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.
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.
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.Faust wrote:
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.
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.
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 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.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.
So strict it's already implemented~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...
I suck at anything below AR9. I just can't do it.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.
So hard rock makes the map easier and gives you a score bonus. HR also makes the map easier by flipping it.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.
This is a skill in itselfziin wrote:
not on their ability to sift their way through circle clusterfucks.
Learn to? How can you call yourself an expert when some very common, "easier" difficulty settings destroy you?JesusYamato wrote:
I suck at anything below AR9. I just can't do it.
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.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.
ziin wrote:
or you know, taiko.MetalMario201 wrote:
I totally despise when this happens on rhythm games like DDR.
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.