Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Feature Requests

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
Halogen-
Former osu!mania 4K Champion: 2015
574 posts
Joined September 2009
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
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
72 posts
Joined September 2011
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
446 posts
Joined January 2015
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 ]
40 posts
Joined May 2014
[ 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-
11,976 posts
Joined April 2013
Bara-
Bump
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
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
2,434 posts
Joined December 2013
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
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
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
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
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
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
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
11 posts
Joined December 2014
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
416 posts
Joined March 2013
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
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
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
416 posts
Joined March 2013
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.
Endie-
784 posts
Joined March 2015
Endie-

GhostFrog wrote:

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.
I'm gonna side with Endaris on this one. I don't see why AR10 in the slow parts of the song is bad. Changing the AR in a beatmap will only lead to confusion and I don't see a benefit in changing it.
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
Lets go back to Deltamax or Hall of the Mountain King then. Why do you guys think that a set AR is better than a steadily increasing one? Say, 9 to 10 for DeltaMax and 8.5 to 9.5 for Hall of the Mountain King
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris
Neither of them have a distinctive point where the bpm makes a turn, they're both about consistent increase and an average AR would be fitting to represent the slowly increasing density. The lack of a break point would necessarily cause multiple spots where you have multiple ARs on your screen at the same time and I think that such a behaviour causes more issues than it solves. I'm more with GhostFrog here: After breaks or spinners where the change is very clear and doesn't cause a weird clusterfuck.

Also let's be honest, the only maps this can be considered somewhat relevant for very fast AR10 maps as the relative difference to other ARs is significantly bigger than between these ARs(twice as fast as AR7 which is twice as fast as AR0) and the absolute difference in ms-intervalls per 1/1 or 1/2 is rather big.
If we got 130bpm 1/2s that's 231ms between two notes and if we take 1/1 it's 462ms. AR10 is 450ms so upon lowering the AR to AR9,8(=479ms approachtime) the readibility for the 130bpm parts should already improve significantly without making the fast part a lot harder to read.
Between two 260bpm 1/2s we obviously got half the time which is 116ms, meaning that upon hitting a note we already see the next 5 ones. Changing the AR to 9.8 would barely affect this as it is already mapped with high density in mind and causes no additional overlaps that could make reading harder than it is.
AR9.7 is already a bit edgy on the fast parts but relaxes the slow parts even more than AR9.8. So it's not like AR10 is the only and perfect solution for Image Material...I'm not quite sure if decimal AR was already a thing when Image Material got approved but if you sit down for 5min and calculate some values it's not difficult to find a compromise for the problem before you even started to map.
(As mentioned in my first post, if 1/1 on half-bpm suddenly become difficult to read your AR is probably too high in the first place).
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,956 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoayu
Endaris sorry to say that but you completely missed the point of a feature request.

All you did is explaining that what we currently have can work as well, but this thread is a thing because people see variable AR coming in handy in certain situations:

1. Songs with steadily increasing tempo can have steadily increasing AR to handle smooth tempo changes in a smooth way
2. Marathon maps such as compilations consisting of different songs ranging through different kinds of pacings could be given the opportunity to set a fitting AR to each individual song instead of relying on an overall average

Sure, these can somehow work out with our current setup but the point of this thread is that it could in some cases be cool to have the AR setting more loosely configurable
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris
I don't think I missed the point of this request.

This request was made with songs in mind that have moments of greatly varying intensity/speed.
Many people who support this request named Image Material as an example where this would be great to have.
A discussion consists of arguments and counterarguments. Bringing a counterargument that shows that the parameters for Image Material could have been chosen better and that it can work a lot better without this feature request makes sense for the discussion.

I also stressed that noticeably varying density on the screen can transmit the feeling for differences in a song as well and possibly better than AR-modified parts. That is also a valid argument against the request and for the use of static AR on all maps.

Last but not least I talked about readability issues with sudden AR-Changes.
Especially when they're rather on decimal side they're hard to notice until you hit a 100 because you misjudged the speed of the approachcircle.
Many people read the hitwindow by memorizing when the approachcircle appeared instead of watching the approachcircle from start to end as reading ahead is impossible if you watch every single approach circle closely. That's why I argued that this should be restricted to actual bpm changes and only used in combination with breaks or spinners as multiple ARs on-screen at the same time ARE confusing and std can't handle such changes as effectively as Taiko or mania can.

As you can see, I'm not against it regarding the use on compilations as it makes sense there and would be easy to apply with pretty much only upsides and no downsides(even though I would question the existence of certain compilations anytime but that's a different topic).

Feature Requests aren't about praising a feature while using bad examples to support its implementation.
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
Might as well disallow Taiko/Mania SV changes, as they are hard to read, lets start with dq'ing Loctav's new map. Some people memorize the speed the notes approach from the right/fall down and changing the SV for slower parts makes you hit a 100.

I dont really feel like discussing over this. It would be a great addition to Standard mapping, whether you like it or not. I also dont see readability problems be a huge thing. At first? Sure, but this is a rhythm game. The note doesnt magically move 20ms because of an AR change. It will always be at the same position.
Last edited by Yauxo , edited 1 time in total.
Endie-
784 posts
Joined March 2015
Endie-
There aren't even allot of songs which would benefit from this feature. Implementing it would just be a waste of time
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
Are you even serious right now
Bara-
11,976 posts
Joined April 2013
Bara-
Endaris, you did miss the point. Image Material got approved way before this was added, at least 1-1.5 years later. And yes, it does benefit from having different AR-rates, as they add up in the readability of the lower part. Back when I played it a few months ago when I couldn't read AR10 I had a lot of trouble with the slow parts, because it didn't fit. I had less troubles reading the fast parts, as it felt natural

And I completely agree with Yauxo, AR changes also exist in other modes, being Taiko and Mania. Do people complain about I being unreadable because of the sudden BPM changes from 280 to 56 and then back? No. Why do people complain about it here?
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,956 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoayu
For the love of god if i knew how to code slideranchors to visible objects in storyboards, I'd attempt validating it by taking the .osz of image material and combining it with the skinning and storyboarding techniques used in https://osu.ppy.sh/s/51300

because as ziin already mentioned this is one of that kind of requests which can actually be proven / disproved with current mechanics, but i don't even have the necessary freetime before August this year to attempt that.
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
I made a reference thing. Cuts are noticable and it might be offbeat here and there, but it serves its purpose for 1 hour of work

https://youtu.be/iYWlED2YOsI
XinCrin
2,846 posts
Joined January 2012
XinCrin
It only would help in multi-BPM beatmaps. But there should be a big gap between BPMs
lilynya
84 posts
Joined May 2015
lilynya
.
Last edited by lilynya , edited 1 time in total.
Pituophis
859 posts
Joined January 2015
Pituophis
Please no.
Zak
641 posts
Joined February 2012
Zak
If this was added there would definitely be a need for rather strict rules to disallow even small abuse.

With such rules in place I would definitely support this
FGsergify
8 posts
Joined January 2014
FGsergify
This would be very usefull :) :D
vitail
127 posts
Joined May 2015
vitail
i agree
Endie-
784 posts
Joined March 2015
Endie-
Don't you think peppy has already thought about this? There is probably a good reason as to why its not implemented.
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo

Endie- wrote:

Don't you think peppy has already thought about this? There is probably a good reason as to why its not implemented.
Peppy also thought that PPv1 was a good idea.
It's not that it's a bad idea, I guess it's more that osu!next has a much higher priority right now.
Volta
1,622 posts
Joined March 2014
Volta
poor BN and QAT, will get more work to check proper AR change usage.
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo

Volta wrote:

poor BN and QAT, will get more work to check proper AR change usage.
This honestly wouldnt be a huge thing to check for. People wont change the AR on every single object and even if they would, it'd be clearly unrankable.
laport
1,239 posts
Joined June 2010
laport

Yauxo wrote:

I made a reference thing. Cuts are noticable and it might be offbeat here and there, but it serves its purpose for 1 hour of work

https://youtu.be/iYWlED2YOsI
Just watching this makes me want to play around with maps that use different approach rates. Nice video!
FoxCat
212 posts
Joined July 2011
FoxCat
How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v

Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
Endie-
784 posts
Joined March 2015
Endie-

-Pikachu- wrote:

How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v

Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
Some maps are meant to be played at ar9 Example:
A while back, a famous player used a hack to change the ar to 10. It made the map easier so he could FC it. Being able to change the ar freely would defeat the purpose of mapping it in ar9.
PyaKura
2,084 posts
Joined January 2013
PyaKura

-Pikachu- wrote:

How about letting us pick which AR we want to play? Like Mania has it way to rise or decrease the panel speed :v

Ofc that doesn't mean AR has to be removed from the difficult panel, that should be the ideal AR to play the map.
o!m scrolling speed has pretty much nothing to do with it.
Danshi_old_1
Danshi_old_1
Wait you can slow sliders? HaLP
FoxCat
212 posts
Joined July 2011
FoxCat

PyaKura wrote:

o!m scrolling speed has pretty much nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I know it doesn't, also it was an example because that would be "how fast" the notes come to the judge area, similar to how Circles has their own judge area with the Approach Circle always called AR (Which result in 300, 100, 50 and even miss).

Endie- wrote:

Some maps are meant to be played at ar9 Example:
A while back, a famous player used a hack to change the ar to 10. It made the map easier so he could FC it. Being able to change the ar freely would defeat the purpose of mapping it in ar9.
As I said, the AR placed in difficult setting would be the ideal AR to play with, if you want to change it to 0 that's your own business, also I believe AR doesn't have any influence on the star rating of maps, you can put AR10 in a 2 stars map and it will be the same stars, same if you put AR0 to a 6 stars map.

Or how about making a mod that modifies AR and cycle between 0 to 10? Like o!m has it own mod that cycle between 1 to 9 keys but it reduce score multiplier.
GhostFrog
416 posts
Joined March 2013
GhostFrog

-Pikachu- wrote:

PyaKura wrote:

I believe AR doesn't have any influence on the star rating of maps, you can put AR10 in a 2 stars map and it will be the same stars, same if you put AR0 to a 6 stars map.
You are correct that AR does not influence star rating (though it does influence pp when it gets high or low enough), but that's irrelevant. AR does change the difficulty of maps, regardless of whether or not it's represented in star rating or in pp. The relevant details is whether or not that change in difficulty is a "real" or a "fake" change in difficulty within the context of osu! and the answer to me is so clearly that it's real difficulty, but I've argued about this a lot and I'm tired of doing so, so I'm not going to reiterate why I feel that way. If you're interested, you can find various explanations of it in this other thread, which also happens to be more relevant to player-defined AR.
Bara-
11,976 posts
Joined April 2013
Bara-
User-customizable AR has been requested in an other thread (see above post)
Please stick to this thread, the ability to use multiple ARs in a single map, something I still agree with, and I still can't see why people disagree, as abuse will be unrankable. I'll gladly take care of that ^_^
Rilene
2,105 posts
Joined April 2014
Rilene
h3ll
4 posts
Joined July 2015
h3ll
Good idea.
zenithlight
49 posts
Joined May 2013
zenithlight
i'm excited to play all the gimmick maps that would be created by "abuse" of this feature.

+support
Bara-
11,976 posts
Joined April 2013
Bara-
Bump
Since I need to have a constructive post to bump
A-L-I-E-N
Andruchon
90 posts
Joined April 2011
Andruchon
Please don't ever implement this. I hate when maps start with a slow introduction phase, then preceed with a pause, just to throw everything at you and catch you offguard after the slow parts. IMO a map should be almost as hard (and exciting) in the start as it is in the end. Nobody wants to play a "4 star" map that goes 1 minute like a 2 star map, and then goes 1 minute like a 5 star map.

I see the possibilities, but it shouldn't encourage the mappers to make "bad" and annoying maps.

Im just scarred, that it will be used too frequently in unfitting parts. I think that fluent gameplay should always have a higher priority than style and free creativity of the mapper. And changing the AR will always result in a fluency loss.
Swash
82 posts
Joined June 2014
Swash
I like this idea a lot. Honestly, I find osu very boring, for many reasons. A frequent change in AR pace would make the game much more difficult, which could be exciting if done correctly. It would take quite a while to get used to those type of maps though. It allows mappers to get more creative. It could also help change the pace of the song, which could make it flow better. +1
Rilene
2,105 posts
Joined April 2014
Rilene

Andruchon wrote:

Please don't ever implement this. I hate when maps start with a slow introduction phase, then preceed with a pause, just to throw everything at you and catch you offguard after the slow parts. IMO a map should be almost as hard (and exciting) in the start as it is in the end. Nobody wants to play a "4 star" map that goes 1 minute like a 2 star map, and then goes 1 minute like a 5 star map.
Sadly the difficulty progression is always unavoidable regardless of map or song, unless if you spam jumps in calm section or use 1/2 x1 DA jumps in kiai.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
263 / 313