I thought this would be a fun topic. I know this is a controversial opinion but I'm going give some pretty good facts (I swear).

1. Everyone can play low AR but the same cannot be said for high AR
People like to claim they cannot play lower ARs because it's "too slow" or something but I'm going to argue that everyone can play low ARs. The simplest way to play something low AR is to simply drop the difficulty rating down low enough so that the object density is not an issue. At first, you may re-actively try to hit the circles too early, however, given a very short adjustment period, this is not a problem at all.

You may not be great at the low ARs but you are only truly good at the ARs you play most frequently. Even if you play AR4 and AR10 frequently, that won't automatically mean you can play AR6 just as well. You may be able to play AR6 better than someone who plays only AR9 and AR10 but it won't be at the same level as your AR4 and AR10 abilities. There are just levels to it.

Finally, higher ARs require you to be able to react fast enough to play it. It doesn't matter how low you make the difficulty as if you can't react fast enough, you simply won't be able to play it.

2. The perceived difficulty in low AR is completely baked into the high object density
When people think low AR, they think high object density. However, object density isn't a feature of low AR. You can get high object density high AR maps too. The only problem with trying to make a map high AR compete for object density with a low AR map is that the difficulty would be way too firetrucking high. So basically, low AR players are just good at reading high object density - AR doesn't really mean anything. This brings me to number 3..

3. High AR doesn't need high object density
High AR doesn't need the high object density of low AR to compete in reading difficulty. This is because low AR gives you more time to process information. You have roughly 3 times more time to process the information on your screen on AR4 (EZ) vs AR10. What this basically means is you have a higher tolerance for high object densities as you lower the AR.

The only way low AR is more difficult vs high AR is in reading the rhythm. Visually, it doesn't compete.

Change my mind.

Tbh I like high ar and low ar

I can't change what's right

As you said, its more to do with object density than the actual AR of maps that people think is difficult. AR4 is definitively easier to read than AR10, you can't argue with that. Whether you are comfortable with it or get the same accuracy is a different question.

I feel like this ties in with your 6-7 digit player syndrome post lol, as the 'I can't play low AR' phrase is frequent for players around this range for some odd reason.

Well I have played other rhythm games on mobile and I think ar is like the same as most game’s notes speed, except you can change how fast the notes are and it doesn’t effect any scores. I feel like this kinda make things a bit different in other games because there’s literally no point of playing low note speed. To me it just feels better reacting to a higher speed then a lower one cuz it’s just more natural to me. Reading low ar or notes speed just makes me miss or click at the wrong time.

I can read all ars expect ar11. i think your mind right idk

You guys are no fun

-Chaeyoung wrote:

I feel like this ties in with your 6-7 digit player syndrome post lol, as the 'I can't play low AR' phrase is frequent for players around this range for some odd reason.

Actually I've heard players from all walks say that (including players that used to be in the top 100) so it's a thought that effects many.

Trashy Tuber wrote:

Well I have played other rhythm games on mobile and I think ar is like the same as most game’s notes speed, except you can change how fast the notes are and it doesn’t effect any scores. I feel like this kinda make things a bit different in other games because there’s literally no point of playing low note speed. To me it just feels better reacting to a higher speed then a lower one cuz it’s just more natural to me. Reading low ar or notes speed just makes me miss or click at the wrong time.

In other rhythm games, it's all about rhythm not aim, reading, etc so they allow you to modify that stuff. In those games, it's up to the player themselves to balance the object density and AR such that it becomes easiest to read.

Reading in osu! is also a little different compared to most other rhythm games also. In most of rhythm games, reading is all about just focusing on what's right in front of you so it really doesn't matter whether you have 10 or 20 notes on your screen. In osu! it's similar except that you have overlaps which make it much more difficult to decipher what's on your screen when you play higher object densities.

Lower AR should be easier in theory, but most people don't bother playing maps with high object density (mostly because they are really uncommon these days) or put on EZ while playing. Because there aren't any incentives for it - except doing it for fun of course. It's more of a gimmick skillset than anything else.

Most of the competition in terms of ranks and tournaments revolves around maps with faster approach rates.
And the fact that most maps are made to be played as they are, with AR's ranging from 7 to 11 - it's no wonder people find higher AR's to be easier. This is what 99% of the active playerbase has gotten used to.

Not to say your arguments are objectively wrong,
it's just that I don't think this applies for the current meta and majority of players.

Simon12 wrote:

Lower AR should be easier in theory, but most people don't bother playing maps with high object density (mostly because they are really uncommon these days) or put on EZ while playing. Because there aren't any incentives for it - except doing it for fun of course. It's more of a gimmick skillset than anything else.

Most of the competition in terms of ranks and tournaments revolves around maps with faster approach rates.
And the fact that most maps are made to be played as they are, with AR's ranging from 7 to 11 - it's no wonder people find higher AR's to be easier. This is what 99% of the active playerbase has gotten used to.

Not to say your arguments are objectively wrong,
it's just that I don't think this applies for the current meta and majority of players.

I did mention in my argument that people are generally good at the AR they play at most often. It is a shame though that there aren't really any maps that are natively mapped on low ARs. Probably the lowest AR on ranked map you can get above 5* is AR8 which really isn't even that low in my opinion. It would be really cool for maps to be made for even lower ARs (like 0 to 4) so that there are other options other than just EZ. Just from my perspective, there is nothing more enjoyable than reading perfectly a jumbled mess and then thinking to yourself "how the hell did I do that?" and I wish more people (especially newer players) could appreciate this rather than just preferring the high bpm/high AR maps.

Almost wrote:

I did mention in my argument that people are generally good at the AR they play at most often. It is a shame though that there aren't really any maps that are natively mapped on low ARs. Probably the lowest AR on ranked map you can get above 5* is AR8 which really isn't even that low in my opinion. It would be really cool for maps to be made for even lower ARs (like 0 to 4) so that there are other options other than just EZ. Just from my perspective, there is nothing more enjoyable than reading perfectly a jumbled mess and then thinking to yourself "how the hell did I do that?" and I wish more people (especially newer players) could appreciate this rather than just preferring the high bpm/high AR maps.

I agree, that WOULD be interesting.
Let's hope this game gets more diverse in that sense.

so what. is your argument that a single ar0 circle is easier to read than a single ar11 circle? yeah. sure. but it's important to see it in the games context. you even say it yourself:
"object density isn't a feature of low AR. You can get high object density high AR maps too. The only problem with trying to make a map high AR compete for object density with a low AR map is that the difficulty would be way too firetrucking high."

well yes. so fcing a 7* map with ar10 is easier than fcing the same 7* map with ar0 due to the object density which is created by the maps low ar.
=> it's a matter of perspective and the map
=> i hereby declare your statement - being that low ar is >universally< easier to read in every case - as wrong

edit: and before you say "oh, but if you just edit a 7* map to be ar0 then it's not made for that ar in mind and that's why it's cluttered" well then try to show me a map or make one in which the difficulty isn't derived from an absurd game-breaking mechanic like in tag4 maps eg.

mulraf wrote:

so what. is your argument that a single ar0 circle is easier to read than a single ar11 circle? yeah. sure. but it's important to see it in the games context. you even say it yourself:
"object density isn't a feature of low AR. You can get high object density high AR maps too. The only problem with trying to make a map high AR compete for object density with a low AR map is that the difficulty would be way too firetrucking high."

well yes. so fcing a 7* map with ar10 is easier than fcing the same 7* map with ar0 due to the object density which is created by the maps low ar.
=> it's a matter of perspective and the map
=> i hereby declare your statement - being that low ar is >universally< easier to read in every case - as wrong

edit: and before you say "oh, but if you just edit a 7* map to be ar0 then it's not made for that ar in mind and that's why it's cluttered" well then try to show me a map or make one in which the difficulty isn't derived from an absurd game-breaking mechanic like in tag4 maps eg.

This is a good one. You're very right that you can't look at things this binary. However my argument is more along the lines of is low AR difficult to read because the AR is low or because the object density is high? I think with regards to this argument, it doesn't make sense to compare within the same map as it's obvious that lowering the AR on the same map makes the reading difficulty jump exponentially. You'd have to compare the object densities between ARs instead.

Almost wrote:

This is a good one. You're very right that you can't look at things this binary. However my argument is more along the lines of is low AR difficult to read because the AR is low or because the object density is high? I think with regards to this argument, it doesn't make sense to compare within the same map as it's obvious that lowering the AR on the same map makes the reading difficulty jump exponentially. You'd have to compare the object densities between ARs instead.

It's just a matter of what you decide to keep constant when you compare different ARs.

If you just lower the AR of a map, then the visual object density increases, which is a big factor that tells us how difficulty a map is to read.

If you lower the AR and also decide to keep the visual object density constant, there is a lot of other factors that change, which makes comparison more difficult. In general, the lower AR map would be easier overall in most aspects compared to the higher AR map.

I think the main aspects that tells us how hard a map is given the AR is:

1. Object density: most players can easily keep track of a certain amount of notes at the same time, and when the amount of notes on the screen exceeds that amount, reading becomes much more difficult.
2. Reading speed required ("Reaction"): people need a certain amount of time to see and then mentally route the actions required for playing each note. This is not pure reaction, since just hitting each note as fast as possible doesn't yield good results at any AR. Overlapping notes also influence this aspect, since they are harder to see and take more mental effort to notice on time. If the player takes too much time to mentally process a note, their actions might lag behind the map, which greatly influences the performance.
3. Habit: when a player plays with a specific AR for a long time, they get a feeling of when each note has to be pressed just by looking at them, which makes getting good accuracy considerably easier (since they don't have to rely on their rhythm sense alone). In osu!, notes might appear on the screen at any place on the screen, and it's hard to measure the size of each approach circle to tell the timing, so this technique is less reliable compared to most other rhythms games (where you can tell the timing just by looking where each note is on the screen). This aspect is not a monotonic function of the AR, so it is not possible to measure it and rank it objectively without having a prejudice of what AR is "better" compared to other ARs.
   The existence of this last aspect makes the mapping meta tend to have less variety in terms of AR for each target audience (and maps that are too far from the standard are considered "gimmicky").

Full Tablet wrote:

It's just a matter of what you decide to keep constant when you compare different ARs.

If you just lower the AR of a map, then the visual object density increases, which is a big factor that tells us how difficulty a map is to read.

If you lower the AR and also decide to keep the visual object density constant, there is a lot of other factors that change, which makes comparison more difficult. In general, the lower AR map would be easier overall in most aspects compared to the higher AR map.

I think the main aspects that tells us how hard a map is given the AR is:

1. Object density: most players can easily keep track of a certain amount of notes at the same time, and when the amount of notes on the screen exceeds that amount, reading becomes much more difficult.
2. Reading speed required ("Reaction"): people need a certain amount of time to see and then mentally route the actions required for playing each note. This is not pure reaction, since just hitting each note as fast as possible doesn't yield good results at any AR. Overlapping notes also influence this aspect, since they are harder to see and take more mental effort to notice on time. If the player takes too much time to mentally process a note, their actions might lag behind the map, which greatly influences the performance.
3. Habit: when a player plays with a specific AR for a long time, they get a feeling of when each note has to be pressed just by looking at them, which makes getting good accuracy considerably easier (since they don't have to rely on their rhythm sense alone). In osu!, notes might appear on the screen at any place on the screen, and it's hard to measure the size of each approach circle to tell the timing, so this technique is less reliable compared to most other rhythms games (where you can tell the timing just by looking where each note is on the screen). This aspect is not a monotonic function of the AR, so it is not possible to measure it and rank it objectively without having a prejudice of what AR is "better" compared to other ARs.
   The existence of this last aspect makes the mapping meta tend to have less variety in terms of AR for each target audience (and maps that are too far from the standard are considered "gimmicky").

When you change AR but keep object density constant there aren't that many factors to consider. The main noticeable factor being what I mentioned in my point number 3 which was that lower ARs allows you to play higher object densities. Other than that you have your last point which was a long format way of saying you are good at the AR you play most. If you were to look at it objectively though through the lens of a player who isn't particularly good at any AR, the lower AR would be easiest for them. In terms of overlaps and such, having overlaps on higher ARs is actually harder to read vs on lower ARs reason being the same why you can play higher object densities on lower ARs, you have more time to read the overlaps.

This is basically an argument of whether mental skills are easier to learn than physical skills. ex: Reading vs Reaction.

But how to compare the two in the first place? Unless you figure that part out, it's a pointless debate.

abraker wrote:

This is basically an argument of whether mental skills are easier to learn than physical skills. ex: Reading vs Reaction.

But how to compare the two in the first place? Unless you figure that part out, it's a pointless debate.

Actually I don't think it's like that at all. Technically speaking, you are reacting on both high and low ARs - the only difference between the 2 is the amount of time you are given to process the information on your screen. In a sense, the reason high ARs are difficult is not because you have to react faster but because you don't have as much time to process the information on your screen.

Almost wrote:

you don't have as much time to process the information on your screen.

In other words, your time to react is less

abraker wrote:

Almost wrote:

you don't have as much time to process the information on your screen.

In other words, your time to react is less

Right but this gives you a way of comparing them. Eg. 400ms to read 3 things on your screen vs 1300ms to read 9 (though obviously this is a much more simplistic view of what is really going on but you get the idea).

It gives metrics that can be used for comparing, but you still don't know how to compare those metrics properly.

For example, we can confidently model how much harder it is to react within 400ms than 1300ms given an average reaction time of 200 ms. The relation is a rational function.

How would you go about doing same with seconds for N objects on screen?

abraker wrote:

It gives metrics that can be used for comparing, but you still don't know how to compare those metrics properly.

For example, we can confidently model how much harder it is to react within 400ms than 1300ms given an average reaction time of 200 ms. The relation is a rational function.

How would you go about doing same with seconds for N objects on screen?

Yeah the problem is you probably can't compare these variables in a nice mathematical equation as every player will be different. People who play mainly in the high ARs (say >=10) will do comparatively better around those ARs vs someone who mainly plays low ARs (say <4). Similarly, those lower AR players will do better on the low ARs comparatively (which is based on the simple heuristic of people are good at the ARs they play the most). Therefore you can't conclusively say objectively that it's harder to read 4 objects on the screen on AR10 than it is to read 12 on AR0.

Even after saying all this though, there is still an easy overall relationship you will see where lower ARs correlate to higher playable object densities which is just logical if you think about. This base correlation is what I am arguing for. Basically, the fact that people can play extremely high object densities is not as impressive as the community makes you believe due to this relationship. This is not taking away from the impressive skills that many low AR players have as almost any skill taken to it's extremes is impressive either way.

Almost wrote:

Yeah the problem is you probably can't compare these variables in a nice mathematical equation as every player will be different. People who play mainly in the high ARs (say >=10) will do comparatively better around those ARs vs someone who mainly plays low ARs (say <4). Similarly, those lower AR players will do better on the low ARs comparatively (which is based on the simple heuristic of people are good at the ARs they play the most).

This basically says people are good at what they play most. Which is fine. In that case it needs to be a measurement of how hard it is to learn to do instead of how hard it is to do.

Almost wrote:

Therefore you can't conclusively say objectively that it's harder to read 4 objects on the screen on AR10 than it is to read 12 on AR0.

Therefore you also can't conclusively say objectively that it's easier to read 12 objects on AR0 than it is to read 4 objects on on AR10.

Almost wrote:

Basically, the fact that people can play extremely high object densities is not as impressive as the community makes you believe due to this relationship.

12 objects on AR0 is higher visual density than 4 objects on AR10. As said before, you can't claim 12 objects on AR0 is objectively easier than 4 objects on on AR10. As a result, you also can't say it's not as impressive that people can play extremely high object densities because you don't know whether it's objectively easier.

abraker wrote:

Almost wrote:

Yeah the problem is you probably can't compare these variables in a nice mathematical equation as every player will be different. People who play mainly in the high ARs (say >=10) will do comparatively better around those ARs vs someone who mainly plays low ARs (say <4). Similarly, those lower AR players will do better on the low ARs comparatively (which is based on the simple heuristic of people are good at the ARs they play the most).

This basically says people are good at what they play most. Which is fine. In that case it needs to be a measurement of how hard it is to learn to do instead of how hard it is to do.

Almost wrote:

Therefore you can't conclusively say objectively that it's harder to read 4 objects on the screen on AR10 than it is to read 12 on AR0.

Therefore you also can't conclusively say objectively that it's easier to read 12 objects on AR0 than it is to read 4 objects on on AR10.

Almost wrote:

Basically, the fact that people can play extremely high object densities is not as impressive as the community makes you believe due to this relationship.

12 objects on AR0 is higher visual density than 4 objects on AR10. As said before, you can't claim 12 objects on AR0 is objectively easier than 4 objects on on AR10. As a result, you also can't say it's not as impressive that people can play extremely high object densities because you don't know whether it's objectively easier.

But there are things we can say objectively just based on pure logic. For example, 12 objects is going to be far easier to read on AR0 compared to AR10. 12 objects on AR0 will still likely be easier to read than 10 object on AR10 no matter how skilled someone maybe at AR10. The problem is there is no objective way of solving it as you count down the object density. You'll get to some cross road but it would be individualized as I'm not sure how you would really compare the skill of someone who can read the high object density of low AR vs 'high' object density of high ARs when you meet them in the crossroads of a 'mid' AR.

Something else we can definitely say without any doubt is that it's easier to learn to play higher object densities on lower ARs vs higher ARs. This lends credence to lower ARs being easier.

Almost wrote:

But there are things we can say objectively just based on pure logic. For example, 12 objects is going to be far easier to read on AR0 compared to AR10. 12 objects on AR0 will still likely be easier to read than 10 object on AR10 no matter how skilled someone maybe at AR10.

If you can say that objectively just based on pure logic, then prove it

Almost wrote:

The problem is there is no objective way of solving it as you count down the object density.

It depends on factors like note position and timing, but it is indeed a complicated problem.

Almost wrote:

You'll get to some cross road but it would be individualized as I'm not sure how you would really compare the skill of someone who can read the high object density of low AR vs 'high' object density of high ARs when you meet them in the crossroads of a 'mid' AR.

As I said before in correction, I think it's worth looking at learning rate instead of ability for comparison. You can prob come up with some metric to measure various difficulties of low AR, but it's such a different skill that comparing it to higher AR is impossible. On the other hand, ex: the effort needed to be put in to learn low AR vs higher AR, will give you a metric you can use to compare the two skills.

low ar is better

abraker wrote:

Almost wrote:

But there are things we can say objectively just based on pure logic. For example, 12 objects is going to be far easier to read on AR0 compared to AR10. 12 objects on AR0 will still likely be easier to read than 10 object on AR10 no matter how skilled someone maybe at AR10.

If you can say that objectively just based on pure logic, then prove it

The logic is in my point number 3 in the OP. Just mathematically speaking, lower AR gives you more time to process the information on the screen. There are 2 pieces of evidence I will provide to support this hypothesis:

1. The object density that people can play on lower ARs is significantly higher compared to the object densities people can play on higher ARs. We don't even need to look at the very high ARs. We can even look at AR8 or AR9 and see that there is still a giant difference in playable object density.
2. Anecdotally from my own experience. I am an AR0 main but am capable of reading up AR10 (though admittedly not well). The object density I can play decreases as I increase the AR. At the same time, even with basically no practice, I am able to play much higher densities on AR-5 (which I played by editing maps to make them 33% faster and set to AR0 to play with HT). I am aware that this isn't really great evidence however it is still interesting to take note of with a few grains of salt.

abraker wrote:

It depends on factors like note position and timing, but it is indeed a complicated problem.

You can mute note positioning and timing factors though not perfectly by picking maps that all conform to certain characteristics.

abraker wrote:

As I said before in correction, I think it's worth looking at learning rate instead of ability for comparison. You can prob come up with some metric to measure various difficulties of low AR, but it's such a different skill that comparing it to higher AR is impossible. On the other hand, ex: the effort needed to be put in to learn low AR vs higher AR, will give you a metric you can use to compare the two skills.

I don't think the skill difference is great as you believe it is. Just based on your previous responses, I am guessing you are basing your underlying assumptions on the nature of reaction vs reading with emphasis that they are entirely different skillsets (correct me if I'm wrong). However, in my view they are one and the same. The simple reaction pathway is stimulus -> process of information -> reaction to stimulus. Just looking at this pathway, you are still processing information in some way therefore there is no real distinction between reading and reacting. In comparing high AR to low AR, the only real difference is the speed at which you receive the stimulus. The stimulus itself is the same so the response elicited should be the same too. The only problem is the amount of time one has to prepare their response. Also, under your assumption that the skillsets differ too much, there would be virtually no skill transfer between ARs which is just not true.

Alright so let me take the two extremes and settle this.

1. 1 note visible at AR that gives the player minimal time while comfortably reacting to it
2. 100+ notes visible at AR that gives the player enough time to figure out which goes after another

Supposedly there is a relation between number of notes and time the player can solve the pattern in. I'll just draw a random curve as we can only speculate what it really is.



So yea if you can do AR 11, sure let that be impressive. If you can figure out how to hit 100 notes in order in a short enough time, that can also be as equally impressive.

Most AR0 maps prob don't come close to this # of notes vs time given to approach that impressiveness area I suppose. Perhaps that's why you claim low AR is easier. Also I warn of bias as it's harder to impress higher skilled players. For you that threshold of what counts impressive can be significantly higher than most people.

abraker wrote:

Alright so let me take the two extremes and settle this.

1. 1 note visible at AR that gives the player minimal time while comfortably reacting to it
2. 100+ notes visible at AR that gives the player enough time to figure out which goes after another

Supposedly there is a relation between number of notes and time the player can solve the pattern in. I'll just draw a random curve as we can only speculate what it really is.



So yea if you can do AR 11, sure let that be impressive. If you can figure out how to hit 100 notes in order in a short enough time, that can also be as equally impressive.

Most AR0 maps prob don't come close to this # of notes vs time given to approach that impressiveness area I suppose. Perhaps that's why you claim low AR is easier. Also I warn of bias as it's harder to impress higher skilled players. For you that threshold of what counts impressive can be significantly higher than most people.

That chart pretty much sums what I was alluding to.

For your last point, you are right that impressiveness is completely subjective but I'm just trying to analyse this from an objective perspective. I just think the way most people think about this is wrong. Most people don't really have any real experience playing low AR so even just a small exposure to it can get people thinking you're way better than you really are (this is my own experience of it). People are so used to low object densities that any object density higher than the "normal" is deemed difficult.

Wouldnt low AR be much harder if EZ also didnt decrease OD?
I have 0 experience with ARs below 8 but a CS5.2 AR0-5 OD10 map sounds like a nightmare to acc compared to a CS5.2 AR10 OD10 of the same difficulty

Seekers1 wrote:

Wouldnt low AR be much harder if EZ also didnt decrease OD?
I have 0 experience with ARs below 8 but a CS5.2 AR0-5 OD10 map sounds like a nightmare to acc compared to a CS5.2 AR10 OD10 of the same difficulty

Yes but we aren't talking only about EZ

depends on the map, but anything more than ar10 is hard for me

What you say is true, but only by the language and rules you lay out in talking about AR and object density, specifically in what you hold constant when transitioning from low AR to high AR, or vice versa. Your exact statement, word-for-word, wouldn't hold in a regular osu! conversation.

To elaborate, we can say what makes a map "hard to read" based on three basic factors: reaction time (msec, related to AR), note density (notes/sec or NPS, related to BPM), and object placement (hard to quantify). Reaction time itself has an inverse relationship to reading difficulty: that is, the more time you're given to react, the less difficult it is to read. However, another important factor is the visual "clutter" that can confuse players, which has a direct relationship to the three basic factors above.

Clutter is based on note density, reaction time, and object placement. The former two interact to give us the idea of "object density", where more notes per second or more time to react results in a more dense and cluttered map. You argue that object density is not a feature of low AR, but this is only true if you are holding object density itself constant by also changing note density with reaction time (similar to how DT increases BPM while also increasing AR by the same proportion, holding object density constant while reducing reaction time). In most conversations about lowering AR, osu! players have unconsciously agreed that note density would be held constant (as in EZ), meaning that high object density (and thus cluttered maps) are effectively the result of a lower AR, at least in common parlance.

Well, I understand where you are coming from. I was once planning to make a thread to question players about reading difficulty based on a similar premise with HT and DT as examples, but I didn't post it since I figured many players would already have a grasp on the differences of difficulty by reaction time and difficulty by object density. Definitely an interesting topic, though.

Antiforte wrote:

Clutter is based on note density, reaction time, and object placement. The former two interact to give us the idea of "object density", where more notes per second or more time to react results in a more dense and cluttered map. You argue that object density is not a feature of low AR, but this is only true if you are holding object density itself constant by also changing note density with reaction time (similar to how DT increases BPM while also increasing AR by the same proportion, holding object density constant while reducing reaction time). In most conversations about lowering AR, osu! players have unconsciously agreed that note density would be held constant (as in EZ), meaning that high object density (and thus cluttered maps) are effectively the result of a lower AR, at least in common parlance.

I think it's best to compare cross map rather than within the same map. Object density itself has such a huge impact on readability that it's plainly obvious that simply editing the AR lower will result in a harder to read map. When I spoke of high object density high AR maps, I was referring to this too. To get a high AR, high object density map, you would be looking at really ridiculous star values that people can't even possibly play. Additionally, my point was that you really don't need that high object density on higher ARs to compete with lower ARs. For example, a map with 10 objects on AR4 might be easier to read than 4 objects on AR10. The difficulty difference between the 2 would probably vary player to player but it does exist to some degree or another. This sort of thing is something I experience myself.

Antiforte wrote:

Well, I understand where you are coming from. I was once planning to make a thread to question players about reading difficulty based on a similar premise with HT and DT as examples, but I didn't post it since I figured many players would already have a grasp on the differences of difficulty by reaction time and difficulty by object density. Definitely an interesting topic, though.

That HT and DT thing gets me too. People are just too focused on HR making things less cluttered and EZ making things more cluttered and then jump to conclusion just based off that.