DDMax Difficulty.

[Soreu]

It's just too big pain in ass with such small community...

[Welf]

no Frrrr it wont work

[Meliodafu]

Maps should give points based on their difficulty, how it is right now.
Not based on time needed to finish that map.
How do you even want to know how long a "normal" player will need to finish that map?
Based on "noobs" or "pros"?
Sry your ideas are not constructive.

[Frrrrr :3]

Okay

Btw. UpNDown most hard map i ever play. Its blow up my mind.

How do you even want to know how long a "normal" player will need to finish that map?

Easy by track path in tiles.

I know this idea is hard to realize and very complex. Im just dreaming.

[darky]

I think the best solution is to add faily rating for map's (5 star's too?).
For example, compare The RApture, Just Triple Fly and Generic WOrld, The Rapture part's very hard but u almost can't fail - so 2 star faily and 5 difficult 35-40 pts, Generic World ofc 60pts, Just Triple fly is 30pts cause not faily.
Or look at Space rate - part's difficult 1-2 star brutal but 5 star faily - so 35-40 pts ^^

[Fifi]

I think the best solution is to add faily rating for map's (5 star's too?).
For example, compare The RApture, Just Triple Fly and Generic WOrld, The Rapture part's very hard but u almost can't fail - so 2 star faily and 5 difficult 35-40 pts, Generic World ofc 60pts, Just Triple fly is 30pts cause not faily.
Or look at Space rate - part's difficult 1-2 star brutal but 5 star faily - so 35-40 pts ^^

I always felt like it's counted into difficulty and it's up to player to check on /pause if the map is more difficult or more faily. Like you know, Dusty Road is easy compared to some other Moderate maps, but it's 5 stars cause it's "victims" are countless. xD I know that it might be more useful to have it as a separate value, but should we also rate design, look, clarity, &c. then? I mean, I think your idea is nice, but isn't the current system well tested and dependable already?

[darky]

I know that it might be more useful to have it as a separate value, but should we also rate design, look, clarity, &c. then? I mean, I think your idea is nice, but isn't the current system well tested and dependable already?

No, cause we are talking only about points system.

Current system not working because every month maps become harder, and map's like Adrenaline(4 star) and Aim 8,9(4 star) not even close. Yes adrenaline faily enough for 3-4 star brutal but compare part difficulty with Aim's 4+ edgehooking in a row.

Btw for me AIM series it's ideal for current system cause part's hard and faily almost equal. But map's like Space rate(5 star) and just triple fly(5 star) completely different, and i can't say that this map harder than aim 8,9, otherwise ofc Space rate MORE FAILY and Just Triple Fly harder for most people.

For me if Falling down or Generic World it's 5 star than map's like The Rapture, Space rate, Just Triple fly etc it's even not 4 star - it's 1-2 star brutal but wtf? Then other maps are moderate

Something like that for me will be awesome:


Blue - part's difficult with endless attempts.
Red - how many faily part's

[hi_leute_gll]

It sounds interesting and it would be more fair, as i mentioned a similar system is already used on Qshar. We could also look at things like the length of a map then.
But it would also make the things more complicated, you would have to retest and rerate hundreds of maps and tester would have to do 2 ratings per maps.

[Fifi]

I know that it might be more useful to have it as a separate value, but should we also rate design, look, clarity, &c. then? I mean, I think your idea is nice, but isn't the current system well tested and dependable already?

No, cause we are talking only about points system.

Oh, you're right. But as hi_leute_gll said - length is another meaningful factor.

But to be honest, I consider fail ratio to be a part of difficulty level, alongside the necessary skill. And we would have to rerate tons of maps. :c

There's also a problem if we should completely ignore the fail ratio when rating a map's difficulty? It doesn't feel fair to rate Dusty Road below 4-5 moderate, even if it's not as hard when we take out the amount of fails (it would just look weird and inadequate), the same goes for Homesick (which is in Novice category, even if it's way more faily, in my opinion) and I guess there are more maps like this.

[Novo]

I understood you. But I rely on the time it took to complete the map. Brutal still brutal, regardless of the map release time. Just before almost all the maps had a bad game design. Except some good mappers, like Silex, Loop :3, and one-two others. Now the maps tested before release.
My point is that finishing ten 5-stars brutal maps is more harder, and takes more time, than 100 moderate. So 1200 pts for 10 5-stars brutal will be equal 1200 pts from 80 finished 5/moderate maps.
Under this system people will try to beat top-end instead of getting points on a simple maps.
Now, points says nothing about skill. U can have no skill at all and chase pts. Ranks says nothing about skill, cuz u can chase rank at novice server where top1 rank can be beaten for 5-6 tries and cost equal to top1 rank of any 5-star brutal.
My suggestion is to create a parallel system of points like SRpoints (skill rating) or modify existing towards exponentially.

Beat a rank 1 on novic is 50x harder then to beat a rank on brutal often i first try the map and get rank 1 or smth similar