Collapsed because incorrect
So I read the whole thread... and this patterns stuff seems to be going back and forth.
I should probably mention how bad I am first, so take my post as a long-winded opinion. Shoot me down if you must, but I'm interested in taiko nonetheless..
The ranking system needs to rank all players. I'm practically a newbie, despite playing occasionally in the past, only playing muzu's and trying to delve into oni's occasionally, but it's hard. The reason I can't play those oni's is because of the non-repetitive patterns which are very randomised long streams or randomised short patterns with gaps. (Random = non-repetitive) These are just too hard... But when a pattern repeats, no matter where, even in a long stream or with a gap, it is very easy to read and play, even with hand changes. It just needs to repeat only once, and reading is far easier.
Ebawer's example of how you break up reading patterns is correct... I'm noob and already do it. I think other people's examples of longer patterns involving hand changes is subjectively wrong, although their examples are correct. However this is not due to hand-changes, but due to reading complexity, determining when the pattern changes, requiring a hand-switch. You don't read 12 notes at once, you read them in pieces.
Instead of determining which patterns are easier, we should give all patterns a static difficulty based only on their length, up to 5 or 6 notes (including streams)... and rather than rank their difficulty, instead create an algorithm for identifying these patterns (and lengths) and only weight the randomness of the patterns used, i.e. repetition vs non-repetition. You could get more into the specifics of breaking-up the easy ddddkkkk patterns or dkdkdkdkdk, but that's not hard to do.
I think including 62 patterns into some difficulty hierarchy algorithm is going to be far too much work to balance correctly between play styles. The randomness between these patterns is the only thing you can work with. Pattern groups with a random/non-repetitive nature that go on for longer would be worth more "complexity" score. It should also carefully consider odd and even pattern groups though, like having 1 pattern repeated in between a different pattern every time.
This would also solve your auto-convert problem... I think, because they're objectively broken. The hard ones would stay hard, and the easy ones with 1/8 spam would be worth nothing. Ignore rolls and spinners too from calculation... I don't think those have anything to do with skill... just mashing speed.
I'm wearing my bulls-eye T-shirt today.
I should probably mention how bad I am first, so take my post as a long-winded opinion. Shoot me down if you must, but I'm interested in taiko nonetheless..
The ranking system needs to rank all players. I'm practically a newbie, despite playing occasionally in the past, only playing muzu's and trying to delve into oni's occasionally, but it's hard. The reason I can't play those oni's is because of the non-repetitive patterns which are very randomised long streams or randomised short patterns with gaps. (Random = non-repetitive) These are just too hard... But when a pattern repeats, no matter where, even in a long stream or with a gap, it is very easy to read and play, even with hand changes. It just needs to repeat only once, and reading is far easier.
Ebawer's example of how you break up reading patterns is correct... I'm noob and already do it. I think other people's examples of longer patterns involving hand changes is subjectively wrong, although their examples are correct. However this is not due to hand-changes, but due to reading complexity, determining when the pattern changes, requiring a hand-switch. You don't read 12 notes at once, you read them in pieces.
Instead of determining which patterns are easier, we should give all patterns a static difficulty based only on their length, up to 5 or 6 notes (including streams)... and rather than rank their difficulty, instead create an algorithm for identifying these patterns (and lengths) and only weight the randomness of the patterns used, i.e. repetition vs non-repetition. You could get more into the specifics of breaking-up the easy ddddkkkk patterns or dkdkdkdkdk, but that's not hard to do.
I think including 62 patterns into some difficulty hierarchy algorithm is going to be far too much work to balance correctly between play styles. The randomness between these patterns is the only thing you can work with. Pattern groups with a random/non-repetitive nature that go on for longer would be worth more "complexity" score. It should also carefully consider odd and even pattern groups though, like having 1 pattern repeated in between a different pattern every time.
This would also solve your auto-convert problem... I think, because they're objectively broken. The hard ones would stay hard, and the easy ones with 1/8 spam would be worth nothing. Ignore rolls and spinners too from calculation... I don't think those have anything to do with skill... just mashing speed.
I'm wearing my bulls-eye T-shirt today.
