I don't play the meta and therefore have no right to give advice to improve in the current meta? Even though I don't play the meta, I know what the meta is and I know of the ways to improve at the meta. It's not like I'm so low rank scrub who has completely no idea about anything about this game. About your point that EZ mod doesn't benefit you at all in this current meta is complete and utter bullshit and you have no real evidence to back up your point on it since you have probably never touched EZ mod in your life. EZ mod helps you decipher patterns a lot better even at higher AR. Example being I was watching a top 50 player playing https://osu.ppy.sh/s/90128 on DT and he couldn't play 1 pattern because he couldn't read it but I knew exactly what was going on even though I'm not a high AR player. EZ mod probably won't benefit a HR player such as yourself because you don't even have object density in HR in the first place but that doesn't mean that it doesn't help you play DT or extremely difficult no mod scores.Narrill wrote:
Aww, big bad narrill called someone a big baddie and maybe hurt their feelings, what ever will we do?RaneFire wrote:
Your post on page 8 is where you diverged from the commonly accepted definition of reading by picking on Almost.
Your post on page 10 is where you basically called Almost terrible at the game because he didn't have the same mechanical skill as you, which you define as "actual reading skill" for HR.
Nothing, because in the context of the current meta Almost is probably bad and should stop trying to tell people how to improve at the current meta. That's really what the rub here is, playing the way you want with no regard for what's in style is admirable until you try to pass it off as beneficial.
forum
Lower AR reading
posted
Total Posts
268
Can meta really be used like that though? I thought meta meant the highest level or best way to play the game, unless you're playing for PP, is DT necessarily the meta? It seems like DT would be the meta for speed, HR for accuracy / CS in some cases, and EZ for density, but is there really only one meta?
You can absolutely give advice. The problem is that you're trying to pass off what you're doing as beneficial when it isn't as beneficial as simply playing into the meta, and it's not. The plain fact of the matter is that while practicing low AR will certainly help you with density interpretation you just don't need density determination enough that low AR training is more beneficial than standard play.Almost wrote:
I don't play the meta and therefore have no right to give advice to improve in the current meta?
That's the whole point right there; there's nothing you can do that will make you better at the current meta faster than just playing into the current meta. Your example of the DT player who couldn't figure out a pattern is actually a perfect example of this; his reading skills were just below what he needed to pass the map, and in working through that challenge he improved his reading. Had he taken the time to train low AR he might have read that pattern successfully on the first try, but it's likely he'd have made more misses or had lower accuracy as well because the time he spent focusing on density interpretation is time he didn't spend working his other skills.
Well the "current meta" is really just the current state of the game, a combination of factors including things like current mapping trends and difficulty weightings. The reason DT is favored right now has a lot to do with what I've already discussed regarding the imbalance between perceived difficulty (difficulty from the player's perspective) and evaluated difficulty (difficulty from the pp calculations' perspective) for each mod; complexity isn't evaluated by the current difficulty calculations, and DT offers the lowest complexity per unit of evaluated difficulty by far. This means the best thing for a player to do is train DT, evidenced by the fact that Sayo is ranked near rrtyui and hvick despite not being nearly as skilled as either of them overall.cheezstik wrote:
Can meta really be used like that though? I thought meta meant the highest level or best way to play the game, unless you're playing for PP, is DT necessarily the meta? It seems like DT would be the meta for speed, HR for accuracy / CS in some cases, and EZ for density, but is there really only one meta?
That I'm referring to the current meta isn't super relevant to my argument on a conceptual level, the basic principle is just that you'll improve in a way that's entirely dictated by the maps you play. It doesn't really make sense from a player's perspective to train anything other than the current meta though.
Density reading is not something you get just by spamming retries on a song. That is more called memorization which may help you in the map you are spamming, but won't help you in the long run. Reading is what I believe to be the most important aspect of the game (my own bias) because it is required for good aim and to a low extent good accuracy for a map. Though I hate to say it, EZ mod is a massive shortcut to getting good object density reading which is by far the most important aspect of reading and probably the hardest aspect of reading to train via conventional means. Whenever someone asks in G&R how to improve their reading, the answer is always to play EZ. If playing into the meta is more beneficial, why not just get them to play a bunch of no mod AR9 insanes? Because EZ mod is the fastest way of doing it. Density reading is not something a HR player needs, but it is needed for DT and no mod where DT is the main meta for gaining pp.
I didn't advocate spamming retries. Figuring out the pattern is not the same as spamming retries. Density reading in general is trained by reading dense maps in general, and the fastest way to train it is, just like with everything else, to build it up one small step at a time, which brings me to...Almost wrote:
Density reading is not something you get just by spamming retries on a song. That is more called memorization
EZ isn't ever the answer, neither logically nor in practice (I've been here a while, I read all the advice threads). Quite the contrary, these players usually have problems because the densities they're jumping into are not only beyond their ability to read, but also beyond their ability to play. Density and difficulty are largely correlated if complexity is ignored and AR is held constant, so it's a waste of time to train density past what's necessary for maps you can actually play. The answer in these threads is almost universally for the player to go back to maps that are closer to their skill level and build from there.Almost wrote:
Whenever someone asks in G&R how to improve their reading, the answer is always to play EZ. If playing into the meta is more beneficial, why not just get them to play a bunch of no mod AR9 insanes?
You're forgetting that DT and nomod train density reading faster than HR, and how much faster they train it is perfectly proportional to how much more of it is necessary than with HR. There's never a need to explicitly train any aspect of any skill more than the meta already does.Almost wrote:
Density reading is not something a HR player needs, but it is needed for DT and no mod where DT is the main meta for gaining pp.
Once again, understand that you have absolutely no proof that this is the case. I've explained to you why I don't believe it to be the case, and you've yet to respond with anything other than "yeh whatever I still think it is."Almost wrote:
which is by far the most important aspect of reading and probably the hardest aspect of reading to train via conventional means.
Hi Narrill.Narrill wrote:
That's the whole point right there; there's nothing you can do that will make you better at the current meta faster than just playing into the current meta.
This is just from my own experience, but I think playing EZ mod does help you read better at higher ARs.
It's true that you won't see any regular maps with similar object densities, but you can also say the same thing about editing maps to OD10 AR8 CS5. You won't see these kind of settings on a real map, but they improve your skill anyway because they push your abilities to their limit. It's just like how playing a little bit of AR10.87 makes AR10.3 feel a little more manageable. By playing maps with really high densities, of course you'll get better at playing maps with lower ones.
Of course, if you could get the same object density as EZ while keeping the high AR it would probably give better practice, but it's a shame a mod like that doesn't exist.
Figuring out a pattern is the exact same thing as memorizing a pattern. By figuring out a pattern, you are spending time and remembering how to play a pattern.Narrill wrote:
I didn't advocate spamming retries. Figuring out the pattern is not the same as spamming retries. Density reading in general is trained by reading dense maps in general, and the fastest way to train it is, just like with everything else, to build it up one small step at a time, which brings me to...
I always see EZ mod as the answer. I think you are forgetting the fact that EZ mod also increases pattern complexity.Narrill wrote:
EZ isn't ever the answer, neither logically nor in practice (I've been here a while, I read all the advice threads). Quite the contrary, these players usually have problems because the densities they're jumping into are not only beyond their ability to read, but also beyond their ability to play. Density and difficulty are largely correlated if complexity is ignored and AR is held constant, so it's a waste of time to train density past what's necessary for maps you can actually play. The answer in these threads is almost universally for the player to go back to maps that are closer to their skill level and build from there.
Well the first part is obvious since HR doesn't even train density reading. Training a skill to be beyond that of the meta actually holds some merits as you would find it even easier to read patterns compared to someone with lesser reading skills though there is a cap to this.Narrill wrote:
You're forgetting that DT and nomod train density reading faster than HR, and how much faster they train it is perfectly proportional to how much more of it is necessary than with HR. There's never a need to explicitly train any aspect of any skill more than the meta already does.
The reasoning behind why I say it is because being able to read a certain AR is really just the first basic step that has a limit. Once you play the AR enough and get used to the speed of it, there is nothing more you can learn for it. The rest of what you need is all about object density reading and pattern recognition and both these are learnt from EZ, DT and no mod.Narrill wrote:
Once again, understand that you have absolutely no proof that this is the case. I've explained to you why I don't believe it to be the case, and you've yet to respond with anything other than "yeh whatever I still think it is."
Ah, but I haven't said it doesn't help at all (I guess I probably have, but hyperbole is a thing), I've simply said it isn't as beneficial to your overall growth as standard play.Genki1000 wrote:
This is just from my own experience, but I think playing EZ mod does help you read better at higher ARs.
Again, object density and difficulty are largely correlated if complexity is ignored and AR is held constant. There are obviously maps that are hard despite having low density, but it's basically impossible to increase object density on a map without also increasing overall difficulty.Genki1000 wrote:
Of course, if you could get the same object density as EZ while keeping the high AR it would probably give better practice, but it's a shame a mod like that doesn't exist.
I think that's just placebo though, it's not like you actually got better at AR10.3, it just doesn't look as impossibly fast since you've now played faster.Genki1000 wrote:
It's just like how playing a little bit of AR10.87 makes AR10.3 feel a little more manageable.
You mean just normal high density maps? All I can think of is t+pazolite maps like Distorted Lovesong and chipscape, and maybe some val0108 maps, but the BPM would have to be pretty crazy for it to meet the density of EZ while remaining at AR9+.Genki1000 wrote:
Of course, if you could get the same object density as EZ while keeping the high AR it would probably give better practice, but it's a shame a mod like that doesn't exist.
First, I said spamming retries, not memorizing a pattern. You're responding to something I didn't say. Second, memorization is the foundation of understanding. Exposure to patterns is how you learn to read.Almost wrote:
Figuring out a pattern is the exact same thing as memorizing a pattern. By figuring out a pattern, you are spending time and remembering how to play a pattern.
We're in a discussion right now concerning which of our opinions are correct. I don't care what you think is the right answer, I care what you can convince me of. Moving past that, EZ doesn't increase pattern complexity. You know how you keep saying that high AR doesn't pose any extra difficulty if you can read it? Low AR doesn't either. If you're practiced with the extra object density it doesn't have any effect on perceived pattern complexity, and the same goes for the extra speed of high AR.Almost wrote:
I always see EZ mod as the answer. I think you are forgetting the fact that EZ mod also increases pattern complexity.
Do you hear the stuff you're saying right now? Obviously HR trains density reading, everything trains density reading. Everything trains everything, just to varying degrees. And you're really not getting what I'm saying here, going out of your way to train a skill past the point where it's in line with your other skills is a waste of time that could be better spent practicing all your skills synergistically by playing into the meta.Almost wrote:
Well the first part is obvious since HR doesn't even train density reading. Training a skill to be beyond that of the meta actually holds some merits as you would find it even easier to read patterns compared to someone with lesser reading skills though there is a cap to this.
You learn all those things from HR too, and if you practice all of those things with HR there isn't any danger of over- or undertraining any of them. In fact, you'll probably also train them faster than if you trained them separately.Almost wrote:
The reasoning behind why I say it is because being able to read a certain AR is really just the first basic step that has a limit. Once you play the AR enough and get used to the speed of it, there is nothing more you can learn for it. The rest of what you need is all about object density reading and pattern recognition and both these are learnt from EZ, DT and no mod.
You see what I'm saying here? We can certainly continue arguing, but if you don't make any attempt to refute the central point what does any of it matter?
well the OP gave up fast
and I dont blame him, playing AR7 for longer than one map makes me want to die
and I dont blame him, playing AR7 for longer than one map makes me want to die
Yes, the goal is to convince me that what I think is right is actually wrong. That's how an argument works, and you're doing a really bad job of it. Maybe if you addressed some (or any) of my counterarguments it would go better.Tess wrote:
Narrill wrote:
Everyone is wrong but me
No because the way you approach arguments is dense to the point of being hilarious, and that arrogance only makes it worse. Several people have already provided several arguments to you which you countered with flimsy reasoning at best. So at this point this is just a patience contest which you will clearly win because there's no way you'll be letting anyone step on whatever kind of pride you're trying to defend here, that much is obvious.
For the record though as far as I can see you're the only person who agrees with yourself and several other players, both EZ and non-EZ players have already disagreed with you, each of them provided several points which you either ignored for the sake of giving some kind of rebuttal or simply failed to understand.
I'm gonna assume that you ignored them here because I really hope that it isn't the latter for you. This stuff is pretty simple. You stream at lower BPMs and learn to stream better at higher BPM streams in the long run. You read lower ARs and get better at higher ARs in the long run. It's called setting a foundation for your skill, where you have to start low or your skill will be founded on nothing and thus give flimsy results. The fact that people can FC things without practicing lower AR doesn't mean that said practice won't make you better at higher ARs.
On top of that, object density is most /certainly/ the leading factor in difficulty. If I have a really complex pattern, but it appears as only one note of the pattern per second, it'll be easy as shit. What you're saying doesn't make sense at all. If you don't believe me - try playing Pluto [Challenge] with HT. Yeah? Not too hard, right? Now try playing it with EZHT. The patterns didn't become any more complex but I highly doubt you'll be able to even get beyond the intro without any reading practice. This is due to object density.
If you don't understand it after this, I give up.
For the record though as far as I can see you're the only person who agrees with yourself and several other players, both EZ and non-EZ players have already disagreed with you, each of them provided several points which you either ignored for the sake of giving some kind of rebuttal or simply failed to understand.
I'm gonna assume that you ignored them here because I really hope that it isn't the latter for you. This stuff is pretty simple. You stream at lower BPMs and learn to stream better at higher BPM streams in the long run. You read lower ARs and get better at higher ARs in the long run. It's called setting a foundation for your skill, where you have to start low or your skill will be founded on nothing and thus give flimsy results. The fact that people can FC things without practicing lower AR doesn't mean that said practice won't make you better at higher ARs.
On top of that, object density is most /certainly/ the leading factor in difficulty. If I have a really complex pattern, but it appears as only one note of the pattern per second, it'll be easy as shit. What you're saying doesn't make sense at all. If you don't believe me - try playing Pluto [Challenge] with HT. Yeah? Not too hard, right? Now try playing it with EZHT. The patterns didn't become any more complex but I highly doubt you'll be able to even get beyond the intro without any reading practice. This is due to object density.
If you don't understand it after this, I give up.
i can only imagine OP if he comes back to this thread after he went off and developed some low ar competency to report his progress
...Narrill wrote:
First, I said spamming retries, not memorizing a pattern. You're responding to something I didn't say. Second, memorization is the foundation of understanding. Exposure to patterns is how you learn to read.
Ok thanks for telling me something about EZ even though you don't know anything about it. EZ, no mod and HR. What I just linked is the exact same pattern over different mod combinations. I fail to see how EZ does not increase pattern complexity and how HR makes the same pattern the same difficulty or even harder. There seems to be a massive misconception that being able to read a certain AR means anything in terms of object density or pattern recognition probably because there aren't any maps that are high AR with high object densities. Just because someone can play low AR comfortably doesn't mean that they can just instantly decipher patterns of that AR easily. If that pattern in the example for EZ I showed was given to you on AR10 and you were to sight read it, would you know what to do? Probably not because the pattern is more complex compared to HR version.Narrill wrote:
We're in a discussion right now concerning which of our opinions are correct. I don't care what you think is the right answer, I care what you can convince me of. Moving past that, EZ doesn't increase pattern complexity. You know how you keep saying that high AR doesn't pose any extra difficulty if you can read it? Low AR doesn't either. If you're practiced with the extra object density it doesn't have any effect on perceived pattern complexity, and the same goes for the extra speed of high AR.
I was exaggerating when I said it doesn't train object density. The object density training is a lot lower compared to if you were to train it with any other mod combination (besides HD and FL). I've already pointed out a reasoning to training your skills beyond what is really needed. Obviously a player who finds patterns more comfortable will generally be more consistent in playing said patterns.Narrill wrote:
Do you hear the stuff you're saying right now? Obviously HR trains density reading, everything trains density reading. Everything trains everything, just to varying degrees. And you're really not getting what I'm saying here, going out of your way to train a skill past the point where it's in line with your other skills is a waste of time that could be better spent practicing all your skills synergistically by playing into the meta.
The point I'm trying to make is that HR trains them worse than everything else. The only really good points I see from HR is learning to play high CS, AR and just generally improving your ability to aim consistently. HR is not a good tool to use to train pattern recognition at all.Narrill wrote:
You learn all those things from HR too, and if you practice all of those things with HR there isn't any danger of over- or undertraining any of them. In fact, you'll probably also train them faster than if you trained them separately.
You see what I'm saying here? We can certainly continue arguing, but if you don't make any attempt to refute the central point what does any of it matter?
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.Almost wrote:
Ok thanks for telling me something about EZ even though you don't know anything about it. EZ, no mod and HR. What I just linked is the exact same pattern over different mod combinations. I fail to see how EZ does not increase pattern complexity and how HR makes the same pattern the same difficulty or even harder.
I like to think of it as a divided pattern. In HR you are given a portion of the pattern at a time so in reality it's just multiple smaller patterns stitched together but on EZ you can be given multiple patterns all in one so you are given a larger pattern to deal with which results in more complexity. Can't really see it in my example but it does happen.cheezstik wrote:
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.Almost wrote:
Ok thanks for telling me something about EZ even though you don't know anything about it. EZ, no mod and HR. What I just linked is the exact same pattern over different mod combinations. I fail to see how EZ does not increase pattern complexity and how HR makes the same pattern the same difficulty or even harder.
This is exactly how I see it, with what I see defined as "complexity". Don't get me wrong, a low AR pattern is more "difficult" than if it were a higher AR (providing you're comfortable at playing at that high AR) but because the pattern is exactly the same, it's the same complexity. The only thing is when you involve hard rock, the pattern flips around. Could some patterns be considered more or less complex because of this? I'm not really sure. This whole topic is something I'm very unfamiliar with.cheezstik wrote:
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.Almost wrote:
Ok thanks for telling me something about EZ even though you don't know anything about it. EZ, no mod and HR. What I just linked is the exact same pattern over different mod combinations. I fail to see how EZ does not increase pattern complexity and how HR makes the same pattern the same difficulty or even harder.
Just out of curiosity and for clarification:
I've seen people define density differently. Some say it's just the amount of objects on the screen at a given time, but I've also seen people mentioning circle size when it comes to density. Does density involve circle size? If this is the case, if you were to increase density by increasing circle size then it may be a bit harder to read (I personally don't have troubles when the cs is increased/decreased on an identical map) but the map would definitely be easier to play because well, the circles are bigger.Narrill wrote:
but it's basically impossible to increase object density on a map without also increasing overall difficulty.
That's just an effect of object density though. Object density is what makes you think it's a divided pattern or just one pattern instead. Objectively, they are still different patterns, whether you see them as one ore more doesn't necessarily change that. The patterns, while remaining the same, if they combine into one pattern, then obviously they would become one pattern that is more complex, but if you were good enough at reading high density, then you would read them as separate patterns of the same complexity as they were in high AR anyway.Almost wrote:
I like to think of it as a divided pattern. In HR you are given a portion of the pattern at a time so in reality it's just multiple smaller patterns stitched together but on EZ you can be given multiple patterns all in one so you are given a larger pattern to deal with which results in more complexity. Can't really see it in my example but it does happen.cheezstik wrote:
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.
Lerq
No. This is elementary level logic, I don't understand how people like you and Narill can't comprehend it.cheezstik wrote:
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.
Let's say I have a 10 note pattern, it looks like this @ Approach Rate X:
We'll say this is a complex pattern. Now what happens when we use an AR greater than X:
The pattern is now no where near as complex, because due to the approach rate I am presented with less circles at a single point in time. This results in an easier to read, less complex pattern. Something can only be a pattern if it is presented on your screen at a single point in time. If it is not presented all at once, it is nothing more than consecutive 1-2 jumps. There is little reading involved. There is no complexity.
I think you guys are completely overlooking the fact that this is a rhythm game thus object density is beneficial if you make use of it. As musician, if I could only see the next 3-4 notes I had to play the music would sound like garbage because there is little to no contextual information there.
With low object density you have to rely more and more on approach circles. I would hardly call anything that relies on focusing on approach circles proper reading. Yes, you can play lower object density better because you are literally playing whack a mole. Of course you are going to suck when 30 moles pop up out of their holes. If you are reading properly the largest difference between low AR and high AR on a fixed map is the amount of time you have to predict the direction of the music and the amount of external information you have to guide this prediction.
If you were actually reading properly high object density wouldn't even be a hindrance. The issue with reading properly at higher AR is that low object density requires you to read much faster because you can't read ahead very far. Playing lower AR is more likely to force you to practice reading over whacking moles because whacking moles on lower AR requires extreme patience.
With that said, it doesn't require you to be fast at reading. As Narrill has stated, in order to get better at reading practical AR's it is much more beneficial to practice those AR's so that you actually develop the reading speed necessary to properly read common beatmaps.
Are we talking about reading or ability to accurately play whack a mole? Make up your mind. Somewhere along the line this turned into a Narrill hate circle jerk and you are completely overlooking many important factors pertaining to this being a rhythm game first and a circlejerking clicking game second.
With low object density you have to rely more and more on approach circles. I would hardly call anything that relies on focusing on approach circles proper reading. Yes, you can play lower object density better because you are literally playing whack a mole. Of course you are going to suck when 30 moles pop up out of their holes. If you are reading properly the largest difference between low AR and high AR on a fixed map is the amount of time you have to predict the direction of the music and the amount of external information you have to guide this prediction.
If you were actually reading properly high object density wouldn't even be a hindrance. The issue with reading properly at higher AR is that low object density requires you to read much faster because you can't read ahead very far. Playing lower AR is more likely to force you to practice reading over whacking moles because whacking moles on lower AR requires extreme patience.
With that said, it doesn't require you to be fast at reading. As Narrill has stated, in order to get better at reading practical AR's it is much more beneficial to practice those AR's so that you actually develop the reading speed necessary to properly read common beatmaps.
Are we talking about reading or ability to accurately play whack a mole? Make up your mind. Somewhere along the line this turned into a Narrill hate circle jerk and you are completely overlooking many important factors pertaining to this being a rhythm game first and a circle
ITT: we use extreme examples of AR values to prove our point
Is this really true though? Let's say there was a square pattern which is the same combo, the AR is high enough so that circle 1 disappears before you see circle 3 and 4, does this mean it's no longer a square pattern but actually two separate patterns, with one being a single circle and the other being 3 parts of a square? Cos going by this logic, the pentagrams in the Nyaten difficulty of Yousei Teikoku - The Creator are no longer pentagram patterns, but they are actually all separate patterns that contain two circles each, since you can only see two circles at any given time. Doesn't sound quite right to me.Lerq wrote:
Something can only be a pattern if it is presented on your screen at a single point in time.cheezstik wrote:
I think pattern complexity is more of how complex a pattern actually is though, for example, 4 circles in a line, or 4 circles in a square pattern which is more complex. In this case, throughout EZ, no-mod, and HR, it's still the exact same pattern (or flipped with HR), it's not like it got more or less complex, you can just see more or less of it at a time, or in other words it has more or less object density. 4 circles in a line will still be 4 circles in a line even if you use EZ or HR, and 4 circles in a square pattern will still be 4 circles in a square pattern even if you use EZ or HR, you might just see different amounts of circles at a time depending on the AR and BPM, but it's still the same complexity.
Some guy: "Dude, those pentagram patterns in The Creator kill me every time, they are so fkn hard"
Some guy with this logic: "Roflmao wtf m8, there's no pentagram patterns in The Creator unless you are playing it with EZ?"
Lerq
If you can only see consecutive sets of jumps that go 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc, then it's hardly a pattern. You aren't reading anything, you're simply looking at where the next circle is.cheezstik wrote:
Is this really true though? Let's say there was a square pattern which is the same combo, the AR is high enough so that circle 1 disappears before you see circle 3 and 4, does this mean it's no longer a square pattern but actually two separate patterns, with one being a single circle and the other being 3 parts of a square? Cos going by this logic, the pentagrams in the Nyaten difficulty of Yousei Teikoku - The Creator are no longer pentagram patterns, but they are actually all separate patterns that contain two circles each, since you can only see two circles at any given time. Doesn't sound quite right to me.
I'm using hyperbole a lot but it's mostly because it's the easiest way to help people visualize the concept.
Using your nyaten example, yes, those may as well not be a pattern. There is no reading challenge there at all, you're literally just looking at the only existing circle that you could possibly hit.
You only think it's a pentagram because it's your short memory but the pattern ends up playing like just 2 circle jumps.Lerq wrote:
If you can only see consecutive sets of jumps that go 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc, then it's hardly a pattern. You aren't reading anything, you're simply looking at where the next circle is.cheezstik wrote:
Is this really true though? Let's say there was a square pattern which is the same combo, the AR is high enough so that circle 1 disappears before you see circle 3 and 4, does this mean it's no longer a square pattern but actually two separate patterns, with one being a single circle and the other being 3 parts of a square? Cos going by this logic, the pentagrams in the Nyaten difficulty of Yousei Teikoku - The Creator are no longer pentagram patterns, but they are actually all separate patterns that contain two circles each, since you can only see two circles at any given time. Doesn't sound quite right to me.
I'm using hyperbole a lot but it's mostly because it's the easiest way to help people visualize the concept.
Reading isn't the only thing that is factored into a pattern though. Even if you see them all at once or only one circle at a time, the speed and location at which you have to aim them are the same. You are still playing them as the same pattern.Lerq wrote:
If you can only see consecutive sets of jumps that go 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc, then it's hardly a pattern. You aren't reading anything, you're simply looking at where the next circle is.
I'm using hyperbole a lot but it's mostly because it's the easiest way to help people visualize the concept.
Using your nyaten example, yes, those may as well not be a pattern. There is no reading challenge there at all, you're literally just looking at the only existing circle that you could possibly hit.
Lerq
No you aren't. You're playing single point jumps, because thats how they're presented to you. Reading is actually entirely what dictates a pattern. How do you determine that something is a pattern or not? It's almost as if you read it that waycheezstik wrote:
Reading isn't the only thing that is factored into a pattern though. Even if you see them all at once or only one circle at a time, the speed and location at which you have to aim them are the same. You are still playing them as the same pattern.
:O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even if its presented to you as a pentagon you are still playing it as single point jumps... Trying to draw a pentagon is much less accurate. God knows why anyone would even try to do that.Lerq wrote:
No you aren't. You're playing single point jumps, because thats how they're presented to you.cheezstik wrote:
Reading isn't the only thing that is factored into a pattern though. Even if you see them all at once or only one circle at a time, the speed and location at which you have to aim them are the same. You are still playing them as the same pattern.
The circles are still in the exact same locations, and you have to click them with the exact same time windows, making them the same pattern. You being able to see more or less of the pattern doesn't change that.Lerq wrote:
No you aren't. You're playing single point jumps, because thats how they're presented to you.cheezstik wrote:
Reading isn't the only thing that is factored into a pattern though. Even if you see them all at once or only one circle at a time, the speed and location at which you have to aim them are the same. You are still playing them as the same pattern.
That's the thing here, you could read everything as a single combined pattern or read every separate circle or slider as its own pattern. That's just how you read it. Objectively, they are still the same patterns.Lerq wrote:
Reading is actually entirely what dictates a pattern. How do you determine that something is a pattern or not? It's almost as if you read it that way
Lerq
i am trolledcheezstik wrote:
The circles are still in the exact same locations, and you have to click them with the exact same time windows, making them the same pattern. You being able to see more or less of the pattern doesn't change that.
its like you forgot that we're talking about reading, and in this specific instance reading difficulty.
What is more difficult to read? A 10 point pattern that appears (nearly) all at once or a 10 point pattern that appears in 3 note chunks?
That doesn't need an answer.
Idk, I thought us specifically were talking about patterns.Lerq wrote:
i am trolled
its like you forgot that we're talking about reading, and in this specific instance reading difficulty.
I'll answer anyway, the former might be harder to read than the latter, but that doesn't stop it from being the same pattern.Lerq wrote:
What is more difficult to read? A 10 point pattern that appears (nearly) all at once or a 10 point pattern that appears in 3 note chunks?
That doesn't need an answer.
Circles in the form of a shape does not instantly mean it's a pattern. It depends on how many circles you are given at a time. For example, what if I gave you AR10 4 circles in 1/1 each placed in a square shape somewhere on the screen at 100 bpm. Does this count as a square pattern even though each circle is isolated time wise by a lengthy period or are they just singles put down in a square shape?
You still eventually have to move your pen or mouse or whatever in the pattern of a square shape. You seeing them as separate circles doesn't change this.Almost wrote:
Circles in the form of a shape does not instantly mean it's a pattern. It depends on how many circles you are given at a time. For example, what if I gave you AR10 4 circles in 1/1 each placed in a square shape somewhere on the screen at 100 bpm. Does this count as a square pattern even though each circle is isolated time wise by a lengthy period or are they just singles put down in a square shape?
E m i
Then by your definition I might as well put 4 circles each separated by a 1 minute gap in a square shape and that would be a "pattern".
That you're playing a square pattern, and not 4 single circles.[ Momiji ] wrote:
But what does this prove?cheezstik wrote:
You still eventually have to move your pen or mouse or whatever in the pattern of a square shape. You seeing them as separate circles doesn't change this.
Yep, that would technically be a pattern with breaks in between, but since no one is used to playing 4 circles with 1 minute separating them (this is like what, 1 BPM?) no one would read them as a square pattern, (because who the fuck practices 1 BPM square patterns?) but they would still technically be square patterns.Almost wrote:
Then by your definition I might as well put 4 circles each separated by a 1 minute gap in a square shape and that would be a "pattern".