forum

Allow to use different Approach Rates in map

posted
Total Posts
313
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +1,210
show more
Yauxo

HK_ wrote:

.I think that if you picked ar8/9 for slow part before kiai most of players would be thrown of by sudden change of ar even if warned previously and thus very bad.

And since my opinion obviously wont change until i see the results please stop this pointless whatever it is.
You'd be suprised how many people can read Taiko AR/Scrollspeed changes without too many problems. Not too different for Std I'd imagine. People are already able to read heavy timing changes on extremely difficult maps (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/280107#), which, if you turn a few things, is basically comparable to an AR change on a steady BPM
Also, you're basically asking for answers and that's what Im doing.

ziin wrote:

If making a storyboard is more work than it's worth for, really, then creating a whole new osu format is certainly more work than it's wort for, really.

Storyboards can use your skin. They just usually don't because the easiest way to make a bad storyboard is to have the storyboard interact with the hit objects like 11t does. I could make it work with a few skins, but it's easy to just force a skin and let the player modify the skin like in blythe. Obviously this would be done via SGLE or in excel. It's not a difficult process and would take 2 minutes to make a change via excel or 30 seconds compile time to make a change via SGLE.

Also, I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hromx6HeN_w
Shouldve pointed out that I'd probably too much work for me, as I dont know much about storyboard - so I dont have much to object to that (maybe?).
I'd agree on baraatje's post above though.
ziin

baraatje123 wrote:

When multiple new things are added for file format 15, this can also be added to it
There is no need ti add it now, but it will be really convenient if it gets added alongside multiple other new tweaks
This is one of those rare "feature requests" that can be proved (like a jubeat mode or a technika mode). Your arguments would carry so much more weight if there were lots of examples of good maps that use different Approach Rates.
GhostFrog

HK_ wrote:

By hard being hard i didnt mean putting deathstream into the part that obviously shouldnt be any kind of stream. Since you already picked image material...I think that if you picked ar8/9 for slow part before kiai most of players would be thrown of by sudden change of ar even if warned previously and thus very bad.
I frequently switch between AR4.5 and AR9.66 in consecutive maps I play and it requires no adjustment period at all. It's not difficult to get used to and putting the two approach rates in the same map doesn't add much difficulty to the process if it can only be changed during a break and is properly indicated in some way.

It's interesting to me that you've done some sort of almost 180 here. You were saying before that easy things in hard maps should be made difficult by use of high AR (which, by the way, is completely nonsensical, since anyone who can play the hard parts of the map well will have no issue at all reading the higher AR on the easy part). Now you're saying that we shouldn't add difficulty to maps by changing the AR (which is also pretty nonsensical, since it'll just require a little bit of getting used to). Like...those two things don't directly contradict each other, but I really don't understand what your opinion on approach rate is. Should it be used for difficulty? Should it not be used for difficulty? Should it be whatever the mapper wants to use? None of those answers make this request bad at all, but it looks like you're just jumping around between them to try to find one that supports your side of this.
Deva
What im trying to say that its good just as it is. Dont fix it if its not broken.
Okoratu
This is not a request for fixing some kind of bug, it's a feature request.

You seem to miss the point
GhostFrog

HK_ wrote:

What im trying to say that its good just as it is. Dont fix it if its not broken.
Yeeeeaaaah, Okoratu pretty much hit the nail on the head in their reply. This exact reasoning could be given against ANY feature request. If you don't want new features in osu!, then please stay out of this subforum. You're wasting everyone else's time.
ziin

HK_ wrote:

Dont fix it if its not broken.
Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Bara-
Bump
otoed1
No.
Yauxo
Yes.
Bara-

Yauxo wrote:

Yes.
BleuVitriol
I think this is a great point you bring up, I'll support your idea.
otoed1

Kitsunemimi wrote:

No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
Bara-

otoed1 wrote:

Kitsunemimi wrote:

No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
How can people in Taiko/Mania play it properly?
They aren't confused by it

Why aren't people disoriented by huge Sudden SV changes
I agree, this should only be changable in red timing point, and may not be overused
But there'll be new ranking criteria for it

I honestly can't see why people strongly disagree, bad usage will not be tolerated, and it works in otger modes, even excessively
Yauxo

baraatje123 wrote:

I honestly can't see why people strongly disagree, bad usage will not be tolerated, and it works in otger modes, even excessively
This, but I'd also say that greenlines are fine. Some songs (most utaite songs/Kakushigoto for example) have a slow part in them in which that AR change might come in handy, yet not everyone has a halfbpm redline for these.
Topic Starter
Giorgos
This idea won't fucking die, I promise to you all :!:
Bara-
HOORAY!
I'll also do whatever it takes to keep this thread alive :3
Topic Starter
Giorgos

Baraatje123 wrote:

HOORAY!
I'll also do whatever it takes to keep this thread alive :3
Yeah I noticed that, you are doing a good thing, my friend! :)
Bara-
I;m not your friend (yet) :P
unless you wanna Mutual :3

Back to topic
I still can't see how people don't want this, it'll only be helpful to make it better readable (AR10 at slow parts just doesn't work), and potential abuse will be blocked by ranking criteria
Rilene
Please, developers.

Try play image material and you'll notice how akward is it to play AR 10 on calm piano part.
Arphimigon

Sirade wrote:

Try play image material and you'll notice how akward is it to play AR 10 on calm piano part.
Although Image Material was made before decimal song settings (i think)
Totally agreeing with this. Songs with massive slowdowns and extremely fast parts don't work well together on high AR (and you can't pick the lower for the whole map or the harder bit will be unreadable)
CelegaS
Different AR in o!m is actually bullshit so no.
Bara-
Yet it does exist
Why not for standard then
Arphimigon
A little off-topic but I'd also like to see differing CS (not so much about OD/HP) as well as AR if this was implemented
Kamikaze

Baraatje123 wrote:

Yet it does exist
Why not for standard then
did you even play osu!mania
like ever
Halogen-

CelegaS wrote:

Different AR in o!m is actually bullshit so no.
Your point is actually invalid here, because approach rate does not dictate the amount of time that you have to react before hitting a note in mania. VSRGs don't work that way. In effect, AR as a setting means absolutely nothing, because SV rates determine how the maps scroll against a player's speed settings.

As someone who has actually dabbled in mapping for osu!standard (certainly not my primary as a mania mapper/player), I've actually run into a situation where having a certain approach rate felt inappropriate for a piece of the song because things are quiet. Having the ability to deviate your approach rate adds a whole other level to mapping that hasn't been seen in osu! as a game, and I think that's something worth thinking about.

I've thought in my mind about using a +1 AR for a really intense section that merits a Kiai, but I obviously cannot do that since you can't change things at all, haha. As I've said before though, I'm not a standard mapper under any stretch, but I think that the game's best mappers that are already good at what they do could use another controllable element to add to their arsenal.
MBomb
As long as it's not abused, this could work amazingly, in my opinion (For ctb as well as standard hue)

Support <3
Soner Wolf

Kitsunemimi wrote:

No because if we had this, it would be totally disorienting and unnecessary.
1) Welcome to Taiko
2) You get used to it
3) It takes more skill to be able to. What better way to say "look at how pro I am. I can sight read something that changes between AR 4 and AR 10 in an instant"?
4) Actually would be very necessary for maps that go into half time during a middle section. If done correctly, it would be a very nice touch.
Exa
Supporting.

It would be hella useful if used properly.

Yeah, I can already see this abused but I don't think we will be seeing any ranked mapsets abusing this as soon as it comes out.
I mean, what is the ranking process for after all?
[ Violet ]
This would be the best thing ever, like literally. Playing slow songs with high ar is just wrong.

I totally support this idea!
Bara-
Bump
Endaris
inb4 people raging about sudden AR5 on a slow part because they can't read slow AR.
While it's evident that players can get used to such stuff(just look at the ridiculous Taiko #1 here) it's not supporting gameplay too well and in most cases a compromise can be found. The only issues come up if there are actual bpm-changes(if 1/1 spacings are suddenly hard to play your AR is obviously too high) so it would be cool if AR-changes get restricted to that somehow.
I don't need this in my life personally.
dung eater
i'd rather not have this because it gives people an excuse to use higher ar in parts of a map, higher ar makes stuff more boring
Yauxo
Can we please move away from the "omg AR10 to AR5 on no bpm change just for the lulz is the worst!!!1!1" and get back to the actual point of why this was requested? This also is a big thing for Standard, not for Mania.

The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.

Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.

If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.

Standard Maps are mapped for Standard, jesus. Stop comparing your shitty SV changes in a converted map to your awesome whatever else. We use SV differently.
Endaris

Yauxo wrote:

The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.

If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
Don't exaggerate please, that part of Image Material certainly isn't classified as 28bpm, it's just used to get the slow SV without having to manipulate slider velocity via notepad and it is also improperly timed at that whole part regarding modern variable bpm standards(inaccurate offsets, new timing sections don't align in time with the previous one). In fact it would probably be disqualified right away for these issues if you tried to rank it nowadays.
At the start of the slow part it's 130bpm which is just half of the original bpm which assumes that Image Material is rather written in 130bpm with 1/8 usage with is very common in actual music anyway or in other words - setting the bpm twice as high as it is is terribly common in osu!.

tl;dr: Image Material(and especially its 28bpm) is a horrible horrible example for this discussion.
Yauxo
I brought Image Material into my post because it has a very clear change of pace and is widely known in the community. It's really fast basically all the time, but then there's this, comparably, extremely slow part. I took the 28 bpm from the ingame information, I didnt actually check what bpm it was at that very time.
It could be any other song, really, as long as it'd have a fast and a slow part.

If the song was fast all the time, you'd give it a fast AR.
If the song was slow all the time, you'd give it a low(er) AR.
If the song is a mix of both, then why arent we allowed to mix the ARs in a well designed manner too?

Edit: I guess songs like DeltaMax and similar would fit the example better. Going from AR9 to AR10 over the course of 2 minutes wouldnt hurt a map on that song at all.
RWDavid
Sorry if this was mentioned in the thread already (I didn't bother to go through all those pages). Wouldn't the HD mod become a problem with changing AR? I mean like drastic changes could make you miss a note, and even just losing accuracy is annoying in itself. My point is, there isn't a reference for when to hit the hidden notes except for the first Approach Circle at the beginning of the map and trying to see how long the note takes to disappear.
GhostFrog

Endaris wrote:

Yauxo wrote:

The changable AR would allow us to support specific/special parts of a song that dont make sense to have a high AR on (for example, Image Material). Does AR10 make sense on dense parts of a 260BPM map? Yes. Does it make sense on a 28 BPM part? Not at all.
Lets say that there's a song that is halfbpm for a long time, but then ramps up to doublebpm. Having a lower AR would fit the first, slow part and having a higher AR would fit the later, last part. What to do? Low AR kills the fast part, High AR kills the slow part. Finding something inbetween doesnt work, that would mess up either part.

If someone would make a shitty map with shitty ar changes, then it would never be qualified. If it's unranked, then just revert the AR to a stable one.
Don't exaggerate please, that part of Image Material certainly isn't classified as 28bpm, it's just used to get the slow SV without having to manipulate slider velocity via notepad and it is also improperly timed at that whole part regarding modern variable bpm standards(inaccurate offsets, new timing sections don't align in time with the previous one). In fact it would probably be disqualified right away for these issues if you tried to rank it nowadays.
At the start of the slow part it's 130bpm which is just half of the original bpm which assumes that Image Material is rather written in 130bpm with 1/8 usage with is very common in actual music anyway or in other words - setting the bpm twice as high as it is is terribly common in osu!.

tl;dr: Image Material(and especially its 28bpm) is a horrible horrible example for this discussion.
Literally none of this is relevant to whether or not Image Material would benefit from being able to use multiple approach rates or to whether or not there exist maps that would benefit from multiple approach rates, so let me just ask you this directly: do you think there is any approach rate that would be fitting both for the start of Image Material and the rest of Image Material?
Endaris
AR10 is not bad for it, the actual 130bpm have a relatively decent playability and it's more the fact that the mapper feels like he has to map every drumbeat - even the rather weak ones - as singles instead of sliders that gives the map a density it doesn't need to have to be good. He also goes ham in the 260bpm parts with 1/4 like a LOT while he doesn't use ANY within the 130bpm section. He is literally asking to make it unbalanced. It's more of a design choice than the song forcing it.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
GhostFrog

Endaris wrote:

AR10 is not bad for it, the actual 130bpm have a relatively decent playability and it's more the fact that the mapper feels like he has to map every drumbeat - even the rather weak ones - as singles instead of sliders that gives the map a density it doesn't need to have to be good. He also goes ham in the 260bpm parts with 1/4 like a LOT while he doesn't use ANY within the 130bpm section. He is literally asking to make it unbalanced. It's more of a design choice than the song forcing it.
I believe that with a different approach on mapping the song the AR could easily be reduced to something like 9,5 to ease up the difference between the parts.
I'm not against this idea in particular(as written in my first post on the topic) but picking on that slider in the 28bpm section is outright stupid and I honestly believe that this spot would play terrible on an AR of 9 or lower as the contradiction in terms of intensity would be greatly missing. I don't think it would benefit a lot if at all. Since AR10 reading is a requirement for playing the map at all, the spots don't pose a problem and the static AR puts a sensible relation between the parts.
It's difficult to be not against it though if the people who want it bring in such stupid arguments like a 28bpm wrongly snapped non-aligned timing section that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the feature.
Hey, you managed to get in an actual reply in-between your 3 paragraphs of continued off-topic drivel!

And...you think that the start of Image Material plays best with AR10. Yikes! I can't help but think you might be biased by your strong opinions on the map itself here, but okay. I do at least agree that changing AR for any change in difficulty within a map would be inappropriate, though I disagree that having a lower AR at the start of Image Material would ruin the intensity difference.


Anyway, I agree with this request more than I did last time I posted my thoughts on it. I used to like this request, but was concerned that it would only lead to people using higher AR where it was unfitting because I didn't trust the QAT's influence on mapping. I think that's settled down a lot and that this request would work just fine as long as some basic rules (and fairly restrictive guidelines) were enforced about when mappers are allowed to change AR in ranked maps. Allowing it only after a break would be the safest way to go about it, but changing AR after a spinner or in some situations in which only one current-AR-object is visible on screen probably wouldn't be bad either, at least in some cases.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply