spins your wheels then it wouldn't hurt to try. All I want is for those VC's that were once FMOs to be put back in their FMO state. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[TC_Halogen]

I'll also toss in that changing the rating system based on player level is a really stupid thing. Totally forgot to let everyone know how I felt about that.

[MrRubix]

The only time you'd have to statistically account for player performance as a selection bias is if there's no significant difference in the average performance of the song when the difficulty is harder on statistically significant basis. Again, the primary issue of difficulty ratings rears its head at the higher levels.

[MrRubix]

It's easier to mentally modularize patterns if they have a sufficient level of color diversity. Silence is hard to read for most. When properly noteskinned, it's an obvious VC.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's easier to mentally modularize patterns if they have a sufficient level of color diversity. Silence is hard to read for most. When properly noteskinned, it's an obvious VC.

I agree completely, but it's *not* properly noteskinned, so I think most people have even more trouble with it than they would normally. Same problem applies to Molto, OMW, Caprice, etc. They should always be ranked a bit higher than the pattern/steps alone deserve to be.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

A more practical solution would be to just set up a system that is "well-variegated and reasonable." E.g. "What is the average accuracy-breakdown for people who play this song?" accounting for selectivity bias (e.g. maybe most people who play this file are of a certain skill level).

The main problem is that there is often so much debate over "This file should be 9! No, 10!" when it might be easier if we define what exactly those numbers entail. It's a classic problem of using numbers as ratings -- they have no inherent meaning unless we give the numbers meaning, and I think we can give a more accurate meaning if we define what difficulty is.

We need to know what entails a 9 or a 10 before we put a label on it. Similar to stepmania/ddr, songs could be ranked on voltage (highest step density), Stream (average step density), "air" (jumps), and "chaos" (step pattern difficulty). Songs like Crowdpleaser are high because of voltage, certainly not stream, but guitar vs. piano is an 8 instead of a 7 because of stream. I don't mind there being variations between 7's 8's 10's ect. if they are in the ballpark. Some songs, like the games we played part 3, I think are overrated (I FC'd it, a 10, before I did any 9's). I don't mind some FMO's being downgraded if it puts them in the ballpark of the other VC's.