They say 90 degree angles are the hardest to play, so the amounts of right angles or the proximity of being close to 90 degrees may also play a role in map difficulty. Check out DJPop's maps for that matter.
Are you sure that just doesn't depend on the personbuny wrote:
Pattern complexity and AR (note density) are probably the biggest ones, since basic patterns like squares and triangles etc that follow a clockwise rotation are much more easier than squares and triangles that have their order change clockwise and anticlockwise.
readability is a very subjective topic, since it doesn't have an actual metric such as speed, aim (and arguably accuracy)Kheldragar wrote:
Are you sure that just doesn't depend on the personbuny wrote:
Pattern complexity and AR (note density) are probably the biggest ones, since basic patterns like squares and triangles etc that follow a clockwise rotation are much more easier than squares and triangles that have their order change clockwise and anticlockwise.
when you compare metrics of speed and aim together and then you compare them to readability or reading skill, then readability or reading skill isn't something you simply "measure" and is something you observe and give arbitrary valuesNarrill wrote:
Readability absolutely does have an actual metric, we just haven't figured out what it is. People tend to get caught up in the whole "not everyone finds the same patterns easy or difficult to read" argument without realizing that readability and reading skill are two different things, just like accuracy as a statistic and accuracy as a skill. Differences in pattern recognition stem from differences in the relative development of all of reading's sub-skills, not from any inherent differences in reading ability, and while it might be absurdly complicated, there absolutely does exist a metric by which readability can be measured.
Yeah, but stack/density make it even harder. Reading rhythm is all about just listening to the beat, so it's rather intuitive. However, if you've ever played one of those shitmaps where they stack all the notes on top of each other and there are like a million approach circles closing in on a small space at different timings, that's impossible yo.dagambler999 wrote:
We need Tom94 for this...
And yes, readability is often a very subjective thing IMO. But I'd say variations in note placement beat-wise is what makes a map hard to read as well. Like mixing up pattern's of 1/4s and 1/8s with 1/2s for melodic accentuation, not like techno-style maps with mostly repetitive 1/2s and 1/4 notes.
Yep, AR8 Renard is an impossible read. How did those maps even get ranked? (I'm talking Banned Forever w/ lesjuh and co.)pandaBee wrote:
Yeah, but stack/density make it even harder. Reading rhythm is all about just listening to the beat, so it's rather intuitive. However, if you've ever played one of those shitmaps where they stack all the notes on top of each other and there are like a million approach circles closing in on a small space at different timings, that's impossible yo.
I don't have an intricate understanding of the pp system, but I doubt it's as complex as you seem to think. And you're missing my point, players playing better in the corners or on one side of the screen is irrelevant to the inherent readability of the map in the same way that some players being better at streams or jumps is irrelevant to Tom's difficulty calculations. The final result might be an aggregation of a large number of variables, but we can absolutely measure things like intramap variation and object overlap, and we could even forgo the concept of general "readability" altogether in favor of separate metrics for all the various components like rhythmic complexity, geometric complexity, visual clutter, etc.buny wrote:
like the pp system
If you think about it, most of this can be described by some kind of metric of "chaos", as Narrill mentioned on the previous pagedagambler999 wrote:
So to sum it up:
- Note clustering
- General Pattern Complexity
- Slider patterns & speeds (Hollow Wings, Broccoly, 0108)
- Note Pattern Complexity
- Stream spacing
- Reaction reading vs Focus reading
Did I miss anything in this topic?
Spaced streams aren't hard to read, they are however very hard to do...dagambler999 wrote:
So to sum it up:
- Note clustering
- General Pattern Complexity
- Slider patterns & speeds (Hollow Wings, Broccoly, 0108)
- Note Pattern Complexity
- Stream spacing
- Reaction reading vs Focus reading
Did I miss anything in this topic?
I meant varying stream spacing/accel streams (Shuffle Heaven is a prime example).pandaBee wrote:
Spaced streams aren't hard to read, they are however very hard to do...
-Too much DT?dagambler999 wrote:
So to sum it up:
- Note clustering
- General Pattern Complexity
- Slider patterns & speeds (Hollow Wings, Broccoly, 0108)
- Note Pattern Complexity
- Stream spacing
- Reaction reading vs Focus reading
Did I miss anything in this topic?
Any ideas on how to measure the processing time for each note taking overlaps and density into consideration?Narrill wrote:
Visual complexity is a measure of visual obfuscation caused by overlapping stuff; overlapping graphics, obviously, but also things like overlapping cursor paths, overlapping patterns, etc. This is what makes EZ seem difficult; overlaps become more likely as the number of objects on-screen increases. However, the real difficulty isn't in the visual obfuscation itself, but rather its effect on how much time you have to process each note, so visual complexity can come not only from the "noise" of low AR, but also the sheer speed of high AR.
Yeah, that sounds like a decent approach. I would work on developing an algorithm that compares all the visual objects at a particular time position and spits out a composite "noise" rating. Once you have that you can just run that algorithm at each object's time position and use the resulting noise rating to come up with a per-object weighted processing time. Obviously the algorithm itself is the real challenge, and you'll likely have to heavily tweak the factor by which the base time is altered to get the weighted time, but that's how I'd start.Kert wrote:
Any ideas on how to measure the processing time for each note taking overlaps and density into consideration?
I can only think of using objects' fade-in times as a base and altering these somehow depending on the overlap time/percentage
Nope, not even close.-Rinku- wrote:
The problem with this thread is that most top players have their reading skill capped.
I don't know what purpose this sentence is supposed to serve. When did anyone mention old maps? Why are AR and density relevant to the shoddy quality of old maps? What particular shoddy quality are you even referring to?-Rinku- wrote:
Also as far as ar and density goes, it'd be better for old maps to get unranked then for an arbitrary value be put on something that's supposed to be correct when the map gets ranked in the first place.
Are you sure about hot spots? I think object density will skyrocket because new overlaps will appear (overlaps with objects that appear ontop of previous objects / that haven't faded out yet e.t.c). If they are no new overlaps I don't think the same patterns will become any harder (atleast for reading)Narrill wrote:
However, you won't just need to evaluate the objects that are actually on-screen, you'll need to look at hot spots as well, meaning areas of the screen that tend to have more notes than other areas (the easiest way to understand why this matters is to think of taking all of a map's patterns and putting them in one corner of the screen - the object density in that corner would skyrocket, making everything happening in that corner tougher to read).
What does this mean? Example?Kert wrote:
What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?
Depends how long the pattern goes for,Kert wrote:
What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?
Yeah, and I feel that I wouldn't have streamed an extra note if I had known there was a delayed note at the end of the stream rather than assuming the stream had come to an end. Isn't that a misread?Kert wrote:
That's a bit different situation. You'd probably broken if it wasn't a full overlap too. Most likely you just stream 1 circle more than needed and since it doesn't have a bigger spacing in the end - it's a surprise
Full. A better question is whether it's harder to read a half overlap than it is to read an almost-full overlap.Kert wrote:
What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?