It affects pp though, it just doesn't work on a star difficulty levelLoves wrote:
Tom also said ar10.3 isnt implemented in the star difficulty so there you go..
It affects pp though, it just doesn't work on a star difficulty levelLoves wrote:
Tom also said ar10.3 isnt implemented in the star difficulty so there you go..
Yeah exactly, this means that higher AR is harder to play. Suppose the same 5 star map was changed into AR9 or 10, much easier to play rather than 10.3Rewben2 wrote:
It affects pp though, it just doesn't work on a star difficulty levelLoves wrote:
Tom also said ar10.3 isnt implemented in the star difficulty so there you go..
Logic:NarrillNezzurh wrote:
No it doesn't, you can't work backwards like that. That's not how logic works.
Not many AR10 maps out there bro. Thats my first point.NarrillNezzurh wrote:
First, 8-10 is the normal range; you don't get extra pp for AR until you break 10. Second, you can't claim that 10.3 is harder because it gives more pp. That's what's backwards about what you're saying; it gives more pp because Tom assumes it's harder, and it isn't necessary for the implementation that this assumption be true.
I dunno why this is relevant. Are you trying to say that because there are so few AR10 maps because AR10 is inherently harder than AR9/9.6? HR essentially turns 90% of your library into AR10, so that can't be right.Loves wrote:
Not many AR10 maps out there bro. Thats my first point.
The fact that it gives more pp is a non sequitur, Tom has total control over the difficulty calculations. You've claimed that the jump from 10 to 10.3 is not only harder than the jump from 9.6 to 10, but that it's for some reason even harder than a proportional loss in reaction time would be.Loves wrote:
Second point, I'm lost. It gives more pp because high AR is harder to play. This isn't an assumption, it's a fact. The human brain can only do so much.
NarrillNezzurh wrote:
I dunno why this is relevant. Are you trying to say that because there are so few AR10 maps because AR10 is inherently harder than AR9/9.6? HR essentially turns 90% of your library into AR10, so that can't be right.Loves wrote:
Not many AR10 maps out there bro. Thats my first point.The fact that it gives more pp is a non sequitur, Tom has total control over the difficulty calculations. You've claimed that the jump from 10 to 10.3 is not only harder than the jump from 9.6 to 10, but that it's for some reason even harder than a proportional loss in reaction time would be.Loves wrote:
Second point, I'm lost. It gives more pp because high AR is harder to play. This isn't an assumption, it's a fact. The human brain can only do so much.
I'll explain that last bit, because it's complicated.
You lose 50ms going from 9.6 to 10. I don't have the numbers on hand, but that 50ms is some percent of the total approach time at 9.6. You also lose 50ms going from 10 to 10.3, but because you started at a lower approach time that 50ms represents a larger percent than it did in the previous jump. So right off the bat, 10 to 10.3 is harder than 9.6 to 10, but you've taken it a step further and argued that for the vast majority of players AR10 is the absolute limit, and that these players will have no hope of ever playing 10.3 because reasons.
You've yet to give any reasons.
You proved it yourself. 50ms gets proportionally larger as you go up in AR. Low MS is also hard for humans to read.NarrillNezzurh wrote:
I don't know how you've managed to confuse yourself so hard. You stated that 10 -> 10.3 is substantially more difficult than 9.6 -> 10, and now you have to prove it. The rest is me attempting to follow the various things you've said in an attempt to do so.
The jump from ar9.6 to ar10 is from 500ms to 450ms. Therefore you only have 90% as much time to react. From ar10 to ar10.3 we go from 450ms to 400ms. That is to say you have ~89% as much time to react. While these percentages look very close keep in mind that looks at things relatively it is roughly a 10% increase in the difference in time to react when compared to ar9.6 to ar10. I would hardly call 10% "not substantial" but do as you see fit. I feel more comfortable claiming that its 10% more difficult to make the jump from ar10 to ar10.3 and that many people are too lazy to make custom ar9 difficulties for all the dt maps they used to learn ar9.6.Narrill wrote:
Yes, but the difference is on the order of a few percent (read "not substantial"), and we're still talking almost double the average human reaction time.
11% response decrease time is pretty substantial in an already extremely fast reaction timed AR...Narrill wrote:
Yes, but the difference is on the order of a few percent (read "not substantial"), and we're still talking almost double the average human reaction time.
Hly crap you changed your name ..Narrill wrote:
I meant the proportional difference of the two intervals. You drop 10% going from 9 to 9.6, but you only drop 11% going from 10 to 10.3. I I never argued that 10 to 10.3 was insubstantial, just that it isn't much more substantial than 9 to 9.6.
So for simplicity of argument I'm going to refer to the 11% and 10% as increases in speed.Narrill wrote:
You'll have to explain that 10% figure, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting it from.
A number in milliseconds would be nice.chainpullz wrote:
So for simplicity of argument I'm going to refer to the 11% and 10% as increases in speed.Narrill wrote:
You'll have to explain that 10% figure, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting it from.
So the speed going from 9.6 to 10 is a 10% increase in speed.
The speed going from 10 to 10.3 is an 11% increase in speed.
We have a 1% difference but the actual increase itself is only a 10% increase in speed. Thus we have that the relative difference in the increase of speed is 10% (.01/.1).
Thus, the overall speed increase is only 1% more but relative to the original speed increase it is a 10% increase to this increase.
If we take a function from Integers to Time mapping AR value to approach time then f'(9.6)/3 is roughly 10% of f(9.6), f'(10)/3 is roughly 11% of f(10) and f"(9.6)/3 is roughly 10% of f'(9.6)/3 (note that we are dividing by 3 since our increment is 1/3).
Well, the difference in milliseconds is 0 as they are both 50ms drops. The point being that the lower the original approach time is the more noticeable a 50ms drop is. That said, a 10% increase in the difficulty to add +.33 approach rate isn't as much of a deterrent as the fact that you basically have to learn it by playing custom difficulties of ar9.6 training maps which are therefore unranked and won't give you pp if you happen to do well on them once in a blue moon. Since people like to play ranked maps and earn pp and there are plenty of ranked maps they could be playing for pp they see no reason to invest the time required to be able to play ranked 10.3 maps.ZenithPhantasm wrote:
A number in milliseconds would be nice.
*Zenny wonders if he has the potential to AR9.8+DT (He cant do math!)*
Alright, I understand what you're saying now. I don't think I'm wrong to call a 10% increase in the severity of the increase insubstantial in the context in which I called it insubstantial; Loves needs to find some other reason to argue that the jump from 10 to 10.3 is substantially harder than the jump from 9.6 to 10 independent of the map pool.chainpullz wrote:
So for simplicity of argument I'm going to refer to the 11% and 10% as increases in speed.
So the speed going from 9.6 to 10 is a 10% increase in speed.
The speed going from 10 to 10.3 is an 11% increase in speed.
We have a 1% difference but the actual increase itself is only a 10% increase in speed. Thus we have that the relative difference in the increase of speed is 10% (.01/.1).
Thus, the overall speed increase is only 1% more but relative to the original speed increase it is a 10% increase to this increase.
If we take a function from Integers to Time mapping AR value to approach time then f'(9.6)/3 is roughly 10% of f(9.6), f'(10)/3 is roughly 11% of f(10) and f"(9.6)/3 is roughly 10% of f'(9.6)/3 (note that we are dividing by 3 since our increment is 1/3).