No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
forum
Allow to use different Approach Rates in map
posted
Total Posts
313
Topic Starter
Well,who knows. With slowdowns and 2x speed sliders it is not disorienting,and with circles with different AR's it will be?Kitsunemimi wrote:
No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
I can see the moments when this is useful, for example, Beats And Pieces is a song I tried to map. It starts at 70 BPM and anything over 6-7 looks wrong but ends at 200 BPM and anything under 9 looks wrong!
So yeah, this have my support but it better be justified to when it's used as this can be abused very easy.
So yeah, this have my support but it better be justified to when it's used as this can be abused very easy.
Will definitely need special permission even if it's implemented, I also support this. We can still utilize this and keep abuse to a minimal, or at a halt, since with the addition of another feature, there's bound to be a restriction of some sort over this.
No no no no no. I dread to see the abuse this would cause despite it's potential good uses.
Go full troll and set AR5 for the whole thingXgor wrote:
It starts at 70 BPM and anything over 6-7 looks wrong but ends at 200 BPM and anything under 9 looks wrong!.
And this is why we have our friendly BATs and MATs!.RandomJibberish wrote:
No no no no no. I dread to see the abuse this would cause despite it's potential good uses.
Other than that, I have no support. I'll see how it turns out before supporting.
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.
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.
Much as I want this, it'd probably end up with some terrible mapper abusing it for 'creativity'.
Increase AR to 10 at all kiai time sections, fuck yeah.
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.
Well, yes there will be many maps abusing this
but i want this :3
but i want this :3
I totally despise when this happens on rhythm games like DDR.
or you know, taiko.MetalMario201 wrote:
I totally despise when this happens on rhythm games like DDR.
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"
However I have seen several maps where this idea could be very helpful...
I guess half support~
However I have seen several maps where this idea could be very helpful...
I guess half support~
Topic Starter
I am surprised that my idea has such a good support.
That is the first time when I do it,so Idk if it is bad or not - that I voted 4 times for this idea by myself
That is the first time when I do it,so Idk if it is bad or not - that I voted 4 times for this idea by myself
*holds gun to head*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
Topic Starter
Don't laugh,I am kinda new in this topicpeppy wrote:
*holds gun to head*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
My previous ideas vere denied by you,so I don't know how does this system work.NOOOOOO!!! *takes the gun away from ppy*peppy wrote:
*holds gun to head*
*cringes and pulls trigger*
Anyways...i don't support. It would be too much confusing. Kiai is enough for me.
Oh my god
no no no no fucking no
tldr: push button receive even worse osu community division
no no no no fucking no
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"
tldr: push button receive even worse osu community division
While I understand that there are some maps where it really fits - this would be incredibly disorienting orz
I mean, I already get enough combobreaks with unexpected 2x slider velocity changes, I don't even wanna imagine how my accuracy would plummet if this gets used D:
I mean, I already get enough combobreaks with unexpected 2x slider velocity changes, I don't even wanna imagine how my accuracy would plummet if this gets used D:
This made me remember when osu didn't refresh Approach Rate when changing Overall Difficulty some time ago and i kinda "tested" some patterns with two different approach rates.
It would be a interesting feature, but it would also kill the biggest element used for reading patterns.
Some cases in which i could see this fit are songs described above, with a break before the AR change.
That would be a really nice touch and not disturbing at all while playing.
I'm neutral about this.
It would be a interesting feature, but it would also kill the biggest element used for reading patterns.
Some cases in which i could see this fit are songs described above, with a break before the AR change.
That would be a really nice touch and not disturbing at all while playing.
I'm neutral about this.
Would a rule of not being able to switch ARs without a break in between be a decent compromise?
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.
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.
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"
But no, i don't support it ._.
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.
YES.
"POKER FACE"'S SLOWDOWN'S APPORACH SPEED IS REAAALLLY STUPID.
But alas, I've no votes.
"POKER FACE"'S SLOWDOWN'S APPORACH SPEED IS REAAALLLY STUPID.
But alas, I've no votes.
support.
but like the slider changes , ''Maximum 3 on map''
but like the slider changes , ''Maximum 3 on map''
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
:<
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.
DeltaMAX is a really good example.
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.
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.
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.
Get a BAT/Dev to alter it before ranking but...
...Probably won't be a great idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.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...
Waryas
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.
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.
This is a skill in itselfziin wrote:
not on their ability to sift their way through circle clusterfucks.
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.
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.
What if I were to say I suck at anything below CS7. Should that be player controllable too?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm afraid many mappers will abuse this and make the map full of traps 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
lol, only for players who play by eye like you.JesusYamato wrote:
Now that I think about it, it'll make hidden unplayable.
But yeah, I think it's a bad idea.
Topic Starter
You don't understand,people,that this thing will be very useful. You say that it will be hard to know where to increase or decrease approach rate. Then what can you say about 2x sections and 0,5 x sections? Is it hard to know where to use them? It depends of mappers will. But there are no problems with it - then why can be problems with different ARs? Experienced mappers can use it right,and what about newbies : moddings are created for this,to help to understand where can you use it right.
Lol yes there are. Large speed changes are used well so rarely...Giorgos wrote:
You don't understand,people,that this thing will be very useful. You say that it will be hard to know where to increase or decrease approach rate. Then what can you say about 2x sections and 0,5 x sections? Is it hard to know where to use them? It depends of mappers will. But there are no problems with it...
Also 2x and 0.5x sections SHOULD be readable becuase of tick rate. They aren't becuase people keep using tick 0.5, but that's a separate issue
Certainly could be exploited to make a trolololo map, but that is why maps have to be of high enough quality to be ranked, useful if done right and if not they don't get ranked simple enough.
But such a map will certainly have its legions of fans who love how it just successfully assfucked the osu! beatmapping paradigm, and riot until it is ranked.
This could never work well enough IMO.
lol this on CTB ._.
I could see this wo-OzzyOzrock wrote:
lol this on CTB ._.
>7AR
>final stream in 9AR
Yeah no.
What he said.Mashley wrote:
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 support this idea, but only make it configurable to "per song", not "per map". And make sure it follows the music, not for adding challenge. There shouldn't be any difference for the same interval between different mapsets because music is the same (so you can expect the slow approach rate when the music is on the slow part)
I think that solve the problem with hidden mod too because you can actually know it. (and it's not random)
Update: Apparently I didn't consider about the different approach rates among easy/normal/hard maps when making this post...
I'd rather have it set to "per timing section"
It would not only allow AR changes based on BPM changes, but would also deny AR changes if the BPM doesnt change between timing sections
Simple logic, if the BPM doesnt change, AR isnt allowed to change
Support, no star (for now)
It would not only allow AR changes based on BPM changes, but would also deny AR changes if the BPM doesnt change between timing sections
Simple logic, if the BPM doesnt change, AR isnt allowed to change
Support, no star (for now)
You know this would destroy Hardrock's ability to change AR.
Oh and if it did work I do agree that red lines should only be allowed to change AR. That way the rankability of a map comes into question if someone wants to change the AR.
Oh and if it did work I do agree that red lines should only be allowed to change AR. That way the rankability of a map comes into question if someone wants to change the AR.
This idea is good for let's say, maps where the BPM changes heavily, or any Compalation of maps (since the songs of the Compilation have differenty AR's in general~)
I like the idea that math mentioned, that you can change the AR when the BPM changes...~
This way, there's some kind of restriction to the usage of different AR's....
The only problem is, that this is still abusable then...
I guess I expand the idea from math, while stating the same idea he already had:
I like the idea that math mentioned, that you can change the AR when the BPM changes...~
This way, there's some kind of restriction to the usage of different AR's....
The only problem is, that this is still abusable then...
I guess I expand the idea from math, while stating the same idea he already had:
- Mappers should just be allowed to change the AR, when the BPM of the song changes. (math's idea~)
- If the BPM of the song changes just by "1", you can't change the AR. there should be a minimum of what the change in BPM has to be, so you can change the AR of a song.
- If the same BPM is used again in a map (let's say, 1st BPM: 150, 2nd: 125), then the AR you choosed for that kind of BPM is applied automatically.
DDR and taiko do things this way. I've always hated it because it makes patterns near BPM changes extremely messy and hard to read. If osu! were to do something like this, it would have to do it all the time. Doing it only sometimes at mapper discretion would make things EVEN MORE confusing, since it becomes a guessing game. Doing it all the time is something that can't be changed now, something I disagree with (see above), and something that breaks authenticity with the Ouendan titles.
Topic Starter
well,experienced players can play well with different AR's ,I think.
Maybe mappers just should use different AR's only in "Hard" and "Insane" difficulty,because this will be hard to play for newbies in 'Easy' or in 'Normal' with different AR's. Or mappers should use different AR's on all diffs : newbies can adapt to this - this won't take a lot of time!
The second option sounds much better to me. So,I think it's good.
Maybe mappers just should use different AR's only in "Hard" and "Insane" difficulty,because this will be hard to play for newbies in 'Easy' or in 'Normal' with different AR's. Or mappers should use different AR's on all diffs : newbies can adapt to this - this won't take a lot of time!
The second option sounds much better to me. So,I think it's good.
BPM changes should be apparent in the music and I can only see this being confusing/messy. At that point, you're invalidating several visual cues (this is a bad thing) such as placing hitobject order based on when the approach circles appear.
If you're going from a fast to a slow BPM, some slow BPM objects' approach rates will appear before some of the fast BPM objects' approach rates
that sentence may have been hard to understand, but the gameplay would be even worse
If you're going from a fast to a slow BPM, some slow BPM objects' approach rates will appear before some of the fast BPM objects' approach rates
that sentence may have been hard to understand, but the gameplay would be even worse
Topic Starter
Well,every man has it's own opinion) I don't agree with you guys - maybe you are right,but maybe you are not.
We should just test this ability and see how it works - If the gameplay will become worse,then it will be possible to put this option away,I think..?
We should just test this ability and see how it works - If the gameplay will become worse,then it will be possible to put this option away,I think..?
if its THAT extreme^^^^^, then it will be caught when modded
I just want to say, I really hope this never gets added.
I really don't ever want to see changing approach rates in any map, God forbid it be a ranked map.
I would only expect a drastic increase in the number of Insanes which become *completely* unplayable to anyone who hasn't simply memorized every move in that map. And if you're looking for a memorization challenge, use hidden or flashlight.
I really don't ever want to see changing approach rates in any map, God forbid it be a ranked map.
I would only expect a drastic increase in the number of Insanes which become *completely* unplayable to anyone who hasn't simply memorized every move in that map. And if you're looking for a memorization challenge, use hidden or flashlight.
you could put a restriction on this feature that requires a break section to change it. Being able to change Approach Rate on the fly during active gameplay is destructive to the map's readability. Forcing changes to only occur during break sections would mitigate that nicely. Adding a limit to the delta Approach Rate would also be a good idea.
A few hard-coded limitations would prevent users from being stupid with it. I've had a mild change of heart about the request: when a song is notably faster in one section than another, a faster approach rate makes a degree of sense.
A few hard-coded limitations would prevent users from being stupid with it. I've had a mild change of heart about the request: when a song is notably faster in one section than another, a faster approach rate makes a degree of sense.
^FurukawaPan wrote:
I just want to say, I really hope this never gets added.
I really don't ever want to see changing approach rates in any map, God forbid it be a ranked map.
I would only expect a drastic increase in the number of Insanes which become *completely* unplayable to anyone who hasn't simply memorized every move in that map. And if you're looking for a memorization challenge, use hidden or flashlight.
Topic Starter
Oh God,I waited when you will come!!! Now all I can do - is to give up with this idea and quit.Ussuru wrote:
No thank you
I support this idea~>w<
I support this, as I can see at least a couple of uses for it. If a track slows down, then a slower approach rate would feel better. Irrespective of difficulty, a slow section where the beats appear quickly feels wrong. Conversely, a fast section with a clusterfuck of slow approaches also feels wrong, unless honeycomb puzzles are the desired effect. This brings me to my next point: for added difficulty, an [Insane] map could go from breakneck to puzzling. It would certainly offer an interesting challenge.
^Metro wrote:
^FurukawaPan wrote:
I just want to say, I really hope this never gets added.
I really don't ever want to see changing approach rates in any map, God forbid it be a ranked map.
I would only expect a drastic increase in the number of Insanes which become *completely* unplayable to anyone who hasn't simply memorized every move in that map. And if you're looking for a memorization challenge, use hidden or flashlight.
I'm honestly not sure I like this idea, because it would look odd, be somewhat confusing, and IMO AR is something that should be consistent throughout the whole map...
i dunno D:
I support this idea, because I do believe that there are many songs which switch from very fast-paced, hardcore sections to calmer ones. Well known examples would be System of a Down - B.Y.O.B., La Roux - Bulletproof, Florence + The Machine - Drumming Song, Rise Against - Prayer of the Refugee, System of a Down - Vicinity of Obscenity, and many many more. Just go through your osu! library and you'll quickly find many songs which could probably have used this feature. But, then again, I can understand that larger changes, like from 9 to 5 would already be confusing as fuck while playing. That's why I suggest limiting by how much you can change it. I'd say by 2 points at max. So, if you have AR 7, you can use 9, 8, 6 or 5, but not more in any direction. I'd like that, slight changes like those can already influence how fitting the Approach Rate for a section is. I for example would have liked -1 on the slow sections in Drumming Song and Bulletproof. -2 would only be necessary in really extreme cases like Vicinity of Obscenity. We obviously don't need to go from 9 to 2.
EDIT: And at best, there should be a break between the approach rate changes, but this is understandably not always possible, so the AR-2-Limit must do. And I'd say that if there is a break, you should have a larger limit, like 3, which could be very useful when mapping medleys or other marathons.
EDIT: And at best, there should be a break between the approach rate changes, but this is understandably not always possible, so the AR-2-Limit must do. And I'd say that if there is a break, you should have a larger limit, like 3, which could be very useful when mapping medleys or other marathons.
Topic Starter
sounds pretty nice,I like itLarto wrote:
I support this idea, because I do believe that there are many songs which switch from very fast-paced, hardcore sections to calmer ones. Well known examples would be System of a Down - B.Y.O.B., La Roux - Bulletproof, Florence + The Machine - Drumming Song, Rise Against - Prayer of the Refugee, System of a Down - Vicinity of Obscenity, and many many more. Just go through your osu! library and you'll quickly find many songs which could probably have used this feature. But, then again, I can understand that larger changes, like from 9 to 5 would already be confusing as fuck while playing. That's why I suggest limiting by how much you can change it. I'd say by 2 points at max. So, if you have AR 7, you can use 9, 8, 6 or 5, but not more in any direction. I'd like that, slight changes like those can already influence how fitting the Approach Rate for a section is. I for example would have liked -1 on the slow sections in Drumming Song and Bulletproof. -2 would only be necessary in really extreme cases like Vicinity of Obscenity. We obviously don't need to go from 9 to 2.
EDIT: And at best, there should be a break between the approach rate changes, but this is understandably not always possible, so the AR-2-Limit must do. And I'd say that if there is a break, you should have a larger limit, like 3, which could be very useful when mapping medleys or other marathons.
I seriously don't see this idea working out well at all. This idea is potentially great but I don't see it being used correctly. Plus it would make maps pretty hard to read/predict, like you come from some AR 9 fast map and suddenly in a slow part you get AR 7, it would be just awful. And, plus again, try understanding that applying different ARs in easy diffs may be confusing for those who play them (I think), and AR 7 on insanes looks horrible (on super insanes AR 7 just makes them unplayable), so I would only really be OK if the possible margin would be +1 -1, since with that you get hard insanes to get 8 as minimum, and normal insane maps (or even hards) can get some "good enough" AR variation, but if this is going like +2 -2 I'm totally against it.
Just as everything ever can be abused, this idea also can be, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea and cannot be used well. Besides, if it IS abused, that should be pointed out during the modding process.Wishy22 wrote:
I seriously don't see this idea working out well at all. This idea is potentially great but I don't see it being used correctly.
Which is why +2 and -2 should only be used in rare cases where it really really really fits. Those exist, but are unlikely. +2/-2 was only an example anyways, we can keep it at +1/-1, that's not for me to decide, I was just talking about the general idea.Wishy22 wrote:
Plus it would make maps pretty hard to read/predict, like you come from some AR 9 fast map and suddenly in a slow part you get AR 7, it would be just awful.
The ARs would also have to be applied fittingly to every difficulty, obviously. +1/-1 should even in Easies not be that awfully confusing to follow, if it does fit the song. And you wouldn't go from AR 8 to AR 7 in an Insane if the map didn't also become slightly easier at that point. That'd be ruining the point.Wishy22 wrote:
And, plus again, try understanding that applying different ARs in easy diffs may be confusing for those who play them (I think), and AR 7 on insanes looks horrible (on super insanes AR 7 just makes them unplayable),
Well, +2 -2 is only a suggestion, like I said, it'd only ever be needed in very rare, very extreme cases. +1 -1 is more likely to ever be needed.Wishy22 wrote:
so I would only really be OK if the possible margin would be +1 -1, since with that you get hard insanes to get 8 as minimum, and normal insane maps (or even hards) can get some "good enough" AR variation, but if this is going like +2 -2 I'm totally against it.
Then we both think the same about this. I was just pointing out that I can already see this being troublesome, since the fact that some players consider some AR unplayable or horrible to play with and others are the opposite is a reality, so maybe in some maps you lower the AR for a slow part and while some players gonna find it ok, some others gonna hate it and bash the map. I just think a feature like this could bear up some problems that can't really be solved since each player has it's own perspective of what AR fits and what doesn't. But of course it could work, guess the best solution for this would be to apply it to some maps so everyone can actually try it and feel how it'd play.
You know, the point of supporting a feature is to show why it's needed; not to say that it's rarely needed hence like saying that it doesn't need to be implemented due to it's rare use.Larto wrote:
it'd only ever be needed in very rare, very extreme cases.
Other than that, i pretty much agree since im used to associate approach rate with the general speed of the map, and when the map slows down, high AR just feels awkward.
I'm only talking about +2 and -2. Not +1 and -1, which would be useful fairly commonly.Larto wrote:
+2 -2 is only a suggestion, like I said, it'd only ever be needed in very rare, very extreme cases. +1 -1 is more likely to ever be needed.
oops i missed that :p sorry Larto
@Wishy22: Players already bash maps for plenty other unreasonable reasons i dont see how this would make it any different =/
@Wishy22: Players already bash maps for plenty other unreasonable reasons i dont see how this would make it any different =/
More than 2 unique approach rates are being used in this map.