Not toooooooooo sure on the base SV suggestions but it's all multiplicative in the end so it's probably ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nardoxyribonucleic wrote:
Regarding the rest moment guidelines, they are actually self-explanatory as they may be violated under exceptional circumstances and thus reasonable judgement is required. But if we still want to make it clearer for what exceptional situations that the guideline could be broken, I think "Using rest moments less frequently (up to 32/1 to 40/1) is acceptable if the pace of music becomes significantly faster to support longer patterning or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving in drastically slower songs. Otherwise, it may put too much strain on beginners." is more concrete and easier to understand while keeping the terms "intermediate players" for Muzukashii and "players of this difficulty level" for Oni.
This number is as arbitrary as values used in break guidelines for the like of 180 BPM. Instead of adding the 32/1 and 40/1 precisions i would rather remove the 16/1 and 20/1 ones (as well as the 180 BPM precision). Writing something more general like "You should regularly insert rest moments (1/3 or longer) depending on the song's BPM and density. Continuous mapping may put too much strain on beginners." would open up a bit mapper's AND nominator's AND qat's minds about the topic, forcing actual "reasonable" judgements.Raiden wrote:
300 is a very arbitrary number to go with
Nofool wrote:
Gonna agree with people saying that a specific number for what "high BPM" is should not be added. If some beginners struggle to read those, some others use them to get into high BPM reading. When you go from low difficulties with purposely lowered SV to higher difficulties that use normal SV, the difficulty gap is incredibly high.
Nofool wrote:
Raiden wrote:
300 is a very arbitrary number to go with
This number is as arbitrary as values used in break guidelines for the like of 180 BPM. Instead of adding the 32/1 and 40/1 precisions i would rather remove the 16/1 and 20/1 ones (as well as the 180 BPM precision). Writing something more general like "You should regularly insert rest moments (1/3 or longer) depending on the song's BPM and density. Continuous mapping may put too much strain on beginners."
Nofool wrote:
would open up a bit mapper's AND nominator's AND qat's minds about the topic, forcing actual "reasonable" judgements.
Though this change implies simplications on other guidelines and rules.
I never heard of these tests, i believe this is something important and interesting enough to be made public ? Or is it already ? If not you can't really say "tests were made and this is the result" without linking the actual study. Showing everyone these informations would greatly help and speed up this discussion.Raiden wrote:
the numerical values (16/1 and so) of the rest moment guidelines were actually tested with players of all skill levels, being these the ones which yielded optimal results.
Nofool wrote:
This number is as arbitrary as values used in break guidelines for the like of 180 BPM. Instead of adding the 32/1 and 40/1 precisions i would rather remove the 16/1 and 20/1 ones (as well as the 180 BPM precision). Writing something more general like "You should regularly insert rest moments (1/3 or longer) depending on the song's BPM and density. Continuous mapping may put too much strain on beginners." would open up a bit mapper's AND nominator's AND qat's minds about the topic, forcing actual "reasonable" judgements.