No!
It can confuse players and give them lack of reactions
It can confuse players and give them lack of reactions
forum
Allow to use different Approach Rates in map
posted
Total Posts
313
Guys
Isn't it kinda obvious that maps which overuse it and get unreadable can NEVER get ranked?
Also, you disagree with slight changes (8-10), but it's fine for mania. If it's fine there, why can't it be here as well?
Also, huge SV changes are fine, but small AR changes are not? What the heck
Isn't it kinda obvious that maps which overuse it and get unreadable can NEVER get ranked?
Also, you disagree with slight changes (8-10), but it's fine for mania. If it's fine there, why can't it be here as well?
Also, huge SV changes are fine, but small AR changes are not? What the heck
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/48738
God this map sucks. It has multiple approach rates god it's terrible. Totally unplayable. Gah! Too confusing!
</sarcasm>
God this map sucks. It has multiple approach rates god it's terrible. Totally unplayable. Gah! Too confusing!
</sarcasm>
Taiko uses it
Mania uses it
I see no reason why standard couldn't use it, that way you can fit the AR to the note density of each part of the song even better
Mania uses it
I see no reason why standard couldn't use it, that way you can fit the AR to the note density of each part of the song even better
terrible idea. Please never implement.
out of all the ideas in this forum.. not this one devs .
out of all the ideas in this forum.. not this one devs .
No. No. No. Absolutely no. Its a terrible idea. It may seem like a cool idea but its not at all.
Explain why
Example you have a song that changes bpm from 210 to 160 in one section and then back to 210. It would make sense and the map easier to read if the AR for the 160 bpm part went down a bit compared to the 210 bpm part, but right now we are kind of forced to
either map the 210 bpm part in a way that requires not that high AR (the use of AR 9.5ish has become kinda common for that speed)
or map the 160 bpm part with high AR which can be kind of a pain to read.
so basically decimal ARs would solve that problem all that's needed is to block out rooms for abuse as in using this in an unreasonable way.
If you disagree then give me some reasons
Example you have a song that changes bpm from 210 to 160 in one section and then back to 210. It would make sense and the map easier to read if the AR for the 160 bpm part went down a bit compared to the 210 bpm part, but right now we are kind of forced to
either map the 210 bpm part in a way that requires not that high AR (the use of AR 9.5ish has become kinda common for that speed)
or map the 160 bpm part with high AR which can be kind of a pain to read.
so basically decimal ARs would solve that problem all that's needed is to block out rooms for abuse as in using this in an unreasonable way.
If you disagree then give me some reasons
1. Changing to lower AR at lower BPM would certainly make map easier to read/play but thats the very problem. Why the heck would you want to make easier something thats supposed to be hard? If you make something hard easy its not hard anymore and that makes no sense at all. Its the best the way it is.
There are other reasons but i wont point them out because probably nobody actually cares them and one i did point out is enough imo.
There are other reasons but i wont point them out because probably nobody actually cares them and one i did point out is enough imo.
Youre not mapping a song to make it difficult. You map a song because you probably like the music and would like to create something that you can share with other players. If a song is calm/slow at a section, then that section is not meant to be fucking hard. If it was, then the artist wouldnt have made it calm. Easy as that.HK_ wrote:
Why the heck would you want to make easier something thats supposed to be hard? If you make something hard easy its not hard anymore and that makes no sense at all. Its the best the way it is.
If it's a fast song, then it's its nature to be difficult on the highest difficulty.
Relevant for that
2c
The AR change would be from only 1 point or 1,5 maximum !
Like you're having a slider ar8 and the next one has a higher sv (ex. 1,50x) then create an ar9 or 9,5 for this said slider.
Hope you see my point of view.
Like you're having a slider ar8 and the next one has a higher sv (ex. 1,50x) then create an ar9 or 9,5 for this said slider.
Hope you see my point of view.
Make that a ranking criteria, if neccessary. Give the possibility to go all the way through, I'd love to see gimmick maps with heavy AR changes.- Lumi - wrote:
The AR change would be from only 1 point or 1,5 maximum !
Like you're having a slider ar8 and the next one has a higher sv (ex. 1,50x) then create an ar9 or 9,5 for this said slider.
Hope you see my point of view.
I don't play standard that much, but I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of this idea. People say "taiko and mania use it." Well, in taiko, this is easy to read most of the time (not all, just more often than not). And also for the record, when you see this in taiko, that's a change in SV, which standard already allows. As for mania, that's a monster. You can't honestly tell me that when this happens in mania, it never confuses you to the point where you pause wanting to quit :/
This only ever happens in autoconverted maps lol. Gimmicky mania maps are real fun and pretty much never confuse experienced players.BrambleClaw wrote:
You can't honestly tell me that when this happens in mania, it never confuses you to the point where you pause wanting to quit :/
Oh, well, I guess that makes sense. I don't really play mania, I only have a few mania specific maps lolPyaKura wrote:
This only ever happens in autoconverted maps lol. Gimmicky mania maps are real fun and pretty much never confuse experienced players.BrambleClaw wrote:
You can't honestly tell me that when this happens in mania, it never confuses you to the point where you pause wanting to quit :/
Are the slow parts of an otherwise fast map supposed to be really hard? Think of Image Material, for example. Do you think the slow slow oh-my-fucking-god-just-fucking-get-to-the-map start of the map would be worse if it wasn't AR10? But hey, there's nothing that says that different AR would NEED to be used in a map anyway. I mean, I really hope that if this was around when Image Material was mapped that itHK_ wrote:
1. Changing to lower AR at lower BPM would certainly make map easier to read/play but thats the very problem. Why the heck would you want to make easier something thats supposed to be hard? If you make something hard easy its not hard anymore and that makes no sense at all. Its the best the way it is.
There are other reasons but i wont point them out because probably nobody actually cares them and one i did point out is enough imo.
Your objection to this request is a reason we need better or more specific ranking criteria (and I probably agree about that), not a reason this shouldn't be implemented.
As for the objection in a recent post about this being "confusing", that could mostly be avoided by saying that this can only be used after a break and/or only allowing it to be done via a red line. The AR changing would only be particularly confusing if there were 2 different speeds of approach circles on the map at once. Otherwise, it's just honestly not that difficult to switch between playing different approach rates. Perhaps a change in AR could even be indicated somehow during play so you wouldn't be surprised.
Im sorry but not everyone thinks of mapping as an art.Yauxo wrote:
Youre not mapping a song to make it difficult. You map a song because you probably like the music and would like to create something that you can share with other players.
Evary part of a hard map is supposed to be hard.GhostFrog wrote:
Are the slow parts of an otherwise fast map supposed to be really hard?
Yes it would because what the heck is ar8/9 doing in a 7 star map?GhostFrog wrote:
Think of Image Material, for example. Do you think the slow slow oh-my-fucking-god-just-fucking-get-to-the-map start of the map would be worse if it wasn't AR10?
If its not going to be used then why ask for it in the first place?GhostFrog wrote:
But hey, there's nothing that says that different AR would NEED to be used in a map anyway.
But what about newbies? I mean they have a lot of trouble even with singe ar per map, so why not just throw few more at them anyway?GhostFrog wrote:
As for the objection in a recent post about this being "confusing", that could mostly be avoided by saying that this can only be used after a break and/or only allowing it to be done via a red line. The AR changing would only be particularly confusing if there were 2 different speeds of approach circles on the map at once. Otherwise, it's just honestly not that difficult to switch between playing different approach rates. Perhaps a change in AR could even be indicated somehow during play so you wouldn't be surprised.
And no, i dont think that only newbies would find it confusing because i would certainly too.
And what about players like me that dont rely only on their eyesight but on timing and rhythm too? Should i just recalibrate all i got used to in last 30secs just because mapper wanted to put ar9 in some (not so) random part instead of ar10?
Also, I'd say they should ONLY be changed in BPM changes, nowhere else (as that'll indeed be to confusing)HK_ wrote:
Im sorry but not everyone thinks of mapping as an art.Yauxo wrote:
Youre not mapping a song to make it difficult. You map a song because you probably like the music and would like to create something that you can share with other players.
did he say mapping is an art? No. Also, Yauxo is right, you don't map songs to be difficult, if you do, the map is 100% sure to be a shitmap (unless your name is Scorpiour, Val0108 or Blue Dragon). You map because you want to map the song you likeEvary part of a hard map is supposed to be hard.GhostFrog wrote:
Are the slow parts of an otherwise fast map supposed to be really hard?
Have you gone insane? This is no way near close. Hey, I have a 260 BPM map full of 1/4 jumps so the star rating is 8 (and still rankable), Oh, here is a slow 28 bpm which is only a violing string, Let's make it a nice slider. Oh wait, that's not allowed, I need to make this a 1/32 stream so the difficulty matches up with the rest.
Uhm, I hope you can see this should NEVER,and I reapeat NEVER be the case in any mapYes it would because what the heck is ar8/9 doing in a 7 star map?GhostFrog wrote:
Think of Image Material, for example. Do you think the slow slow oh-my-fucking-god-just-fucking-get-to-the-map start of the map would be worse if it wasn't AR10?
Because it fits. AR 9 is still way to high for a 130 bpm 1/2 slow single part map, let alone that 28 BPM part. AR should follow the BPM + density of the song, NOT the star rating, as that is only an indicator.If its not going to be used then why ask for it in the first place?GhostFrog wrote:
But hey, there's nothing that says that different AR would NEED to be used in a map anyway.
Cause ot's a great idea
Every map with big BPM changes, like Image -Material, Alice 2 Alice (one of my current pending maps), Wahrheit, EVERY compilation, and much more would benefit from this a lot. Give 9.5/10 to the faster harder parts, and 8-9 to the slower partsBut what about newbies? I mean they have a lot of trouble even with singe ar per map, so why not just throw few more at them anyway? As if newbies would properly play maps like this. I'm new to this game, let's play Image Material. Also, newbies won't even notice a difference between 9-10, as it's both fast for them.GhostFrog wrote:
As for the objection in a recent post about this being "confusing", that could mostly be avoided by saying that this can only be used after a break and/or only allowing it to be done via a red line. The AR changing would only be particularly confusing if there were 2 different speeds of approach circles on the map at once. Otherwise, it's just honestly not that difficult to switch between playing different approach rates. Perhaps a change in AR could even be indicated somehow during play so you wouldn't be surprised.
And no, i dont think that only newbies would find it confusing because i would certainly too.
And what about players like me that dont rely only on their eyesight but on timing and rhythm too? Should i just recalibrate all i got used to in last 30secs just because mapper wanted to put ar9 in some (not so) random part instead of ar10?
Yes, if Scorp mapped the last 40-50 seconds of Image material (which is a slow 130 BPM piano) which is really calm AR 10 would be very unfitting, just as the other slow parts
Also, this rule is probably a rule which will get added to avoid abuse- Lumi - wrote:
The AR change would be from only 1 point or 1,5 maximum !
Since both of our arguments are purely opinion based further discussion would be pointless.
Bonus: Mappers and non mappers will never view mapping the same. Thats a fact.
Bonus: Mappers and non mappers will never view mapping the same. Thats a fact.
I wont speak for baraatje (because Im not him) but yes, mappers and players wont always have the same viewpoint - because mappers have more insight over those, that have never touched the editor before.
You see, we're not only mappers, we're players as well. We play the game (most people every day) and we like to create maps/content for it. In order to improve our content, we have to make sure that what we create is good and fun to play.
-> If we have a relaxing song, then we map a slow/relaxing map.
-> If we have a DnB song, then we can be more creative with many triplets, streams etc.
-> If we have a strong and high BPM song, then we can go crazy, have difficult patterns and create a challenge to the player.
-> If we have a song that is streamy, then we'll map streams.
-> If we have a song that sounds jumpy, then we'll map jumps.
Now, what if there's a slow/relaxing part in the strong and high BPM song (Image Material for example). What should we do? As we know by now, the slow part should be mapped accordingly, so we cant just smash streams into violin sections. That wouldnt be good design.
Skipping forward, we now have a strong and fast AR10 map with a slow section for the slow part of the music. Problem is, that the AR still gives some kind of illusion of speed and "it's still pretty damn fast" to us, even though the part is supposed and mapped to be slow.
This is where the AR change could kick in. It'd make these kinds of things much better and more enjoyable as a whole. There wouldnt be any need to tone the AR of your map down just because half of the song works better in AR8 as compared to AR9.
To you, yes, you might have the opinion that you want difficult maps to be difficult, but no, your point doesnt make too much sense in this case
You see, we're not only mappers, we're players as well. We play the game (most people every day) and we like to create maps/content for it. In order to improve our content, we have to make sure that what we create is good and fun to play.
-> If we have a relaxing song, then we map a slow/relaxing map.
-> If we have a DnB song, then we can be more creative with many triplets, streams etc.
-> If we have a strong and high BPM song, then we can go crazy, have difficult patterns and create a challenge to the player.
-> If we have a song that is streamy, then we'll map streams.
-> If we have a song that sounds jumpy, then we'll map jumps.
Now, what if there's a slow/relaxing part in the strong and high BPM song (Image Material for example). What should we do? As we know by now, the slow part should be mapped accordingly, so we cant just smash streams into violin sections. That wouldnt be good design.
Skipping forward, we now have a strong and fast AR10 map with a slow section for the slow part of the music. Problem is, that the AR still gives some kind of illusion of speed and "it's still pretty damn fast" to us, even though the part is supposed and mapped to be slow.
This is where the AR change could kick in. It'd make these kinds of things much better and more enjoyable as a whole. There wouldnt be any need to tone the AR of your map down just because half of the song works better in AR8 as compared to AR9.
To you, yes, you might have the opinion that you want difficult maps to be difficult, but no, your point doesnt make too much sense in this case
90% of other games have and allow variable approach rates. Mania and Taiko both allow it. It wouldn't be such a terrible thing. AR is so broken (ar10 is 42% faster than ar9) that it would almost certainly be used incorrectly much like SV changes are used poorly today. Subtle changes are OK unless you make a gimmick map like headlock or a 2B style.
The real limitation here is that it would require a complete revamp of the file format, and I'm not sure the benefits are worth the work.
Finally, anyone who really wants to use different approach rates in a beatmap can already do this. Clearly it will never be ranked, and since 99% of ranking players turn off storyboards and skins, it will go unnoticed. A side effect of this method is that you can use the OSB file to modify the map and play with different rates in multiplayer (one player can use AR9.5, the other can use AR10 or 10.2 or 10.6). The limitation here would be that you could only have one beatmap per set.
So instead of supporting this, provide examples of already created maps which would be made better using a variable approach rate. Nobody cares about hard rock anyway.
I would be willing to do this if someone has a good example of a ranked map which would sincerely benefit from an AR change (and when/where the AR changes happen)
The real limitation here is that it would require a complete revamp of the file format, and I'm not sure the benefits are worth the work.
Finally, anyone who really wants to use different approach rates in a beatmap can already do this. Clearly it will never be ranked, and since 99% of ranking players turn off storyboards and skins, it will go unnoticed. A side effect of this method is that you can use the OSB file to modify the map and play with different rates in multiplayer (one player can use AR9.5, the other can use AR10 or 10.2 or 10.6). The limitation here would be that you could only have one beatmap per set.
So instead of supporting this, provide examples of already created maps which would be made better using a variable approach rate. Nobody cares about hard rock anyway.
I would be willing to do this if someone has a good example of a ranked map which would sincerely benefit from an AR change (and when/where the AR changes happen)
We're already 13 changes in, why not a 14th change if it improves mapping :3?ziin wrote:
The real limitation here is that it would require a complete revamp of the file format, and I'm not sure the benefits are worth the work.
osu file format v14
On second thought this would be easier than previously thought. It would just work off of timing sections. My other point still stands that this is already possible to do in the current osu format but nobody has done the work.Yauxo wrote:
We're already 13 changes in, why not a 14th change if it improves mapping :3?ziin wrote:
The real limitation here is that it would require a complete revamp of the file format, and I'm not sure the benefits are worth the work.osu file format v14
Via storyboard? It's more work than it's worth for, really. I wouldnt want to skin an universal skin (people use different skins, remember that) and fiddle around with every single object Ive put down. Modding would be hell as well if you have to move objects around.
As you mentioned, most people play with full dim and no video/sb anyway, so there's not much use in that. As a gimmicky map though? Well, yea, maybe. If someone feels like doing that. I know I dont.
As you mentioned, most people play with full dim and no video/sb anyway, so there's not much use in that. As a gimmicky map though? Well, yea, maybe. If someone feels like doing that. I know I dont.
By hard being hard i didnt mean putting deathstream into the part that obviously shouldnt be any kind of stream. Since you already picked image material...I think that if you picked ar8/9 for slow part before kiai most of players would be thrown of by sudden change of ar even if warned previously and thus very bad.
And since my opinion obviously wont change until i see the results please stop this pointless whatever it is.
And since my opinion obviously wont change until i see the results please stop this pointless whatever it is.
Sure.baraatje123 wrote:
Also, this rule is probably a rule which will get added to avoid abuse- Lumi - wrote:
The AR change would be from only 1 point or 1,5 maximum !
If making a storyboard is more work than it's worth for, really, then creating a whole new osu format is certainly more work than it's wort for, really.Yauxo wrote:
Via storyboard? It's more work than it's worth for, really. I wouldnt want to skin an universal skin (people use different skins, remember that) and fiddle around with every single object Ive put down. Modding would be hell as well if you have to move objects around.
As you mentioned, most people play with full dim and no video/sb anyway, so there's not much use in that. As a gimmicky map though? Well, yea, maybe. If someone feels like doing that. I know I dont.
Storyboards can use your skin. They just usually don't because the easiest way to make a bad storyboard is to have the storyboard interact with the hit objects like 11t does. I could make it work with a few skins, but it's easy to just force a skin and let the player modify the skin like in blythe. Obviously this would be done via SGLE or in excel. It's not a difficult process and would take 2 minutes to make a change via excel or 30 seconds compile time to make a change via SGLE.
Also, I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hromx6HeN_w
When multiple new things are added for file format 15, this can also be added to it
There is no need ti add it now, but it will be really convenient if it gets added alongside multiple other new tweaks
There is no need ti add it now, but it will be really convenient if it gets added alongside multiple other new tweaks
You'd be suprised how many people can read Taiko AR/Scrollspeed changes without too many problems. Not too different for Std I'd imagine. People are already able to read heavy timing changes on extremely difficult maps (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/280107#), which, if you turn a few things, is basically comparable to an AR change on a steady BPMHK_ wrote:
.I think that if you picked ar8/9 for slow part before kiai most of players would be thrown of by sudden change of ar even if warned previously and thus very bad.
And since my opinion obviously wont change until i see the results please stop this pointless whatever it is.
Also, you're basically asking for answers and that's what Im doing.
Shouldve pointed out that I'd probably too much work for me, as I dont know much about storyboard - so I dont have much to object to that (maybe?).ziin wrote:
If making a storyboard is more work than it's worth for, really, then creating a whole new osu format is certainly more work than it's wort for, really.
Storyboards can use your skin. They just usually don't because the easiest way to make a bad storyboard is to have the storyboard interact with the hit objects like 11t does. I could make it work with a few skins, but it's easy to just force a skin and let the player modify the skin like in blythe. Obviously this would be done via SGLE or in excel. It's not a difficult process and would take 2 minutes to make a change via excel or 30 seconds compile time to make a change via SGLE.
Also, I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hromx6HeN_w
I'd agree on baraatje's post above though.
This is one of those rare "feature requests" that can be proved (like a jubeat mode or a technika mode). Your arguments would carry so much more weight if there were lots of examples of good maps that use different Approach Rates.baraatje123 wrote:
When multiple new things are added for file format 15, this can also be added to it
There is no need ti add it now, but it will be really convenient if it gets added alongside multiple other new tweaks
I frequently switch between AR4.5 and AR9.66 in consecutive maps I play and it requires no adjustment period at all. It's not difficult to get used to and putting the two approach rates in the same map doesn't add much difficulty to the process if it can only be changed during a break and is properly indicated in some way.HK_ wrote:
By hard being hard i didnt mean putting deathstream into the part that obviously shouldnt be any kind of stream. Since you already picked image material...I think that if you picked ar8/9 for slow part before kiai most of players would be thrown of by sudden change of ar even if warned previously and thus very bad.
It's interesting to me that you've done some sort of almost 180 here. You were saying before that easy things in hard maps should be made difficult by use of high AR (which, by the way, is completely nonsensical, since anyone who can play the hard parts of the map well will have no issue at all reading the higher AR on the easy part). Now you're saying that we shouldn't add difficulty to maps by changing the AR (which is also pretty nonsensical, since it'll just require a little bit of getting used to). Like...those two things don't directly contradict each other, but I really don't understand what your opinion on approach rate is. Should it be used for difficulty? Should it not be used for difficulty? Should it be whatever the mapper wants to use? None of those answers make this request bad at all, but it looks like you're just jumping around between them to try to find one that supports your side of this.
What im trying to say that its good just as it is. Dont fix it if its not broken.
This is not a request for fixing some kind of bug, it's a feature request.
You seem to miss the point
You seem to miss the point
Yeeeeaaaah, Okoratu pretty much hit the nail on the head in their reply. This exact reasoning could be given against ANY feature request. If you don't want new features in osu!, then please stay out of this subforum. You're wasting everyone else's time.HK_ wrote:
What im trying to say that its good just as it is. Dont fix it if its not broken.
Don't knock it until you've tried it.HK_ wrote:
Dont fix it if its not broken.
Bump
Yes.
Yauxo wrote:
Yes.
I think this is a great point you bring up, I'll support your idea.
Kitsunemimi wrote:
No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
How can people in Taiko/Mania play it properly?otoed1 wrote:
Kitsunemimi wrote:
No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
They aren't confused by it
Why aren't people disoriented by huge Sudden SV changes
I agree, this should only be changable in red timing point, and may not be overused
But there'll be new ranking criteria for it
I honestly can't see why people strongly disagree, bad usage will not be tolerated, and it works in otger modes, even excessively
This, but I'd also say that greenlines are fine. Some songs (most utaite songs/Kakushigoto for example) have a slow part in them in which that AR change might come in handy, yet not everyone has a halfbpm redline for these.baraatje123 wrote:
I honestly can't see why people strongly disagree, bad usage will not be tolerated, and it works in otger modes, even excessively
Topic Starter
This idea won't fucking die, I promise to you all 
HOORAY!
I'll also do whatever it takes to keep this thread alive :3
I'll also do whatever it takes to keep this thread alive :3
Topic Starter
Yeah I noticed that, you are doing a good thing, my friend!Baraatje123 wrote:
HOORAY!
I'll also do whatever it takes to keep this thread alive :3
I;m not your friend (yet) 
unless you wanna Mutual :3
Back to topic
I still can't see how people don't want this, it'll only be helpful to make it better readable (AR10 at slow parts just doesn't work), and potential abuse will be blocked by ranking criteria
unless you wanna Mutual :3
Back to topic
I still can't see how people don't want this, it'll only be helpful to make it better readable (AR10 at slow parts just doesn't work), and potential abuse will be blocked by ranking criteria
Please, developers.
Try play image material and you'll notice how akward is it to play AR 10 on calm piano part.
Try play image material and you'll notice how akward is it to play AR 10 on calm piano part.
Although Image Material was made before decimal song settings (i think)Sirade wrote:
Try play image material and you'll notice how akward is it to play AR 10 on calm piano part.
Totally agreeing with this. Songs with massive slowdowns and extremely fast parts don't work well together on high AR (and you can't pick the lower for the whole map or the harder bit will be unreadable)
Yet it does exist
Why not for standard then
Why not for standard then
A little off-topic but I'd also like to see differing CS (not so much about OD/HP) as well as AR if this was implemented
did you even play osu!maniaBaraatje123 wrote:
Yet it does exist
Why not for standard then
like ever
Your point is actually invalid here, because approach rate does not dictate the amount of time that you have to react before hitting a note in mania. VSRGs don't work that way. In effect, AR as a setting means absolutely nothing, because SV rates determine how the maps scroll against a player's speed settings.CelegaS wrote:
Different AR in o!m is actually bullshit so no.
As someone who has actually dabbled in mapping for osu!standard (certainly not my primary as a mania mapper/player), I've actually run into a situation where having a certain approach rate felt inappropriate for a piece of the song because things are quiet. Having the ability to deviate your approach rate adds a whole other level to mapping that hasn't been seen in osu! as a game, and I think that's something worth thinking about.
I've thought in my mind about using a +1 AR for a really intense section that merits a Kiai, but I obviously cannot do that since you can't change things at all, haha. As I've said before though, I'm not a standard mapper under any stretch, but I think that the game's best mappers that are already good at what they do could use another controllable element to add to their arsenal.
MBomb
1) Welcome to TaikoKitsunemimi wrote:
No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
2) You get used to it
3) It takes more skill to be able to. What better way to say "look at how pro I am. I can sight read something that changes between AR 4 and AR 10 in an instant"?
4) Actually would be very necessary for maps that go into half time during a middle section. If done correctly, it would be a very nice touch.
Supporting.
It would be hella useful if used properly.
Yeah, I can already see this abused but I don't think we will be seeing any ranked mapsets abusing this as soon as it comes out.
I mean, what is the ranking process for after all?
It would be hella useful if used properly.
Yeah, I can already see this abused but I don't think we will be seeing any ranked mapsets abusing this as soon as it comes out.
I mean, what is the ranking process for after all?
This would be the best thing ever, like literally. Playing slow songs with high ar is just wrong.
I totally support this idea!
I totally support this idea!
Bump
inb4 people raging about sudden AR5 on a slow part because they can't read slow AR.
While it's evident that players can get used to such stuff(just look at the ridiculous Taiko #1 here) it's not supporting gameplay too well and in most cases a compromise can be found. The only issues come up if there are actual bpm-changes(if 1/1 spacings are suddenly hard to play your AR is obviously too high) so it would be cool if AR-changes get restricted to that somehow.
I don't need this in my life personally.
While it's evident that players can get used to such stuff(just look at the ridiculous Taiko #1 here) it's not supporting gameplay too well and in most cases a compromise can be found. The only issues come up if there are actual bpm-changes(if 1/1 spacings are suddenly hard to play your AR is obviously too high) so it would be cool if AR-changes get restricted to that somehow.
I don't need this in my life personally.
i'd rather not have this because it gives people an excuse to use higher ar in parts of a map, higher ar makes stuff more boring
Can we please move away from the "omg AR10 to AR5 on no bpm change just for the lulz is the worst!!!1!1" and get back to the actual point of why this was requested? This also is a big thing for Standard, not for Mania.
The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.
If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.
If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
Don't exaggerate please, that part of Image Material certainly isn't classified as 28bpm, it's just used to get the slow SV without having to manipulate slider velocity via notepad and it is also improperly timed at that whole part regarding modern variable bpm standards(inaccurate offsets, new timing sections don't align in time with the previous one). In fact it would probably be disqualified right away for these issues if you tried to rank it nowadays.Yauxo wrote:
The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.
If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
At the start of the slow part it's 130bpm which is just half of the original bpm which assumes that Image Material is rather written in 130bpm with 1/8 usage with is very common in actual music anyway or in other words - setting the bpm twice as high as it is is terribly common in osu!.
tl;dr: Image Material(and especially its 28bpm) is a horrible horrible example for this discussion.
I brought Image Material into my post because it has a very clear change of pace and is widely known in the community. It's really fast basically all the time, but then there's this, comparably, extremely slow part. I took the 28 bpm from the ingame information, I didnt actually check what bpm it was at that very time.
It could be any other song, really, as long as it'd have a fast and a slow part.
If the song was fast all the time, you'd give it a fast AR.
If the song was slow all the time, you'd give it a low(er) AR.
If the song is a mix of both, then why arent we allowed to mix the ARs in a well designed manner too?
Edit: I guess songs like DeltaMax and similar would fit the example better. Going from AR9 to AR10 over the course of 2 minutes wouldnt hurt a map on that song at all.
It could be any other song, really, as long as it'd have a fast and a slow part.
If the song was fast all the time, you'd give it a fast AR.
If the song was slow all the time, you'd give it a low(er) AR.
If the song is a mix of both, then why arent we allowed to mix the ARs in a well designed manner too?
Edit: I guess songs like DeltaMax and similar would fit the example better. Going from AR9 to AR10 over the course of 2 minutes wouldnt hurt a map on that song at all.
Sorry if this was mentioned in the thread already (I didn't bother to go through all those pages). Wouldn't the HD mod become a problem with changing AR? I mean like drastic changes could make you miss a note, and even just losing accuracy is annoying in itself. My point is, there isn't a reference for when to hit the hidden notes except for the first Approach Circle at the beginning of the map and trying to see how long the note takes to disappear.
Literally none of this is relevant to whether or not Image Material would benefit from being able to use multiple approach rates or to whether or not there exist maps that would benefit from multiple approach rates, so let me just ask you this directly: do you think there is any approach rate that would be fitting both for the start of Image Material and the rest of Image Material?Endaris wrote:
Don't exaggerate please, that part of Image Material certainly isn't classified as 28bpm, it's just used to get the slow SV without having to manipulate slider velocity via notepad and it is also improperly timed at that whole part regarding modern variable bpm standards(inaccurate offsets, new timing sections don't align in time with the previous one). In fact it would probably be disqualified right away for these issues if you tried to rank it nowadays.Yauxo wrote:
The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.
If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
At the start of the slow part it's 130bpm which is just half of the original bpm which assumes that Image Material is rather written in 130bpm with 1/8 usage with is very common in actual music anyway or in other words - setting the bpm twice as high as it is is terribly common in osu!.
tl;dr: Image Material(and especially its 28bpm) is a horrible horrible example for this discussion.
AR10 is not bad for it, the actual 130bpm have a relatively decent playability and it's more the fact that the mapper feels like he has to map every drumbeat - even the rather weak ones - as singles instead of sliders that gives the map a density it doesn't need to have to be good. He also goes ham in the 260bpm parts with 1/4 like a LOT while he doesn't use ANY within the 130bpm section. He is literally asking to make it unbalanced. It's more of a design choice than the song forcing it.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
Hey, you managed to get in an actual reply in-between your 3 paragraphs of continued off-topic drivel!Endaris wrote:
AR10 is not bad for it, the actual 130bpm have a relatively decent playability and it's more the fact that the mapper feels like he has to map every drumbeat - even the rather weak ones - as singles instead of sliders that gives the map a density it doesn't need to have to be good. He also goes ham in the 260bpm parts with 1/4 like a LOT while he doesn't use ANY within the 130bpm section. He is literally asking to make it unbalanced. It's more of a design choice than the song forcing it.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
And...you think that the start of Image Material plays best with AR10. Yikes! I can't help but think you might be biased by your strong opinions on the map itself here, but okay. I do at least agree that changing AR for any change in difficulty within a map would be inappropriate, though I disagree that having a lower AR at the start of Image Material would ruin the intensity difference.
Anyway, I agree with this request more than I did last time I posted my thoughts on it. I used to like this request, but was concerned that it would only lead to people using higher AR where it was unfitting because I didn't trust the QAT's influence on mapping. I think that's settled down a lot and that this request would work just fine as long as some basic rules (and fairly restrictive guidelines) were enforced about when mappers are allowed to change AR in ranked maps. Allowing it only after a break would be the safest way to go about it, but changing AR after a spinner or in some situations in which only one current-AR-object is visible on screen probably wouldn't be bad either, at least in some cases.
I'm gonna side with Endaris on this one. I don't see why AR10 in the slow parts of the song is bad. Changing the AR in a beatmap will only lead to confusion and I don't see a benefit in changing it.GhostFrog wrote:
Hey, you managed to get in an actual reply in-between your 3 paragraphs of continued off-topic drivel!Endaris wrote:
AR10 is not bad for it, the actual 130bpm have a relatively decent playability and it's more the fact that the mapper feels like he has to map every drumbeat - even the rather weak ones - as singles instead of sliders that gives the map a density it doesn't need to have to be good. He also goes ham in the 260bpm parts with 1/4 like a LOT while he doesn't use ANY within the 130bpm section. He is literally asking to make it unbalanced. It's more of a design choice than the song forcing it.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
And...you think that the start of Image Material plays best with AR10. Yikes! I can't help but think you might be biased by your strong opinions on the map itself here, but okay. I do at least agree that changing AR for any change in difficulty within a map would be inappropriate, though I disagree that having a lower AR at the start of Image Material would ruin the intensity difference.
Anyway, I agree with this request more than I did last time I posted my thoughts on it. I used to like this request, but was concerned that it would only lead to people using higher AR where it was unfitting because I didn't trust the QAT's influence on mapping. I think that's settled down a lot and that this request would work just fine as long as some basic rules (and fairly restrictive guidelines) were enforced about when mappers are allowed to change AR in ranked maps. Allowing it only after a break would be the safest way to go about it, but changing AR after a spinner or in some situations in which only one current-AR-object is visible on screen probably wouldn't be bad either, at least in some cases.
Lets go back to Deltamax or Hall of the Mountain King then. Why do you guys think that a set AR is better than a steadily increasing one? Say, 9 to 10 for DeltaMax and 8.5 to 9.5 for Hall of the Mountain King
Neither of them have a distinctive point where the bpm makes a turn, they're both about consistent increase and an average AR would be fitting to represent the slowly increasing density. The lack of a break point would necessarily cause multiple spots where you have multiple ARs on your screen at the same time and I think that such a behaviour causes more issues than it solves. I'm more with GhostFrog here: After breaks or spinners where the change is very clear and doesn't cause a weird clusterfuck.
Also let's be honest, the only maps this can be considered somewhat relevant for very fast AR10 maps as the relative difference to other ARs is significantly bigger than between these ARs(twice as fast as AR7 which is twice as fast as AR0) and the absolute difference in ms-intervalls per 1/1 or 1/2 is rather big.
If we got 130bpm 1/2s that's 231ms between two notes and if we take 1/1 it's 462ms. AR10 is 450ms so upon lowering the AR to AR9,8(=479ms approachtime) the readibility for the 130bpm parts should already improve significantly without making the fast part a lot harder to read.
Between two 260bpm 1/2s we obviously got half the time which is 116ms, meaning that upon hitting a note we already see the next 5 ones. Changing the AR to 9.8 would barely affect this as it is already mapped with high density in mind and causes no additional overlaps that could make reading harder than it is.
AR9.7 is already a bit edgy on the fast parts but relaxes the slow parts even more than AR9.8. So it's not like AR10 is the only and perfect solution for Image Material...I'm not quite sure if decimal AR was already a thing when Image Material got approved but if you sit down for 5min and calculate some values it's not difficult to find a compromise for the problem before you even started to map.
(As mentioned in my first post, if 1/1 on half-bpm suddenly become difficult to read your AR is probably too high in the first place).
Also let's be honest, the only maps this can be considered somewhat relevant for very fast AR10 maps as the relative difference to other ARs is significantly bigger than between these ARs(twice as fast as AR7 which is twice as fast as AR0) and the absolute difference in ms-intervalls per 1/1 or 1/2 is rather big.
If we got 130bpm 1/2s that's 231ms between two notes and if we take 1/1 it's 462ms. AR10 is 450ms so upon lowering the AR to AR9,8(=479ms approachtime) the readibility for the 130bpm parts should already improve significantly without making the fast part a lot harder to read.
Between two 260bpm 1/2s we obviously got half the time which is 116ms, meaning that upon hitting a note we already see the next 5 ones. Changing the AR to 9.8 would barely affect this as it is already mapped with high density in mind and causes no additional overlaps that could make reading harder than it is.
AR9.7 is already a bit edgy on the fast parts but relaxes the slow parts even more than AR9.8. So it's not like AR10 is the only and perfect solution for Image Material...I'm not quite sure if decimal AR was already a thing when Image Material got approved but if you sit down for 5min and calculate some values it's not difficult to find a compromise for the problem before you even started to map.
(As mentioned in my first post, if 1/1 on half-bpm suddenly become difficult to read your AR is probably too high in the first place).
Endaris sorry to say that but you completely missed the point of a feature request.
All you did is explaining that what we currently have can work as well, but this thread is a thing because people see variable AR coming in handy in certain situations:
1. Songs with steadily increasing tempo can have steadily increasing AR to handle smooth tempo changes in a smooth way
2. Marathon maps such as compilations consisting of different songs ranging through different kinds of pacings could be given the opportunity to set a fitting AR to each individual song instead of relying on an overall average
Sure, these can somehow work out with our current setup but the point of this thread is that it could in some cases be cool to have the AR setting more loosely configurable
All you did is explaining that what we currently have can work as well, but this thread is a thing because people see variable AR coming in handy in certain situations:
1. Songs with steadily increasing tempo can have steadily increasing AR to handle smooth tempo changes in a smooth way
2. Marathon maps such as compilations consisting of different songs ranging through different kinds of pacings could be given the opportunity to set a fitting AR to each individual song instead of relying on an overall average
Sure, these can somehow work out with our current setup but the point of this thread is that it could in some cases be cool to have the AR setting more loosely configurable
I don't think I missed the point of this request.
This request was made with songs in mind that have moments of greatly varying intensity/speed.
Many people who support this request named Image Material as an example where this would be great to have.
A discussion consists of arguments and counterarguments. Bringing a counterargument that shows that the parameters for Image Material could have been chosen better and that it can work a lot better without this feature request makes sense for the discussion.
I also stressed that noticeably varying density on the screen can transmit the feeling for differences in a song as well and possibly better than AR-modified parts. That is also a valid argument against the request and for the use of static AR on all maps.
Last but not least I talked about readability issues with sudden AR-Changes.
Especially when they're rather on decimal side they're hard to notice until you hit a 100 because you misjudged the speed of the approachcircle.
Many people read the hitwindow by memorizing when the approachcircle appeared instead of watching the approachcircle from start to end as reading ahead is impossible if you watch every single approach circle closely. That's why I argued that this should be restricted to actual bpm changes and only used in combination with breaks or spinners as multiple ARs on-screen at the same time ARE confusing and std can't handle such changes as effectively as Taiko or mania can.
As you can see, I'm not against it regarding the use on compilations as it makes sense there and would be easy to apply with pretty much only upsides and no downsides(even though I would question the existence of certain compilations anytime but that's a different topic).
Feature Requests aren't about praising a feature while using bad examples to support its implementation.
This request was made with songs in mind that have moments of greatly varying intensity/speed.
Many people who support this request named Image Material as an example where this would be great to have.
A discussion consists of arguments and counterarguments. Bringing a counterargument that shows that the parameters for Image Material could have been chosen better and that it can work a lot better without this feature request makes sense for the discussion.
I also stressed that noticeably varying density on the screen can transmit the feeling for differences in a song as well and possibly better than AR-modified parts. That is also a valid argument against the request and for the use of static AR on all maps.
Last but not least I talked about readability issues with sudden AR-Changes.
Especially when they're rather on decimal side they're hard to notice until you hit a 100 because you misjudged the speed of the approachcircle.
Many people read the hitwindow by memorizing when the approachcircle appeared instead of watching the approachcircle from start to end as reading ahead is impossible if you watch every single approach circle closely. That's why I argued that this should be restricted to actual bpm changes and only used in combination with breaks or spinners as multiple ARs on-screen at the same time ARE confusing and std can't handle such changes as effectively as Taiko or mania can.
As you can see, I'm not against it regarding the use on compilations as it makes sense there and would be easy to apply with pretty much only upsides and no downsides(even though I would question the existence of certain compilations anytime but that's a different topic).
Feature Requests aren't about praising a feature while using bad examples to support its implementation.
Might as well disallow Taiko/Mania SV changes, as they are hard to read, lets start with dq'ing Loctav's new map. Some people memorize the speed the notes approach from the right/fall down and changing the SV for slower parts makes you hit a 100.
I dont really feel like discussing over this. It would be a great addition to Standard mapping, whether you like it or not. I also dont see readability problems be a huge thing. At first? Sure, but this is a rhythm game. The note doesnt magically move 20ms because of an AR change. It will always be at the same position.
I dont really feel like discussing over this. It would be a great addition to Standard mapping, whether you like it or not. I also dont see readability problems be a huge thing. At first? Sure, but this is a rhythm game. The note doesnt magically move 20ms because of an AR change. It will always be at the same position.
There aren't even allot of songs which would benefit from this feature. Implementing it would just be a waste of time
Are you even serious right now
Endaris, you did miss the point. Image Material got approved way before this was added, at least 1-1.5 years later. And yes, it does benefit from having different AR-rates, as they add up in the readability of the lower part. Back when I played it a few months ago when I couldn't read AR10 I had a lot of trouble with the slow parts, because it didn't fit. I had less troubles reading the fast parts, as it felt natural
And I completely agree with Yauxo, AR changes also exist in other modes, being Taiko and Mania. Do people complain about I being unreadable because of the sudden BPM changes from 280 to 56 and then back? No. Why do people complain about it here?
And I completely agree with Yauxo, AR changes also exist in other modes, being Taiko and Mania. Do people complain about I being unreadable because of the sudden BPM changes from 280 to 56 and then back? No. Why do people complain about it here?
For the love of god if i knew how to code slideranchors to visible objects in storyboards, I'd attempt validating it by taking the .osz of image material and combining it with the skinning and storyboarding techniques used in https://osu.ppy.sh/s/51300
because as ziin already mentioned this is one of that kind of requests which can actually be proven / disproved with current mechanics, but i don't even have the necessary freetime before August this year to attempt that.
because as ziin already mentioned this is one of that kind of requests which can actually be proven / disproved with current mechanics, but i don't even have the necessary freetime before August this year to attempt that.
I made a reference thing. Cuts are noticable and it might be offbeat here and there, but it serves its purpose for 1 hour of work
https://youtu.be/iYWlED2YOsI
https://youtu.be/iYWlED2YOsI
It only would help in multi-BPM beatmaps. But there should be a big gap between BPMs
If this was added there would definitely be a need for rather strict rules to disallow even small abuse.
With such rules in place I would definitely support this
With such rules in place I would definitely support this
Don't you think peppy has already thought about this? There is probably a good reason as to why its not implemented.
Peppy also thought that PPv1 was a good idea.Endie- wrote:
Don't you think peppy has already thought about this? There is probably a good reason as to why its not implemented.
It's not that it's a bad idea, I guess it's more that osu!next has a much higher priority right now.
poor BN and QAT, will get more work to check proper AR change usage.
This honestly wouldnt be a huge thing to check for. People wont change the AR on every single object and even if they would, it'd be clearly unrankable.Volta wrote:
poor BN and QAT, will get more work to check proper AR change usage.
Just watching this makes me want to play around with maps that use different approach rates. Nice video!Yauxo wrote:
I made a reference thing. Cuts are noticable and it might be offbeat here and there, but it serves its purpose for 1 hour of work
https://youtu.be/iYWlED2YOsI
How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v
Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
Some maps are meant to be played at ar9 Example:-Pikachu- wrote:
How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v
Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
A while back, a famous player used a hack to change the ar to 10. It made the map easier so he could FC it. Being able to change the ar freely would defeat the purpose of mapping it in ar9.
o!m scrolling speed has pretty much nothing to do with it.-Pikachu- wrote:
How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v
Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
Yeah, I know it doesn't, also it was an example because that would be "how fast" the notes come to the judge area, similar to how Circles has their own judge area with the Approach Circle always called AR (Which result in 300, 100, 50 and even miss).PyaKura wrote:
o!m scrolling speed has pretty much nothing to do with it.
As I said, the AR placed in difficult setting would be the ideal AR to play with, if you want to change it to 0 that's your own business, also I believe AR doesn't have any influence on the star rating of maps, you can put AR10 in a 2 stars map and it will be the same stars, same if you put AR0 to a 6 stars map.Endie- wrote:
Some maps are meant to be played at ar9 Example:
A while back, a famous player used a hack to change the ar to 10. It made the map easier so he could FC it. Being able to change the ar freely would defeat the purpose of mapping it in ar9.
Or how about making a mod that modifies AR and cycle between 0 to 10? Like o!m has it own mod that cycle between 1 to 9 keys but it reduce score multiplier.
You are correct that AR does not influence star rating (though it does influence pp when it gets high or low enough), but that's irrelevant. AR does change the difficulty of maps, regardless of whether or not it's represented in star rating or in pp. The relevant details is whether or not that change in difficulty is a "real" or a "fake" change in difficulty within the context of osu! and the answer to me is so clearly that it's real difficulty, but I've argued about this a lot and I'm tired of doing so, so I'm not going to reiterate why I feel that way. If you're interested, you can find various explanations of it in this other thread, which also happens to be more relevant to player-defined AR.-Pikachu- wrote:
PyaKura wrote:
I believe AR doesn't have any influence on the star rating of maps, you can put AR10 in a 2 stars map and it will be the same stars, same if you put AR0 to a 6 stars map.
User-customizable AR has been requested in an other thread (see above post)
Please stick to this thread, the ability to use multiple ARs in a single map, something I still agree with, and I still can't see why people disagree, as abuse will be unrankable. I'll gladly take care of that ^_^
Please stick to this thread, the ability to use multiple ARs in a single map, something I still agree with, and I still can't see why people disagree, as abuse will be unrankable. I'll gladly take care of that ^_^