but for 12k noob like me... and its pluto dude.Luna wrote:
Well, #962 doesn't look like a particularly good performance
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
Topic Starter
pp is designed to reward good performance on maps. While it might be harder, to just pass a very hard map compared to full-comboing an easy map, you still perform badly on that particular hard map when just barely passing.
If you want to gain more pp, then go for full combos and high accuracy on the maps where you can barely achieve those.
Edit: Seems like I overlooked Brian OA's previously reply. He formulated it pretty well:
If you want to gain more pp, then go for full combos and high accuracy on the maps where you can barely achieve those.
Edit: Seems like I overlooked Brian OA's previously reply. He formulated it pretty well:
Brian OA wrote:
Look at it this way: the system rewards good performance, and your performance on both maps aren't the same. You did poorly on the hard beatmap, so there'd be no sense in rewarding you for it. However, you did well on the easy one, so there's a reward for you. You've effectively gotten every pp that score was worth. The thing is the same can't be said of the hard map.
Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.
Yes.ks- wrote:
Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.
Rank (insert #2573 here) is not considered. It gauges your performance on an individual basis using the map difficulty algorithm. If that was a good play, you'll get rewarded, whether the map is highly contested and putting you down 2500 ranks or not.
I still think that HD weighted too lightly...
It can be hard for HD in maps
i) have both 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 music spacing (the change half a beat and a third of a beat throws people off)
ii) maps that have poor flow
iii) maps with jumps
iv) old maps (before 2010) (they've got strange spacing and strange beats)
IN those cases, HD should be weighted a lot more because it's significantly harder to play those maps with HD
Even in normal cases, HD is weighted far too lightly. A bonus of about 3% is just too small for most maps.
I think that HD should be weighted to about 5-6%, as a bonus for people who play HD
Also, the EZ mod should be rewarded, not punished, because it's actually harder to play with EZ than without...
(IN maps with high AR, it is impossible to play EZ)
What's more is that FL mod should also be rewarded more as in most cases it's incredibly hard to play FL
(if you don't use multiscreens)
That's all for now, thanks for listening
p.s. A great thanks to Tom for the new ppv2!
It can be hard for HD in maps
i) have both 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 music spacing (the change half a beat and a third of a beat throws people off)
ii) maps that have poor flow
iii) maps with jumps
iv) old maps (before 2010) (they've got strange spacing and strange beats)
IN those cases, HD should be weighted a lot more because it's significantly harder to play those maps with HD
Even in normal cases, HD is weighted far too lightly. A bonus of about 3% is just too small for most maps.
I think that HD should be weighted to about 5-6%, as a bonus for people who play HD
Also, the EZ mod should be rewarded, not punished, because it's actually harder to play with EZ than without...
(IN maps with high AR, it is impossible to play EZ)
What's more is that FL mod should also be rewarded more as in most cases it's incredibly hard to play FL
(if you don't use multiscreens)
That's all for now, thanks for listening
p.s. A great thanks to Tom for the new ppv2!
It's significantly harder to play those maps with HD only if you can't play HD
HD doesn't change anything, it's the same map, with the same OD AR CS and HP drain, if you play by listening the music it won't change much, except for stacks that are harder to read
HD doesn't change anything, it's the same map, with the same OD AR CS and HP drain, if you play by listening the music it won't change much, except for stacks that are harder to read
2GoldenWolf
Airman is only hard if you can't aim it, so why not weight it lightly?
HD removes quite a lot of visual information which makes it very hard on lower AR, so it should influence aiming quite a lot on old maps.
Oh wait, I forgot, if someone finds it easy due to training then it doesn't matter.
Airman is only hard if you can't aim it, so why not weight it lightly?
HD removes quite a lot of visual information which makes it very hard on lower AR, so it should influence aiming quite a lot on old maps.
Oh wait, I forgot, if someone finds it easy due to training then it doesn't matter.
Except learning HD is QUITE easier than learning how to aim airman's jumps
HD doesn't make things much harder if at all, the actual bonus seems enough
HD doesn't make things much harder if at all, the actual bonus seems enough
HD was used to give cheap n' easy PP for pretty much no work on most maps. It is treated as such in ppv2, because this is a rating of skill, not freebies.dennischan wrote:
SPOILERI still think that HD weighted too lightly...
It can be hard for HD in maps
i) have both 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 music spacing (the change half a beat and a third of a beat throws people off)
ii) maps that have poor flow
iii) maps with jumps
iv) old maps (before 2010) (they've got strange spacing and strange beats)
IN those cases, HD should be weighted a lot more because it's significantly harder to play those maps with HD
Even in normal cases, HD is weighted far too lightly. A bonus of about 3% is just too small for most maps.
I think that HD should be weighted to about 5-6%, as a bonus for people who play HD
Also, the EZ mod should be rewarded, not punished, because it's actually harder to play with EZ than without...
(IN maps with high AR, it is impossible to play EZ)
What's more is that FL mod should also be rewarded more as in most cases it's incredibly hard to play FL
(if you don't use multiscreens)
That's all for now, thanks for listening
p.s. A great thanks to Tom for the new ppv2!
As for your "hard in HD maps"...
i) Pretty much all maps have 1/2 and 1/4, and an occasional 1/3 where you just have to LISTEN and REMEMBER where it is in the music. Probably can't do it the first time, but who seriously sight reads with HD all the time? Maybe for fun or on easy maps, but seriously, it's not that hard to remember a few parts.
ii) Poor flow as in... Can't keep up, too many jumps?
iii) Lol
iv) ppv2 is designed for newer maps and they even TELL you to play the newer maps, why complain about it when they already mentioned it?
The hard parts in HD, are maps with a ridiculous amount of stacks, back-and-forth jumping (Even something easy like Ha-tenya becomes ridiculously annoying) or hidden circles under/after/between sliders (Heaven's Race Guitar Style?)
FL is rewarded where fit. As Tom previously said, FL gives a whopping 36% bonus when it's hard to play. Most maps with FL records are ones that are easy, hence the low reward value.
What.StormR1d3r wrote:
Airman is only hard if you can't aim it, so why not weight it lightly?
2nooblet
Make a map full of jumps on AR6 and a speed on which you can hit 200-300 notes nomod in a combo before it becomes too hard to maintain it, then try to see if you can get the same amount of hits with HD and give us results. You'll see that HD makes jumps harder.
Make a map full of jumps on AR6 and a speed on which you can hit 200-300 notes nomod in a combo before it becomes too hard to maintain it, then try to see if you can get the same amount of hits with HD and give us results. You'll see that HD makes jumps harder.
Yes, of course HD increases difficulty if you haven't learned to read HD.
That doesn't mean its bonus should be increased; it already gives a fair amount in a jumpy map (I mean I played a beatmap I had previously fc'd without pp gain with HD added on and got a nice amount from it...)
That doesn't mean its bonus should be increased; it already gives a fair amount in a jumpy map (I mean I played a beatmap I had previously fc'd without pp gain with HD added on and got a nice amount from it...)
Learning to play HD is easy.
HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.
HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.
Topic Starter
HD already gets a huge bonus for lower ARs starting small at 8 and going big as you approach 0 and even the below-0 ones possibly with HalfTime.
Without the AR-bonus HD already gives 18% more aim pp! That's quite a lot and I don't see any reason to increase it any further. Of course Hidden won't give you a lot of pp if you have to sacrifice a lot of accuracy for it or if the map you are playing doesn't require much aim.
Without the AR-bonus HD already gives 18% more aim pp! That's quite a lot and I don't see any reason to increase it any further. Of course Hidden won't give you a lot of pp if you have to sacrifice a lot of accuracy for it or if the map you are playing doesn't require much aim.
ok, thanks for explaining
I see. Thank you for the clarification.RaneFire wrote:
Yes.ks- wrote:
Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.
Rank (insert #2573 here) is not considered. It gauges your performance on an individual basis using the map difficulty algorithm. If that was a good play, you'll get rewarded, whether the map is highly contested and putting you down 2500 ranks or not.
StormR1d3r wrote:
2nooblet
Make a map full of jumps on AR6 and a speed on which you can hit 200-300 notes nomod in a combo before it becomes too hard to maintain it, then try to see if you can get the same amount of hits with HD and give us results. You'll see that HD makes jumps harder.
What Wishy said, or you're talking about [easy] or [normal] diffs if you're saying AR6. In that case, the specifics in PP probably don't affect them as much anyways, so just play harder maps if you want PP. There's no real point for doing a difficult AR6 map...Wishy wrote:
Learning to play HD is easy.
HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.
I'd like to see someone play Chocobo with HR.Wishy wrote:
Learning to play HD is easy.
HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.
I find chocobo is easier with HR. I can get further into the map with HR and with better acc/combo, than with nomod.
Give us a "Best performance" score list on the web pages in addition to the score ranking, please.
Nerf HD aim. Buff aim for higher BPMs. 18% aim bonus seems way too generous, especially when it starts beating out scores that are clearly far more difficult. More often than not it doesn't even feel like adding HD was *that* much harder.
I've been doing it for several months and it's worked out for me just fine.nooblet wrote:
but who seriously sight reads with HD all the time?
imo, hidden is only really hard when you get circles underneath sliders, or tricky patterns. It makes them a LOT harder to read.
Here's the worst example of this I've ever seen: Hatsuki Yura - Intense Desire [Lunatic]. It's do-able on regular DT, but it's ridiculous on hidden DT, seriously.
It really depends on the map, because it could be a nightmare or it could be "free points". If there was a way to tell what maps are harder on hidden than others, that'd be brilliant.
Here's the worst example of this I've ever seen: Hatsuki Yura - Intense Desire [Lunatic]. It's do-able on regular DT, but it's ridiculous on hidden DT, seriously.
It really depends on the map, because it could be a nightmare or it could be "free points". If there was a way to tell what maps are harder on hidden than others, that'd be brilliant.
Because some people find HD easier you want to nerf the bonus for everyone? Make sense.pielak213 wrote:
Hidden is also easier for some people.
I haven't really examined my scores when I did some TP farming 2 months ago, but from what I can tell is that mods give a huge bonus compared to no mod. And what I mean is that a 'no mod' map gives far less PP than it should compared to a random map with DT. I see a lot of maps with only a few FCs and it gives far less PP than a random DT map where the entire top 50 is DT.
I mean, a pretty easy 'Sayonara Goodbye' DT map is worth as much as an FC on Revolution Deathsquad. That's insanity to say the least. Nearly nobody is capable of FCing that map yet Sayonara Goodbye is completely filled with DT scores in the top 50.
I mean, a pretty easy 'Sayonara Goodbye' DT map is worth as much as an FC on Revolution Deathsquad. That's insanity to say the least. Nearly nobody is capable of FCing that map yet Sayonara Goodbye is completely filled with DT scores in the top 50.
Topic Starter
Thanks for pointing that one out. Mods aren't getting any special treatment - they are simply applied to the map and then a new difficulty is calculated with the exact same algorithm that also runs on nomod maps. The revolution deathsquad vs 'Sayonara Goodbye' thingie is definitely something I need to address, though. It mostly is connected to the insanely high map-length, since the map itself would be as easy, if not easier than 'Sayonara Goodbye' if it had only a 717 max-combo.GladiOol wrote:
I haven't really examined my scores when I did some TP farming 2 months ago, but from what I can tell is that mods give a huge bonus compared to no mod. And what I mean is that a 'no mod' map gives far less PP than it should compared to a random map with DT. I see a lot of maps with only a few FCs and it gives far less PP than a random DT map where the entire top 50 is DT.
I mean, a pretty easy 'Sayonara Goodbye' DT map is worth as much as an FC on Revolution Deathsquad. That's insanity to say the least. Nearly nobody is capable of FCing that map yet Sayonara Goodbye is completely filled with DT scores in the top 50.
It's a bit like strain values on attention span and nerves, isn't it? That and also all the spaced streams in dragonforce maps makes messing up your combo really easy because there's so much movement, the chance of being 1 note ahead/behind at some point is quite high.Tom94 wrote:
Thanks for pointing that one out. Mods aren't getting any special treatment - they are simply applied to the map and then a new difficulty is calculated with the exact same algorithm that also runs on nomod maps. The revolution deathsquad vs 'Sayonara Goodbye' thingie is definitely something I need to address, though. It mostly is connected to the insanely high map-length, since the map itself would be as easy, if not easier than 'Sayonara Goodbye' if it had only a 717 max-combo.
The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:
1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.
2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?
3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?
Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.
1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.
2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?
3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?
Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.
I have to say i like the new system, i'm not by any means a good player but with this system i can see a progress, earning PP with enarly every map.
The only weird thing i encountered is as Cook said the loss of PP when you improve a score. I know it's because only the best score gets saved and could be worth less PP, but it kinda give you a weird feeling if you managed to improve a score and loose ranks for that :-/
Anyways would be nice if you guys could find a way to get rid of that but its nothing that makes the new system terrible.
Keep up the good work!
The only weird thing i encountered is as Cook said the loss of PP when you improve a score. I know it's because only the best score gets saved and could be worth less PP, but it kinda give you a weird feeling if you managed to improve a score and loose ranks for that :-/
Anyways would be nice if you guys could find a way to get rid of that but its nothing that makes the new system terrible.
Keep up the good work!
agreed that FL is seriously underrated, but we have to take in account fake FL players using two screens
Topic Starter
CookChefSteak wrote:
The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:
1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.
2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?
3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?
Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.
1. See point 2 below. I also want to remark, that the score itself, that you get on a particular play is not relevant. Your combo and your miss/50/100/300 are what is important. I also want to note, that having far-below FC is heavily punished by the system. You shouldn't expect to gain a lot of pp from maps that you can't get decent scores on just by them being hard (see adult's toy, dragonforce and such).
2. see below
3. see below
Your suggestions:
1. Is planned, will likely happen.
2. Accuracy is worth less than a third of your play in the general case. Could you provide specific cases where you believe it is overrated? Otherwise I'll have a hard time debugging. By the way, accuracy doesn't simply give you a factor. You can theoretically get 50% accuracy and if you FC a hard map you can still get a very huge amount of points. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this, since many other people claim accuracy to be worth too little. Combo:Accuracy never was global and it does scale (a lot) with maps.
3. This is not something that can be just "disabled". It's also not specific to pp. The scoring system simply works by only storing your highest score on a particular map. I'd love to see this limitation get lifted at some point, but even only having the highest scores is already an extremely huge amount of data to work with.
You still answer the questions o_o Crazy
Anyway, how soon the documentary (wiki page?) to the ppv2 will be released?
Anyway, how soon the documentary (wiki page?) to the ppv2 will be released?
1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?Tom94 wrote:
CookChefSteak wrote:
The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:
1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.
2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?
3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?
Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.
1. See point 2 below. I also want to remark, that the score itself, that you get on a particular play is not relevant. Your combo and your miss/50/100/300 are what is important. I also want to note, that having far-below FC is heavily punished by the system. You shouldn't expect to gain a lot of pp from maps that you can't get decent scores on just by them being hard (see adult's toy, dragonforce and such).
2. see below
3. see below
Your suggestions:
1. Is planned, will likely happen.
2. Accuracy is worth less than a third of your play in the general case. Could you provide specific cases where you believe it is overrated? Otherwise I'll have a hard time debugging. By the way, accuracy doesn't simply give you a factor. You can theoretically get 50% accuracy and if you FC a hard map you can still get a very huge amount of points. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this, since many other people claim accuracy to be worth too little. Combo:Accuracy never was global and it does scale (a lot) with maps.
3. This is not something that can be just "disabled". It's also not specific to pp. The scoring system simply works by only storing your highest score on a particular map. I'd love to see this limitation get lifted at some point, but even only having the highest scores is already an extremely huge amount of data to work with.
2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.
3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.
Topic Starter
1. Of course. This is not exactly how the algorithm works but should yield a sufficient approximation. That being said, correctly judging X is the problem here.CookChefSteak wrote:
1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?
2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.
3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.
2. "2%" accuracy is usually a huge margin. Most people see "accuracy goes from 0% to 100%, therefore 2% is not a big difference" which is a completely wrong assumption. First of all, it greatly depends on where you've been previously. 96% and 98% are a 2% difference, but you have twice as many 100s in a 96% score than in a 98% score. That's a 100% relative difference! In your case you went down from around 95% to 92%. While not doubling your 100 count it still increased by a lot. Judging by how short the map is, you shouldn't expect to get too much of a bump for full-comboing it. Imho the decrease of pp is justified on that map.
3. No. The system needs to sort all your current scores to determine your user-pp, so it needs to be able to access your highest pp on a per-map basis for what you suggest to work. That'd force us to store 2 high-scores per map per player. Another problem is, that the pp algorithm will be tweaked frequently, so plays that previously were not deemed good enough and discarded might end up deserving the top spot in the future.
I want to ask that why I played a hard level map
with HD,HR, full combo
but no pp is added?
I played the map 32mins ago
with HD,HR, full combo
but no pp is added?
I played the map 32mins ago
this is the mapSaberBB wrote:
I want to ask that why I played a hard level map
with HD,HR, full combo
but no pp is added?
I played the map 32mins ago
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/355973?m=0
And my performance
Personal Best (#223 achieved 35 minutes ago)
Score 1,095,165 (96.05%)
Max Combo 262
300 / 100 / 50 147 / 8 / 1
Misses 0
Geki (Elite Beat!) 20
Katu (Beat!) 7
Mods HD,HR
not very good but at least 1 pp, right?
Topic Starter
If you don't get pp then the system doesn't consider your score good enough. You can also get less than 1pp and not directly see it because of rounding. I won't be answering any "Why didn't get pp for X?" questions anymore for now.
OK....Tom94 wrote:
If you don't get pp then the system doesn't consider your score good enough. You can also get less than 1pp and not directly see it because of rounding. I won't be answering any "Why didn't get pp for X?" questions anymore for now.
Tom94 wrote:
1. Of course. This is not exactly how the algorithm works but should yield a sufficient approximation. That being said, correctly judging X is the problem here.CookChefSteak wrote:
1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?
2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.
3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.
2. "2%" accuracy is usually a huge margin. Most people see "accuracy goes from 0% to 100%, therefore 2% is not a big difference" which is a completely wrong assumption. First of all, it greatly depends on where you've been previously. 96% and 98% are a 2% difference, but you have twice as many 100s in a 96% score than in a 98% score. That's a 100% relative difference! In your case you went down from around 95% to 92%. While not doubling your 100 count it still increased by a lot. Judging by how short the map is, you shouldn't expect to get too much of a bump for full-comboing it. Imho the decrease of pp is justified on that map.
3. No. The system needs to sort all your current scores to determine your user-pp, so it needs to be able to access your highest pp on a per-map basis for what you suggest to work. That'd force us to store 2 high-scores per map per player. Another problem is, that the pp algorithm will be tweaked frequently, so plays that previously were not deemed good enough and discarded might end up deserving the top spot in the future.
But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.
Topic Starter
That works only for the first new score coming in. Imagine a new (higher) pp value gets chosen and updated while the score which caused the pp increase doesn't get saved, since there is a higher score lying around already.CookChefSteak wrote:
But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.
Now the same scenario happens again: The newly calculated pp value only features the one new score + all old ones in the database. The score used previously to increase the pp is completely lost!
Also, just to clarify: pp is a floating point number. Even if the number you see doesn't change with a score you get, you still might have gotten a fraction of a pp.
Guys, just be patient and wait for the wiki article. I am sure all of your questions will be answered there.
Correct, the old score is lost, but the old PP value(the raw floating point number) doesn't have to be. If it's stored temporarily as just a number, you could regularly calculate a player's pp after he sets a highscore then compare it to that temporarily stored raw value. That is, store it before you update a player's pp, compare it, update with the appropriate value, and delete the temporary memory segment. There is no need to recalculate the old pp value again using 2 highscores per map as you said. It's a really quick and simple algorithm, and I honestly do not see the problem in implementing that. You must know something regarding the algorithm that I don't if you're still not convinced.Tom94 wrote:
That works only for the first new score coming in. Imagine a new (higher) pp value gets chosen and updated while the score which caused the pp increase doesn't get saved, since there is a higher score lying around already.CookChefSteak wrote:
But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.
Now the same scenario happens again: The newly calculated pp value only features the one new score + all old ones in the database. The score used previously to increase the pp is completely lost!
Also, just to clarify: pp is a floating point number. Even if the number you see doesn't change with a score you get, you still might have gotten a fraction of a pp.
anyways an example:
1. a highscore is achieved
2. current player pp is 2280
3. 2280 stored as float = current_pp
3. pp method runs with the highscore as an argument
4. algorithm yields 2270 as the appropriate pp considering the new score(float newpp = ppcalculate(args);)
5. newpp > current_pp ? server.query(newpp) : server.query(current_pp);
that's it...
Topic Starter
You're wrong, this doesn't work. The old floating point value that's still lying around is useless for computing what pp the user would have with the new score. The previously discarded score would be necessary for that computation.CookChefSteak wrote:
Correct, the old score is lost, but the old PP value(the raw floating point number) doesn't have to be. If it's stored temporarily as just a number, you could regularly calculate a player's pp after he sets a highscore then compare it to that temporarily stored raw value. That is, store it before you update a player's pp, compare it, update with the appropriate value, and delete the temporary memory segment. There is no need to recalculate the old pp value again using 2 highscores per map as you said. It's a really quick and simple algorithm, and I honestly do not see the problem in implementing that. You must know something regarding the algorithm that I don't if you're still not convinced.
anyways an example:
1. a highscore is achieved
2. current player pp is 2280
3. 2280 stored as float = current_pp
3. pp method runs with the highscore as an argument
4. algorithm yields 2270 as the appropriate pp considering the new score(float newpp = ppcalculate(args);)
5. newpp > current_pp ? server.query(newpp) : server.query(current_pp);
that's it...
I wrote you a PM in case you want to know why and/or want to continue the discussion - it doesn't fit in this thread.
Tom, sorry if this has been asked before:
Any thoughts about replacing the whole score based ranking system with pp?
I mean, right now you can beat "your best pp score" with a "worse pp score". It would also be a nice addition since they original % bonus each mod gives has always been broken, we could get to see some nice rankings like we can see on osu!tp. I mean there are several maps where some epics DTs are buried under random HR HDs lol, you know what to mean. Same thing with HRs being buried under HDs. Having the alternative to order top scores by pp gained instead of score would be really nice, also it would kind of resolve the "you can lose pp by beating your own score" thing.
Any thoughts about replacing the whole score based ranking system with pp?
I mean, right now you can beat "your best pp score" with a "worse pp score". It would also be a nice addition since they original % bonus each mod gives has always been broken, we could get to see some nice rankings like we can see on osu!tp. I mean there are several maps where some epics DTs are buried under random HR HDs lol, you know what to mean. Same thing with HRs being buried under HDs. Having the alternative to order top scores by pp gained instead of score would be really nice, also it would kind of resolve the "you can lose pp by beating your own score" thing.
can we have separate pp (aim, speed, accuracy) shown on our profile page?
I think the tp rating system is better than the pp one since it's easy to farm pp on maps that aren't at the limits of your skill. In tp, you can have top 10 scores that don't give you any tp since they aren't challenging your individual attributes at all but may grant you a lot of pp just because the play averages out harder.
I agree that seperate scores for our ability
I.e speed accuracy aim
Should be implemented,
However if tom hasn't got the time it's not likely to happen.
I.e speed accuracy aim
Should be implemented,
However if tom hasn't got the time it's not likely to happen.
Why did remote control hdhr give me 0 pp but is really high on my best performances 
?
?Well, tp might not be the same as pp, but muh FL ;;
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=27204
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=76663
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=52781
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=37249
(^Yeah my accuracy might not be the coolest ever, but still, I'd imagine some of the jumps in those maps should be hard enough.)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=121000 (99.67 FLDT is not enough to beat a HDDT SS)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=64468 (Same as above, a HDHR SS is better than a HDHRFL 99.55% run.)
Also, just a map in my top performance:
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=49067 , which seems to give a bunch of accuracy, and I guess it might be because of the amount of circles vs amount of sliders and AR. But because the map has a very steady and constant 1/2 rhythm, getting high accuracy on it isn't really that hard.
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=27204
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=76663
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=52781
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=37249
(^Yeah my accuracy might not be the coolest ever, but still, I'd imagine some of the jumps in those maps should be hard enough.)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=121000 (99.67 FLDT is not enough to beat a HDDT SS)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=64468 (Same as above, a HDHR SS is better than a HDHRFL 99.55% run.)
Also, just a map in my top performance:
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=49067 , which seems to give a bunch of accuracy, and I guess it might be because of the amount of circles vs amount of sliders and AR. But because the map has a very steady and constant 1/2 rhythm, getting high accuracy on it isn't really that hard.
A bit late but...
Passing that map isn't too tough because the HP Drain's at 5 and the notes are fairly close together most of the time since I designed the map to be a Hard (in hindsight i should've just made it an Insane but w/e). Because of this you can just mash your way through the 1/4 sections and nail the rest and be fine. However, SSing it isn't easy for most people because of said 1/4 sections.
Someone who mashes shouldn't really be getting pp, but that SS should still have PP potential (for low ranked players, at least). This goes for quite a lot of maps. The easiest way to do this is to not give out pp to low accuracy unless the map warrants it and that's more or less how it's done.
EDIT: It's also possible that it's only you who finds that map really hard. People are different so this happens at times.
In most cases, when you barely pass a map you aren't really demonstrating that you can play it competently. What you're typically showing is that you're able to bullshit your way through it. Here's an example: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/34544[ Zetka ] wrote:
Kind of enjoying a nice consistent rise in ranks but what I'm not so sure about is how I can spend ages working on a really hard beatmap and when I finally complete it it doesn't count anything towards my pp at all. But if I go and find the easiest beatmap I have, wack on a few mods and get a good score really easily, that gives me loads of pp. Don't quite understand that at all :/
Passing that map isn't too tough because the HP Drain's at 5 and the notes are fairly close together most of the time since I designed the map to be a Hard (in hindsight i should've just made it an Insane but w/e). Because of this you can just mash your way through the 1/4 sections and nail the rest and be fine. However, SSing it isn't easy for most people because of said 1/4 sections.
Someone who mashes shouldn't really be getting pp, but that SS should still have PP potential (for low ranked players, at least). This goes for quite a lot of maps. The easiest way to do this is to not give out pp to low accuracy unless the map warrants it and that's more or less how it's done.
EDIT: It's also possible that it's only you who finds that map really hard. People are different so this happens at times.
usually when a score gives you nothing when it should you just have to set a new best score on any map for it to update.-Soba- wrote:
Why did remote control hdhr give me 0 pp but is really high on my best performances
People said that Scarlet Rose was the hardest map in existence (according to forums)
Why is it ranked so low in tp?
Is this map underrated?
Adult's toy is also seriously underrated. You can ask almost everyone and find that the consider Adult's Toy harder than say, some random high tp diff such as recommended spell (Spell)
I suggest maybe high bpm songs should rated higher.
Why is it ranked so low in tp?
Is this map underrated?
Adult's toy is also seriously underrated. You can ask almost everyone and find that the consider Adult's Toy harder than say, some random high tp diff such as recommended spell (Spell)
I suggest maybe high bpm songs should rated higher.
asior_old
Did your pp go down? Or just your rank while pp stayed the same?asior wrote:
I just dont get it. Always the same..
I play song 1st time, i failed 2-3 times, im.. lets say #2000 (B)
And my ranking increased for 50
I play song 2nd time on FC, im lets say #700 (C)
And my ranking DECREASED for 20..
Why does that happened ?
asior_old
So pp can go down ? If yes; when ?scottyyy wrote:
Did your pp go down? Or just your rank while pp stayed the same?asior wrote:
I just dont get it. Always the same..
I play song 1st time, i failed 2-3 times, im.. lets say #2000 (B)
And my ranking increased for 50
I play song 2nd time on FC, im lets say #700 (C)
And my ranking DECREASED for 20..
Why does that happened ?
I'm not 100% sure but I think your pp can go down if the system replaces one your scores with one that it believes is worse on the same map difficulty. In your case it might have since the system probably thought the B score was better than the C FC, but because the C FC gave higher score the system has to use that one. And because it was a worse score according to the system, it gave you less pp.
Source: p/2830181
The solution would be to just FC it again with better accuracy.
Keep in mind your actual rank is always getting worse unless you gain pp constantly as people overtake you.
Source: p/2830181
The solution would be to just FC it again with better accuracy.
Keep in mind your actual rank is always getting worse unless you gain pp constantly as people overtake you.
asior_old
It's a limitation of the current system but it's not bad really. The system is still rewarding better scores over worse ones. Just because you value crappy acc FC over good acc non-FC doesn't mean the system is wrong. :pasior wrote:
Wow..
So play on easy, get better acc (but worst score) and gain more pp than play without mods but with fc and tragic acc. seems legit...
If you're capable of FCing a song, surely doing it again with better accuracy isn't a problem. Isn't that like, the entire point of this game? Improving and getting better scores?
Can't tell if serious on the first part, but the reason why maps like Scarlet Rose and Adult's Toy are weighted so low is because the ranking system cannot value patterns as of right now. Tom said that he would try to implement it later if he can.dennischan wrote:
People said that Scarlet Rose was the hardest map in existence (according to forums)
Why is it ranked so low in tp?
Is this map underrated?
Adult's toy is also seriously underrated. You can ask almost everyone and find that the consider Adult's Toy harder than say, some random high tp diff such as recommended spell (Spell)
I suggest maybe high bpm songs should rated higher.
I really like how the system is right now, and I can't wait until patterns get weighted more. I really feel rewarded for being fcing a hard song. Very good job.
Topic Starter
The easy map won't give you anything because it's... easy? pp is completely based on map difficulty.asior wrote:
Wow..
So play on easy, get better acc (but worst score) and gain more pp than play without mods but with fc and tragic acc. seems legit...
Go try it.asior wrote:
Wow..
So play on easy, get better acc (but worst score) and gain more pp than play without mods but with fc and tragic acc. seems legit...
"Wow, I just wasted my time" in 3... 2...
asior_old
Tom94 wrote:
The easy map won't give you anything because it's... easy? pp is completely based on map difficulty.asior wrote:
Wow..
So play on easy, get better acc (but worst score) and gain more pp than play without mods but with fc and tragic acc. seems legit...
Ekaru wrote:
Go try it.asior wrote:
Wow..
So play on easy, get better acc (but worst score) and gain more pp than play without mods but with fc and tragic acc. seems legit...
"Wow, I just wasted my time" in 3... 2...
I mean mod, not map type.
the scarlet rose being the hardest map is a joke on the forums lol, it's not really that hard (only hard to fc, not to get high acc)dennischan wrote:
People said that Scarlet Rose was the hardest map in existence (according to forums)
Why is it ranked so low in tp?
Is this map underrated?
Adult's toy is also seriously underrated. You can ask almost everyone and find that the consider Adult's Toy harder than say, some random high tp diff such as recommended spell (Spell)
I suggest maybe high bpm songs should rated higher.
That mod makes most Insanes a lot harder to FC while killing your score modifier. >_>asior wrote:
I mean mod, not map type.
EZ mod gives you huge circles, which makes aim trivial and lowers the score you get from aim. It halves the OD, which makes accuracy trivial and lowers the score you get from accuracy. If you have a short stream, the lower OD will significantly reduce the speed required and lower the score you get from speed.asior wrote:
I mean mod, not map type.
You'll get a small bonus for the low AR, but overall, EZ mod counts for very little, even with a FC.
If reading difficulty is ever implemented, EZ mod might be worth playing for points on some maps.
Honestly i like the new system. In the past i could only get pp for doing new song, now i can play any map. Also its made me want to improve old scores. Although some songs do give out more pp even though they are not that hard.
I found a mistake in the calculations in osutp and I'm wondering if it's the same for the current pp system. When adding the Half Time mod the speed gets multiplied by 0.75, so AR and OD times need to be multiplied by 4/3. The beatmap difficulty on osutp shows different values, though. E.g. ar10 with Half Time becomes ar8.5 instead of ar9 (for correct values check GhostFrog's post in p/2858736). Same issue with OD. I don't know if even the aim and speed values are affected by this, but it might be a good idea to check it out.
Topic Starter
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm pretty damn sure, that I already fixed this at some point - the website even shows the correct multiplier on the info page. Well, gotta fix it again.Ziggo wrote:
I found a mistake in the calculations in osutp and I'm wondering if it's the same for the current pp system. When adding the Half Time mod the speed gets multiplied by 0.75, so AR and OD times need to be multiplied by 4/3. The beatmap difficulty on osutp shows different values, though. E.g. ar10 with Half Time becomes ar8.5 instead of ar9 (for correct values check GhostFrog's post in https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/2858736). Same issue with OD. I don't know if even the aim and speed values are affected by this, but it might be a good idea to check it out.
EDIT: Done.
That mistake is my fault, sorry ._. Tear already pointed it out for me and I forgot to update the table on the wiki and eventually the wrong HT multipliers got passed on to other things... gotta remember to do it aaaa
wait what i just gained 190pp what happened
what does the recent change to pp actually mean?
" Performance: [Tom94] Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one category."
what does the recent change to pp actually mean?
" Performance: [Tom94] Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one category."
It means if the song is difficult to aim or accuracy or requires a great deal of speed but not difficult in the other categories, then it'll give more pp.tastystew wrote:
wait what i just gained 190pp what happened
what does the recent change to pp actually mean?
" Performance: [Tom94] Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one category."
Just a few quick Yes/No questions (I didn't read the whole thread, so they may have been answered already)
1. Do you gain a different amount of PP depending on where you hit your 100s/50s (i.e. near the end/beginning)?
1.a. If yes, is it simply based on the combo count, or is it something else?
1.b. If no, are you still rewarded by highly weighted maps even if you perform poorly on the actual "highly weighted part", but play perfectly for the easier sections?
2. Does a sliderbreak count as a miss? (i.e. would a 99% S with a sliderbreak be worth significantly more than a 99% A with a miss?)
3. Are spinners included in the PP formula? Also, would Spun Out affect your PP gain?
4. On the osu!tp info page it mentioned that the speed value is affected by map length. Does this mean (in general) longer maps such as marathons will reward more PP than a shorter map?
Suggestions:
1. Could readability also count towards map difficulty? Maps like http://osu.ppy.sh/s/7671 are known to be hard for being incredibly confusing (although I suppose people can just memorize everything, so the added value should be somewhere between hidden and flashlight).
2. Although the vast majority would agree that a map with a higher AR is much harder and hence HR should be rewarded as such (also due to the increased values in OD, CS and Drain), most people I have spoken to would also agree that an AR lower than the recommended map AR is also much harder. Hence the order of difficulty would somewhere be along the lines of HR >>> EZ > No Mod.
My suggestion would be to keep the PP reduction for the lowered OD and Drain, but re-evaluate how AR and CS contribute to map difficulty.
3. Another suggestion is to make sliders contribute to accuracy to... some extent. Although I agree it's a free 300 most of the time, getting a 300 should still reward something, and not getting a 300 should give some form of penalty. This map (http://osutp.net/scores?bid=66941) probably isn't the best example, but as of now the PP rewarded for HDDTHR is worth less than a No Mod SS on most 4~5 star maps.
4. One more suggestion is (if possible) to calculate the PP gained from a map based on the score which gives the most PP, and not simply the highest score. For most maps, a No Mod SS is worth significantly more PP than a 97% HD score, despite the latter having a higher score. In such cases, the No Mod SS should be considered as the player's "best play" rather than the HD score (only in terms of PP calculation). A score should only be overwritten if the new score rewards more PP.
Thanks for reading!
1. Do you gain a different amount of PP depending on where you hit your 100s/50s (i.e. near the end/beginning)?
1.a. If yes, is it simply based on the combo count, or is it something else?
1.b. If no, are you still rewarded by highly weighted maps even if you perform poorly on the actual "highly weighted part", but play perfectly for the easier sections?
2. Does a sliderbreak count as a miss? (i.e. would a 99% S with a sliderbreak be worth significantly more than a 99% A with a miss?)
3. Are spinners included in the PP formula? Also, would Spun Out affect your PP gain?
4. On the osu!tp info page it mentioned that the speed value is affected by map length. Does this mean (in general) longer maps such as marathons will reward more PP than a shorter map?
Suggestions:
1. Could readability also count towards map difficulty?
Maps like http://osu.ppy.sh/s/7671 are known to be hard for being incredibly confusing (although I suppose people can just memorize everything, so the added value should be somewhere between hidden and flashlight).2. Although the vast majority would agree that a map with a higher AR is much harder and hence HR should be rewarded as such (also due to the increased values in OD, CS and Drain), most people I have spoken to would also agree that an AR lower than the recommended map AR is also much harder. Hence the order of difficulty would somewhere be along the lines of HR >>> EZ > No Mod.
My suggestion would be to keep the PP reduction for the lowered OD and Drain, but re-evaluate how AR and CS contribute to map difficulty.
3. Another suggestion is to make sliders contribute to accuracy to... some extent. Although I agree it's a free 300 most of the time, getting a 300 should still reward something, and not getting a 300 should give some form of penalty. This map (http://osutp.net/scores?bid=66941) probably isn't the best example, but as of now the PP rewarded for HDDTHR is worth less than a No Mod SS on most 4~5 star maps.
4. One more suggestion is (if possible) to calculate the PP gained from a map based on the score which gives the most PP, and not simply the highest score. For most maps, a No Mod SS is worth significantly more PP than a 97% HD score, despite the latter having a higher score. In such cases, the No Mod SS should be considered as the player's "best play" rather than the HD score (only in terms of PP calculation). A score should only be overwritten if the new score rewards more PP.
Thanks for reading!
Topic Starter
No-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
Just a few quick Yes/No questions (I didn't read the whole thread, so they may have been answered already)
1. Do you gain a different amount of PP depending on where you hit your 100s/50s (i.e. near the end/beginning)?
Sadly no. In the case that per-HitObject data is available this will change, but it's currently not possible.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
1.b. If no, are you still rewarded by highly weighted maps even if you perform poorly on the actual "highly weighted part", but play perfectly for the easier sections?
It doesn't count as a miss, but as a 100. However it indirectly reduces your gained pp by breaking your combo.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
2. Does a sliderbreak count as a miss? (i.e. would a 99% S with a sliderbreak be worth significantly more than a 99% A with a miss?)
Spinners are included as having to aim to the center and move a big. They are pretty much negligible. SpunOut multiplies the pp you gain from that particular score by 0.95.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
3. Are spinners included in the PP formula? Also, would Spun Out affect your PP gain?
If they have the same difficulty, then yes.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
4. On the osu!tp info page it mentioned that the speed value is affected by map length. Does this mean (in general) longer maps such as marathons will reward more PP than a shorter map?
It's planned, but for now all the "readability" that pp considers is ApproachRate.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
Suggestions:
1. Could readability also count towards map difficulty?
AR below 8 and above 10 already give bonuses. The bonus below 8 is further amplified by Hidden.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
2. Although the vast majority would agree that a map with a higher AR is much harder and hence HR should be rewarded as such (also due to the increased values in OD, CS and Drain), most people I have spoken to would also agree that an AR lower than the recommended map AR is also much harder. Hence the order of difficulty would somewhere be along the lines of HR >>> EZ > No Mod.
My suggestion would be to keep the PP reduction for the lowered OD and Drain, but re-evaluate how AR and CS contribute to map difficulty.
Not getting a 300 on a slider is heavily penalized by the way sliders are "excluded" when speaking about accuracy. You're right, that it would make sense to give them some small value still, I'll think about how to properly add that into the equation.-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
3. Another suggestion is to make sliders contribute to accuracy to... some extent. Although I agree it's a free 300 most of the time, getting a 300 should still reward something, and not getting a 300 should give some form of penalty. This map (http://osutp.net/scores?bid=66941) probably isn't the best example, but as of now the PP rewarded for HDDTHR is worth less than a No Mod SS on most 4~5 star maps.
Currently this is not possible due to technical limitations, but who knows what the future brings...-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
4. One more suggestion is (if possible) to calculate the PP gained from a map based on the score which gives the most PP, and not simply the highest score. For most maps, a No Mod SS is worth significantly more PP than a 97% HD score, despite the latter having a higher score. In such cases, the No Mod SS should be considered as the player's "best play" rather than the HD score (only in terms of PP calculation). A score should only be overwritten if the new score rewards more PP.
I personally would love to see this.You're welcome!-ArmoredTitan- wrote:
Thanks for reading!
Topic Starter
Some additional info for everyone. The pp formula has been slightly changed and your pp and rank will be fluctuating a bit in the next ~48 hours. Please be patient until the re-calculation is done and be easy on me with your complaints. 
I'm going to wait till that disgusting B rank in my top ranks will disappear.
Suddenly we see the Tom94 in top50 ranks.Tom94 wrote:
Some additional info for everyone. The pp formula has been slightly changed and your pp and rank will be fluctuating a bit in the next ~48 hours. Please be patient until the re-calculation is done and be easy on me with your complaints.
Ohh, interesting.
I'm really interested to see the algorithm since I've been moved down ranks (even though im a DT player) and other DT players have gone up in ranks xD so confused!
EDIT: Nevermind, It updated and I went up ranks
no confuserino
EDIT: Nevermind, It updated and I went up ranks
no confuserino
Topic Starter
I'll drop out again, when everyone has been updated, don't worry. Somehow I knew someone would end up pointing stuff like that out... <-<Plaatinum wrote:
Suddenly we see the Tom94 in top50 ranks.Tom94 wrote:
Some additional info for everyone. The pp formula has been slightly changed and your pp and rank will be fluctuating a bit in the next ~48 hours. Please be patient until the re-calculation is done and be easy on me with your complaints.
FL has been buffed... will see if it is enough.CXu wrote:
@Tom94 Just thought I'd link back to my post since you might've missed it or something (orsuperignoremakingmesad.) Since you've changed the algorithm though, maybe stuff have changed already.
p/2854921
Recalculate points pls.
After update i had 4800pp (4351-->4800)
Then i pass one map and i lost 639 pp (4800-->4361)
as if I have gained points to the old pps(4351+10)
Something is wrong :/
After update i had 4800pp (4351-->4800)
Then i pass one map and i lost 639 pp (4800-->4361)
as if I have gained points to the old pps(4351+10)
Something is wrong :/
Topic Starter
Don't worry, things will stabilize soon enough. The initial gigantic rise in ranks was not intended and has been fixed.K_N wrote:
Recalculate points pls.
After update i had 4800pp (4351-->4800)
Then i pass one map and i lost 639 pp (4800-->4361)
as if I have gained points to the old pps(4351+10)
Something is wrong :/
How long will the full re-calculation take? and how different is the new formula from the previous one?
Got a pleasant boost in ranks so I don't mind if the rankings stay as they are lol
Same thing happened to me, but remember thatK_N wrote:
Recalculate points pls.
After update i had 4800pp (4351-->4800)
Then i pass one map and i lost 639 pp (4800-->4361)
as if I have gained points to the old pps(4351+10)
Something is wrong :/
Tom94 wrote:
...your pp and rank will be fluctuating a bit in the next ~48 hours. Please be patient until the re-calculation is done and be easy on me with your complaints.
Are the updates mostly done now? And do you have a changelog of what you've been doing with pp (Nvm checked official changelog). Or are you waiting to make stuff like that public until the algorithm goes public?
pp got recalculated, your post = qq.
lol
I was top 500 for a few hours :> then I went back to my old pp value - 3 :<
[qq]i'm lower than the initial pp i started with[/qq]
Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one categoryWas it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
If you actually read before...Myke B wrote:
Was it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
It's the same categories as in tp.Almost wrote:
It means if the song is difficult to aim or accuracy or requires a great deal of speed but not difficult in the other categories, then it'll give more pp.tastystew wrote:
wait what i just gained 190pp what happened
what does the recent change to pp actually mean?
" Performance: [Tom94] Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one category."
I think it means that if a score has 2 low value tiers and 1 really high tier that it will be weighted more than it was before. e.g. a map with 200 aim, 20 speed, 20 accuracy was weighted 240 before, now its worth 280, but its just a guess.Myke B wrote:
Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one categoryWas it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
Is this still half fixed?
Because Yesterday I went from 560ish>615 and my friend went from 660ish>804, And now I'm back at 551 and my friend is still at 804?
Because Yesterday I went from 560ish>615 and my friend went from 660ish>804, And now I'm back at 551 and my friend is still at 804?
buny wrote:
[qq]i'm lower than the initial pp i started with[/qq]