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?
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.
I tend to agree that doing *both* is maybe overkill. But I want to math out multiple scenarios first and then make some sort of choice here.Jaye wrote:
I think having a mandatory 4x score or miss is a VERY large punishment for a tournament setting, especially for many maps (such as Loctav's) that overkill Finishers (ironically, with the way Finishers are now, his maps are virtually unplayable xD). However, giving the player a miss for technically hitting a note is a no-go, it's unfair and uncalled for. I think having a 4x score on Finishers, as opposed to the standard 2x, will place a larger emphasis on the appropriate hitting of Finishers like Loctav is trying to get at with this change.
one attempt of an example scenario would be this map that was in last year's LMS; it has a pretty lengthy 1/2-snap D K D K D K D K ... section at 260 BPM which is VERY difficult to double-hit all the way through without risking misses. In the instance where both sides pull FC's and the winning side doesn't double-hit any of them, the losing side only needs to double-hit some (if not all) finishers of ONE color to seal the game, even if they're behind by around 4x100, 12x100, or 25x100 or so. Basically, it's about double-hitting more than the opponent(s) without missing, with that section being in kiai time to further emphasize it.Loctav wrote:
I tend to agree that doing *both* is maybe overkill. But I want to math out multiple scenarios first and then make some sort of choice here.
Can you stop being a shit. What are you gonna do, kill me because I forgot about red text I read 4 days ago?conor wrote:
please use this thread for what it was intended for instead of ignoring the massive red text in the first post
this mode will forever stay the same because of reasons like you lot
nobody was asking about your participation either but thanks for adding that comment in anyway
It's fine to correct us, but don't act like you're 3 while you do it. If you're gonna tell the internet you're 20 years old, then act like a fucking 20 year old.Conor wrote:
animexamera wrote:
what about future scores, i mean you arent doing this for fun to troll all of us are you?
how about you fuck off already and come back with something beneficial towards this new system?
the current system we have is bad and anybody who thinks otherwise is absolutely delusional
it might be a foreign concept to you but when enough people make their voice heard about certain things they get changed
basically quit being a shit and get the changes you want instead (which funnily enough are the ones almost everybody else wants and they're currently getting)
Both of these examples are possible with any playstyle. There's also a recent video in the video thread of someone doing Loctav's looming map on v2 which is significantly harder.k3v227 wrote:
Another point to consider about finishers causing a combo break:
Here are two examples (there are certainly more instances of this concept in other maps):
2:04
0:14
This is almost on equivalent of saying 300+bpm maps should be banned because lower skill level players can't play that fast, or that LN's shouldn't break combo in mania because some players can't hold notes while pressing others. To add to that, they most certainly CAN fix it by improving their skill at that mechanic (aka: 'getting good').k3v227 wrote:
Not every taiko player has the same skill, ability, and playstyle so it's unreasonable to arbitrarily define "high-BPM play" because it's relative for every player. For some taiko players this is 180BPM, and for applerss this is 380bpm (LOL). So if a lower-skilled taiko player is struggling to hit finishers at 180BPM it's wrong to just tell them to "get good" and "play the game properly" because they can't in that moment. Why should they be penalized for something that they can't fix?
I'm still waiting to see a map that has impossible to hit finishers that isn't a convert. So far every map I've been linked is possible with proper reading and finger coordination. 300bpm+ is reaching an extremely fast speed for most players at high level (barring players like yu / applerss / a few others), so of course hitting finishers at that speed is hard, playing anything at that speed is hard irrelevant of finishers, especially considering the rules around them completely preventing players from having to (excuse mania terminology) do jacks at all unless there are multiple finishers in quick succession.k3v227 wrote:
You can extend this to a higher-skilled player struggling to hit finishers at 300BPM. Telling them to "get good" and "play the game properly" absolutely wouldn't make sense here because where do you draw the line? At what BPM is it acceptable to not play finishers with two fingers because it's too difficult? You can always tell any player to just "get good" because they can improve over time, but that line of thought has no place in determining game mechanics; that people need to just "get good".
Just speaking of significantly harder maps, HarpuiaTasha wrote:
There's also a recent video in the video thread of someone doing Loctav's looming map on v2 which is significantly harder.