|
Post by Bagley on Nov 15, 2019 14:56:13 GMT -5
I'll list the salient points from my other post, basically he's right that multiplying the list points would make sense in an ideal world where the number of list points were proportional to this abstract idea of "difficulty", which is in turn inversely proportional to the likelihood of beating a level on a given attempt. Now you can get the probability of beating Aftercatabath from start to finish by multiplying the probabilities of the three levels that comprise it, so his idea works in theory but not in practice. Forgive me if I'm interpreting your previous post incorrectly, but I don't think directly tying the value of list points to the likelihood by which a player can pass the level on any given attempt would be the most ideal method to calculating said points, or at the very least not following the formula of 1/p. Personally, my main problem with this is that the differences in difficulty seem to be grossly misrepresented by how the list would theoretically work - using the formula, the list point difference between a level of 100% pass rate and 2% pass rate would be 49 (1:50), which, at surface value, seems like a significant difference which is appropriate for a comparison of two levels which have such disparate contrasts in the likelihood that one would beat it. However, in comparison, the list point difference between a level of 2% pass rate and 1% pass rate would be 50 (50:100). Though of course this is mathematically sound, this is not at all an accurate representation of the difference in difficulty between levels - the insinuation that a difficulty gap of 100% and 2% is mathematically lower than that of a gap between 2% and 1% is illogical. From what I can see, the reason this isn't entirely correct is due to two things: one is that there is no “guaranteed” method to beat any given level - essentially, there's a limit as to which practice can ascertain victory, and eventually, the conditions by which you would meet your winning attempt would be no different than any other (i.e. oftentimes, there's nothing special surrounding the conditions of a winning attempt, but namely in the upper echelons of difficulty, which separates it from any previous ones - this then means that a part of beating extreme demons is quite literally just slaving away at the level until you're "in the zone", which is a mindset that isn't guaranteed to happen by any means, hence why people have off days where they can't accomplish anything for seemingly no reason, and thus makes miniscule difficulty changes between levels negligible because they can often be overcome by sheer luck rather than skill, which eliminates a minor amount of skill from the equation thus making the small difficulty difference between a 1% pass rate level and 2% pass rate level nearly nonexistent, which then invalidates any remaining reasoning that the difficulty gap between 1% and 2% is somehow technically larger than the gap between a 2% pass and 100% pass.) The second is a much simpler; the point value as you go up the list would increase nonlinearly, but the difficulty gap of the levels as you go up the list decrease, which again means that the points. This is simply due to human limit; once the game plateaus in difficulty (something which is arguably occurring now), the factors that separate one incredibly hard level from another would be so minute that although one may be ranked above the other, the difficulty of each would remain comparable. In fact, this is a trend that's been made all the more obvious when comparing the state of the game from then to now; in the past, extreme demons were relatively rare both in creation and completion, but now the genre's so heavily saturated that the differences between low-end, mid, and high-end extreme demons (if thought of in their own respective tier) are hard to pinpoint - this itself is why even ranking some of the hardest levels nowadays has become such a chore. Though I don't really care about list points, I feel obliged to state the obvious: there's no way that difficulty will ever be accurately measured in numerical values. Though as a community it's certainly possible to come to a majority consensus, actually having tangible values to back such evaluations is something that is just impossible to formulate, a problem which, of course, troubles every game in which difficulty is subjective - which means pretty much all of them. Talking exclusively in the context of this game, you'd have so many different factors to consider; the difficulty of each mode, the associated skill floor and ceiling of each, the proportion by which each gamemode occupies any given level and how that affects its overall difficulty, the way a level "plays" (which itself is a huge subjective rabbit hole - piling two directly on top of one another is exceedingly arduous), etc., and most important of all, how all these factors are likely to affect any given player and how to way their opinions on such matters in light of their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Of course, you could average a lot of this data out, but again, that requires the creation of accurate tangible values out of non-measurable data which would require a substantial sample size regardless - which means you would essentially have to do the same exact thing, just with a different context and a slew of different, but still as numerous, factors. An alternative would be to have a sort of committee of certified players assign point values, but this would then again have to weigh in possible biases of each individual (strengths and weaknesses) while continuing to be reasonable in representing the difficulty gap between levels, something that is hard to do when the value of said points would (ideally) be relative to one another. Ultimately, the lack of a "data-backed" standard by which we can compare a level's difficulty to makes 100% accuracy in deducing a level's difficulty gap to another unfathomable. You can't measure subjectivity. As for Aftercatabath: I dunno, it's real long, so probably about top 15. You raise some very good points in your post, and I'll admit I had to think hard about to improve my system. I decided to quantify difficulty by the number of attempts that are expected to be spent before beating a level, rather than the probability of beating the level on a given attempt. Here's how you could convert from one to the other: let's say that you have a level where the probability of beating it is P. Then the probability of beating it on your first attempt is P. The probability of beating it on your second attempt is (1-P)P, that is, the probability of dying on your first attempt times the probability of beating it on your second attempt. In general, the probability of beating it on the N+1th attempt, that is, after N deaths, is P(1-P)^N. Therefore, we want the weighted arithmetic mean of the values P(1-P)^N with weights N, where N goes from 0 to infinity. This is the sum of NP(1-P)^N where N goes from 0 to infinity, divided by the sum of P(1-P)^N where N goes from 0 to infinity. Now the denominator is clearly 1, because the sum of the weights is 1 (adding all the probabilities from 0 to infinity obviously yields 1). So we have the sum of NP(1-P)^N where N goes from 0 to infinity, which I will approximate using the definite integral from 0 to infinity of the same expression, for which my calculator gives me P/(ln(1-P)^2). I'll let this expression be approximated by (1/P)-1 (try graphing them yourself, they are almost identical except for values of P close to 1, which would represent a level with an almost certain likelihood of completion and will largely be ignored anyway). So this solution is basically the same as the old one except that 1 point is subtracted from every level. This makes calculating the list points of a combination of levels take slightly longer (add 1 to each value, divide 1 by the product of all the values, and subtract 1 from the result), but it is an improvement in the sense that auto levels (which have probability 1) would award 0 points instead of 1, so the situation you described would be avoided. Now as you mentioned, I'm clearly starting to slip into spherical-geometry-dash-player-in-a-vacuum territory because of all the intangibles involved while playing the game, but at least the proportionality between level difficulties is preserved now.
|
|
|
Post by orecreeper on Nov 15, 2019 22:14:19 GMT -5
Compeltely incorrect. Take it this way; Doing bloodbath in 3 different runs, let’s say 0-34, 34-70 and 70-100. This is not hard to do. Is it as hard as doing Bloodbath though? Should it be worth just as much? Of COURSE not, because Combining all 3 runs into 0-100 is far, FAR harder than doing those runs individually.Aftercatabath wouldn’t give 30 points because doing Cataclysm, Bloodbath and Aftermath in 1 run is a fuck ton harder than MadMansion. Your logic here is INSANELY wrong. Alright then, let's multiply, since that seems to be more mathematically appropriate.
17.55 * 13.04 = 228.852
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our new number one demon.
So if I'd combine 3 legacy demons, it'd be still legacy demon difficulty? Your point makes no sense. Well, that's a separate issue altogether. But even so, that really just supports my point. By your new logic, Aftercatabath wouldn't even be list worthy because Cataclysm awards 0 points, and 0 * 228.852 = 0. So apparently beating CC, BB, and AM in one run is now legacy demon difficulty. Wow, perfect sense. By your new logic, beating Hyperio Technia (another legacy demon) by ML500 is now the same thing as beating Aftercatabath. You can't use math to calculate the difficulty of the three levels combined. However, if you really insist on doing it that way, the best way is to multiply the total points by the number of levels combined. This would award 91.77 points, putting it above Devil Vortex and below Erebus, which is still not very accurate, but still better than your idea. Alternatively, you can multiply it by the number of minutes, giving it a total of 122.36 points, putting it at #9 above the Yandere. Which is a pretty accurate placement, imo. But it doesn't work for every combination. The point is, math cannot calculate this. You have to treat Aftercatabath as its own level, instead of thinking of it as a legacy level + two extended list levels. Compare it to other levels in terms of difficulty, instead of trying to sum up its level components.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Nov 16, 2019 0:46:09 GMT -5
Ezel didn’t prove your point, he told you why it was wrong. I made a nice simple image for your nice simple brain to process. If you still don't get it I can simplify it further
People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 11:37:28 GMT -5
Ezel didn’t prove your point, he told you why it was wrong. I made a nice simple image for your nice simple brain to process. If you still don't get it I can simplify it further
People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say. First of all I’d like to ask you to not blatantly insult others like that. Second, your image is wrong because n o, the way it would work ISNT MULTIPLICATION. I don’t know where you got that idea from, even addition is a better idea. You CANNOT pinpoint Aftercatabath’s difficulty with list points because it’s not on the frickin list. Difficulty of levels is not ‘add the list points’, and it’s certainly not ‘multiply the list points’. You never even responded to me about the addition thing and you never tried to say why you were correct with the multiplication. Maybe if you want your point to be understood then you should actually explain it and why you’re correct instead of stating it and then saying nothing before throwing an insult at somebody for why they ‘aren’t understanding you’.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 16, 2019 16:16:36 GMT -5
Alright then, let's multiply, since that seems to be more mathematically appropriate.
17.55 * 13.04 = 228.852
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our new number one demon.
Well, that's a separate issue altogether. But even so, that really just supports my point. By your new logic, Aftercatabath wouldn't even be list worthy because Cataclysm awards 0 points, and 0 * 228.852 = 0. So apparently beating CC, BB, and AM in one run is now legacy demon difficulty. Wow, perfect sense. By your new logic, beating Hyperio Technia (another legacy demon) by ML500 is now the same thing as beating Aftercatabath. You can't use math to calculate the difficulty of the three levels combined. However, if you really insist on doing it that way, the best way is to multiply the total points by the number of levels combined. This would award 91.77 points, putting it above Devil Vortex and below Erebus, which is still not very accurate, but still better than your idea. Alternatively, you can multiply it by the number of minutes, giving it a total of 122.36 points, putting it at #9 above the Yandere. Which is a pretty accurate placement, imo. But it doesn't work for every combination. The point is, math cannot calculate this. You have to treat Aftercatabath as its own level, instead of thinking of it as a legacy level + two extended list levels. Compare it to other levels in terms of difficulty, instead of trying to sum up its level components. Your way of calculating a level's difficulty is not only nonsensical, but also inconsistent, that is, the same level could have its difficulty calculated in two identical ways but get two different results. Consider a level that awards 100 points. If you wanted to calculate the points for beating it 3 times in a row, that would be (100+100+100)*3 which is 900. But the points could also be calculated as follows: first find the points for beating it 2 times in a row (which is (100+100)*2 or 400), and then calculate the difficulty of beating it 2 times in a row and then 1 time, all in a row. That would be (400+100)*2 or 1000.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 16, 2019 16:28:24 GMT -5
I made a nice simple image for your nice simple brain to process. If you still don't get it I can simplify it further
People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say. First of all I’d like to ask you to not blatantly insult others like that. Second, your image is wrong because n o, the way it would work ISNT MULTIPLICATION. I don’t know where you got that idea from, even addition is a better idea. You CANNOT pinpoint Aftercatabath’s difficulty with list points because it’s not on the frickin list. Difficulty of levels is not ‘add the list points’, and it’s certainly not ‘multiply the list points’. You never even responded to me about the addition thing and you never tried to say why you were correct with the multiplication. Maybe if you want your point to be understood then you should actually explain it and why you’re correct instead of stating it and then saying nothing before throwing an insult at somebody for why they ‘aren’t understanding you’. How is addition a better idea, given that a player's list points are calculated by adding the list points of all of their levels? That basically says that beating two levels back to back is exactly the same difficulty as beating them separately, which is clearly wrong. Now, given the (flawed) way that the list points are calculated by the mods, it's possible that addition would give a result closer to the actual result than multiplication, but then you're just trying to correct a mistake by making another mistake and hoping that it sorts itself out, which might be closer than making the first mistake and then proceeding as normal if the first mistake weren't made (and if the way that the list points are calculated isn't going to change, then maybe addition is slightly better in practice than multiplication, although nowhere close to perfect). All of the math I was doing was just hypothetical calculation of a level's difficulty in a hypothetical world where the list points were calculated differently (the mathematically "right" way, but maybe not the most useful given all the intangibles involved with beating a really hard GD level like exhaustion, stress, motivation, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 18:05:18 GMT -5
First of all I’d like to ask you to not blatantly insult others like that. Second, your image is wrong because n o, the way it would work ISNT MULTIPLICATION. I don’t know where you got that idea from, even addition is a better idea. You CANNOT pinpoint Aftercatabath’s difficulty with list points because it’s not on the frickin list. Difficulty of levels is not ‘add the list points’, and it’s certainly not ‘multiply the list points’. You never even responded to me about the addition thing and you never tried to say why you were correct with the multiplication. Maybe if you want your point to be understood then you should actually explain it and why you’re correct instead of stating it and then saying nothing before throwing an insult at somebody for why they ‘aren’t understanding you’. How is addition a better idea, given that a player's list points are calculated by adding the list points of all of their levels? That basically says that beating two levels back to back is exactly the same difficulty as beating them separately, which is clearly wrong. Now, given the (flawed) way that the list points are calculated by the mods, it's possible that addition would give a result closer to the actual result than multiplication, but then you're just trying to correct a mistake by making another mistake and hoping that it sorts itself out, which might be closer than making the first mistake and then proceeding as normal if the first mistake weren't made (and if the way that the list points are calculated isn't going to change, then maybe addition is slightly better in practice than multiplication, although nowhere close to perfect). All of the math I was doing was just hypothetical calculation of a level's difficulty in a hypothetical world where the list points were calculated differently (the mathematically "right" way, but maybe not the most useful given all the intangibles involved with beating a really hard GD level like exhaustion, stress, motivation, and so on). Both addition and multiplication of list points are terrible ideas. Multiplication is worse because taking a 17 list point thing and multiplying it by a 13 list point thing is basically saying that the 17 and the 13 back to back is the same as doing he 17 one 13 times in a row. That’s how it’s worse. Addition is a ridiculously dumb idea but it’s not nearly as bad as multiplication.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 16, 2019 18:52:40 GMT -5
How is addition a better idea, given that a player's list points are calculated by adding the list points of all of their levels? That basically says that beating two levels back to back is exactly the same difficulty as beating them separately, which is clearly wrong. Now, given the (flawed) way that the list points are calculated by the mods, it's possible that addition would give a result closer to the actual result than multiplication, but then you're just trying to correct a mistake by making another mistake and hoping that it sorts itself out, which might be closer than making the first mistake and then proceeding as normal if the first mistake weren't made (and if the way that the list points are calculated isn't going to change, then maybe addition is slightly better in practice than multiplication, although nowhere close to perfect). All of the math I was doing was just hypothetical calculation of a level's difficulty in a hypothetical world where the list points were calculated differently (the mathematically "right" way, but maybe not the most useful given all the intangibles involved with beating a really hard GD level like exhaustion, stress, motivation, and so on). Both addition and multiplication of list points are terrible ideas. Multiplication is worse because taking a 17 list point thing and multiplying it by a 13 list point thing is basically saying that the 17 and the 13 back to back is the same as doing he 17 one 13 times in a row. That’s how it’s worse. Addition is a ridiculously dumb idea but it’s not nearly as bad as multiplication. No, it would not say that. It would say that a 17 and a 13 back to back are the same as doing the 17 over and over and over ... 13 times separately (with deaths in between). But you're still right that with the way list points are calculated, it obviously doesn't make much sense, even though multiplication is better in principle for an idealized way of calculating list points. Now with the formula I outlined above, a level that awards 13 points is one that would be expected to take 14 attempts (where the expected number of attempts would be measured relative to an idealized player of a certain skill level). Now, maybe it isn't so crazy that a 17 and 13 back to back is the same as doing the 17, 13 separate times. Clearly, all of the list demons would award a number of points in the hundreds or thousands, and such large numbers could be hard to work with. So even though that's the mathematically "correct" way of doing it, and multiplication works perfectly with it, such a system would be very impractical to work with. Like I said, the current system works well for its intended purpose, that purpose being comparing players rather than finding the difficulty of doing different levels back to back. EDIT: I ought to clarify something: when I say "expected attempts", I suppose that isn't the same as the total number of attempts spent on the level. The player first has to spend thousands of attempts familiarizing themselves with the level, practicing and getting consistent at each part, etc. Clearly, the (very small) chance of beating the level on any given attempt increases dramatically as the number of attempts spent practicing a level increases. However, all players get to a sort of "saturation point" where they know that they're capable of beating the level and practicing it any more won't increase the likelihood that they do beat it, and this point occurs only a few hundred or thousand attempts (for the hardest of the hard, maybe tens of thousands) before the level is actually beaten, except for "fluke" attempts which are a statistical anomaly. It is from this point that the "expected number of attempts" is calculated. Now, this approach assumes that when evaluating a level's difficulty, we only want to consider how hard it is after the player learns and gets consistent at each part, and to disregard how hard the level is to learn in the first place. Again, intangibles like muscle memory come into play here, which is why this solution is largely idealized.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Nov 16, 2019 21:25:28 GMT -5
I made a nice simple image for your nice simple brain to process. If you still don't get it I can simplify it further
[snip]
People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say. First of all I’d like to ask you to not blatantly insult others like that. Second, your image is wrong because n o, the way it would work ISNT MULTIPLICATION. I don’t know where you got that idea from, even addition is a better idea. You CANNOT pinpoint Aftercatabath’s difficulty with list points because it’s not on the frickin list. Difficulty of levels is not ‘add the list points’, and it’s certainly not ‘multiply the list points’. You never even responded to me about the addition thing and you never tried to say why you were correct with the multiplication. Maybe if you want your point to be understood then you should actually explain it and why you’re correct instead of stating it and then saying nothing before throwing an insult at somebody for why they ‘aren’t understanding you’. 1. Ok.
2. Yeah I get it doesn't work but I was just pointing out that legacy demons support the argument that the demon list point system is broke. Guess I could've just written that down.
3. ...maybe because they aren't understanding me? And when I said "People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say", I wasn't only addressing Swifter. Almost everyone else is arguing about the best way to combine list points or otherwise asserting that the lists points in the first place are correct. My point, as mentioned above, is that the list point system is broke.
|
|
|
Post by orecreeper on Nov 16, 2019 22:32:58 GMT -5
By your new logic, Aftercatabath wouldn't even be list worthy because Cataclysm awards 0 points, and 0 * 228.852 = 0. So apparently beating CC, BB, and AM in one run is now legacy demon difficulty. Wow, perfect sense. By your new logic, beating Hyperio Technia (another legacy demon) by ML500 is now the same thing as beating Aftercatabath. You can't use math to calculate the difficulty of the three levels combined. However, if you really insist on doing it that way, the best way is to multiply the total points by the number of levels combined. This would award 91.77 points, putting it above Devil Vortex and below Erebus, which is still not very accurate, but still better than your idea. Alternatively, you can multiply it by the number of minutes, giving it a total of 122.36 points, putting it at #9 above the Yandere. Which is a pretty accurate placement, imo. But it doesn't work for every combination. The point is, math cannot calculate this. You have to treat Aftercatabath as its own level, instead of thinking of it as a legacy level + two extended list levels. Compare it to other levels in terms of difficulty, instead of trying to sum up its level components. Your way of calculating a level's difficulty is not only nonsensical, but also inconsistent, that is, the same level could have its difficulty calculated in two identical ways but get two different results. Consider a level that awards 100 points. If you wanted to calculate the points for beating it 3 times in a row, that would be (100+100+100)*3 which is 900. But the points could also be calculated as follows: first find the points for beating it 2 times in a row (which is (100+100)*2 or 400), and then calculate the difficulty of beating it 2 times in a row and then 1 time, all in a row. That would be (400+100)*2 or 1000. I don't care about this part. I mean I did say that it isn't a good idea, but since some 1000 IQ user here decides that the difficult of Aftercatabath can be solved by mathematics, I tried find at least a semi-plausible way to figure it out with multiplication. It's obviously nonsensical, but it does work in the case of Aftercatabath, since 9th on the demons list is a pretty accurate placement for the level imo.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 16, 2019 23:15:50 GMT -5
First of all I’d like to ask you to not blatantly insult others like that. Second, your image is wrong because n o, the way it would work ISNT MULTIPLICATION. I don’t know where you got that idea from, even addition is a better idea. You CANNOT pinpoint Aftercatabath’s difficulty with list points because it’s not on the frickin list. Difficulty of levels is not ‘add the list points’, and it’s certainly not ‘multiply the list points’. You never even responded to me about the addition thing and you never tried to say why you were correct with the multiplication. Maybe if you want your point to be understood then you should actually explain it and why you’re correct instead of stating it and then saying nothing before throwing an insult at somebody for why they ‘aren’t understanding you’. 1. Ok.
2. Yeah I get it doesn't work but I was just pointing out that legacy demons support the argument that the demon list point system is broke. Guess I could've just written that down.
3. ...maybe because they aren't understanding me? And when I said "People just don't seem to get what it is that I'm trying to say", I wasn't only addressing Swifter. Almost everyone else is arguing about the best way to combine list points or otherwise asserting that the lists points in the first place are correct. My point, as mentioned above, is that the list point system is broke.
Let me just reiterate something that I've already stated in previous posts since people seem to be misinterpreting me: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POINTS SYSTEM IS FLAWED. It's purpose is to compare various players based on the demons that they've beaten, and it serves that purpose quite well. It doesn't compare the relative difficulty of demons aside from ascribing a larger number of list points to harder demons, but even though the proportions aren't quite correct, that has no effect on its primary function.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 16, 2019 23:19:51 GMT -5
Your way of calculating a level's difficulty is not only nonsensical, but also inconsistent, that is, the same level could have its difficulty calculated in two identical ways but get two different results. Consider a level that awards 100 points. If you wanted to calculate the points for beating it 3 times in a row, that would be (100+100+100)*3 which is 900. But the points could also be calculated as follows: first find the points for beating it 2 times in a row (which is (100+100)*2 or 400), and then calculate the difficulty of beating it 2 times in a row and then 1 time, all in a row. That would be (400+100)*2 or 1000. I don't care about this part. I mean I did say that it isn't a good idea, but since some 1000 IQ user here decides that the difficult of Aftercatabath can be solved by mathematics, I tried find at least a semi-plausible way to figure it out with multiplication. It's obviously nonsensical, but it does work in the case of Aftercatabath, since 9th on the demons list is a pretty accurate placement for the level imo. Let me just be clear, all I said was you can't really use math to determine the difficulty of levels with the list points being calculated as they are. Coincidentally, your method happens to work for calculating the list position of Aftercatabath, but your approach cannot be generalized in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantist on Nov 17, 2019 0:30:07 GMT -5
Let me just reiterate something that I've already stated in previous posts since people seem to be misinterpreting me: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POINTS SYSTEM IS FLAWED. It's purpose is to compare various players based on the demons that they've beaten, and it serves that purpose quite well. It doesn't compare the relative difficulty of demons aside from ascribing a larger number of list points to harder demons, but even though the proportions aren't quite correct, that has no effect on its primary function. Ahh, well there we go. I thought the point system was supposed to measure the level's difficulties; I guess I was wrong. I wish I hadn't said anything now.
|
|
|
Post by Bagley on Nov 17, 2019 0:59:10 GMT -5
Let me just reiterate something that I've already stated in previous posts since people seem to be misinterpreting me: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POINTS SYSTEM IS FLAWED. It's purpose is to compare various players based on the demons that they've beaten, and it serves that purpose quite well. It doesn't compare the relative difficulty of demons aside from ascribing a larger number of list points to harder demons, but even though the proportions aren't quite correct, that has no effect on its primary function. Ahh, well there we go. I thought the point system was supposed to measure the level's difficulties; I guess I was wrong. I wish I hadn't said anything now. It only measures difficulty insofar as harder levels get assigned a larger number of list points. In terms of proportionality it completely falls apart, which is why you can't use it as is to derive the difficulty of compound levels like Aftercatabath. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
23 posts
Creator Points: 0
Favorite Level: Black Blizzard
Hardest Demon: Death Moon-Decode
|
Post by chilln0 on Dec 30, 2019 17:48:32 GMT -5
I am terrible at the game, but here is my two cents.
A level like Lonely Travel doesn’t have demon difficulty. In fact if it was the same length as any other level, it would be hard or harder difficulty. But many people agree that it is a demon due to it being 5 Minutes.
AfterCataBath is around 4 minutes, but there is less of a gap between general AfterCataBath and, say, Sonic Wave, then there is between Lonely Travel and a level like Cycles
|
|