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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.