Also, the combination of these 3 conditionals is really impossible to parse for me. You're checking for classic and convert status individually and then finally doing a check with both. What is the intended flow here?

Also, the combination of these 3 conditionals is really impossible to parse for me. You're checking for classic and convert status individually and then finally doing a check with both. What is the intended flow here?

4 cases:
lazer + convert => 0 lines triggered, 0 bonus
lazer + nonconvert => 2nd line triggered, 0.02 bonus
stable + convert => 1st line triggered, 0.025 bonus
stable + nonconvert => all 3 lines triggered, 0.1 bonus

tho I agree it's very unreadable and should be refactored.
also I don't understand why lazer + convert has 0 bonus instead of some small one.

IMO it should just decrease bonus if CL mod is not present in one line. Something like this:

double bonus = isConvert ? 0.025 : 0.1;
if (!isLegacy) bonus *= 0.2;
difficultyValue *= 1 + bonus;

Just to be sure, @ppy/team-client 16:9/4:3 difference in taiko playfield is intentional right? That's gonna stay as is?

Don't ask me. Last this came up productively was #27136. Unproductively - #32773. I do not feel comfortable making any shot calls on that.

As far as we are aware, yes, the difference in the playfield is intentional. There were some discussions taking place (lord knows if they were through official networks or not), whether this would be changed - the earliest notion of this was a PR by vunyunt (which bdach mentions above).

Whilst it's not intrinsically a bad thing that it has changed to be a lot more accessible to both newer players and current players alike, it serves a point to be the way it is now - that is to prevent the use of widescreen and other elements to make things easier to read.

Regardless of if its staying or not, it makes sense either way - yet provisions will need to be made, as lazer is marginally different to the classic implementation, so whether this is a blanket fix or we make proper provisions, some sort of assessment needs to be made.

This is the same with the ability to scale things a lot differently in lazer too (making hard reading maps very easy to play), but this serves as an entirely different discussion.

yeah more discussion on what's intended and how to account for it can be done eventually but this is pretty necessary for this deploy. i'll refactor into something like what givikap put in a little while

I'm concerned about it staying or not because we might end up with a situation where like 1.5 years worth of ranked scores are done on one playfield and the rest on the other. That'd be a pain to consider and would be a necessity that we can't skip, so I'd rather ask the dev team to finally make a decision on this topic sooner than later (especially considering how many years it's been a pain point already)

went with basically exactly what givikap sent, i didn't think to penalise the bonus itself originally so tyvm. also moved the classic check next to isConvert so its much cleaner. won't rerequest review until we get a verdict on 16:9 hidden being intended

Does CL force 4:3 on lazer or is it only a stable thing? Because otherwise lazer CL scores will have the same advantage as all lazer scores now

currently only stable, #27136 that bdach mentioned earlier was trying to implement it

looks like the relevant code is at

don't wanna ping anyone again but we wanna feature lock this deploy soon and it looks like nothing will change before then

Fix whitespace (it's failing code quality)

whoops, sorted