Followpoints

posted
Total Posts
41
show more
-Makishima S-

GoldenWolf wrote:

You know, if an element is missing in your skin folder, it will be replaced with the default one. So that doesn't help.

If you want to get rid of your followpoints, use a transparent 1x1 pic named followpoint.png
U have a point, right.

http://puu.sh/ilZ5d.png

Blank followpoint file.
Deva
Followpoints exist so you wouldnt have to rely on your reaction all the time.
But if followpoints were connecting every combo that would completely kill te purpose of having good reaction time, playing would mean relying to your streaming speed a and reading BPM. Boring imo
ZenithPhantasm
Followpoints are just useless clutter unless you play AR10+
Deva

ZenithPhantasm wrote:

Followpoints are just useless clutter unless you play AR10+
Its useful when im playing AR9 without actually paying attention.
Yuudachi-kun
I like my followpoints.
Kaienyuu

ZenithPhantasm wrote:

useless clutter
things people with useless eyes say :^)
autoteleology
I don't see why there needs to be a distinction that followpoints connect combos. What is the point of that? "Combos" are meaningless constructs arbitrary determined by whoever mapped the song. Basically, you just end up with random times where followpoints don't appear when it would be useful.
GoldenWolf

Philosofikal wrote:

"Combos" are meaningless constructs arbitrary determined by whoever mapped the song.
Only if the mapper sucks.
autoteleology

GoldenWolf wrote:

Philosofikal wrote:

"Combos" are meaningless constructs arbitrary determined by whoever mapped the song.
Only if the mapper sucks.
You know, because there is only one honest and true way to set combos in a song, right?

A combo means nothing, other than the mapper going "I like grouping these notes together". What purpose does it serve to not have a followpoint between combos? It would make just as much sense to only have a followpoint between combos.
pandaBee
I can play just fine with or without them, then again i hardly ever play above ar 9
Topic Starter
Vesrand

Philosofikal wrote:

I don't see why there needs to be a distinction that followpoints connect combos. What is the point of that? "Combos" are meaningless constructs arbitrary determined by whoever mapped the song. Basically, you just end up with random times where followpoints don't appear when it would be useful.
Indeed. You've got the point.
In fact we have them when we dont need them. But when we need them the most they doesnt show because there is new combo.
Deva

Vesrand wrote:

In fact we have them when we dont need them. But when we need them the most they doesnt show because there is new combo.
You are quite wrong about that. Only reason you think you really need it when theres no followpoint is because when it appears on screen it gives you general idea of where you are supposed to look but when its not there you actually have no idea where will it appear and have to look for it.

Dont dismiss followpoints as useless without even knowing that you use them all the time (consciously or unconsciously i dont really care).
woqx

Vesrand wrote:

In fact we have them when we dont need them. But when we need them the most they doesnt show because there is new combo.

GoldenWolf wrote:

Only if the mapper sucks.
autoteleology

woqx wrote:

Vesrand wrote:

In fact we have them when we dont need them. But when we need them the most they doesnt show because there is new combo.

GoldenWolf wrote:

Only if the mapper sucks.
I can think of a hundred situations where followpoints are more useful connecting the first and last hitcircles in a combo than anywhere else.

What happens when you have two combos on the opposite sides of the screen? It would be VEEEERY helpful to have something take you to the first hitcircle of the next combo.
GoldenWolf

Philosofikal wrote:

You know, because there is only one honest and true way to set combos in a song, right?

A combo means nothing, other than the mapper going "I like grouping these notes together". What purpose does it serve to not have a followpoint between combos? It would make just as much sense to only have a followpoint between combos.
With such a name you are disappointingly close minded.

Philosofikal wrote:

What happens when you have two combos on the opposite sides of the screen? It would be VEEEERY helpful to have something take you to the first hitcircle of the next combo.
It's specifically to force the player on using their reaction time instead of relying on the followpoints they do that. Come on that's not even hard to realize if you try thinking about it a bit. You can understand on your own why mappers would use that.
autoteleology
If the goal is to "make players use their reaction time", why do we have followpoints at all? What is the point of having them if you can't rely on them?
GoldenWolf
Jeez can you try thinking a bit harder

Why can you only see black or white? Why does it have to be only reaction time vs reading follow points? Why can't you mix both?
autoteleology
Can you be a little less closed minded? You're the one insulting other people and not being open to alternative points of view. You're the one defending the status quo.

The reason you don't mix them is that it undermines the effectiveness of both philosophies. Instead of getting the best of both worlds, you get the shittiest of both worlds. I think the current setup is the least optimal of all, compared to the other reasonable choices (no followpoints / all followpoints / only followpoints between combos).
GoldenWolf

Philosofikal wrote:

Can you be a little less closed minded? You're the one insulting other people and not being open to alternative points of view. You're the one defending the status quo.

The reason you don't mix them is that it undermines the effectiveness of both philosophies. Instead of getting the best of both worlds, you get the shittiest of both worlds. I think the current setup is the least optimal of all, compared to the other reasonable choices (no followpoints / all followpoints / only followpoints between combos).
How am I close minded? You're the one rejecting the current way followpoints work, stating it's the worst possible choice without even explaining why yours are better, and barely starting to explain why the current one is an inferior choice.

None of your choices or the current way makes more sense than the other. Because it's a matter of preferences. Wooh. Spooky word.
You're the one being so close minded you didn't even realize that your opinion isn't worth more than the others. What you took as insults were me teasing you so you'd think and try to come up with possibilites and explanations, consdering other possibilites on your own instead of being spoon-fed answers you'd possibly reject -considering your standpoint so far- because it goes against your opinion.

Followpoints are mostly a preference thing, so there isn't a "best" choice about them, just what would work better for you.
FieryLight
@OP:
It's the phrasing of the music. And yes, as someone pointed out earlier, it's subjective and people can interpret the music differently. So sometimes, you'll be wondering why on earth certain parts are connected and why they seem to split in very strange places but really what's happening is that you're listening to a different part of the music than the mapper. (Unless you're listening to a single instrument playing a single part where there isn't background music, drums or anything like that. In that case, you'd be interpreting the music differently. Possibly because you don't understand the lyrics as they do.)

If. You don't get. It. Think of it like sentences. You wouldn't just. Place periods randomly right? You also wouldn't have a huge lack of them either I mean, it'd be so weird and hard to understand that's why run on sentences suck. But enough about that, I think you got the point now
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply