Anyone find the scoring aspect flawed?

[weirdingway]

Does getting a long streak and 90% of the notes deserve a better score than 98% notes hit but too staggered to get a decent streak? It just seems odd to me to credit less successful notes hit.

[Bakkster]

I like it. It rewards consistency. I think it makes sense to score more points for only missing half of the solo, compared to missing every 10th note.

[Edgehopper]

Does getting a long streak and 90% of the notes deserve a better score than 98% notes hit but too staggered to get a decent streak? It just seems odd to me to credit less successful notes hit.

No. It's a music simulation game, and especially on drums and bass, it's more important to be able to pull together strings on consistent beat. A band will do much better with a drummer who flubs solos but hits the main beat correctly than with a drummer who mi****s every 16th hit and throws the rest of the band off.

[Eagoyle]

I think it does. That's how almost every sport is scored. In baseball, it isn't who had the best batting average that wins the game. You need to string together lots of hits to score runs.

If you are missing every 20th note, as an audience member, I will think the whole song was crappy. If you have a bad section, but the rest rocked, I will probably forget about that bad segment.

[weirdingway]

I like it. It rewards consistency. I think it makes sense to score more points for only missing half of the solo, compared to missing every 10th note.

So basically I can do 90% of the song, and go take a piss during the last 10%, ruining the conclusion, and someone else who maybe missing one god damn note per phrase suddenly is so much worse. It seems more like a system you exploit to win. Obviously consistent perfection is the best, but when you have a choice between the two, apparently you can royally suck on any given part of a song and do oh-so-much better than someone who makes single mistakes here and there and only scores less based on how the multiplyer/SP is designed.

[MundaneSoul]

Does getting a long streak and 90% of the notes deserve a better score than 98% notes hit but too staggered to get a decent streak?

Yes.

[][]

[weirdingway]

Doesn't anyone think it's sort of odd when you're comparing scores in GH to see that you got like 8% more notes than your friend but lost to him simply because he had a marginally longer streak? Instead of accuracy, the competitve aspect seems to be more geared toward how and when you use your starpower, which doesn't feel like anything a rock star is worried about.

A better player can handle the harder parts of the song but makes a few mistakes on the simple stuff and ends up looking worse on the scoreboard. I understand the merits of both sides, but it sucks that only one aspect has been getting any love. Other music games, such as Pop N' Music and DDR, reward accuracy over consistency, and that formula has proven successful.

[Eagoyle]

With the number of games that GH and RB have/will sell. I would say theirs is a pretty successful method.

[admanimal]

Other music games, such as Pop N' Music and DDR, reward accuracy over consistency, and that formula has proven successful.

I think the GH/RB formula has proven pretty successful, too.

[Bakkster]

Obviously consistent perfection is the best, but when you have a choice between the two, apparently you can royally suck on any given part of a song and do oh-so-much better than someone who makes single mistakes here and there and only scores less based on how the multiplyer/SP is designed.

Two reasons why I disagree:
1) I would rather hear a consistently good bad with a crappy guitar solo than a consistently average band with no perceived increase in quality. As somebody else said, consistency is king in music.
2) The streak multiplier is a great gameplay mechanic. Imagine the game without it, or don't because it's too depressing.

[weirdingway]

With the number of games that GH and RB have/will sell. I would say theirs is a pretty successful method.

Name all the american music games with recognizable tracks. That's why GH/RB sell. I'm just wondering why they felt they needed to change the scoring formula that's been tried-and-true for many years.

[admanimal]

Wait, so in DDR you don't get any bonus or multiplier of any sort for putting together a streak of correct steps?

[weirdingway]

You get recognition for it, but no, like a test you take in class, getting more correct is more important than how many times in a row you get challenges correct.

Hello Johnny, you failed this test even though you got more questions right than Timmy. He got 1-30 right and missed 31-50. You only missed 7 questions but had only 8 right in a row at any point.

Think about the de-movitvator the multiplier has. On an accuracy platform, you can miss four or five notes and still get a near perfect score. Miss one or two in the "wrong" spots on a multiplier platform, and you might as well give up.

[seafisch]

To be completely honest, I really don't care much about the score. Did I have fun? Was it challenging, but not frustrating? Did I five-star it to get the most unlockables I could? If I can answer yes to those questions, I'm satisfied.

[Eagoyle]

I didn't realize that RB was a test. I thought it was more of a competition or a sporting event.

As I mentioned earlier, sports are all about consitency. It doesn't matter if I rush for 800 yards in a game, if I never put together enough yard in one drive to score, I have 0 points. The other team could put together one good drive of 70 yards, not gain another yard in the game, and still win.

Is that fair? Does it matter? Those are the rules. Deal with it.

[weirdingway]

To be completely honest, I really don't care much about the score. Did I have fun? Was it challenging, but not frustrating? Did I five-star it to get the most unlockables I could? If I can answer yes to those questions, I'm satisfied.

This is going to be the best multiplayer game ever. This thread wasn't designed to say that RB is a POS, despite how some people lack enough common sense not to try and put words in my mouth. But I'm still curious as to why the scoring system is different from 10+ years of another form.

[admanimal]

You get recognition for it, but no, like a test you take in class, getting more correct is more important than how many times in a row you get challenges correct.

Hello Johnny, you failed this test even though you got more questions right than Timmy. He got 1-30 right and missed 31-50. You only missed 7 questions but had only 8 right in a row at any point.

I don't think your test analogy is good at all. Of course it doesn't matter how many questions in a row you answer, since each question is essentially independent from the last.

But yes as many other people have said, I am more likely to judge a musical performance that just messes up badly on a small part but nails the rest as being superior to one that consistently makes small mistakes throughout the song.

And I do think it takes more overall skill in the game to get longer streaks than it does to hit a higher percentage of notes.

[weirdingway]

I didn't realize that RB was a test. I thought it was more of a competition or a sporting event.

As I mentioned earlier, sports are all about consitency. It doesn't matter if I rush for 800 yards in a game, if I never put together enough yard in one drive to score, I have 0 points. The other team could put together one good drive of 70 yards, not gain another yard in the game, and still win.

If you score 30 points in one quarter but no more points the rest of the game, and the other team scores 31 but not so much in one quarter, who wins? Yeah. Thanks for the supporting statement!

[sporkBrigade]

I rarely play Guitar Hero alone. I almost always play with a group, ranging from 3-6 people. I've listened to a LOT of people play guitar hero, from easy to expert, and I believe very strongly in their scoring system. It just comes down to how the song sounds. It is absolutely aggravating to listen to people play who can't keep streaks going. A 96% with every missed note spread out over the song is just annoying to listen to. A 96% percent with one flubbed solo, on the other hand, is a much more enjoyable experience. Based on this alone I'm 100% behind the scoring as is. Anything that promotes streaks is a positive in my book, and really helps those of us who have to listen to other people play.

To change to a percentage based scoring system would be a bad move, and is something you're more likely to see from Neversoft than Harmonix. Sure, it'll make it a better competative arcade game. But not a better music re-creation game. If you don't see the difference, I'd just stick to GH3 and hope GH4 makes the changes you're wishing for.

[vtjustinb]

You get recognition for it, but no, like a test you take in class, getting more correct is more important than how many times in a row you get challenges correct.

Apples and oranges; there's no real-world advantage for getting streaks of problems right (or streaks of points in your sports example)--but in music there is: a consistent performance contributes to the overall reception of a song.

Especially in the context of RB the notion of a streak is important because it emphasizes band cohesion for "moments." If the sole purpose of the game is to get as few notes wrong as possible, it becomes less about a holistic experience with you and your friends and more about you vs. the game and your specific note chart.

By rewarding streaks you allow band moments to happen where people are trying to line up their streaks and use of overdrive to achieve higher scores. This makes the track more of a co-operative social interaction, and I'm not saying precision is a bad model for scoring but it's not right for RB.

[weirdingway]

I don't think your test analogy is good at all. Of course it doesn't matter how many questions in a row you answer, since each question is essentially independent from the last.

Each note is independant from the last. Missing the last note has nothing to do with if you're going to hit the next note. The analogy is fine.

[dragulaAC]

Ok, score multipliers are not something new. They've been in videogames/pinball games whatever for who knows how long. There still around because they work well in games.

If you botch one part during a song, even badly, it's not as bad as losing the 4x multiplier and going back down to 1x every 10-15 seconds. Like everyone's said already, it's all about consistency.

I was trying to think of a 'good' example, but couldn't off the top of my head. But here goes one anyway, if i was back in highschool band playing my saxophone. If i nailed a brief sweet ass solo everyone would be impressed, but if i played the rest of the song with wrong notes or squeaks every 10 seconds, they'd be laughing at me anyway.

[weirdingway]

Especially in the context of RB the notion of a streak is important, because it emphasizes band cohesion for "moments." If the sole purpose of the game is to get as few notes wrong as possible, it becomes less about a holistic experience with you and your friend and more about you vs. the game and your specific note chart.

Ok, this is the best response I've heard so far. This would be a good indicator of why this system was chosen. Thank you for the clarification.

[admanimal]

Each note is independant from the last. Missing the last note has nothing to do with if you're going to hit the next note. The analogy is fine.

No. The sound and feel of each note depends entirely on the note that came before it and the one that comes after it. Is listening to each note from a song one after the other with a few seconds in between each one the same experience as listening to the whole song as yo normally would?

The score isn't just about skill in hitting notes, it's about how good you can make the song sound.

[weirdingway]

If i nailed a brief sweet ass solo everyone would be impressed, but if i played the rest of the song with wrong notes or squeaks every 10 seconds, they'd be laughing at me anyway.

I disagree, the solo is the memorable part as it actually took skill. When you prove you are that good and miss on the easier stuff, people just pass it off as a fluke (an itch, twitch, whatever) since you've already proven you are good.

[Eagoyle]

If you score 30 points in one quarter but no more points the rest of the game, and the other team scores 31 but not so much in one quarter, who wins? Yeah. Thanks for the supporting statement!

Think before you write. This is completely different.

A comparable analogy for RB to what you stated would be this. If I scored 50,000 points in the first half of the song, and none in the rest. and the other person scored 27,000 points on each half who would win?

Number of notes hit in RB are indirectly related to score. Like how Offensive yards are indirectly related to score in football.

[weirdingway]

No. The sound and feel of each note depends entirely on the note that came before it and the one that comes after it. Is listening to each note from a song one after the other with a few seconds in between each one the same experience as listening to the whole song as yo normally would?

Sure, since on the repetative stuff you can fill in the blanks yourself, but when you don't hear the majority of an entire section of the song, you have no idea what you missed.

[admanimal]

Sure, since on the repetative stuff you can fill in the blanks yourself, but when you don't hear the majority of an entire section of the song, you have no idea what you missed.

Well then I guess we have differing opinions on what is more annoying. I hate listening to people who miss every third note, but I don't mind it when someone screws up a section but is otherwise consistent. Like I said, the score is about what makes the song sound better.

[weirdingway]

Think before you write. This is completely different.

A comparable analogy for RB to what you stated would be this. If I scored 50,000 points in the first half of the song, and none in the rest. and the other person scored 27,000 points on each half who would win?

Number of notes hit in RB are indirectly related to score. Like how Offensive yards are indirectly related to score in football.


You might want to actually consider your own advice before offering it to others. Every note is a successful completion of a task, consistency is more highly regarded than skill here, so multiple successful completions of a task, no matter how simple, is considered more worthy of praise than the capability of successful completions of much harder tasks.

[Apples]

It is what it is.

It's the same as previous games so I guess I'm used to it.

On a strictly challenge/reward basis, it's a more challenging feat to string together long streaks of perfection, so it would make sense to reward that favorably.

[MundaneSoul]

I don't understand the argument here. The scoring system is what it is, take it or leave it.

EDIT: Great minds, Apples... :D

[admanimal]

multiple successful completions of a task, no matter how simple, is considered more worthy of praise than the capability of successful completions of much harder tasks.

So you're saying I deserve more praise if I can do 100 simple addition problems than if I can solve 10 calculus problems?

[Jack_Harvard]

Maybe I'm just weird, but this is a video game, not a test or a sport or even playing in a "real" band. What does it matter how the scores are added up? They're electronic numbers on a screen. They don't have to conform to any reality whatsoever. Whether they add up in a way that seems contradictory or not, it's not like it becomes impossible to compete anymore. Just like any other video game, if you're interested in getting high scores, develop a strategy that matches the game.

It might just be me, I don't know...:p

[weirdingway]

It is what it is.

It's the same as previous games so I guess I'm used to it.

On a strictly challenge/reward basis, it's a more challenging feat to string together long streaks of perfection, so it would make sense to reward that favorably.

Not really, at least for me. It's a lot easier to get a long streak on a repetative chorus than it is to perfect a face-melting solo (generally the climax of difficulty). But losing because you failed at the small things while your competition failed at the more complex things definitely is a different experience.

[dragulaAC]

I disagree, the solo is the memorable part as it actually took skill. When you prove you are that good and miss on the easier stuff, people just pass it off as a fluke (an itch, twitch, whatever) since you've already proven you are good.

If you can't perform the basics, you aren't that good. If we were playing basketball, and you are the best 3point shooter, but you couldn't even dribble the ball or make a short jumper, I wouldn't pick you to be on my team. Being good at something generally means learning and mastering the basics of it. In games how many 3point attempts are there compared to time spent dribbling or shooting 2point jump shots? Way more, just as in music, time spent on solos as opposed to time on the rest of the song. I would still choose the guy whose better at the majority of the song, that the solo 'expert'.

Anyway, this is getting way to silly and pointless of arguments about video game scoring...

[weirdingway]

I don't understand the argument here. The scoring system is what it is, take it or leave it.

EDIT: Great minds, Apples... :D

That's a silly and flippant remark. People will talk about the quality of anything, regardless of their personal power to change it. Understand that so you can post something of substance next time.

[Eagoyle]

You might want to actually consider your own advice before offering it to others. Every note is a successful completion of a task, consistency is more highly regarded than skill here, so multiple successful completions of a task, no matter how simple, is considered more worthy of praise than the capability of successful completions of much harder tasks.

Ask any athlete, "What is the key to winning?" They won't say having more skill than their opponent. It is about consitency. I would much rather be on a team that never makes a mistake on the little things (fumbles, penalties, ect), but may not be able to pull of the big plays. They will defintealy win more games.

[admanimal]

Not really, at least for me. It's a lot easier to get a long streak on a repetative chorus than it is to perfect a face-melting solo (generally the climax of difficulty). But losing because you failed at the small things while your competition failed at the more complex things definitely is a different experience.

I think the point of the scoring is that if you mess up a lot in the chorus, the audience is going to hate you, but if you mess up the solo, the audience is barely going to notice (or think you are just improvising).

[vtjustinb]

Again I don't think precision is a bad model for scoring, but it's the wrong one for RB.

You're making alright (sometimes a little wondering with your analogies :P) arguments, but the point is if RB was solely scored on note precision there'd be no point or reward in the band experience. It'd just be you vs. the note chart. By rewarding streaks you allow players to co-operatively shoot for rock moments where everyone is playing well at the same time, and are appropriately rewarded for it. It's the right choice for the social design of the game. Now it's arguable that you could effectively use precision in a solo career, since it more or less is you against the note chart, but why have two separate systems in one game? So that's why streaks are where it's at.

[weirdingway]

Ask any athlete, "What is the key to winning?" They won't say having more skill than their opponent. It is about consitency. I would much rather be on a team that never makes a mistake on the little things (fumbles, penalties, ect), but may not be able to pull of the big plays. They will defintealy win more games.

Is that so? So if I were in the Olympics...and doing oh...the hammer throw...and I get two fouls because I did something silly, but then on my 3rd throw, totally raped my competition in distance...would I lose?

The other guys can get 3 completed throws with no fouls, and still lose if they can't handle the harder stuff.

[admanimal]

All of these analogies suck! A musical performance is a completely different animal than any of these things.

[MundaneSoul]

Understand that so you can post something of substance next time.

This from the guy conducting a four page argument over the scoring system in a video game. I'm fairly certain that "substance" doesn't come in to play here. Settle down.

[weirdingway]

I'd like to add:

Why does EVERYONE mention the solo? What if both me and my competition nail the solo but I get more notes right on the repetative stuff and he gets a streak of only 2-3 more notes? His 4x on a few notes will beat me getting a few more notes right. It's a lopsided decision, but I did see one post in here that explains the "moments" aspect that I agree with.

[Eagoyle]

Maybe I'm just weird, but this is a video game, not a test or a sport or even playing in a "real" band. What does it matter how the scores are added up? They're electronic numbers on a screen. They don't have to conform to any reality whatsoever. Whether they add up in a way that seems contradictory or not, it's not like it becomes impossible to compete anymore. Just like any other video game, if you're interested in getting high scores, develop a strategy that matches the game.

It might just be me, I don't know...:p

I'm with you, Jack. I remember when games were played becuase they were fun. Not because you could show off how big your e-penis was. I am glad to see RB go towards the Group, and away from the rediculous solos.

Everything has a determining factor for winning. If all you care about is winning, than adjust your playstyle to fit the game.

[dragulaAC]

This from the guy conducting a four page argument over the scoring system in a video game. I'm fairly certain that "substance" doesn't come in to play here. Settle down.

lol, i was so just about to post this!

[Jack_Harvard]

Not because you could show off how big your e-penis was.

HAHAHAHA!

That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day! :D

[weirdingway]

I'm with you, Jack. I remember when games were played becuase they were fun. Not because you could show off how big your e-penis was. I am glad to see RB go towards the Group, and away from the rediculous solos.

Everything has a determining factor for winning. If all you care about is winning, than adjust your playstyle to fit the game.

Who said this game wasn't fun if they weren't scoring high? I'm talking specifically about the score system, not what makes this game fun. It's a narrowed topic on a ver specific subject, not RB in general. Playing with a group, we're not going to give a crap about score, but there's no "How much fun you had" category on the Leaderboard for those who want to play competitively.

[mltdwn]

Not really, at least for me. It's a lot easier to get a long streak on a repetative chorus than it is to perfect a face-melting solo (generally the climax of difficulty). But losing because you failed at the small things while your competition failed at the more complex things definitely is a different experience.

Problem is this is a "music simulator" kind of...

Music Theory/Composition 101.

All music is written in repeating phrases. Take the base of say One from Metallica. The intro phrasing is a repetitive 4 note run, eventually seguing into a 7 note run which is repeated as the main line through out the rest of the song. There are of course solos here and there, but the thing is by the 4th or 5th bar you have the main phrase embeded in your skull and it isn't supposed to change (much) so when someone messes up one note it is very obvious. Solos however are generally not so obvious whether it was a screw up or not, mainly due to the fact it is only played once in a given song. Thus the audience will most likely think of a mistake as "he meant to do that" in a solo and it will largely go unnoticed.

Take in the June or July Guitar World where they interviewed Kirk Hammett about their setlist that they are presently using. He states in there that he NEVER plays a solo the same between any two performances. He changes however he feels like changing it that night, and some nights he simplifies it because he just isn't feeling good or is worn out. Thing is no one notices at a concert that the solo in "Master of Puppets" or "One" was different than the CD; however, if he suddenly starts playing the wrong notes in the rythm line they will deffinatly notice.

Thus the reason why the scoring in GH and RB is fitting. It's just like playing in real life. You screw up the rythm it's noticeable and you'll sound like crap, you screw up a solo and people will just think you're trying something new with it. That's just the truth about music with any instrument really.

[vtjustinb]

I think this entire argument is about a frustrated guy who can't play more than 10 chords back to back before blowing his multiplier. :P

[admanimal]

Thus the reason why the scoring in GH and RB is fitting. It's just like playing in real life. You screw up the rythm it's noticeable and you'll sound like crap, you screw up a solo and people will just think you're trying something new with it. That's just the truth about music with any instrument really.


I think the point of the scoring is that if you mess up a lot in the chorus, the audience is going to hate you, but if you mess up the solo, the audience is barely going to notice (or think you are just improvising).

Great minds think alike...

[weirdingway]

This from the guy conducting a four page argument over the scoring system in a video game. I'm fairly certain that "substance" doesn't come in to play here. Settle down.

All 4 pages of my content? You're answer previously was no better than just saying "Whatever". If you're going to contribute to a thread, post something that actually adresses the OP. Not, "Take it or leave it". That blanket piece of crap could be strewn about virtually every thread asking questions on this board "Why no Solo BWT?" "Why Canada postponed?" "Why no wireless?" Instead of answering their question, you're response would simply be take it or leave it. That's really intelligent.

[Eagoyle]

All 4 pages of my content? You're answer previously was no better than just saying "Whatever". If you're going to contribute to a thread, post something that actually adresses the OP. Not, "Take it or leave it". That blanket piece of crap could be strewn about virtually every thread asking questions on this board "Why no Solo BWT?" "Why Canada postponed?" "Why no wireless?" Instead of answering their question, you're response would simply be take it or leave it. That's really intelligent.

Thanks for adding so much to this thread with your post.




Thanks mltdwn for putting some education, and real world examples, into this very opinionated thread. About time somebody with some knowledge joined in.

[weirdingway]

Problem is this is a "music simulator" kind of...

Music Theory/Composition 101.

All music is written in repeating phrases. Take the base of say One from Metallica. The intro phrasing is a repetitive 4 note run, eventually seguing into a 7 note run which is repeated as the main line through out the rest of the song. There are of course solos here and there, but the thing is by the 4th or 5th bar you have the main phrase embeded in your skull and it isn't supposed to change (much) so when someone messes up one note it is very obvious. Solos however are generally not so obvious whether it was a screw up or not, mainly due to the fact it is only played once in a given song. Thus the audience will most likely think of a mistake as "he meant to do that" in a solo and it will largely go unnoticed.

Take in the June or July Guitar World where they interviewed Kirk Hammett about their setlist that they are presently using. He states in there that he NEVER plays a solo the same between any two performances. He changes however he feels like changing it that night, and some nights he simplifies it because he just isn't feeling good or is worn out. Thing is no one notices at a concert that the solo in "Master of Puppets" or "One" was different than the CD; however, if he suddenly starts playing the wrong notes in the rythm line they will deffinatly notice.

Thus the reason why the scoring in GH and RB is fitting. It's just like playing in real life. You screw up the rythm it's noticeable and you'll sound like crap, you screw up a solo and people will just think you're trying something new with it. That's just the truth about music with any instrument really.


You're entire post fell onto the fallacy that I'm only talking about solos. One guy who messes up 75% of one section of rhythm and gets 80% of another is considered more skillful than another who missed 98% of both sections combined but missed notes somewhere in the middle. Why are those notes suddenly so much more special than the beginning or ending ones?

[weirdingway]

vtjustinb's first post was the only really insightful one I've seen and serves well enough to explain it's advantage in a game like RB vs others.

[admanimal]

You're entire post fell onto the fallacy that I'm only talking about solos. One guy who messes up 75% of one section of rhythm and gets 80% of another is considered more skillful than another who missed 98% of both sections combined but missed notes somewhere in the middle. Why are those notes suddenly so much more special than the beginning or ending ones?

If you are saying the person who got 80% and 70% hit those notes in streaks and then missed the rest all together (which I should point out would most likely cause them to fail out of the song) and the person who gets 98% missed every other note (which probably means they really hit less than 98%), then yes I do think the 80/70 guy is going to give a more satisfying performance.

[Unleavened_Dead]

Man, I wonder how bad weirdingway lost to take this to the boards to gripe. You've just got to realize that when you post on the forums that there is something wrong with the game rather than admitting defeat that you're a sore loser.

[mltdwn]

You're entire post fell onto the fallacy that I'm only talking about solos. One guy who messes up 75% of one section of rhythm and gets 80% of another is considered more skillful than another who missed 98% of both sections combined but missed notes somewhere in the middle. Why are those notes suddenly so much more special than the beginning or ending ones?

Um can you do me a favor and rephrase the question? I'm not exactly sure I understand exactly the example you are giving. Of course I could just be dense today.

[weirdingway]

If you are saying the person who got 80% and 70% hit those notes in streaks and then missed the rest all together (which I should point out would most likely cause them to fail out of the song) and the person who gets 98% missed every other note (which probably means they really hit less than 98%), then yes I do think the 80/70 guy is going to give a more satisfying performance.

Every other note is hardly 98%. Based on the multiplier/SP system, the guy who makes his mistake just before a star phrase is completed is hurting more than if he hit that last one but missed the next one.

[MundaneSoul]

You're [sic] answer previously was no better than just saying "Whatever".

Whatever?


If you're going to contribute to a thread, post something that actually adresses the OP.

Why? I can post whatever the hell I want in a thread, as long as it doesn't break any forum rules.


Instead of answering their question, you're [sic] response would simply be take it or leave it.

Basically, yes. Why no solo BWT? Does it matter? The game is done. Let's enjoy it instead of focusing on all the things about it that we find disappointing.

[Ultrace]

I rarely play Guitar Hero alone. I almost always play with a group, ranging from 3-6 people. I've listened to a LOT of people play guitar hero, from easy to expert, and I believe very strongly in their scoring system. It just comes down to how the song sounds. It is absolutely aggravating to listen to people play who can't keep streaks going. A 96% with every missed note spread out over the song is just annoying to listen to. A 96% percent with one flubbed solo, on the other hand, is a much more enjoyable experience.
This is what it boils down to, and why I also support the scoring method as-is. It's more fun to watch and sure as heck more fun to play with. At least in RB you only have your own multiplier to worry about and can't "bring down" the rest of the band's individual scores with missteps.

One thing that is a shame is that apart from the opportunity for more notes, there's not much scoring benefit to step things up to hard or expert--there's actually a significant penalty due to the lost streak multipliers. Maybe if notes were worth a little more (10 points higher per difficulty level) each on hard/expert... But that's just an observation and sure as heck not a complaint.

[weirdingway]

Man, I wonder how bad weirdingway lost to take this to the boards to gripe. You've just got to realize that when you post on the forums that there is something wrong with the game rather than admitting defeat that you're a sore loser.

Nope. This is not about a personal experience. Though your shallow response proves you lack the mental capability to see the question from a broader scale rather than some strange attempt to vent at a loss. The question is why the system was developed as it was.

A lot of people on here are spending their time flaming me thinking I'm saying this game is crap or that some guy cheated. Instead of having enough reading comprehension to understand that I'm looking for an analysis of the design.

One guy figured it out. ONE GUY (or girl :)

[dragulaAC]

OK, considering in this whole sorry excuse for a thread you have yet to get even 1 person to agree with anything you're argueing over. That tells me you're either wrong, or no one cares. Either way, I don't care, but the continuation of this thread is pointless. Other than for our amusement.

[ChodTheWacko]

Each note is independant from the last.

No, you are wrong here.

Music is not just about individual notes.
It is about phrases, melodies, etc. Each note DOES build on the other.
If you are building up for the climax of the song, notes get gradually louder/faster/etc.
Consistency is important - to build the feel of a song.

Which would sound better:
Someone who could play only the first half of a song, but played it 100% right?
Or someone who plays the entire song but gets every 3rd note wrong?

It's not even close. You wouldn't even recognize the song in the latter case.
Yet you are suggesting the second case should score 50% higher.

- Frank

[MundaneSoul]

Nope. This is not about a personal experience. Though your shallow response proves you lack the mental capability to see the question from a broader scale rather than some strange attempt to vent at a loss. The question is why the system was developed as it was.

A lot of people on here are spending their time flaming me thinking I'm saying this game is crap or that some guy cheated. Instead of having enough reading comprehension to understand that I'm looking for an analysis of the design.

One guy figured it out. ONE GUY (or girl :)

Well, I'm certain you're going to get plenty of impassioned responses by continually insulting the intelligence of everyone who posts in your thread. (Except, of course, for your new favorite forum member.)

[weirdingway]

OK, considering in this whole sorry excuse for a thread you have yet to get even 1 person to agree with anything you're argueing over. That tells me you're either wrong, or no one cares. Either way, I don't care, but the continuation of this thread is pointless. Other than for our amusement.


Only for people like you who can't contribute with an actual answer other than to rephrase over and over how stupid he thinks the topic matter is.

The purpose was to find out why it was made the way it was. As opposed to dozens of other previous music games who used a different system successfully. One person had what it took to understand and explain it to me. Most of the other posters, including yourself, spends their time constructing "creative" flames. I thank the one poster who knows how to read. Dealing with flamers is just part of communicating on the internet...a caveat I was willing to bear.

[weirdingway]

Well, I'm certain you're going to get plenty of impassioned responses by continually insulting the intelligence of everyone who posts in your thread. (Except, of course, for your new favorite forum member.)

I have no problem insulting those who have already gone out of their way to insult me before I have. I don't insult anyone who hasn't insulted me :) Though lots of people on this board have already insulted me before I made any comments about them.

[Eman311]

To be honest, I rarely play anymore to get high scores. It's all about the good music.

Anyways, I didnt see what the gripes were in this thread, but the scoring system seems fair. I mean, it is meant NOT to be like the GH format. It's just a different scoring style that you need to adjust to.

[weirdingway]

No, you are wrong here.

Music is not just about individual notes.
It is about phrases, melodies, etc. Each note DOES build on the other.
If you are building up for the climax of the song, notes get gradually louder/faster/etc.
Consistency is important - to build the feel of a song.

Which would sound better:
Someone who could play only the first half of a song, but played it 100% right?
Or someone who plays the entire song but gets every 3rd note wrong?

It's not even close. You wouldn't even recognize the song in the latter case.
Yet you are suggesting the second case should score 50% higher.

- Frank

You don't seem to understand the concept of giving any collection of notes, priority to the middle section and the least priority to the beginning and end section.

[mltdwn]

NM I think I figured out what you meant.

It's because consistancy is more important in music than being good 90% of the time but having the 10% spread out randomly. Thus the reason why when you learn changing chords on guitar the instructor (if they are good) will tell you if you have problems changing chords fast enough then cut the preceding note short, and skip the sixteenth notes you can skip as you will sound tremendously better as a whole. It's better to be silent and be able to play the main rythm than it is to screw up randomly. Besides I have yet to see this really be a problem in say the previous GH games. If you are randomly missing notes then it means your finger speed/dexterity isn't up to snuff yet and you need more practice. It's one thing to "think" you can play the piece, and another to know you can't play certain sections. Also the reason why I don't even bother to try the solo on One on Medium yet in GHIII. I know there is no way in hell I can play it so I just let it run through that section without playing a note and pick it up on the far side. Turns out I look like alot less of a spass doing that than trying to "impress the crowd" with my leet soloing skills and flubbing the majority of it.

Thing is you're looking at this as just another game where you hit buttons and flick a switch to try to line up and time everything right... That's not what GH or RB has ever been about (well up until GHIII at least). It's about playing music in a simplified fashion. Thus the reason the really good wannabees don't even look at the screen when playing they play "with the music" not with the game (and one reason why GHIII sucks, it's nothing like the music at the higher end). And I don't mean wannabees insultingly. I count myself among there ranks, but let's face it being a GH god does not make one a guitar player.

[visualdeity]

Again I don't think precision is a bad model for scoring, but it's the wrong one for RB.

You're making alright (sometimes a little wondering with your analogies :P) arguments, but the point is if RB was solely scored on note precision there'd be no point or reward in the band experience. It'd just be you vs. the note chart. By rewarding streaks you allow players to co-operatively shoot for rock moments where everyone is playing well at the same time, and are appropriately rewarded for it. It's the right choice for the social design of the game. Now it's arguable that you could effectively use precision in a solo career, since it more or less is you against the note chart, but why have two separate systems in one game? So that's why streaks are where it's at.

Except by your logic, even with the way it is, the game is still about you and your bandmates vs the scoring system. If we're all about just having a chilling, awesome music-playing experience, there should be no scoring at all (which I don't think is a bad idea, btw). The music is its own reward.

The idea that a streak of notes is more important than accuracy just strikes me as so ******ed. In GH, I've out-done my friends who were playing (or they've out-done me) by 10-15% accuracy, but because the less accurate player had a longer streak, they got a higher score. While people like to say that consistency is more important in actual music, I respectfully disagree. I'd far rather hear someone playing, and flubbing 1/40 of the notes (4x multiplier is about 40 notes, isn't it?), than someone who plays perfectly, but completely misses an entire section of the song.

[weirdingway]

Here's a really basic example I'd like to hear a constructive response to:

Break a song down into 25% chunks.

**'s mean perfect completion. --'s mean missing at least 1 note.

Player 1 ** -- -- **
Player 2 -- ** ** --

Who scores more, and why is this good?

[sporkBrigade]

I don't quite understand why this thread is melting down, but it is. Both sides need to chill, Weirding Way especially. You're getting defensive, and certain people are feeding on that. Those certain people also need to chill. :D

This is an interesting topic for some of us. Don't get it locked, people.

Anyway, a NON-musical reason you need to consider is strategy. Using DDR as an example, there is 0 strategy in that game. You play, the person who hits more "notes" wins. But it's simplistic. Great for some, not so great for others. When you combine your streaks with Star Power, something you have direct control over, you've just added a very interesting strategic element to gameplay. Now maybe that's not your personal preference, but I definitely loved it. I'm an old DDR players too, and it's one of the first things I remember seeing in Guitar Hero that set it apart. Well, other then American music.

As for why consistancy can even be considered a "skill" in the first place. It is much more difficult to maintain 300 notes in a row then 150, a mistake, then 150. Winning 3 super bowls in a row means a hell of a lot more then winning 3 over 50 years. I'm not arguing for a specific value to the streak, I'm just saying there is a value to being able to do it. If anything, I would argue DDR was not fair for not giving you a bonus for your streaks. It's hard to do, you should get something. What you get can be debated, of course. But to claim keeping a streak alive in itself not a worthy skill is not fair at all.

There. No music analogies or anything. I'm awesome.

[High_School_Legend]

I'm with you weirdingway. This isn't right at all. Maybe beating them if you're only 2% behind or so, but not from that far back.

A lot of you all on here are calling consistency your long streak of notes... but think.. wouldn't consistency really be when someone is only missing that one note on a certain riff? Consistency is not so much hitting all the notes and making a long streak out of the easy riffs and then totally blowing the freakin *high-light* of the song for your instrument.

I don't understand how so many people are saying that they'd rather listen to good background music and then a screwed up solo than a song where only one note is missed every now and then.. and seriously.. on the harder riffs you can't even tell you missed notes at times unless you look at the multiplier. Maybe you people that are backing up this multipier fiasco are the ones who are getting the 90% and know they can't reach the guy who is pwning the song???

And another thing... if you're missing every 15th or 20th note... u aren't going to get 98% so stop saying it like that. To get 98% you aren't gonna miss but about 9 or 10 notes total.

[Eman311]

Here's a really basic example I'd like to hear a constructive response to:

Break a song down into 25% chunks.

**'s mean perfect completion. --'s mean missing at least 1 note.

Player 1 ** -- -- **
Player 2 -- ** ** --

Who scores more, and why is this good?

To be honest neither sounds good :(

seriously though, I would say both parts are equally important to build a cohesive song. In terms of a videogame though, isn't it all about streaks and strategy to max points (which in this case means Player 2 wins)? Gotta seperate the line between real and fake here.

[weirdingway]

What you get can be debated, of course. But to claim keeping a streak alive in itself not a worthy skill is not fair at all.



I agree that streaks deserve some credit, and this was a fault for games like DDR. But instead of giving it EQUAL credit to someone who can do a really hard part well would be fair. The flaw I see in this system is saying that it takes more skill to keep a streak alive than it does to do a really hard string of notes.

[dragulaAC]

Only for people like you who can't contribute with an actual answer other than to rephrase over and over how stupid he thinks the topic matter is.

The purpose was to find out why it was made the way it was. As opposed to dozens of other previous music games who used a different system successfully. One person had what it took to understand and explain it to me. Most of the other posters, including yourself, spends their time constructing "creative" flames. I thank the one poster who knows how to read. Dealing with flamers is just part of communicating on the internet...a caveat I was willing to bear.

...Yes, let's ask any of the regulars who read my posts throughout the forum, I jump all over people and flame them all the time. Nor do i contribute to threads.

If you refer back to my first 2 posts, I expressed my views on the subject matter. The OP, yourself, asked if anyone felt the scoring system was flawed. I responded by answering the OP, No, I think it's a fine system. I then proceeded to give an example as to why i thought that. So, your quote consists of many false statements about me. As for more of my posts, I attempted to produce other examples of my thinking, however weak they were. By this time, you've insulted most of the members of this forum, including myself for not being able to satisfy your undying question or fully understanding why you cared this much. At that point, you lost my respect.

[sporkBrigade]

Here's a really basic example I'd like to hear a constructive response to:

Break a song down into 25% chunks.

**'s mean perfect completion. --'s mean missing at least 1 note.

Player 1 ** -- -- **
Player 2 -- ** ** --

Who scores more, and why is this good?

Okay, let's say the total number of notes is 100. So Player one had 2 25 streaks and player 2 and 1 50 note streak.

A longer note streak is harder to maintain, so therefore player 2 wins. He performed the harder feat, his longest streak was twice as long as anything Player 1 could put together.

[vtjustinb]

Except by your logic, even with the way it is, the game is still about you and your bandmates vs the scoring system. If we're all about just having a chilling, awesome music-playing experience, there should be no scoring at all (which I don't think is a bad idea, btw). The music is its own reward.

It's not that black and white. It is after all a game, and they have to support competitive archetypes. The point is if they do so by only making an individual's accuracy in performance the litmus test for success then there's no compelling reason whatsoever to share the experience socially.

At that point it's pretty much 4 people in their own little worlds competiting against the note chard, and that's firmly dissonant with the fundamental charge of the game.

[weirdingway]

To be honest neither sounds good :(

seriously though, I would say both parts are equally important to build a cohesive song. In terms of a videogame though, isn't it all about streaks and strategy to max points (which in this case means Player 2 wins) Gotta seperate the line between real and fake here.

Which is exactly what the system lopsides on. Both are imperfect plays, and assume the ending is the hardest part of the song (which it normally is :P). The game is currently designed to credit streaks over anything, regardless of difficulty.

It bears repeating since some haven't quite picked it up yet. This game ROCKS GOD'S SOCKS. But for all the scorehero's trying to find the perfect star path, obviously there's a time they're concerned only with the score over the awesome immersion the game provides.

[Unleavened_Dead]

Wow. Using Kant's Defense.

[weirdingway]

Okay, let's say the total number of notes is 100. So Player one had 2 25 streaks and player 2 and 1 50 note streak.

A longer note streak is harder to maintain, so therefore player 2 wins. He performed the harder feat, his longest streak was twice as long as anything Player 1 could put together.

You left out a critical point. Let's say the first 75 notes are a slow steady rhythm of one note. And the last 25 and mind-blazingly fast. Player 2 is better simply because of a hardcoded system, which feels less like a performance evaluation than be subjective to hard numbers into a cold formula.

[Bakkster]

Wow, I leave for lunch and 5 pages of flame war happen? Holy crap! Everyone needs to chill.


Each note is independant from the last. Missing the last note has nothing to do with if you're going to hit the next note. The analogy is fine.

Again, I disagree. Music is VERY much dependent on the interaction between notes. The same quarter note on middle-C can have a totally different feel to it depending if it's in a Metallica song or Bach. I know this has been mentioned, but I feel it's worth reiterating.


I'd like to add:

Why does EVERYONE mention the solo? What if both me and my competition nail the solo but I get more notes right on the repetative stuff and he gets a streak of only 2-3 more notes? His 4x on a few notes will beat me getting a few more notes right. It's a lopsided decision, but I did see one post in here that explains the "moments" aspect that I agree with.

Let's use an example that's not based on a solo:
Take the intro to Layla by Eric Clapton. It has a very memorable line, twelve notes long, that repeats 4 times.
Player A misses 1/12 notes each of the four times.
Player B misses 4 notes the last time.
I would consider player A to have made 4 mistakes, and player B to have made only 1 mistake. Put another way, I only cringe once while listening to player B, but cringe 4 times while listening to A. I would also much rather hear player B, than hear player A "ruin" all four phrases. This is the goal of the multiplier, to reward playing entire phrases, which makes the song memorable and more pleasant to listen to.

Again, I know this point has been made already, but I felt it was worth illustrating.

[mltdwn]

I don't understand how so many people are saying that they'd rather listen to good background music and then a screwed up solo than a song where only one note is missed every now and then.. and seriously.. on the harder riffs you can't even tell you missed notes at times unless you look at the multiplier. Maybe you people that are backing up this multipier fiasco are the ones who are getting the 90% and know they can't reach the guy who is pwning the song???

Here's a question, how do you know the solo is screwed up? Maybe it was intended to be played that way? There is a reason solo's are called solo's. They are generally that particular guitarist's take on the piece and is changed to that guitarist's mood at the time. However if the guitarist has been playing rythm A repeatedly one way and then suddenly plays it completely different without a bridge then you are going to know pretty much that they either:

A. Suck as music writers
or
B. are bad players

Most are going to think B.

[visualdeity]

It's not that black and white. It is after all a game, and they have to support competitive archetypes. The point is if they do so by only making an individual's accuracy in performance the litmus test for success then there's no compelling reason whatsoever to share the experience socially.

At that point it's pretty much 4 people in their own little worlds competiting against the note chard, and that's firmly dissonant with the fundamental charge of the game.

But it's still just as much 4 people competing against their note charts the way it is. No matter what, you can never get away from that. Whether you compete against your note chart to get as many notes hit as possible, or you compete to get as many notes in a row as possible, it doesn't change the essentials. That's how I see it anyways.

[High_School_Legend]

Here's a question, how do you know the solo is screwed up? Maybe it was intended to be played that way?


I'm saying "screwed up" as in you missed all the notes on the screen. Not "screwed up" as in a weird solo.

It may be a "solo".. but the game doesn't provide you the freedom to play what you want there. You play whats on the screen and thats it.

[vtjustinb]

But it's still just as much 4 people competing against their note charts the way it is. No matter what, you can never get away from that. Whether you compete against your note chart to get as many notes hit as possible, or you compete to get as many notes in a row as possible, it doesn't change the essentials. That's how I see it anyways.

Yeah, and I think that's valid, but the difference with the streaks is that you reward moments where the band can rock well together by combining overdrive multipliers and the like. If you didn't do that, there'd be no real co-operative mechanic in the game that could reward achieving rocking "moments" as a band.

[tucsonovernite]

hey chill folks, Sisyphus, err, i mean Weirdingway's got it right here....damn you Harmonix why did i trust you w/ the scoring system!?!?:)

[sporkBrigade]

You left out a critical point. Let's say the first 75 notes are a slow steady rhythm of one note. And the last 25 and mind-blazingly fast. Player 2 is better simply because of a hardcoded system, which feels less like a performance evaluation than be subjective to hard numbers into a cold formula.

Er, in that case, the player who FCed the first and last sections will win. The guy who FCed the Solo 4xed more notes total.

I think I see the flaw in the way you're thinking about this. A longer streak does yield more points, but not THAT many more points. It caps at 4X. So sure, the guy who FCed the middle will get about 3000 more points since he didn't have to build the 4x twice, but the guy who FCs a solo will win because he was at a 4x for way more notes, in your example.

I think it's more balanced then you're portraying it. FCing a solo will get you a win all the time. A 4x during a large amount of notes is the most point yield of all. However yes, there are times when keeping a consistant 4x throughout a song is to your advantage. Just not to the degree you are talking about.

[JohnnyFAS]

And I do think it takes more overall skill in the game to get longer streaks than it does to hit a higher percentage of notes.

Exactly. This argument shouldn't be about fallacious sports metaphors, it is about whether it takes more skill to hit long streaks or higher percentages. In my opinion it is note streaks, since as my skills improve, my note streaks get longer. My percentages stay pretty much the same, though.

[Strider0028]

I like it. It rewards consistency. I think it makes sense to score more points for only missing half of the solo, compared to missing every 10th note.

Its not consistency if you do really good for awhile and then really bad
It is consistency if you do about the same throughout the entire thing

[ChodTheWacko]

You don't seem to understand the concept of giving any collection of notes, priority to the middle section and the least priority to the beginning and end section.

You are wrong there as well.
I have a pretty solid musical background.

I wasn't talking about sections, nor were you talking
about that in the post that I quoted that from. You spent the
entire start if of the thread asking only why consecutive notes
score more than the same number of notes separated by wrong notes.
You said it doesn't matter. I think it does.

I'm not against discussing a scoring change - but what is your
suggestion exactly? Score individual notes differently based
on the speed of the section?

Keep in mind you don't want to make songs that much harder
(and expensive) to create/score! You need general rules
that apply to ALL songs, otherwise you have to further hand tweak
each song. As soon as I saw your response, the first thought was
'well, you'd be screwed if you play freebird'

- Frank

[admanimal]

I still think the scoring is perfectly in synch with the song sounding better. The fact is that the majority of people will prefer hearing long streaks of perfection with short bursts of errors than constant sporadic errors. Note that I'm not saying anything about solos or choruses in particular.

Think of it like this: Which of these two is more annoying to you-

1. listening to your favorite song on the radio and having it cut out for 1 second every 6 seconds, or

2. having it cut out for 10 seconds at once every minute?

I'm guessing most people will answer #1. If #1 happened to me I would say "that whole song was screwed up," but with #2 I would just say, "there were a few bad spots."

[Bakkster]

Its not consistency if you do really good for awhile and then really bad
It is consistency if you do about the same throughout the entire thing

Let's give a better example, then. Most of the examples in this thread are based around a 50% accuracy, which is pointless to discuss. Let's go with an example of two equally high accuracies. Say, a song with 500 notes. Let's say a - represents 25 notes played properly, and a number represents that many missed notes of the same section.

Player A:
--1-1---1-2--1---1--

Player B:
--------4--3--------

Both had 98.5% accuracy, B had a 200 note streak, A had a 75 note streak. A made mistakes in 6 locations, B made mistakes in two locations. Another way to think is that Player B had 90% accuracy by section, while A had only 70% sectional accuracy.

From a musical standpoint, I would likely prefer to listen to B. He made only 2 mistakes with most of the song being flawless. A made more mistakes and had a shorter period of flawless playing.

From a scoring standpoint, I believe that having the long streaks of perfection and missing two runs is preferable to having short streaks of perfection littered with mistakes. Feel free to disagree, however, I hope everyone tries to use good examples and explanation.

[ChodTheWacko]

There is a reason solo's are called solo's. They are generally that particular guitarist's take on the piece and is changed to that guitarist's mood at the time.


In some ways, this is the fundimental problem with music/rhythm based games.
You have a score, and the score must (?) be based off of precision.

Particularly for solos - in real life an artist probably almost NEVER
plays the section the exact same way. Solos are as fast or as loud
or as short as they feel like playing at the time.

But you can't score a game that way. And so now we have these
arguments about 'which should score more, X or Y', which sounded
better 'X or Y', which we could debate till the sun goes down.

I'd still maintain that the current scoring method is the best
compromise between score/musicality. The multiplier could
maybe be tweaked.

[visualdeity]

Let's give a better example, then. Most of the examples in this thread are based around a 50% accuracy, which is pointless to discuss. Let's go with an example of two equally high accuracies. Say, a song with 500 notes. Let's say a - represents 25 notes played properly, and a number represents that many missed notes of the same section.

Player A:
--1-1---1-2--1---1--

Player B:
--------4--3--------

Both had 98.5% accuracy, B had a 200 note streak, A had a 75 note streak. A made mistakes in 6 locations, B made mistakes in two locations. Another way to think is that Player B had 90% accuracy by section, while A had only 70% sectional accuracy.

From a musical standpoint, I would likely prefer to listen to B. He made only 2 mistakes with most of the song being flawless. A made more mistakes and had a shorter period of flawless playing.

From a scoring standpoint, I believe that having the long streaks of perfection and missing two runs is preferable to having short streaks of perfection littered with mistakes. Feel free to disagree, however, I hope everyone tries to use good examples and explanation.

You're correct, but that doesn't address the issue with the streak system. In the example you cited, the streak system works perfectly, because both players had the same accuracy, so the streak is the tie-breaker if you will. The problem with the streak system is that it's possible for one player to have noticeably higher accuracy, but a lower score due to not streaking as much. That's where the problem comes in. We're not talking a 2% accuracy difference, but the times when it's a 10% accuracy difference, yet the less accurate player "wins". Those are the times that strike me (and the OP) as ridiculous.

[ChodTheWacko]

While people like to say that consistency is more important in actual music, I respectfully disagree. I'd far rather hear someone playing, and flubbing 1/40 of the notes (4x multiplier is about 40 notes, isn't it?), than someone who plays perfectly, but completely misses an entire section of the song.

I think any argument dissolves once you get a very high percentage of the song
right, and in your case you're talking 97% accuracy.

I haven't played in one, but I would think consistency is even more important in a band.
Let's pick a more reasonable 'okay' percentage - 80%, so 1 out of 5 notes is wrong.
If all 4 players do that, then you're talking potentially 4 out of 5 notes of the song
where at least one player is goofed up. (that's probably an exaggeration)

- Frank

[weirdingway]

I believe streaks deserve weight and I believe accuracy deserves more weight that it currently does. Though after playing the demo again after lunch, I'll have to add to this specific game's credit that the bonus points they are offering for the solos, do help to some degree. It's not so much hard vs easy, it's simply the placement of notes.

8 notes (using the same hit miss system, but I'll put a ! for a star power note)

P1: - *! *! *! *! - - -

P2: * -! *! *! *! * * *

Player 2 had a better streak and more notes hit, but lost huge scoring potential from missing just one star power note. I have no problem comprehending what is necessary to attain a competative score, it's just that it starts to rob from one area (handling complex patterns) and gives more praise to another (streaks, no matter how simple). As well as giving specific notes more praiseworthyness than others, despite perhaps not being as difficult as the surrounding notes.

[ChodTheWacko]

Here's a really basic example I'd like to hear a constructive response to:

Break a song down into 25% chunks.

**'s mean perfect completion. --'s mean missing at least 1 note.

Player 1 ** -- -- **
Player 2 -- ** ** --

Who scores more, and why is this good?

Well, it depends on how many notes per section.

Some songs end very fast, like Freebird, and would allow Player 1 to score more.
If it's uhhhh, something that ends slow, then Player 2 does.

For most songs, nailing only the solos will score more than getting
everything right EXCEPT for the solots, simply due to the length of
the streak. So I don't think you should consider where in a song a streak is.

I personally think the ideal scoring system would be to get points per note,
with bonuses for:
1) Getting a phrase right without errors
2) Getting a verse/stansa/chorus without errors
3) Getting a solo right without errors.

Even though I have emphasized the necessity of getting consecutive notes right,
If you have two lines like:

A1 A2 A3 A4 <-- line 1
B1 B2 B3 B4 <-- line 2

I'd disagree that getting 'A1 A2 A3 A4'
should score the same as getting 'A3 A4 B1 B2',
because you sort of blew that phrase.

[Bakkster]

You're correct, but that doesn't address the issue with the streak system. In the example you cited, the streak system works perfectly, because both players had the same accuracy, so the streak is the tie-breaker if you will. The problem with the streak system is that it's possible for one player to have noticeably higher accuracy, but a lower score due to not streaking as much. That's where the problem comes in. We're not talking a 2% accuracy difference, but the times when it's a 10% accuracy difference, yet the less accurate player "wins". Those are the times that strike me (and the OP) as ridiculous.

In these cases, the player with the higher accuracy must have had many places where he made errors. The player with the lower accuracy had fewer errors concentrated into one section of the song. More importantly, the winning player played more of the song perfectly, than did the other player. The second player may have been perfect for 80% of the song's sections, whereas the other player may not have played more than a few perfect sections.

I think that playing perfect segments is more important than playing more notes correct overall. It doesn't matter to me if you miss one note or 5 in a row, it's still a mistake that sounds bad. Making mistakes in fewer places, IMO, should be rewarded.

I understand where you're coming from, I just believe that overall accuracy is a flawed representation of overall skill or proficiency. Perfection for long periods of time is more desirable to me. I think this may come from comparing a musical mindset (like mine) to a gaming mindset (like I assume yours is).

[Ninegauger]

The ideal is to play with 100% Accuracy/Consistency.

I think that the most important part about the ideal is the streak (that the whole song was played without error). Therefore I think that the player closest to that goal is the one who has mastered the longest sections of continuous notes... the player who makes mistakes at every part of the song really hasn't mastered anything as far as I can tell.

I do however want to see percentages on the leaderboards in addition to scores. It's interesting to see at least and if you want to say you're better because you have the higher percentage you can... even if the score is lower.

[weirdingway]

Another issue with putting the lion's share of points on streaks vs overall accuracy is that your scoring potential plummets if you miss a note somewhere in a song.

If you want a great score, say 98% of possible points scored in this current system, you might as well give up if you miss anywhere but the first/last few notes.

In an accuracy system, you can miss notes anywhere and not have to worry about not reaching your goal until you miss that certain amount.

A combination of bonus points per phrase "streaked" based on the amount of notes and removing the multiplier seems like a better compromise to me than completely alienating those who against someone both make just 1 mistake, but one player misses it in the "wrong" spot gets hosed based on the current system. Reward streaks in chunks, don't let it snowball the person next to you who has the larger scoring potential because he can do the really hard parts but just happened to miss a note or two in the rhythm during a star power.

Obviously someone who can nail a solo should be able to avoid making the simpler mistakes, but it happens and that player gets punished so much more than the guy who can't do the hard licks to save his life depending on where that simple mistake was made.

[weirdingway]

Here's a simple proposal that allows opinions to dictate skill vs being subject to a hard coded system:

Remove points all together.

Show each person's streak and % completed as they currently do now. When people go to leaderboards, they can simply sort by what stat they feel should take precendence (some songs they may choose the other).

[admanimal]

Here's a simple proposal that allows opinions to dictate skill vs being subject to a hard coded system:

Remove points all together.

Show each person's streak and % completed as they currently do now. When people go to leaderboards, they can simply sort by what stat they feel should take precendence (some songs they may choose the other).

Sorting by streaks isn't bad (I think Scorehero lets you do that maybe?) but percentage would probably be annoying since there are only 100 possible values* for thousands and thousands of players. There would be a lot of ties.

*practically there are probably more like 80 possible values because it's pretty hard not to fail the song if you get less than 20% of the notes.

[Bakkster]

A combination of bonus points per phrase "streaked" based on the amount of notes and removing the multiplier seems like a better compromise to me than completely alienating those who against someone both make just 1 mistake, but one player misses it in the "wrong" spot gets hosed based on the current system.

Are you saying that a player who hits 100 notes in a row then misses two played just as well as a player who played only 50 notes and missed one? I think this is where we differ.

[weirdingway]

Sorting by streaks isn't bad (I think Scorehero lets you do that maybe?) but percentage would probably be annoying since there are only 100 possible values for thousands and thousands of players. There would be a lot of ties.

That's easy, in the case of a tie it simply does a secondary sort on the streak. Star power is fun for mad flair, but the fact that there are specific notes, not necessarily harder than others, that you can't "afford" to miss, makes the scoring aspect less fun for me than I'm sure was intended. Let star power stick around but be as important to scoring as whammies do on non-SP long notes.

EDIT: Of course, star power could still be used to get your life back up, I don't mind rewarding that. I personally don't feel like I've beaten a song until I've done it w/o SP anyway. I'll use it until I get used to the song, then attempt it w/o it.

[weirdingway]

Are you saying that a player who hits 100 notes in a row then misses two played just as well as a player who played only 50 notes and missed one? I think this is where we differ.

Each section in those notes of 100 would get award bonus points, thus netting more than the 50 guy. You need to give me the same # of notes played by both players to give a comparison.

[admanimal]

That's easy, in the case of a tie it simply does a secondary sort on the streak. Star power is fun for mad flair, but the fact that there are specific notes, not necessarily harder than others, that you can't "afford" to miss, makes the scoring aspect less fun for me than I'm sure was intended. Let star power stick around but be as important to scoring as whammies do on non-SP long notes.

Well ultimately, the vast majority of GH/RB players like the scoring system just fine, and whether it's totally fair or not, it's a fun way to compete and compare performances. Harmonix picked a perfectly reasonable way of scoring the game, and its our challenge as players to play given these rules. It's just like any other sport/contest.

[Bakkster]

Each section in those notes of 100 would get award bonus points, thus netting more than the 50 guy. You need to give me the same # of notes played by both players to give a comparison.

102 notes. Player A gets a 100 note streak, player B gets two 50 note streaks.

expand this to 306 notes: A gets 3 100 note streaks, B gets 6 50 note streaks. Who played better?

Edit:

Show each person's streak and % completed as they currently do now. When people go to leaderboards, they can simply sort by what stat they feel should take precendence (some songs they may choose the other).

How do you differentiate between somebody who got a 60 note streak and a 3 of 20 note streaks, from someone who got 3 50 note streaks?

[ChodTheWacko]

You left out a critical point. Let's say the first 75 notes are a slow steady rhythm of one note. And the last 25 and mind-blazingly fast. Player 2 is better simply because of a hardcoded system, which feels less like a performance evaluation than be subjective to hard numbers into a cold formula.

C'mon now, you are grasping at straws here.
Name one song that does that - in any guitar hero game. There aren't any.

There's no need to cater to stuff that doesn't happen.

[weirdingway]

Well ultimately, the vast majority of GH/RB players like the scoring system just fine, and whether it's totally fair or not, it's a fun way to compete and compare performances. Harmonix picked a perfectly reasonable way of scoring the game, and its our challenge as players to play given these rules. It's just like any other sport/contest.

It's only reasonable if you believe streaks are always more important than anything significantly difficult in the song. The system caters to only one opinion. You say vast majority, but since the system isn't game breaking, people aren't going to often mention anything.

They simply gave one aspect of the game more love, and of course it's the challenge they presented for us to complete. Don't sink into the level where other posters stop providing concrete as to the decision making by dropping a "deal with it" bomb. Consistently snubbing (insert your own less agressive term there) the other side who like accuracy (i.e. another system of which just many players for a much longer time have enjoyed on other music games) made me wonder why it was always lopsided.

The game is far from unplayable with the way the system is setup. It's just that I haven't heard any really good reasons for it to always be one way as opposed to the options available...with the exception of one, the cohesion of "moments" only acquired though unison streaks.

[weirdingway]

C'mon now, you are grasping at straws here.
Name one song that does that - in any guitar hero game. There aren't any.

There's no need to cater to stuff that doesn't happen.


No but it's silly for me to have to come over here and break down each song chart to show you where certain areas are given more emphasis over another and how it flaws the system of the music sounding good vs scoring (unless you FC a song). You'd have to pay me $100 if you want me to go to all that effort because I'm not really interested in trying to help someone understand an elementary concept using knee-deep facts. They're there, but there's not enough incentive to spend countless hours for the cynical.

[weirdingway]

How do you differentiate between somebody who got a 60 note streak and a 3 of 20 note streaks, from someone who got 3 50 note streaks?


By peak performance. That's how you should be scored. What was your BEST streak? What was your total accuracy? Even if you had 150 streak and then blew it, only to find out there wasn't 151 more notes left to improve on that goal, you'd still try and get every note because it still gives your accuracy equal weight.

What you just showed me was someone who missed twice but had a lower peak streak. The other guy missed 3 times but had a higher peak. They both did better in a category.

[Bakkster]

By peak performance. That's how you should be scored. What was your BEST streak?

This seems counter to what you were saying before. Maybe the 60 note streak was in an easier section of the song and A only got 20 note streaks during the solo section. Maybe player B got one of his 50 note streaks during an intense solo passage. That's why I feel all three metrics (score, accuracy, and streak) should be visible.

Also, what was your opinion on 100 note streak vs 2x50 note streaks?

[The_Wurm]

You need to string together lots of hits to score runs.

...Oh hey Joe Buck...

[ChodTheWacko]

If you want a great score, say 98% of possible points scored in this current system, you might as well give up if you miss anywhere but the first/last few notes.

In an accuracy system, you can miss notes anywhere and not have to worry about not reaching your goal until you miss that certain amount.

See, this is why streaks should be worth a lot more.
If you know that you missed, say, 50 notes, then do you care if you miss say,
the first 10? Yes and no. But when streaks are worth a lot, every blown streak
is painful.




Obviously someone who can nail a solo should be able to avoid making the simpler mistakes, but it happens and that player gets punished so much more than the guy who can't do the hard licks to save his life depending on where that simple mistake was made.

Your argument is slightly off. Assume it takes 40 notes to reach the 4x multiplier.
If you miss only one note, you are best off missing it in the last 40 notes, or the
first 40 notes. In the middle, it'll be the same I think. This assumes no star power.
So it's not as extreme as you indicate.

I'm combining your two responses - the simplest thing that would make everyone happy is to allow you to sort by points, or accuracy. Accuracy should be not be rounded to the nearest percentage point.

You bring out another good point - a good streak requires concentration, which by itself
deserves a nice point bonus.

[ChodTheWacko]

but the fact that there are specific notes, not necessarily harder than others, that you can't "afford" to miss, makes the scoring aspect less fun for me


I think you are screwed in this aspect.
The very nature of star power means there are 'must hit star notes', and it's such
a unique and interesting element of play that it's here to stay.

Look at frets on fire - there is no fail mode on FOF, and yet people constantly cry
that they want star power implemented, so they have that 'turbo boost' to boost
up their score.

[ChodTheWacko]

No but it's silly for me to have to come over here and break down each song chart to show you where certain areas are given more emphasis over another and how it flaws the system of the music sounding good vs scoring (unless you FC a song). You'd have to pay me $100 if you want me to go to all that effort because I'm not really interested in trying to help someone understand an elementary concept using knee-deep facts. They're there, but there's not enough incentive to spend countless hours for the cynical.

If you are using an example to defend yourself, you should use an example that
is based on reality. It helps strengthen the validity of your argument.

Using a example that won't happen, and then insulting someone who points that
out, weakens your argument. You'll note I tend to agree with you when you are being civil, which lasted for 2-3 posts.


In the streaks vs accuracy argument:
Anyone know how points/streaks work with a band?
It would make sense if there is a 'streak bonus' during a time where all
players are playing 100%. First player to fail breaks the streak for the band.

[weirdingway]

I think you are screwed in this aspect.
The very nature of star power means there are 'must hit star notes', and it's such
a unique and interesting element of play that it's here to stay.

Unique and interesting like the whammy bar and the effect changer, and if you need the health to survive a song, other than that, no effect on the score, please. It takes the personal enjoyment out of what one would like the option to feel requires the most skill in the song, vs what the developers tell you what you have to consider taking the most skill. Scoring 3 simple star power patterns totalling 30 notes has a massive scoring potential compare to 30 non-SP complex notes? Right. Unique, and lame. Make SP flair like the other aspects of the game that prove to make them more fun, don't let them influence the competative side. They cram an opinion down the throats of the consumer, rather than leaving it open ended so all types can enjoy it.

EDIT: By it I mean the competative side, of course the game is still freakin' win.

If I want to play for accuracy, I have to play Guitar Freaks. But I like the songs better on GH/RB, so I prefer to play that, but I don't enjoy the competative aspect as you're more worried about "star power paths" to maximize score rather than just simply hitting all the notes you can and "freestyling" with the tools they can provide to make it more fun.

[Eagoyle]

...Oh hey Joe Buck...

I can bust out some John Madden as well. "The key to success is winning. He just came around the corner, and whap!. Etc."



As was mentioned earlier, the nice thing about the current scoring method is the ability to use some stategy with your "Overdrive" ability. Using it when you have a 4x is much better than right after you made a mistake.

If you get rid of score, then what happens to "Overdrive?" It still works to bring back a bandmate, and makes you do cool things on stage, but loses its score bonus and makes its use be based on when you play the most notes.

To each his own, I guess. I have always liked games that had at least a little strategy in them.

[weirdingway]

I've still yet to hear how putting streaks on top priority and how it makes the beginning and the end of a song trivial in comparison to how well you do in the middle makes good sense from "the audience listening in" POV.

The beginning is how people recognize a tune in many cases, and often the most epic portion in the song comes near the end. Someone does a bangup job with the repatitive rhythm in the middle, while boning the trademark opening and the epic ending, is considered a much better "guitarist" that the guy who gets the unique stuff right but isn't perfect on the middle rhythm simply because his best performances were at the beginning and end of the song.

[Bakkster]

I've still yet to hear how putting streaks on top priority and how it makes the beginning and the end of a song trivial in comparison to how well you do in the middle makes good sense from "the audience listening in" POV.

I still have yet to hear your opinion on whether 1x100 streak or 2x50 streaks are better. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now it seems you are just picking the battles you feel you can win, and knocking the battles you can't into pieces you can (straw man arguing).

Prove me wrong.

[Ninegauger]

As far as overdrive (star power) and score goes I think that's an important way to differentiate between the hundreds of people who will be able to get 100% and the streak that entails. This is a videogame after all... a little thinking/strategy beyond just hitting the buttons at the right time goes a long way in making it more fun (and more replayable).

Harmonix's system values consistency over straigt percentage of notes you were able to hit and that's how their scoring works. You're saying that you value straight (and boring in my opinion) accuracy and also that you'd prefer (though it sounds more like demand) that the game reward you on just straight percentage (I say that sounds booooooooooooring).

At some point it's just opinion and weighting. Unfortunately for you, it's not you that decides how the scoring works. It's not like the game doesn't calculate your accuracy, it shows it to you so you can say you won if you'd like.

Also can anyone give an actual worst case scenarion of someone with a lower percentage beating someone with a higher percentage (the greatest percentage difference between the two)? I mean, that difference could be affected by wise starpower usage too... which is a game mechanic I entirely support... it allows for gameplay beyond just 100%. But without starpower what do you guys think (calculate, have experienced) is the greatest disparity because if we're talking 5% I'm definitely going to favor the streak... at 10% maybe even. Anyway I think we're going to need concrete examples if this debate is going to continue.

Are there any good arguments for just using accuracy? That just seems so rote and boring...

[Eagoyle]

The problem is that it is very difficult for some thing objective (score) to determine something subjective (who is better). No matter what way you calculate a score, you can't convince every person that the higher score was the better player.

[Bakkster]

The problem is that it is very difficult for some thing objective (score) to determine something subjective (who is better). No matter what way you calculate a score, you can't convince every person that the higher score was the better player.

Exastly, which is why the score is a combination of the two measures of skill: overall accuracy, and ability to play long streaks of notes.

[ChodTheWacko]

Also can anyone give an actual worst case scenarion of someone with a lower percentage beating someone with a higher percentage (the greatest percentage difference between the two)?

Are there any good arguments for just using accuracy? That just seems so rote and boring...

We're in 'beating a dead horse' territory now.
But uhhh, just to throw fuel on the fire......

I am probably calcing this totally wrong, but let's assume all the notes are the same
length, no star power. Let's assume a 248 note song.

Player 1: Misses every 31st note. Score = 1*10 + 2*10+3*10 then miss.
that's 60 points every 31 notes, so 480 points total for 8 misses.

Actually if you don't count the last miss, that's 480 points for 7 misses of 247 notes.

Player 2: Misses the first 7 notes, nails the rest of the song.
Score = 1*10+2*10 + 3*10 + 4 * (210) = 900

So player 2 scores almost twice as many points? :confused:
Or am I scoring that wrong? I guess streaks totally own accuracy.

You can come up with some really ridiculous differences, especially for low % wins, where you probably shouldn't be trying to compare your score anyway. :)

[Bakkster]

I am probably calcing this totally wrong, but let's assume all the notes are the same
length, no star power. Let's assume a 248 note song.

Player 1: Misses every 31st note. Score = 1*10 + 2*10+3*10 then miss.
that's 60 points every 31 notes, so 480 points total for 8 misses.

Actually if you don't count the last miss, that's 480 points for 7 misses of 247 notes.

Player 2: Misses the first 7 notes, nails the rest of the song.
Score = 1*10+2*10 + 3*10 + 4 * (210) = 900

So player 2 scores almost twice as many points? :confused:
Or am I scoring that wrong? I guess streaks totally own accuracy.

You can come up with some really ridiculous differences, especially for low % wins, where you probably shouldn't be trying to compare your score anyway. :)

That seems to make sense. Player two maintained a 4x multiplier almost the entire song, because he played all but 7 notes correctly (maybe he was asleep at the beginning). You could say he would have gotten 100% on a 241 note song. This makes sense to me.

Assuming he misses his 7 notes in the middle of the song, he makes 864 points, so the claim that the beginning and end of the song are irrelevent doesn't hold much water.

The other player averaged only about a 2x multiplier, because he kept making mistakes. You could say he only managed 100% on a 30 note song, 8 times.

[Frederf]

This is an interesting thread and evidently a valid introspective considering the varied and passionate debate. Something I have noticed is a lack in application of the fundamentals of reasoned debate. I think I can identify the major difference in axioms giving rise to such fruitless discussion. Check this out:

The scoring system should reflect how good the player's performance is.
The scoring system should reflect how good the player's skill is.

Which one's wrong? Which one's right? Now ask your neighbor and compare notes.

I see about half of the arguments arising from the first axiom and the second half arising from the latter. It's no wonder we're calling each other idiots; we're clearly missing each other's unstated assumptions. Paraphrasing:

"Consistency is correctly rewarded most because it makes the song sound good." "Skilled players are not getting high scores due to very few errors despite high %'s." Sound familiar?

Now I love to play devil's advocate, so I'm going to take up a position that the score system is flawed with respect to the multiplier mechanic, and I'm going to do it without puffing up my chest real big or waving an ePenis around. Hopefully I can explain exactly how and why I think what I state so disagreeing with me will be a simple matter in pointing out what logical steps you disagree with instead of saying my mom wears combat boots.

Axiom 1: Score should reflect skill improvements proportionally to the improvement in skill.
Axiom 2: I get incrementally better at a song as I practice it.
Posit 1: The scoring system is flawed.
Reason: The score does not reflect my skill progression as stated in Axiom 1.

Evidence: Say I go through a song on expert and it is pretty tough the whole way through. I mash keys and struggle to stay alive getting a 70% and no discernible streaks. Call it Freya for argument. I get 90K points.

I practice and manage to start getting 5-9 note streaks in the repeating phrase. My percentage goes up to 80%. I get 102K points.

I practice more and start getting 10-19 note streaks in the repeating phrase. My percentage goes up to 90%. I get 120K points.

I finally master the last few notes that I've been missing in the repeating phrase that keep breaking my streak every 20 notes and I get 100-200 note streaks. My percentage goes up to 95%. I get 250K points.

Every step of practice and improvement was the same level of skill increase but the point reward for the final one was HUGE in comparison to those before it. The score increases did not follow my skill increases with any sort of proportionality.

===============

Consistency and streaks are definitely good player performance and should be rewarded. Also they provide a way for versus competition to have "catch ups" which make those competitions far far more fun.

The multiplier game mechanic unfairly murders scores that are not streak heavy, despite how much skill it takes to miss every 30th note instead of every 5th note. It also heavily encourages players to play on difficulty levels that do not challenge them at all, especially during competitive play.

I really can't stand my friends playing through a song on medium and getting 98% just because it gives them a huge competitive advantage or a really high score when they could easily 3-4 start a song on Hard but won't. I realize that isn't totally the fault of the scoring. Still a pet peeve.

===============

Alternative idea: Breaking a streak shouldn't drop you down to "1x" but drop you down one multiplier level for every N mistakes. This would still reward streaks (as I think the game should) but not completely screw over the player with the occasional mistake.

I think this might achieve a more desirable and much more linear "Skill to Score" correlation.

[Bakkster]

Consistency and streaks are definitely good player performance and should be rewarded. Also they provide a way for versus competition to have "catch ups" which make those competitions far far more fun.

The multiplier game mechanic unfairly murders scores that are not streak heavy, despite how much skill it takes to miss every 30th note instead of every 5th note. It also heavily encourages players to play on difficulty levels that do not challenge them at all, especially during competitive play.

I really can't stand my friends playing through a song on medium and getting 98% just because it gives them a huge competitive advantage or a really high score when they could easily 3-4 start a song on Hard but won't. I realize that isn't totally the fault of the scoring. Still a pet peeve.

Fortunately there's an easy way to fix that: force the players to use the same difficulty level in competitive. There's no way to balance it, so why even try.

I think you've actually thought this through better than most others. I will have to disagree that the current system needs to be changed, as the scoring system seems to be based on musical principles, which is a stated goal of HMX. This is a really good idea for closer competitive playing, though, especially since it doesn't remove the multiplier, which is honestly one of my favorite parts of the series.

[Stevenam81]

Doesn't anyone think it's sort of odd when you're comparing scores in GH to see that you got like 8% more notes than your friend but lost to him simply because he had a marginally longer streak? Instead of accuracy, the competitve aspect seems to be more geared toward how and when you use your starpower, which doesn't feel like anything a rock star is worried about.

A better player can handle the harder parts of the song but makes a few mistakes on the simple stuff and ends up looking worse on the scoreboard. I understand the merits of both sides, but it sucks that only one aspect has been getting any love. Other music games, such as Pop N' Music and DDR, reward accuracy over consistency, and that formula has proven successful.

As a guitarist and drummer, I have to agree with you. It does suck that someone can get a long streak in the beginning, then completely bomb on the solo, then after the solo start another streak and finish with 90%. But I can make a couple of mistakes just as my multiplier hits it max, which doesn't really ruin the song. Missing one note every now and then doesn't kill the song in my opinion. Anyway, then I can ace the solo, finish with 98% notes hit and still lose. So yeah, when that happens, it can be frustrating.

All guitarists miss notes at times. The better ones are just better at covering up their mistakes and working them in so nobody notices. It's better to miss a single note at a time than mess up a whole measure. But hey, it's just a game lol. If you have a higher % but have a lower score, just ignore the score and chalk it up in your head as a win.

[weirdingway]

I still have yet to hear your opinion on whether 1x100 streak or 2x50 streaks are better. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now it seems you are just picking the battles you feel you can win, and knocking the battles you can't into pieces you can (straw man arguing).

Prove me wrong.

You've got a problem with selective hearing (or vision in this case).

I'm not doing your job for you. Stop being lazy and go back through my posts. I said PEAK performance matters. You just mentioned 100 notes. The 100 notes streaker wins in both the streak and accuracy categories.

[Bakkster]

You've got a problem with selective hearing (or vision in this case).

I'm not doing your job for you. Stop being lazy and go back through my posts. I said PEAK performance matters. You just mentioned 100 notes. The 100 notes streaker wins in both the streak and accuracy categories.

Actually, the 100 note streak ties two 50 note streaks for accuracy. Both players hit 100 notes in total.

I just don't get why you think that peak streak performance is better, but also that getting better streaks shouldn't give you more points.

I'm also concerned that you feel only peak performance on streaks should count, trivializing all the other parts of the song that you streak. You then claim the multiplier aspect trivializes the ends of the song (which I feel I debunked), which only "trivializes" another part of the song (multiple long streaks compared to one slightly longer streak). I guess the whole "you did this well once, so ignore everything else" just doesn't make much sense to me.

Do you have a better argument for why only peak performance should matter? I could make an equally valid case for the winner being the player who got 100% in the most sections of the song to be the winner, which would be biased toward peak performance for accuracy, but I don't think it would be a very good system (ignores too much of the song).

[weirdingway]

Actually, the 100 note streak ties two 50 note streaks for accuracy. Both players hit 100 notes in total.

How can you have 2 50 note streaks w/o a miss in between?

[weirdingway]

I could make an equally valid case for the winner being the player who got 100% in the most sections of the song to be the winner, which would be biased toward peak performance for accuracy, but I don't think it would be a very good system (ignores too much of the song).

Ignores most of the song? Accuracy gives equal weight to each note, and streaks have less value the closer of a miss you make toward the end of the song. Accuracy trivializes nothing, streaks trivialize the beginning and end of the song by having the least penalty for missing a note closer to the beginning or the end.

[Bakkster]

How can you have 2 50 note streaks w/o a miss in between?

By having a total of 101 or more notes. Either you have a miss on one of the ends of the song, or in the middle. I've said this before, I think you missed it.


Ignores most of the song? Accuracy gives equal weight to each note, and streaks have less value the closer of a miss you make toward the end of the song. Accuracy trivializes nothing, streaks trivialize the beginning and end of the song by having the least penalty for missing a note closer to the beginning or the end.

Accuracy does give equal weight to unequal notes. It also gives no way to settle ties.

Using your "best streak wins" method, the ends of the song are still "trivialized", since two players who each miss exactly one note will have the player who missed closest to the beginning or end having the higher streak, therefor still winning.

The multiplier may not be a perfect measurement, but it works. Your method does nothing to solve the problems, and only serves to create more problems and take away from the multiple metrics of ability, leaving only one. I can't get behind that.

[toefer]

I think this is largely theoretical. If you get 90% and have a higher score than someone who had 98%, I assume it's because you are better. Clearly if you were able to miss 10% of the notes, but still string together a huge section, you have some sort of skill in the game.

On the other hand, if you can get 98% of the notes, but not string a bunch of them together (which seems almost impossible to do) then sorry, you suck at the game. You have no rhythm.

The difference, to me, is between playing Simon says --hitting the notes as they cross over the strum bar area-- and having some sort of groove that you can fall into to put together a nice streak.

[espher]

Here's a question for you, and sorry if it's been asked, but I could only get to page three before I had to ask it:

Why the hell did DDR change the scoring system involving hitting multiple things in sequence for higher point multipliers that's been in place since Super Mario Bros, or, hell, even Pac-Man?

[weirdingway]

Here's a question for you, and sorry if it's been asked, but I could only get to page three before I had to ask it:

Why the hell did DDR change the scoring system involving hitting multiple things in sequence for higher point multipliers that's been in place since Super Mario Bros, or, hell, even Pac-Man?

In Pac-Man you got the same amount of points per pellet. In SMB you got the same amount of points per seconds at the end of a level (barring the 3,6,9 mini-game). Only CERTAIN aspects of the game use the multiplier. DDR only has one aspect (hit the notes in time with the music).

[weirdingway]

Using your "best streak wins" method, the ends of the song are still "trivialized", since two players who each miss exactly one note will have the player who missed closest to the beginning or end having the higher streak, therefore still winning.

I still said streak deserves credit. If you're at a point where you know you can't match/beat your opponent's streak, you can still continue to play the rest of the song hoping to beat his accuracy (unless you're so far behind then like any blowout there's no point). In the current setup streaks dominate accuracy, unlike my proposal.

[espher]

In Pac-Man you got the same amount of points per pellet. In SMB you got the same amount of points per seconds at the end of a level (barring the 3,6,9 mini-game). Only CERTAIN aspects of the game use the multiplier. DDR only has one aspect (hit the notes in time with the music).

So GH/RB both have one aspect that uses the multiplier -- hitting the notes in time with the music.

I just think Guitar Hero and Rock Band went back to their roots, while DDR tried to be the new kid on the block and change everything.

In all seriousness, and for what it's worth (probably very little), I think this whole discussion is fairly trivial on a personal level, but it's pretty clear that the designers of the game valued streaks over overall accuracy. That's why the scoring aspect is the way it is, and I find no flaw in it because I agree. I'd rather have a record that skips during one section of the song than a record that skips all the time, so from an enjoyment perspective, I find the game scores in a way that will encourage players to play in an aurally pleasant manner.

I can see the reasoning behind an accuracy-based scoring manner, and that might be fine if the game wasn't about playing music.

[Apples]

Is this post the second coming of gh2masterwellalmost ? :D

[Eagoyle]

If you want to do away with the multiplier, how do you deal with chords? Is a two note chord worth double a single note, and a three note worth triple?

Should holding a note be worth more than just a short note?

[Bakkster]

I still said streak deserves credit. If you're at a point where you know you can't match/beat your opponent's streak, you can still continue to play the rest of the song hoping to beat his accuracy (unless you're so far behind then like any blowout there's no point). In the current setup streaks dominate accuracy, unlike my proposal.

I agree that streaks tend to dominate over brute accuracy, but I still think they are more important. Maybe the goal should be for streaks to be worth more than rote accuracy, but not to the point where a streak player can run away with a game over a highly accurate player with fewer streaks? I don't think either the current system, or your system quite fit into this goal.

If I had to make a decision, I would keep the current scoring system, and just let people debate who is better than the other. Since the game focuses on multiple talents, it can never be distilled into a single value representative of skill. The only way to do that is weight the various skills and throw them into some unified scoring mechanism, with the understanding that it is not necessarily a direct correlation to skill.

In short, I think having points, accuracy, and longest streak combined give a good measure of skill, and the system should stay as it is.


Is this post the second coming of gh2masterwellalmost ? :D

Actually, I think that aside from a few hiccups, this is a pretty reasonable debate. A few back-handed insults, but nothing much. This forum has seen WAY worse, and not many better.

[Frederf]

Fortunately there's an easy way to fix that: force the players to use the same difficulty level in competitive. There's no way to balance it, so why even try.

I think you've actually thought this through better than most others. I will have to disagree that the current system needs to be changed, as the scoring system seems to be based on musical principles, which is a stated goal of HMX. This is a really good idea for closer competitive playing, though, especially since it doesn't remove the multiplier, which is honestly one of my favorite parts of the series.

I disagree about forcing difficulty levels in order to achieve balance. Imagine playing a GH-type game where getting 100% on medium and 90% on hard (taking the same amount of skill in this example) gave you the exact same score/competitive-ranking. Then it wouldn't be a no-brainer to trounce your clone simply by dropping down to a brain-dead difficulty in order to steak the heck out of it. Obviously it couldn't be dead even, but it could be a lot closer.

Earlier someone said something about solos and why it's better to miss a few notes in them vs the chorus that's been bothering me. Basically they equated "solo" with "improvisation." I have to say that sentiment is entirely false. Some solos are made up on the spot but the vast majority in the music world are not. Thus the entire line of reasoning that "solos matter less since they are improvised and the crowd won't know the difference" collapses.

[Bakkster]

I disagree about forcing difficulty levels in order to achieve balance. Imagine playing a GH-type game where getting 100% on medium and 90% on hard (taking the same amount of skill in this example) gave you the exact same score/competitive-ranking. Then it wouldn't be a no-brainer to trounce your clone simply by dropping down to a brain-dead difficulty in order to steak the heck out of it. Obviously it couldn't be dead even, but it could be a lot closer.

Ah, but how do you balance that? Some people play fast notes better, and their 95% on hard might be 90% on expert. Players who can groove better but lose their place in finger mashers might get 99% on hard and only 80% on expert.

Besides, how do you compare ability on one set of note-charts to another? You can't. I'm totally for allowing different difficulty players against each other, but not as a way to determine player ability.

[deepbluevibes]

The main thing you're missing is that GH/RB HAVE no accuracy ratings.

Specifically, there (except for vocals now) is only a "hit". Therefore, combo would be more rewarded than single hits.

Now, in a BeMani series game, there's Perfect-Great-Good-etc. and therefore getting the most Perfects would matter far more than combo, since there's that accuracy involved in it.

So yes, that formula fits perfect for GH/RB.

Personally, I wish RB had ratings though; for drums, overdrive is locked as to where it's activated, so all of the 100% scores will be the exact same. If there were ratings on each note like Perfect-Great etc. you'd have wild variations in scores, as a person with a full combo but with not that many perfects would have a different score as someone without a full streak but without a lot of perfects, etc.

[tbradshaw]

I think the crux of this discussion is that the scoring system for a rhythm game is a subjective decision.

The scoring system proposed by the original author of the thread is no less valid than the scoring system that is used by GH/RB. The critical thing to realize is that the scoring system represents a value system of those activities and achievements that the designers of the game want to encourage.

So, is the scoring system for Rock Band flawed? I would contend that the scoring system for Rock Band encourages exactly the behavior that the designers and Harmonix want players of their game to experience. Are there other options for scoring a rhythm game that make for very fun games, most definitely. But with a different scoring system, Rock Band wouldn't be the same game that it is, the same game that Harmonix wanted to make.

[Frederf]

If you want to do away with the multiplier, how do you deal with chords? Is a two note chord worth double a single note, and a three note worth triple?

Should holding a note be worth more than just a short note?

I think you should try a few tests in GH before you bring up this fictional dilemma. Play a song where the first note is a single, just that note, and tell me what score you have. Now repeat for songs that have the first note as: a two-note chord, a three-note chord, a sustained note.

Single note: 50 points
Two-note chord: 100 points
Three-note chord: 150 points
Sustained note: Variable on note length

This is all on the first note where the multiplier is a rather non-factor 1x. I don't think the multiplier mechanic should be removed from the game; which is not to say I am 100% OK with it.

=======


Ah, but how do you balance that? Some people play fast notes better, and their 95% on hard might be 90% on expert. Players who can groove better but lose their place in finger mashers might get 99% on hard and only 80% on expert.

Besides, how do you compare ability on one set of note-charts to another? You can't. I'm totally for allowing different difficulty players against each other, but not as a way to determine player ability.

Obviously not everyone has the same skill set nor progresses through the more advanced techniques in the same priority. However, most people progress through a similar improvement scheme.

Now assigning a number to a player's ability is always a hit-or-miss affair (basically what scoring is doing), but while it isn't always 100% accurate it can at least attempt to not be biased. Currently the scoring is extremely biased toward the person going for a flawless coast through a song instead of a challenge. Put Me and My Clone down infront of versus and the one that picks the easier difficulty is going to win 9 times out of 10.

=========


The main thing you're missing is that GH/RB HAVE no accuracy ratings.

Specifically, there (except for vocals now) is only a "hit". Therefore, combo would be more rewarded than single hits.

Now, in a BeMani series game, there's Perfect-Great-Good-etc. and therefore getting the most Perfects would matter far more than combo, since there's that accuracy involved in it.

So yes, that formula fits perfect for GH/RB.

Personally, I wish RB had ratings though; for drums, overdrive is locked as to where it's activated, so all of the 100% scores will be the exact same. If there were ratings on each note like Perfect-Great etc. you'd have wild variations in scores, as a person with a full combo but with not that many perfects would have a different score as someone without a full streak but without a lot of perfects, etc.

I think you're confusing the concept of song-accuracy with note-accuracy. I think this because you are the first person to bring this up but in a way as if you are replying to someone else, which makes you seem like a crazy homeless person talking to yourself, no offense (if that's possible) but it's how it comes off. I get confused as to exactly the topic of conversation too sometimes. As it stands, your line or reasoning loses me. So far I think every time someone has mentioned the word "accuracy" they mean how many notes one hits correctly out of the total number of notes. Not how well any particular note was hit.

=============


I agree that streaks tend to dominate over brute accuracy, but I still think they are more important. Maybe the goal should be for streaks to be worth more than rote accuracy, but not to the point where a streak player can run away with a game over a highly accurate player with fewer streaks? I don't think either the current system, or your system quite fit into this goal.

If I had to make a decision, I would keep the current scoring system, and just let people debate who is better than the other. Since the game focuses on multiple talents, it can never be distilled into a single value representative of skill. The only way to do that is weight the various skills and throw them into some unified scoring mechanism, with the understanding that it is not necessarily a direct correlation to skill.

In short, I think having points, accuracy, and longest streak combined give a good measure of skill, and the system should stay as it is.

Awesome, someone I differ with slightly but is well-spoken.

I also agree that streaks tend to dominate over brute accuracy. I will even hazard that streaks are more important, although not overwhelmingly more important.

What I disagree with is that the score is doomed to subjectivity and is inherently useless. While score will never be a perfectly objective, I feel it's consistently biased and some change (no idea what) could bring the scoring system as a whole to the more objective end of the spectrum and more consistent with reality. There would be variations, but around a reasonable mean.

To modify the sentiment expressed above: "In short, I think having points, accuracy, and longest streak combined give a good measure of skill, and the system should stay similar to how it is." The whole-song strategy, starpower strategy, streak effects, accuracy scoring are all great and I would never suggest throwing any of them out.

Instead I think they could be tweaked in small ways to make a more balanced scoring system. A maximum of 3x instead of 4x multiplier, changing the penalty for streak breaking, changing the condition of streak breaking, changing the condition for streak building, etc could all change the scoring system balance immensely.

==========

The only real gut evidence I have that something is amiss comes from:

1. Multiplayer skill selections in vs and coop modes, motivational factors.
2. How I often will go from a 3* to a 5* score on a difficult song with very little time spent (if at all!) in 4* land, despite my steady practice and improvement. The score seems overly sensitive at the upper end.

I really wanted to run a few numerical simulations on "skill" vs "score" on a theoretical 1000 note song. Missing one out of every 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc notes and watching what the score does on the Y-axis. I'm pretty sure the curve will be very flat in the beginning and jump exponentially at the very end. My desires would have a scoring system that has a more "straight line" correlation between skill and score.

[ChodTheWacko]

Here's a question for you, and sorry if it's been asked, but I could only get to page three before I had to ask it:

Why the hell did DDR change the scoring system involving hitting multiple things in sequence for higher point multipliers that's been in place since Super Mario Bros, or, hell, even Pac-Man?

The biggest difference is that in SMB, or Pac-man, the only goal is the end. As long as you clear the level, it doesn't matter how, or in what order you do the actions.

In music, that wouldn't work. Music is more structured.
If you played notes in the wrong order, it's totally different.

I'll say something else about ddr - a good DDR step chart is no more random than a
good GH note chart. It's not just a random set of notes, and you aim for accuracy.
This is especially true if you ever play using two pads at the same time. (Try it sometime! It's not as hard as it looks!) There's choreography as you step/turn between pads. I'd argue that the multipler actually is quite fair for DDR as well.

[ChodTheWacko]

If you want to do away with the multiplier, how do you deal with chords? Is a two note chord worth double a single note, and a three note worth triple?

How does it work now? Certainly they should be worth more points.

Should holding a note be worth more than just a short note?[/QUOTE]
Most definitely, and that raises another interesting point.

Someone who can hold their notes longer and still hit the next note deserves more points.

However, you get more points in the long run by cutting off previous notes shorter
and not missing the next notes (thereby ending streaks)

[Bakkster]

Obviously not everyone has the same skill set nor progresses through the more advanced techniques in the same priority. However, most people progress through a similar improvement scheme.

Now assigning a number to a player's ability is always a hit-or-miss affair (basically what scoring is doing), but while it isn't always 100% accurate it can at least attempt to not be biased. Currently the scoring is extremely biased toward the person going for a flawless coast through a song instead of a challenge. Put Me and My Clone down infront of versus and the one that picks the easier difficulty is going to win 9 times out of 10.

I feel like this would just add a different bias, for someone else to complain about. We're comparing apples to oranges if we compare a hard score to an expert score. It's a lost cause to try to balance them. Just don't put any competetive weight into these matchups.


Awesome, someone I differ with slightly but is well-spoken.

I also agree that streaks tend to dominate over brute accuracy. I will even hazard that streaks are more important, although not overwhelmingly more important.

What I disagree with is that the score is doomed to subjectivity and is inherently useless. While score will never be a perfectly objective, I feel it's consistently biased and some change (no idea what) could bring the scoring system as a whole to the more objective end of the spectrum and more consistent with reality. There would be variations, but around a reasonable mean.

To modify the sentiment expressed above: "In short, I think having points, accuracy, and longest streak combined give a good measure of skill, and the system should stay similar to how it is." The whole-song strategy, starpower strategy, streak effects, accuracy scoring are all great and I would never suggest throwing any of them out.

Instead I think they could be tweaked in small ways to make a more balanced scoring system. A maximum of 3x instead of 4x multiplier, changing the penalty for streak breaking, changing the condition of streak breaking, changing the condition for streak building, etc could all change the scoring system balance immensely.

I think the gamer in me would like the multiplier to drop down only one step each failure, but the musician in me likes it the way it is. I think we need to disagree there.

And yes, it is always nice to have civilized discourse on the intarwebs.