hey i didn't read the whole thread but if you're reading this chances are you probably already know your idea is borked.
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
