Play Limit Per Song

[lavacano201014]

We'd have to find a way to count after you've got the throne though: imagine you got the throne on 3 runs and start grinding to add a few thousand points to your score and after 20 runs aquire a monster-score, the counter shouldn't be saying "3 runs to get this throne". On the other hand, you can't just let it count, as everytime you play the song casually, your throne would appear less impressive.

I understand this.

And here's my solution to the "lose impressiveness" thing:

Tries to (Re)Claim Throne: 3
Plus 5 plays since

[S.]

We can see how many times a person has played a specific song by going to their page on the site.

[blue_h3x]

We can see how many times a person has played a specific song by going to their page on the site.

Only shows the top 20 songs though, and that's not great when you've played over 600 songs in AS...

[Alice]

It's just a game. I can see this causing a lot of user frustration, and furthermore, isn't this inherently counterintuitive in that it maximises the probability of chance / random circumstances in your environment? If there was a play limit of x overall, it will just emphasise scores from races where everything was going right that were played before x. Also, what if someone plays a song a lot as a newbie, then returns later? You could solve this by having the play count per day / week / month / whatever, but the first point still applies and overall I think it would bother people. Not to mention that if on your xth play, you take the throne, then get dethroned... There are lots of ways to fix each particular issue, but I think they would be a waste and overall decrease happiness for users, since it limits their enjoyment capabilities.

[FashionistState]

Sorry; I completely disagree with this, I reckon it would alienate new players. After all, they might want to start by playing a favourite song, and it'll be infuriating if they can't get on the scoreboard when they're better at the game. Unless this idea would separate the different difficulty levels.

Besides, it's not about a lack of 'skill'. It may just mean you like that song enough to want the throne...

[S.]

Implementing a limit would not solve a problem, or better said, create a new problem: the opposite.
There's either:

1)an inaccurate score that doesn't show the improvising skill of the players but shows the skill after lots of learning, practising and blood, sweat and tears. (the current situation)
2)the situation that would happen if this was implemented:
an inaccurate score that was posted 2 years ago of a mere 500k because the people who now get 1.5m were only able to achieve that high back in the days, but now their 1.2m+ scores don't count because they used all of their passes.
For example: Person A played TTFAF when AS was just released. Competition is low. Little is known about chaining, priming etc. The maximum score in those days appeared to be 500k. Person A tries to get the 1st place with 501k but uses up every 'pass' for that song he has, under the thought that his place can't be beaten because he got 5 red splats, while little was known about certain tricks. 2 years later, person B pops up, learns about chaining, priming, syncing, stuff that wasn't really clear back in the days. He masters these tricks, becomes a skilled player and tries out TTFAF. He gets 900k, almost double the amount of person A. person A however has increased his skill too and can easily get that 900k on his first run too now, but he can't get that throne back because he used up every pass, while person B still has his 2nd-30rd chance to make that 900k a 1200k.

A solution to this would be to make the passes restock after a certain amount of time, but in that case it would just be a matter of time before person A claims that spot back. Instead of having person A & B fight for that throne with 1 month in between every dethrone, why not just have them fight for that throne with 1 day in between? The 1st place shows who is better, person A or person B. While person A might be more skilled than person B, person B gets the (undeserved) spot because person A used up his passes back in his unskilled days. And in the case of the monthly restock: While person A may be better than person B, person B may get that throne for a whole month because person A got a bad day.



If I were to choose between
-scores that show a number which is way too high than people's average on a song (because of studying, hard work and learning by heart)
or
-scores that show a number which is way too low than people's average on a song (because of unskilled poor runs back in the old days)
I'd choose the one where people take effort to get their scores, not a run that could've been done better.

Making this restocking makes no sense, as a 6 month restrictions has the same effect as no restriction: People will get that throne as soon as they can.

 Games with scoreboards are always played over and over again. No.1 in Defense Grid didn't get his 1st spot in an eyewink either. But having a scoreboard of ' first playthroughs'  only would be senseless too because tactics can change. One can think halfway through the game:"hey I just found out about something, wish I knew that during the first levels". Or in AS case. " Hey, we just found out about something, wish we knew that 2 years ago"

[Mincus]

I think this has been debunked by enough players to lock it now? It's pretty clear that no-one wants it (save the original poster) and that it would significantly disrupt the scoreboards.

[ViRUS]

OK then, this thread is closed...