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...
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?
because this isn't a "how do i improve" thread...iderekmc wrote:
oh, how strange nobody says "play more" it looks like people are growing up
It's not like the thread reached dead end soZenithPhantasm wrote:
Nice necropost.
A single slider isn't very difficult to read because players can remember it in some retrys. Also only fast sliders or slow sliders are not difficult to read too imo (e.g. fast sliders in the last kiai).derminYagami wrote:
Edit: would slider bodies be considered in how difficult they are to move in, such as fast long sliders being harder to read, or would slower bigger sliders be worse?
Fast sliders very easy to memorize... https://osu.ppy.sh/b/821549 >.> <.<imoutosan wrote:
A single slider isn't very difficult to read because players can remember it in some retrys. Also only fast sliders or slow sliders are not difficult to read too imo (e.g. fast sliders in the last kiai).derminYagami wrote:
Edit: would slider bodies be considered in how difficult they are to move in, such as fast long sliders being harder to read, or would slower bigger sliders be worse?
Frequent sv changes and overlapping sliderbodies could be really difficult for reading I guess. e.g. sv changes
I remember I said "A single slider"...chainpullz wrote:
Fast sliders very easy to memorize... https://osu.ppy.sh/b/821549 >.> <.<
Also, memorizing is the opposite of reading.
memorizing something is a good way to learn to read it and similiar things you might encounter laterchainpullz wrote:
Also, memorizing is the opposite of reading.