frukoyurdakul wrote:
I disagree on something. Specifically the high BPM part. Because while making a spread the general idea above 240 BPM is to reduce snappings themselves; as in 1/1 maximum snap in Futsuu and 1/2 maximum snap in Muzukashii instead of 1/2 and 1/4 respectively. Above that, increasing break amount by decreasing continuous mapping is not a good idea at all, because it will make the map A LOT easier compared to lower BPMs. So keeping the amount of continuous mapping as 16/1 and 20/1 is a better idea to represent the hardship of the high BPM.
Another opinion about having a 1/1 break on every 8/1, personally, I find it logical but when you put that out in the gameplay, giving a 2/1 break indicates more relaxation. You can think like this: On an Inner Oni, no 1/1 gaps whatsoever but frequent 1/2 breaks. It's almost as straining as having a 1/4 plain stream. So, even though in math they seem equal, their effect on the player is not. So my opinion is to keep old rules and counting 1/1 breaks as continuous mapping instead of adding them up.
i don't think it'll make them a "LOT" easier than lower bpms, since if you have a song in 240 and you played a song in 120, the time that passes in between notes is literally cut in half, but since those are perfect numbers to work with you do have some validity in this point. i do think in faster bpms, there should be more frequent break times specifically in the lower difficulties, maybe not the higher diffs, so maybe setting the guideline to say 12/1 or 16/1 is a good way to compromise there? i think 3-4 measures is enough as oppose to 2-3, 3 measures for REALLY high bpms and 4 measures as per usual for somewhat high ones
as for what you said about the new guideline, i held the same philosophy until i started working in the qah and saw a lot of maps with the same idea of "a lot of 1/1 breaks compensate for a lack of 3/2 or 2/1 breaks." to be honest, even then, i usually would think that it's just an excuse to avoid a veto or a DQ to fix the issue, it was fairly often that a player of that respected skill level would comment smth along the lines of "i didn't find this to be straining or difficult at all," so i started to kind of change my opinion on that.
Gezoda wrote:
On-topic:
New break proposals:
I don't think there's got to be so much of a reason in precising scalings for breaks - the current RC clearly state that they are using a base BPM of 180. Everything scales for higher or lower BPM, no matter what, and hardsetting more values will just cause maps to be closer to have very similar structures.
Splitting breaks in half-values however is a good idea for some mappers usually use 7+1 beats for the basic skeleton - forcing a 2/1 break after two occurences of this just breaks the structure overall.
Lower SV on high BPM:
Just go along with "Use a lower base slider velocity in higher BPMs" - same argument, too many hardset values and you're restricting. Of course these values have to be reasonable, to avoid garbage like SV 0.4 on 186 BPM.
However, this guideline shouldn't be so much of an issue given how many players play 16:9. Sure, it would have been a guideline back in the olden 4:3 days, but players usually play on 16:9 nowadays so 220 BPM still gives plenty of time for a player to react.
Case in point, using 1/4 timing signature and 1.4 base SV - you notice that there are roughly 3.5 beats to see ahead of the receptor, which at 220 BPM is nearly a full second ahead. I think this needs more debate.
i have to disagree with your first point-hardsetting more values won't necessarily cause map structures to be universally similar since every song is radically different and many people, especially when gds are on the set, execute breaks in a different way respective to the song. while i do agree big time that everything scales according to the rc's 180bpm, as i've seen time and time again, people don't take that scaling into account, which is the main reason for this proposal
about your lower SV comment, i think i can agree with the wordking "lower" instead of specifically 1.2x. that's personally just the value i see most often to compensate for higher bpms. and since you also have a good point about the 16:9 ratio (some people do play 4:3 still tho), perhaps increasing the guideline to 240 as oppose to 220 would be better then? because while in my opinion 220 is the point at which notes are coming faster than a beginner player is used to, i remember having trouble reading 240 when i was just a regular oni player, so, i get it
edit: one of the goals here is to hopefully enforce these as guidelines, not semi-rules, and i think by giving people two options to choose from by defining them clearly apart from each other will help that. that guideline logic as well, SHOULD give some leniency regarding the "This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140" part. i wrote that with a guideline mindset in mind, not a rule one.
thanks for y'alls feedback