forum

Allow to use different Approach Rates in map

posted
Total Posts
313
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +1,210
show more
0_o
Would a rule of not being able to switch ARs without a break in between be a decent compromise?
Mashley
Support, it's literally impossible to map progressive songs without this. Just make it an outright rule that this is for songs which vary in tone and not just for added difficulty.
Larto

Mashley wrote:

Just make it an outright rule that this is for songs which vary in tone and not just for added difficulty.
I am very okay with this.
Jarby

Larto wrote:

Mashley wrote:

Just make it an outright rule that this is for songs which vary in tone and not just for added difficulty.
I am very okay with this.
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.
Wishy
This feature will make maps absolutely unpredictable, I already see some maps with low AR having suddenly an AR 10 part you don't see coming.
Bittersweet

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 imagine how itd be if we just have a group of members that can take care about what can be ranked or not~ ohwait.

But no, i don't support it ._.
qlum
it could work if moderated correctly though in some maps it can really be useful to change the approach rate for example when the rythem changes completely in the middle of a map.
OzzyOzrock
YES.

"POKER FACE"'S SLOWDOWN'S APPORACH SPEED IS REAAALLLY STUPID.

But alas, I've no votes.
Hyguys
support.
but like the slider changes , ''Maximum 3 on map''
Rolled
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.
Topic Starter
Giorgos

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.
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.
mm201

Giorgos wrote:

or the voice is getting louder and maybe it looks good if you add AR +1 or +2. It looks better then.
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.

The only time something like this could ever be justified is if the music changes to a completely different BPM and texture.

If this ever gets added (none of the devs want this), all of faceman's rules would most certainly be enforced, plus the restriction of being only allowed on red lines.
ziin
If anything there should be a way to make approach rate constant in maps like taiko with a varying bpm. Or have approach rate set by the player (but I know that will never happen).
mm201
Approach rate is constant in osu! Approach rate isn't constant in Taiko. The Easy and Hard Rock modes change approach rate. I don't see any need to make this more player-configurable. It'll only make mod score multipliers harder to figure.
Zekira
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

:<
yeahyeahyeahhh
Talked with Lybydose about this the other day. Though, if this were to come alive, it would have to be held super strictly. It shouldn't be used constantly or for small intervals, more so with decent sides slow sections. 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.

DeltaMAX is a really good example.
qlum
there are really maps that can use it maybe if you make the option only available in the .osu so most inexperienced mappers wont even know it is there (they are most likely to abuse it) or just give an warning in the editor, bats/mats can also be very strict about it. it can easily be undone when someone abuses it.
RandomJibberish

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.
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

RandomJibberish wrote:

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.
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 :/
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.
Faust
Would work wonders on this. Fucking wonders.

Remixed by Shounen Radio - Shounen A
Lilac
Tempted to say this should be done after a map is ranked.

Get a BAT/Dev to alter it before ranking but...

...Probably won't be a great idea.
TKiller
This is a very bad idea from my point of view. Approach Rate setting is very personal, one reads map by reaction, someone else by it's structure, etc. A good example would be that map yyy was talking about, he thinks it needs AR 9 and lesser AR for slower parts, I think it look just great with constant AR 8.

I kind of don't feel like stating obvious things here or to list my different rhythm games playing expirience, so the point is: we players already have to deal with hellish number of differents points of view on mapping and how many objects should be there on screen on the same time, adding this feature (sure, sure, there are good uses for this too, but) would cause only more frustration, since AR is only really decided by mapper and approvers of the map and can't be changed client-wise.
jockeytiyan

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.

Just saying something that would probably give a "possible good" compromise is that if this feature can be allowed for a red timing section that has a BPM change (on one hand, as far as how I see it, this can't be abused with the rule for not placing red timing sections for other stuff not related to BPM/offset issues).

Though on the other hand, it can't solve the issue of creating a disorienting, nauseating map.

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.
Faust

jockeytiyan wrote:

Though on the other hand, it can't solve the issue of creating a disorienting, nauseating map.
What are mods for anyway.

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.
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.

There is always going to be concern over these sort of things, the problem isn't in the functionality itself(And you should be aware of this), but rather how it can be abused.

I believe being very outrightly clear about the restrictions of this is enough, as with the variable slider-speeds. I'd advise to this being a rule, if anyone is ever going to ultilize it. It's also actually easier to take notice of if usage of this is granted to only Red Timing Sections. It also doesn't necessarily mean more things to check, maybe more things to consider, spacing-wise perhaps.

Maybe I'm desperately piling on a mountain of assurance over this, as the final decision lies in peppy's prudence.
jockeytiyan

Faust wrote:

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.
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.

There is always going to be concern over these sort of things, the problem isn't in the functionality itself(And you should be aware of this), but rather how it can be abused.

I believe being very outrightly clear about the restrictions of this is enough, as with the variable slider-speeds. I'd advise to this being a rule, if anyone is ever going to ultilize it. It's also actually easier to take notice of if usage of this is granted to only Red Timing Sections. It also doesn't necessarily mean more things to check, maybe more things to consider, spacing-wise perhaps.

Maybe I'm desperately piling on a mountain of assurance over this, as the final decision lies in peppy's prudence.
Well, I was merely suggesting a possible compromise. We can't really avoid the issue of this getting abused, but I hightly trust modders to at least be able of good help in solving this part.

I don't consider this feature as entirely something that could cause more problems. However, it would be a good thing that thinking about the problems it may cause and at least be given solution to said problems can give the assurance that the others are looking for.
Lesjuh
Also mind how frustrating this could be when playing with mods, especially hidden because the AR has alot influence on that one. And that's just one of many reasons I'm against this.
Daru
Remember Vertex?

Yeah.
FurukawaPan
hell no

one of the few cues you can still rely on for playing a map is the rate of the approach circles. I've seen some viciously hard to read patterns, but you throw in the ability to vary the approach rate? forget about it.
jockeytiyan

FurukawaPan wrote:

hell no

one of the few cues you can still rely on for playing a map is the rate of the approach circles. I've seen some viciously hard to read patterns, but you throw in the ability to vary the approach rate? forget about it.

Which is where restrictions come in. I'm not sure what restrictions but I'm pretty sure if this gets implemented, it's going to be a very strict one...
ziin
this is why I want AR to be set by the player. Screw Hard rock and easy (they do other things too).

Note that I know this is never going to happen, and I don't think anyone else wants it to happen. It's just some people suck at low AR but are superb at high AR. It's easier for them to FC a HR song than a non HR song.
mm201

ziin wrote:

Note that I know this is never going to happen, and I don't think anyone else wants it to happen. It's just some people suck at low AR but are superb at high AR. It's easier for them to FC a HR song than a non HR song.
...which is exactly why it SHOULDN'T be player-controllable. It's a difficulty modifier, like any other, and it would be unfair to allow them to make the map easier without any score multiplier.

jockeytiyan wrote:

Which is where restrictions come in. I'm not sure what restrictions but I'm pretty sure if this gets implemented, it's going to be a very strict one...
So strict it's already implemented~
Waryas

ziin wrote:

this is why I want AR to be set by the player. Screw Hard rock and easy (they do other things too).

Note that I know this is never going to happen, and I don't think anyone else wants it to happen. It's just some people suck at low AR but are superb at high AR. It's easier for them to FC a HR song than a non HR song.
I suck at anything below AR9. I just can't do it.
ziin

MetalMario201 wrote:

...which is exactly why it SHOULDN'T be player-controllable. It's a difficulty modifier, like any other, and it would be unfair to allow them to make the map easier without any score multiplier.
So hard rock makes the map easier and gives you a score bonus. HR also makes the map easier by flipping it.

If you let players choose their own AR, it is taken out of the difficulty equation (it's already not in the star difficulty equation anyway), letting players rely on their skill in playing osu, not on their ability to sift their way through circle clusterfucks. Virtually every other rhythm game lets you control the AR in some way.
mm201

ziin wrote:

not on their ability to sift their way through circle clusterfucks.
This is a skill in itself :P

You should read the arguments in the request thread for splitting AR from OD. The exact difficulty impact of AR is complicated and depends on the style of mapping. Nevertheless, it DOES alter difficulty, so it shouldn't be user changeable without some penalty.

Your request amounts to splitting HardRock mod into two separate mods: higher AR mod and higher OD/CS + flip mod. (Apply the same logic to lower AR and Easy mod.) This is silly.

JesusYamato wrote:

I suck at anything below AR9. I just can't do it.
Learn to? How can you call yourself an expert when some very common, "easier" difficulty settings destroy you?

What if I were to say I suck at anything below CS7. Should that be player controllable too?
theowest
Here's a somewhat cool example of not needing this: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/19554
I just don't think we need this.. Maybe when there's a extreme change of bpm like from 120 to 240 or something. But a change of 70 to 140 bpm is unmindable.
ziin

MetalMario201 wrote:

Your request amounts to splitting HardRock mod into two separate mods: higher AR mod and higher OD/CS + flip mod. (Apply the same logic to lower AR and Easy mod.) This is silly.
Actually my request would remove the AR aspects of Easy and Hard Rock and replace it with a way to edit AR in the same way we can change the offset while playing.

You're the one deciding that AR increases difficulty on a linear/generally positive direction rather than on a bell curve custom fit to the person. Everyone has their own optimal AR which they can play best at, much like mouse speed. If it's set too high, it gets very hard. If it's set too low, it gets harder and harder. Thus, hard rock makes things a lot easier for a lot of people, provided the OD and CS don't make it impossible. How does it make sense to give people a score bonus for using a mod which makes it easier to play?
Gomo Psivarh
I'm afraid many mappers will abuse this and make the map full of traps :(
mm201
I never said anything of the sort. I said the difficulty of AR depends on a lot of different factors, including mapping style, music, and the player's abilities. Allowing the player to adjust the difficulty of maps to suit their own convenience isn't fair. Whether this is higher or lower doesn't matter in the slightest.
Sleep Powder
There could always be warnings for it like how there are warnings for x2 sliders and spacing incre-- (adding jumps + anti-jumps to this)

We still have those right?

( Also, if this is abused. I'll totally fall in love with it either way. )

Then again, I don't know if changing AR in the middle of a map is possible or not.
AnFace

ziin wrote:

MetalMario201 wrote:

I totally despise when this happens on rhythm games like DDR.
or you know, taiko.

Lesjuh wrote:

Also mind how frustrating this could be when playing with mods, especially hidden because the AR has alot influence on that one. And that's just one of many reasons I'm against this.

These are the 2 strongest feelings I have for it.

On one end there's taiko's system of handling slider/BPM changes where the note simply comes in faster or slower, just as the suggested different AR would cause for standard osu. While this is something that can be used really well to make a map look and feel better, there are also a lot of times in which it makes the map nearly unplayable without already knowing what's coming. I imagine there are plenty of mappers who would abuse the hell out different approach rates and will only cause the maps to be more difficult and/or annoying, rather than artistic. On the positive, this could cause more strict modding/ranking which is always a good thing, and it would raise the potential of maps.

With the case of mods, hidden would be pretty much destroyed. With some cases of HR/DT notes could come in fast enough that it would be, like above, impossible to hit without knowing what's coming already.

I think negatives outweigh the positives
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply