View previous topic :: View next topic |
After reading the first post. Would you like scorehero to add a derived higher difficulty rating for 6-stars? |
Absolutely. This is an excellent idea. |
|
69% |
[ 114 ] |
Maybe. |
|
14% |
[ 23 ] |
No. Just stick with the game's ratings. |
|
15% |
[ 26 ] |
|
Total Votes : 163 |
|
Author |
Message |
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 4576
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: What would you think about "6-star" ratings? |
|
|
Now that I've determined how cutoffs for 4-stars and 5-stars are calculated, which you can read the details in my FAQ.
But to summarize, basically it comes down to the fact that you need to average a 2x multiplier to earn 4-stars, and 3x for 5-stars. So based on this fact, I could theoretically derive new cutoff values for "6-stars" (averaging a 4x multiplier). All the 6-star cutoffs would be easily possible to achieve because there is star power in each song.
This would add a whole new level of difficulty for those who have already achieved 47/47 5*'s on expert (including myself as of a few hours ago ), and would also provide a new goal for people who have gotten 5-stars on some easier songs.
In order to implement this idea, the base_score (as described in the "Rating System" section of my FAQ) must first be accurately known for every song (lots of work). But then I would only require you to submit your score, and optionally your percent and streak. Subsequently, the rating would be automatically determined from your score (and potentially 6-stars if high enough).
For example looking at CBfH-Expert, here's some output from my program I've been developing to process song scores:
Estimated 4* Cutoff: 171720
Estimated 5* Cutoff: 257580
Estimated 6* Cutoff: 343440
As you can see, it appears 4 users have already achieved the estimated 6* cutoff on CBfH-Expert. (it's a big step going from "Estimated" to "Exact", which is why we still need people to submit proofs for cutoffs)
This is still a long ways down the road from even being able to implement, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about the idea. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SkepticalMario
Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 310 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bravo! Yes, that is a great idea. _________________
My GH1 achievements:
Hard: 11M, 47 6-stars
Expert: 11M, 47 5-stars
Bark at the Zoo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaximusDM
Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 876 Location: Massapequa, New York
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I would do personally about the 6 star is change the color of the 5 star icon to a color like red or have it a blinking .gif or something. I wouldn't tack on a 6th star it would look sort of strange and might even be confusing to some. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 4576
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah that's true. The details of the images can be worked out later, and we could call it something other than "6-stars". Right now I just wanted to see if people would be interested in having another goal to shoot for on each song. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anthrice
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 128
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is so awsome. Something extra to shoot for once you achieve all the game has to offer. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaximusDM
Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 876 Location: Massapequa, New York
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I would definately be up for it as a new higher goal. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 659 Location: Cali
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great idea. I'm very far off from 5 starring all the songs but once I get there I would like something more to strive for. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fly1ngV
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1081 Location: Chicagoland Illinois
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
idk, i'm a little skepticle of this. it just seems odd. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drakken
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 183 Location: South Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like that idea. And I agree with Maximus; it should still be shown as 5 stars, just make them gold or blinking or something. _________________
Drakken's modest Expert drums goals (updated 2/16/08):
Top 10 on SH (9th!)
5* all songs (58/58!)
10 million (currently 10.53 million!)
FC Epic
Cyberscore - Great high scores site for other games |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SkepticalMario
Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 310 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A few things:
0) I am fully behind the idea of a 6-star rating. Since this site is all about personal achievement, a level between ***** and 100% will paint a more accurate picture of a person's skill. I recommend a green ***** icon.
1) Since the 5* cutoff is exactly 150% of the 4* cutoff, it isn't necessary to find the 4* cutoff on any song using trial and error. That cuts our work in half.
2) There should be an organized effort to find these cutoffs. Each song should be assigned to someone who is responsible for finding the 5* cutoff; then no one will duplicate another's work. I volunteer for any number of songs on easy or medium.
3) Can we have lower ratings too? It follows that anything less than the base_score of a song is worth **, and maybe less than half the base_score can be *. Obviously members with low scores (like mine on Cowboys from Hell--Expert ) might not appreciate this, but I would and the idea should be thrown out there.
EDIT: This wouldn't be any extra work either. _________________
My GH1 achievements:
Hard: 11M, 47 6-stars
Expert: 11M, 47 5-stars
Bark at the Zoo
Last edited by SkepticalMario on Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 3780 Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the idea of adding 0*, 1* and 2* ratings |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 4576
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
SkepticalMario wrote: | A few things:
1) Since the 5* cutoff is exactly 150% of the 4* cutoff, it isn't necessary to find the 4* cutoff on any song using trial and error. That cuts our work in half. |
For some reason, I was under the impression that base_score didn't have to be an integer because I thought not all the known 5-star cutoffs were divisible by 3. But now actually going through and checking, apparently they are.
So this means you are correct, 5-star cutoffs can be derived from 4-stars and vice versa. I'd still like photo proofs of the boundaries for all cutoffs to be sure (since maybe base_score isn't always an integer and it's just a coincidence that all the current 5-star cutoffs are divisible by 3). But yes, this will definately cut down on the work involved.
I just used this exact principle to find the 5-star_cutoff on BatM, I found the 4-star_cutoff myself, calculated the 5-star_cutoff, and asked Phr34k to verify it for me (since I cannot consistently 5* that song).
SkepticalMario wrote: |
2) There should be an organized effort to find these cutoffs. Each song should be assigned to someone who is responsible for finding the 5* cutoff; then no one will duplicate another's work. I volunteer for any number of songs on easy or medium. |
I agree, this is a great idea.
If we could team up and quickly find the rest of the cutoffs then deriving new cutoffs for songs won't be as far away as I thought.
If more people are willing to help, it's actually quite easy to find cutoffs aiming for the center of the cutoff range and using the crowd cheat (YBOOBBYO on main menu). Then just build up your score as fast as possible you get within 5-10k of the target score. Then wait for held notes and use them to align the last two digits of your score within a multiple of 50 of the target score. And finally tack on notes (without hitting any holds) until you reach the target score.
SkepticalMario wrote: |
3) Can we have lower ratings too? It follows that anything less than the base_score of a song is worth **, and maybe less than half the base_score can be *. Obviously members with low scores (like mine on Cowboys from Hell--Expert ) might not appreciate this, but I would and the idea should be thrown out there. |
Another great idea, in my opinion. If the majority of users agree, I will add lower cutoffs as well as the "6-star" rating. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SkepticalMario
Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 310 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JCirri wrote: | I'd still like photo proofs of the boundaries for all cutoffs to be sure (since maybe base_score isn't always an integer and it's just a coincidence that all the current 5-star cutoffs are divisible by 3). But yes, this will definately cut down on the work involved. |
Don't worry about that unless a 5* cutoff that isn't divisible by 3 is found.
Quote: | I agree, this is a great idea.
If we could team up and quickly find the rest of the cutoffs then deriving new cutoffs for songs won't be as far away as I thought. |
Should a thread for this purpose be started?
Quote: | If more people are willing to help, it's actually quite easy to find cutoffs aiming for the center of the cutoff range and using the crowd cheat (YBOOBBYO on main menu). Then just build up your score as fast as possible you get within 5-10k of the target score. Then wait for held notes and use them to align the last two digits of your score within a multiple of 50 of the target score. And finally tack on notes (without hitting any holds) until you reach the target score. | I can't believe I didn't think of the no-fail cheat; I'll have to write it down. (juvenile as I am, the fact that it contains the string 'BOOB' will make it easy to remember.) _________________
My GH1 achievements:
Hard: 11M, 47 6-stars
Expert: 11M, 47 5-stars
Bark at the Zoo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
InvadErGII
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 126
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted 'no', though I can certainly see its benefits. I kinda like the idea of there being a site-determined "6 star rating", but I definitely don't see the need to tinker with the game's numbers at all (I may be misunderstanding what's being proposed, though).
edit - Any idea on how this would affect our little signature stat things? Would the 5 star or 100% be replaced with this or would it get its own? I would definitely be more in favor of the latter, as 5 stars and 100% are still noteworthy achievements on their own and don't really need to be replaced. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 4576
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
InvadErGII wrote: | I voted 'no', though I can certainly see its benefits. I kinda like the idea of there being a site-determined "6 star rating", but I definitely don't see the need to tinker with the game's numbers at all (I may be misunderstanding what's being proposed, though).
edit - Any idea on how this would affect our little signature stat things? Would the 5 star or 100% be replaced with this or would it get its own? I would definitely be more in favor of the latter, as 5 stars and 100% are still noteworthy achievements on their own and don't really need to be replaced. |
The "6-star rating" would not in any way change the cutoffs defined in the game, the 4-star and 5-star cutoffs would be exactly the same. There would just be an additional higher calculated cutoff (using the game's same linear progression from 4-stars to 5-stars) for 6-stars.
As far as the stat images, I'm sure we could work something out. At first I would leave the images the way they are (counting all 6-stars as 5-stars). My first priority would be getting them displayed in the rating columns within all the webpages that show scores (rankings, manage scores, browse scores, top scores, etc.) _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|