^this
forum
pp: new ranking system
posted
Total Posts
990
Something that would be nice eventually would be to see our change of pp over time especially if PP doesn't go real time. Like if I could go to my profile or something and see how much pp I've lost or gained in the last day or week or some other time frame. It would make it so I wouldn't have to write down the number at every update to gauge my overall progress of how much number wise I've been improving. Thanks for all the work so far on it. 
I was thinking the same way.darkmiz wrote:
I prefer the performance rank to show up in our user profile instead of score rank.
jakeisquite bad at choosing good anime. But he brings up a good point about seeing change in pp. I support this idea!
accuracy is considered.
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU, my accuracy just sucks =(
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU, my accuracy just sucks =(
I still wonder how does the decay work, does it work on 24 hour intervals or per update? Seeing I lost another point (which makes it 2 in the past 24 hours). Not that I care that much about it, I am still curious about the system though. 
I plan on having a graph in profiles showing pp over time (but I want to fix up all the graphs in the process, hopefully this weekend).
Decay works based on absolute time relative since your scores were recorded.
Decay works based on absolute time relative since your scores were recorded.
absolute... time... relative...
and we bring about the physics professors to decrypt this!
and we bring about the physics professors to decrypt this!
peppy wrote:
I plan on having a graph in profiles showing pp over time (but I want to fix up all the graphs in the process, hopefully this weekend).
Decay works based on absolute time relative since your scores were recorded.
Does this apply for scores achieved before the system was in place?
i.e. Were you logging date of achievement for scores since the beginning of osu!, or do they all start from when pp was introduced?
@ Yodasnipe: abs(Δt)
| <------------------ time ------------> |
score set now
dates are there hover over a replay.
Huh.YodaSnipe wrote:
dates are there hover over a replay.
I never noticed that.
(brb, re-FC'ing Neomax)
Does that include fixing/displaying recently played/most played beatmaps?peppy wrote:
I plan on having a graph in profiles showing pp over time (but I want to fix up all the graphs in the process, hopefully this weekend).
Thanks for clearing that up. Less skilled players are indeed likely to have a good number of top 1,000s especially because not all of the maps are played as much.peppy wrote:
Currently scores that rank in the top 1,000 of each difficulty are considered. I figure this is already more than ample.Sakisan2 wrote:
I don't think this system only takes into account plays that placed top x. (with x being whatever)
It wouldn't be able to rank people that have no, or very few, top x ranks.
If I may continue taking guesses, I'd say the difficulty-weighting of a map is also defined by the all the players having scores on that map. The map you mention was approved yesterday, so it hasn't as many skilled players in its top 1,000 as other approved maps. I'm sure your plays on this map will have more effect on your pp when your plays can be compared to more players.Tom94 wrote:
Ranked on several difficulties, but gained no pp at all.
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/40344
Is the evaluation of approved maps maybe broken or does it only count maps which exist for some time already?
(unless the map turns out to be really hard and not many players are actually able to make a score, but that would be also clear to see in the score made by other players)
Tom's observation was also before the stats were even updated.
You do not worry about farming?peppy wrote:
Disclosure of the system will come with time.ReVeNg3r wrote:
peppy i think do not tell people what to do to rank up because of abusing...
I think this is awesome, now we know where we actually stand. And personally I will have something further to work towards once I've finished all the maps.
I'm still puzzled by this new ranking system.
Does the amount of maps that you have passed matters?
And I just can't understand how can a player played a few hundred times can reach a high level at about #9000. I even can't see any amazing records in his recent history(actually, it has nothing in it)
Does the amount of maps that you have passed matters?
And I just can't understand how can a player played a few hundred times can reach a high level at about #9000. I even can't see any amazing records in his recent history(actually, it has nothing in it)
On the "Performance" ranking list, having pp difference for the "minus pp numbers" is not a good idea. I would rather see how many points they have earned/reduced instead.
On off-topic note, the Performance Ranking on our profile has thousand separator, while the Ranked Score ranking is not.
On off-topic note, the Performance Ranking on our profile has thousand separator, while the Ranked Score ranking is not.
If the system becomes possible to farm when people understands how it works, then it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do. Players will eventually somewhat guess how this works in a few months, the fact that peppy is saying he will explain how it works just means he is confident about it not being a farming system.ReVeNg3r wrote:
you do not worry about farming?
Tom69_old
The number was when they started updating, thus not accurate unless you were in the top few.
If decay works on existing old scores compared to new scores made in the top1000, and considers the decay difference between players with higher pp and lower pp from when their scores were set... I think you must be using a supercomputer to do your calculations.
Say Joe Soap sets a 2009 score, and only now in 2012 Joe Bloggs beats it, will it reward Joe Bloggs less pp for that?
The calculations took like 4 days at first, it's gotta be something like this, right?
Say Joe Soap sets a 2009 score, and only now in 2012 Joe Bloggs beats it, will it reward Joe Bloggs less pp for that?
The calculations took like 4 days at first, it's gotta be something like this, right?
Tom69_old
Peppy mentioned today in the #osu chat that a Hidden SS score is better than a 96% Hidden+DoubleTime score in terms of Performance Points by about 50%. I'd just like to point out that if this is truly the case and it remains, this ranking system will be inaccurate for a number of reasons.
The main reasons are that the actual score and individual map ranking offered by Hidden+DoubleTime scores are quite a bit higher and it is typically much more difficult to achieve a 96% Hidden+DoubleTime score than a 100% score with Hidden in most beatmaps (e.g. Cookiezi's score on http://osu.ppy.sh/b/95360 as opposed to ragelewa's). Because of these two reasons, skilled players will typically strive to set low-accuracy Hidden+DoubleTime scores as opposed to high-accuracy Hidden ones, even if a number outside of the actual score tells them that they are doing worse.
Another flaw in this system of ranking is that because Hidden SS scores are worth less points than a Hidden+DoubleTime score with low accuracy, it is impossible to "fix" Performance Points by replacing a former Hidden+DoubleTime score with a normal Hidden score. This means that even if a player wants to increase his or her Performance Points after setting a higher score, he or she will be unable to. This will make moderately skilled players who can hit accurately lower ranked in terms of Performance Points than high-level players like Cookiezi and White Wolf who set ridiculous 95% Hidden+DoubleTime scores, at least for some individual maps.
I won't be able to take this ranking system seriously if accuracy is so important to it.
The main reasons are that the actual score and individual map ranking offered by Hidden+DoubleTime scores are quite a bit higher and it is typically much more difficult to achieve a 96% Hidden+DoubleTime score than a 100% score with Hidden in most beatmaps (e.g. Cookiezi's score on http://osu.ppy.sh/b/95360 as opposed to ragelewa's). Because of these two reasons, skilled players will typically strive to set low-accuracy Hidden+DoubleTime scores as opposed to high-accuracy Hidden ones, even if a number outside of the actual score tells them that they are doing worse.
Another flaw in this system of ranking is that because Hidden SS scores are worth less points than a Hidden+DoubleTime score with low accuracy, it is impossible to "fix" Performance Points by replacing a former Hidden+DoubleTime score with a normal Hidden score. This means that even if a player wants to increase his or her Performance Points after setting a higher score, he or she will be unable to. This will make moderately skilled players who can hit accurately lower ranked in terms of Performance Points than high-level players like Cookiezi and White Wolf who set ridiculous 95% Hidden+DoubleTime scores, at least for some individual maps.
I won't be able to take this ranking system seriously if accuracy is so important to it.
You are wrong on all accounts. Go shoot yourself.
does the new system detect the hardest map too?
there are some maps like this, so yeah
there are some maps like this, so yeah
But, no I'm not. Everything that I said in that post is true, except for maybe the final point (the one about being unable to "fix" scores), assuming that this system only accepts the play that offers the highest number of Performance Points for ranking. Because every other stat in this game only accepts the play with the highest score, I assume the same is true with this new ranking system.
only counting top40s is insufficient...this is inaccurate,i see there some better players below me..also is true that when they play unrankable they can´t rank up..
Please read, and don't assume.
wtf did I just readReVeNg3r wrote:
only counting top40s is insufficient...this is inaccurate,i see there some better players below me..also is true that when they play unrankable they can´t rank up..
So what does it mean if I'm losing 1 or 2 points every update, even if I'm active?
Cookiezi doesn't even play, so it's unreasonable to demand that he stays at #1. Everyone knows that he's #1 in skill so it doesn't matter.
I don't think it's too much to ask for the best player to be #1, regardless of inactivity. If it's required to play new maps to become #1, then it'd mean farming is possible in this ranking system.
I can't speak for the actual PP system, but if I was designing a system to meet the requirements presented, then in addition to just playing the game to gain (or maintain rank), the plays would have to be statistically relevant by some metric. Meaning that you'd need to be proving that your rank should be higher, which would require playing maps that are sufficiently hard (or modified to be) for your current rank and then playing them well enough to prove that you dominate them. Playing maps well beneath your level would never be worth anything (ie only people with a really low rating would gain anything from going around top ranking Normals, and they'd very quickly run into a wall... making farming meaningless).BlazingFX wrote:
So what does it mean if I'm losing 1 or 2 points every update, even if I'm active?
Of course, there's also the issue right now that I'd be wary about comparing things from update to update, because we don't know when or how the system might have been adjusted (but it seems to be stable for the last few). But you may still want to experiment by playing some harder maps and seeing if things don't turn around.
It's too much to ask. He quit playing. If we think about it that way, WW is the best player right now (just because he actually plays). Cookiezi is the best player ever, but comparing a player who doesn't play anymore to players who play, is just silly.Kyou-kun wrote:
I don't think it's too much to ask for the best player to be #1, regardless of inactivity. If it's required to play new maps to become #1, then it'd mean farming is possible in this ranking system.