Isn't scroll speed changing intended?
I think same scroll speed as 4:3 should be applied even at 16:9 resolution.
I think same scroll speed as 4:3 should be applied even at 16:9 resolution.
That would be unfair for 4:3 screen users as they would see less notes at the same time and it would be horribly unfair on higher SV_yu68 wrote:
Is scroll speed changing not intended?
I think same scroll speed as 4:3 should be applied even at 16:9 resolution.
Can't players change resolution by option?5urface wrote:
That would be unfair for 4:3 screen users as they would see less notes at the same time and it would be horribly unfair on higher SV
Same scroll speed on different screen aspect ratios could only be achieved if the length of the taiko bar was limited on wider resolutions.
HDHR turns out to be pretty easy once you play the fixed version, so I might consider buffing HR to be really worth to be on par with DT, because right now, HDHR is just cheap in comparison to DT. (as in, DT demands way more for the same score bonus, e.g. in terms of hit window)Other than the part where HDHR is cheap in comparison to DT, this statement just genuinely confuses me What do you mean by "buffing HR to be really worth to be on par with DT"?
Upon completion of a drum roll, a miss will be given if the player has hit less than 15% of the ticks, a 100 will be given if the player has hit between 15% and 30% of the ticks, and a miss will be given if the player has hit more than 30% of the ticks."and a miss will be given if the player has hit more than 30% of the ticks" Please tell me this is a typo -w-
It is slower! Not by much but it's definitely slower.BrambleClaw wrote:
So you're saying that scroll speed for HR will be slower in V2?
So I've seen this suggested multiple times now, but this is impossible to achieve. You have one independent variable - the resolution (r), one uncontrolled (but constant) variable - the hitobject time (t), and two dependent variables - the speed of hitobjects (s) and the density of hitobjects per unit time (d).Full Tablet wrote:
snip
I have considered the first suggestion, but concluded that it would break HR forevermore. So that's not happening.k3v227 wrote:
Two painless suggestions:
- Forget all of this resolution nonsense and just add this feature to taiko. Problem solved.
- Also add the note-randomization mod that mania has too
smoogipooo wrote:
I have considered the first suggestion, but concluded that it would break HR forevermore. So that's not happening.k3v227 wrote:
Two painless suggestions:
- Forget all of this resolution nonsense and just add this feature to taiko. Problem solved.
- Also add the note-randomization mod that mania has too
Second one is not a feature request for consideration right now.
What I meant was always keeping the proportions of the playfield constant, varying which percentage of the area of the screen is covered by it depending on the screen proportions. This way, density and speed (percentage of the screen covered per second) of the objects is always the same regardless of screen proportions.smoogipooo wrote:
So I've seen this suggested multiple times now, but this is impossible to achieve. You have one independent variable - the resolution (r), one uncontrolled (but constant) variable - the hitobject time (t), and two dependent variables - the speed of hitobjects (s) and the density of hitobjects per unit time (d).Full Tablet wrote:
snip
You cannot control both s and d simultaneously - or at all. The simplest one is speed, which can be modeled as
s = r / t
Where you can see that a change in r results in a change in s, which can only be adjusted by a change in the uncontrolled variable t.
Density likewise can't be controlled, but it can be hand-wavily modeled by:
d = r / s
= r / (r / t)
= t
But t is uncontrolled.
Your "How it currently scales" box controls speed and density by keeping resolution constant.
Your "How it should scale" box is impossible as the change in density requires a change in time.
I've thought about it but the only conclusion I've come up with is to crop the area as ScoreV1 does.
This is what I'm working towards right now, will hopefully be able to push an update in the next few days but it's quite difficult_yu68 wrote:
It is inappropriate to make scrollspeed fast on widescreen.
It is disadvantage for 16:9 players because notes interval becomes difficult to read.(Well, this is inconsistent with my other post, so I withdraw it.)
Like told by other in here, it is best to change the 4:3 screen layout so that the same time notes as 16:9 is displayed.
I kinda disagree here for the exact same reason, as a 4:3 player i'm just unable to read anything on widescreen resolution due to the note density on screen. While yu68 and probably all the widescreen users/players coming from TnT can probably easily read 16:9 / 16:10. There are also alot who plays only on 4:3._yu68 wrote:
It is disadvantage for 16:9 players because notes interval becomes difficult to read.
Like told by other in here, it is best to change the 4:3 screen layout so that the same time notes as 16:9 is displayed.
I just screened the density of some notes on a map with HR, first time with ScoreV2 and second time without.Tasha wrote:
So something that should be pointed out...
Scrolling differences per mod
Nomod = ScoreV2 is faster
DT = ScoreV2 is faster
HR = ScoreV1 is slightly faster?
I think the problem is more that equal width resolutions don't have an equal scroll for their playing field, not so much that you can use lower resolutions to have lower SV. Either way gonna wait and see what smoogipooo introduces here.Nofool wrote:
Why would you unify all resolutions in the first place? The current system seems better. Also a good amount of players (including me) use to swap resolutions depending on the SV of the map.
Well that's definitely an issue then :/ Is this getting any attention yet? It does seem like it's intended for ScoreV2 to have a slower HR speed than V1, so...Unless I'm mistaken of course, in which case is fine too, I don't mind. But holy shit, I haven't seen it yet but HDHR fix? Apply to V1 please? ;w;Ak1o wrote:
I just screened the density of some notes on a map with HR, first time with ScoreV2 and second time without.
To me it seems that HR on ScoreV1 is slightly slower than on ScoreV2. Idk if it is the maps fault or not, so I will test this on some other maps as well.
It's not much, but there is a difference.
smoogipooo wrote:
This has nothing to do with current scores, star rating, or pp yet.
smoogipooo wrote:
This has nothing to do with current scores, star rating, or pp yet.
For now I think we should all keep this on topic of ScoreV2 being separate from regular gameplay and just keep it focused around TWC. It's nice to see that through discussion this is turning into a good way of balancing out HD and HR, combo and accuracy, and just overall scoring for a tournament setting.animexamera wrote:
what about future scores, i mean you arent doing this for fun to troll all of us are you?smoogipooo wrote:
This has nothing to do with current scores, star rating, or pp yet.