edit : not supporting, adapting to a new speed will confuse me.
Exactly. If people tried to map "I Prefer the Sky (Remix)", they would know what I'm talking about. ;P0_o wrote:
I know there are a lot of people against this, but I really do think this is a good idea. For songs that have both soft and intense parts a changing AR could work very well.
Of course there's potential for abuse, but seeing as we have an approval system I really don't think that's much of an issue.
or you know, taiko.MetalMario201 wrote:
I totally despise when this happens on rhythm games like DDR.
Don't laugh,I am kinda new in this topic My previous ideas vere denied by you,so I don't know how does this system work.peppy wrote:
*holds gun to head*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
NOOOOOO!!! *takes the gun away from ppy*peppy wrote:
*holds gun to head*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
James2250 wrote:
It worries me to think how much this can easily be abused (and will be) and have to deal with mappers refusing to change any of it because "it fits"
I am very okay with this.Mashley wrote:
Just make it an outright rule that this is for songs which vary in tone and not just for added difficulty.
No, that doesn't help much. I'd say that most songs mapped here change "tone" many times throughout. It really isn't something you can give an easy yes/no rule towards.Larto wrote:
I am very okay with this.Mashley wrote:
Just make it an outright rule that this is for songs which vary in tone and not just for added difficulty.
I imagine how itd be if we just have a group of members that can take care about what can be ranked or not~ ohwait.James2250 wrote:
It worries me to think how much this can easily be abused (and will be) and have to deal with mappers refusing to change any of it because "it fits"
There are not few cases where this could be useful. For example,a lot of songs can start very slow and in the middle they become faster,or the voice is getting louder and maybe it looks good if you add AR +1 or +2. It looks better then.Rolled wrote:
This is a very bad idea. There are very few cases (though, strong ones) where this would be useful. If and when it does get implemented, it will only be used appropriately like 2% of the time. And adding another feature like this will just be another thing for people to complain about when somebody else says they are doing it wrong.
This is exactly when you SHOULDN'T use this, and one of the strongest points against it. There's a wide enough margin of approach rates that will fit a given song, so I don't see why there'd be difficulty in finding an appropriate one. Altering gameplay to achieve a cosmetic effect is inappropriate and will needlessly confuse the player.Giorgos wrote:
or the voice is getting louder and maybe it looks good if you add AR +1 or +2. It looks better then.
The only time something like this could ever be justified is if the music changes to a completely different BPM and texture.Black Hole - Pluto
Why on earth are you using 0.5x sections at all now lesser speed changes are available, let alone on songs you feel deserve AR9 :/yeahyeahyeahhh wrote:
Maps with like 200BPM with AR9 that have a .5x section for example really benefit from this type of thing. playing .5 at AR9 in a like of cases is just ugh.
I suppose poor choice of example. Moreso on maps with multiple BPMs. Example map I have, it is 200 BPM, AR9. Section in the song drops down to 100 BPM for awhile. AR9 just feel so off on that part, multiple approach rates I feel would make that part feel much smoother.RandomJibberish wrote:
Why on earth are you using 0.5x sections at all now lesser speed changes are available, let alone on songs you feel deserve AR9 :/yeahyeahyeahhh wrote:
Maps with like 200BPM with AR9 that have a .5x section for example really benefit from this type of thing. playing .5 at AR9 in a like of cases is just ugh.
yeahyeahyeahhh wrote:
I suppose poor choice of example. Moreso on maps with multiple BPMs. Example map I have, it is 200 BPM, AR9. Section in the song drops down to 100 BPM for awhile. AR9 just feel so off on that part, multiple approach rates I feel would make that part feel much smoother.
What are mods for anyway.jockeytiyan wrote:
Though on the other hand, it can't solve the issue of creating a disorienting, nauseating map.
Well...if you consider this is something that creates more problems than for what it's worth(which is of course, rather plausible), but I'd like to trust the mappers judgment in deciding whether or not to use this function intuitively. It's something that can either be terribly misused or otherwise, but we can take into account that ranking criteria will definitely not allow the former.jockeytiyan wrote:
I just try to give a good idea but honestly, I don't have a good feeling about this unless problems that may arise can be given solutions beforehand.