apollo-dw
apollo-dw
@bdach The linked PR was closed for being premature. Could we be assured now that slider mechanics won't be changing?
> @apollo-dw would you mind confirming that you still approve this PR? Good to go on my end 👍
@smoogipoo I believe this is good to go, since this PR affects the performance calculator only? EDIT: NVM just noticed this is on "pending review"
> I don't think this makes much sense It seems farming pp maps higher than your skill level is made easier Very objective opinion maybe just for clarity, here are...
> (3) A hard threshold (66%) is used in calculating the `strainCount`, I'm not sure how "hackable" is this (like it might be possible to create a map with most...
I am now using per-note strain count rather than per-section strain count. This should allow for something like using difficulty strain count for length bonus rather than straight object count...
> peppy mentioned making the list predefined instead of user-defined in today's catch-up meeting. in that case the nat or bn would likely be the ones to manage the tag...
My suggestions here would be: - Let's allow providing descriptions for tags. Some might not be immediately obvious, and they would be helpful for people who are confused or new...
Okay understood - so the full list of tags will be created by the userbase, and abuse tags will be disallowed on a case-by-case basis. I agree that descriptions shouldn't...
Unfortunately no, I think being rigid with the list of tags is preferable here. There are multiple reasons I can think of for why: - **Custom tags means there is...