Do you care if songs are done with CAT?
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
You tell me if this is playable for Easy players
That is actually a great example of how CAT makes life easier. If the issue lies in the jump to B and O, I assume that’s what you’re pointing out because I know it can’t be note density, you select your B and O and push them down. Done. Remember that Easy has both B and O, so as long as you don’t have quick jumps it’s fine. The chords autoreduction has an algorithm that takes into account the number of B and O notes in the entire song and doesn’t shift them down if they are few, but you can easily move them down yourself.
Auto reductions also can’t tell what off-beat notes are more prominent to play.
This pattern for example:
http://i.imgur.com/HQ62Tjj.png
Ideally you would want medium players to play the chords so a proper way to reduce is to do this:
http://i.imgur.com/R7abOSI.png
However, this is what auto reductions would do:
http://i.imgur.com/OchyfEx.png
This can cause players to feel unsynced to the melody of a song and simply not fun to play.
And that is the perfect example of why CAT autoreductions will never be accurate: an automated tool can’t tell where the accents in a pattern are. For that reason there are songs in which I do autoreduction, check the parts where they work and fix them, then I go back to the parts where they don’t work at all, I do Hard properly, then M, then E and the copypaste.
Remember that autoreductions are a combination of commands you can use separately. In example, there are charts where you might want to reduce 16th notes to series of triple hits (a-la Run to the Hills on drums): with CAT it’s literally one click of a button. Autoreductions are supersets, but the individual commands can be used on specific parts of the song or for specific purposes.
Then you’re not paying attention. And haven’t read HMX authoring rules for RBN.
Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk
I don’t know what game you’re playing, but I’ve never, ever seen O and B on easy.
I’ve seen it a bunch of times, though I can’t name any specific songs off the top of my head.
Starting from RB3 (and maybe earlier, I’m not even sure), the official guideline for everything HMX released/supervised (ie DLC and RBN) was that for each color used in expert you must have at least one gem of the same color in all the other difficulties. And that’s a guideline that every C3 release have followed, so I don’t know what game you’re playing
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_cheeky.001.gif” />And until Nemo reprogrammed Magma, you couldn’t even compile a song without complying with that rule, because it would throw an exception.
It must be new to RB3, because I’ve never seen it in any of the other games. Thank you for giving actual answers, instead of insulting me and shoving the RBN docs in my face, guys.
It must be new to RB3, because I’ve never seen it in any of the other games. Thank you for giving actual answers, instead of insulting me and shoving the RBN docs in my face, guys.
I have never seen anybody *insulting* someone for not knowing the rules.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> Also, this one’s tricky, because it was introduced after RBN was launched, so I can see an author being away from RBN for a while and not getting back up to speed, so it’s definitely not a “how did you not know that” kind of scenario. 
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_wink.gif”>Some authors are less fortunate than others when it comes to time for charting. I have very little so I choose to make more songs with CAT vs. fewer songs with manual reductions. I think avoiding a custom simply because it has only CAT reductions is petty but to each his own.
It’s not petty.
I play on expert even when I realistically can’t do well in a song. For me lower difficulties don’t matter too much.
If you’re a decent medium or hard player, poorly done reductions can actually make it impossible or unenjoyable to play, much like poorly charted expert would for you and me.
The point is to use CAT to save you time with the rough parts of reductions then fix it up. Not to cut corners.
Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk
I don’t know what game you’re playing, but I’ve never, ever seen O and B on easy.
i know that on at least on the first three Guitar Hero games didn’t have B or O on easy and no O on medium…perhaps you’re thinking of that?
When I first started playing RB I was surprised to see B and O notes on those difficulties.
If CAT was used as a basis, but then fixed up, I don’t mind as much. What I do mind, as others have said, is CAT alone, without any sort of touch ups. I get that not everybody have to time to do all the reductions, though as has been said earlier, using CAT alone isn’t ideal for anybody. I play expert myself, but I do occasionally play with people who play on lower difficulties, and I’ve seen automatic CAT reductions that borderline break rules (for example, CAT likes to use 8th notes on Medium and 4th notes on Easy whenever it can, though at least the way I interpret the rules, those are only to be done in rare occasions and really slow tempos), and I fear that those reductions would be a bit much for them.
I think avoiding a custom simply because it has only CAT reductions is petty but to each his own.
How dare we have casual friends. Not to mention I bring my personal RB setup to public events and for sure not everyone will play on expert.
If CAT was used as a basis, but then fixed up, I don’t mind as much. What I do mind, as others have said, is CAT alone, without any sort of touch ups. I get that not everybody have to time to do all the reductions, though as has been said earlier, using CAT alone isn’t ideal for anybody. I play expert myself, but I do occasionally play with people who play on lower difficulties, and I’ve seen automatic CAT reductions that borderline break rules (for example, CAT likes to use 8th notes on Medium and 4th notes on Easy whenever it can, though at least the way I interpret the rules, those are only to be done in rare occasions and really slow tempos), and I fear that those reductions would be a bit much for them.
On GBK, by default CAT only has quarter notes on M and half notes on E. The only way you canhave 8th and 4th respectively is if you choose the “keep consecutive notes” option on AND you have the same notes repeated one after the other. It also makes sense to say that running CAT without even tinkering with the base options is like using Google Translate without even telling it which language it needs to translate from: automation is good but at least tick some boxes guys.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_biggrin.gif”>Anyway, I really think we’re repeating the obvious: using an automated tool as complex as the autoreduction superset without any editing will not produce great results 9 times out of 10. The amount of editing needed is the key: sometimes is very little, which makes the tool great even if you need to tinker with it.
Don’t think for a second that the issue of people pushing out poorly done reductions hadn’t crossed my mind at the time of developing or the other admins’ minds, with which I had more than a discussion not only to work on some basic form of AI but to check with them the best way forward to avoid crappy jobs. And the result was basically the CAT badge, which, yes, made a set of tools look like something dumb but that on the other hand warned the users about the content of a song. CAT was born, and it’s very well detailed in the docs and in the thread’s presentation post, as a “professional tool”. It means that it aids authors by drastically saving them time on purely automatable tasks (sustains, blind notes removal, capitalisation checks, unpitching lyrics, etc.) and by helping them save time on semi-automatable operations (reductions, animations, etc.). For some reasons, even expert authors shy away, or used to shy away, from a set of tools as if it was lame to be seen using them. While it’s their loss (they can unpitch notes one by one, check sustains on a single note basis, etc., it’s not like I have an interest in the time they save or not), it also created a huge divide: people who use CAT are apparently more and more very basic users who automate things in an “unprofessional” way, while “proper authors” don’t take advantage of it.
I’m gonna repeat it: CAT was never born as a simple one-click thing for reductions, which is also the reason why it never got ported to anything outside of Reaper. I have never claimed, or dreamed of claiming, that the autoreductions superset was a one click operation: in the docs and everywhere I talk about it I make it very clear that it needs editing. Still, it seems that if someone pushes out poor reductions, the culprit is the set of tools, as this thread testifies. “Look, look, CAT can’t even understand when a note is a mute or not so the reduced pattern is crap, omgwtfbbqlol”. In 5K lines of code you have something that slashes authoring times by a lot when it comes to editing operations, why in the world it’s being considered a crappy thing is beyond me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.