VelperK wrote:

This favors FL, easier to SS than DT

Then how is bonus priority?
SS > Pefect(not SS) > FC(missing slider end) ?

I hope flashlight gives no extra pp, only being rewarding due to the higher rank you get (while doubletime would give extra pp on top of that)

Giving people more pp because they got an SS is the exact same as giving people an extra multiplier for using sudden death.

jesse1412 wrote:

Giving people more pp because they got an SS is the exact same as giving people an extra multiplier for using sudden death.

Not really.

Thats just bad comparison from jesse.

A play with one or two 100s isn't worth significantly less than an SS.

I don't really see how it's a bad comparison. You are already rewarded for getting your SS by having a higher rank on the map which on its own gives more pp - if this isn't already a good enough reward it's probably because other people used mods in which case so should you rather than being rewarded for getting an easy SS. If someone plays a map with sudden death and passes they shouldn't get an extra reward for doing it. It's the same with SS, if you manage it congratulations you got 1 or 2 less 100's; This doesn't warrant an additional boost in pp.

jesse1412 wrote:

I don't really see how it's a bad comparison. You are already rewarded for getting your SS by having a higher rank on the map which on its own gives more pp - if this isn't already a good enough reward it's probably because other people used mods in which case so should you rather than being rewarded for getting an easy SS. If someone plays a map with sudden death and passes they shouldn't get an extra reward for doing it. It's the same with SS, if you manage it congratulations you got 1 or 2 less 100's; This doesn't warrant an additional boost in pp.

In most of the cases 96%~ hidden is already ahead of a nomod SS. In rank comparison atleast. Since we don't exactly know how PP works we can't really compare by how much. We just know now that the SS is actually worth extra compared to nomod FC. We still don't know how much extra though, and it's probably not that noticeably much.

jesse1412 wrote:

I don't really see how it's a bad comparison. You are already rewarded for getting your SS by having a higher rank on the map which on its own gives more pp - if this isn't already a good enough reward it's probably because other people used mods in which case so should you rather than being rewarded for getting an easy SS. If someone plays a map with sudden death and passes they shouldn't get an extra reward for doing it. It's the same with SS, if you manage it congratulations you got 1 or 2 less 100's; This doesn't warrant an additional boost in pp.

Well, getting 1 miss shouldn't be punished as much as well then? ~

i think jesses point is the difference between 1 100 and 0 100s is the same as the difference of 50 100s and 51 100s, purely the acc and score difference is reward enough

nrii wrote:

i think jesses point is the difference between 1 100 and 0 100s is the same as the difference of 50 100s and 51 100s, purely the acc and score difference is reward enough

This essentially is what I'm trying to say.

having 0x 100 means you have perfect accuracy, having 1 means you lost that perfect accuracy.
having 50x 100 or having 51x 100 both means your accuracy sucks
its the fact that you performed the song glawlessly that makes it better

silmarilen wrote:

having 0x 100 means you have perfect accuracy, having 1 means you lost that perfect accuracy.
having 50x 100 or having 51x 100 both means your accuracy sucks
its the fact that you performed the song glawlessly that makes it better

that's in theory
but the system doesn't take into account the amount of retries people do for their ranks, and I've seen how people play in spec
here is what it's really like

0x 100 - 99% of the time - means you cared enough to grind the same map for an hour until you had an SS run on it

If the system actually took into account the amount of retries people had on maps you'd be able to say stuff like "this guy had an SS on this on his first try, he's actually good!", but with the current system scores are more a display of effort/time than skill. Someone can have a ton of really good accuracy scores simply because he grinds the same maps over and over again, and if you'd watch his average run on a map his accuracy would actually blow. If you're ignoring the amount of retries, weighting values for corner cases should be moderated.

The PP system also doesn't (or at least so is being claimed) reduce points for bad plays, only give points for good plays, which supports even more grinding for accuracy over actually being good at being accurate. If you'd lose points for bad plays grinding would be impossible and how accurate a player is would actually show. I do think not reducing points for bad plays has some merit because reduction might discourage players from playing stuff that is hard for them due to fear of losing points, but the fact remains that if this is how you want your system to work you just can't poll information like this and expect it to be anywhere near real representation of skill.

The old scores system measured effort and time. The current way PP works, also, measures effort and time spent, over actual skill. A real skill-based system would give a lot of players very bad ranking until they'd actually learn to play better, and apparently people just can't handle it. A number on the internet dictates your worth as a circle-clicking human oh god no. PP just tries to round corners and by doing so it doesn't make sense and doesn't live up to its premise.

Irregardless of how many times you tried to get the score, you still got it, meaning thats what you are able to do, and that result is what you'll get the points for. Counting the amount of times it took you to reach the goal and cutting it off the PP you gain would be quite silly, in my opinion at least.

Trying to achieve a good accuracy is in a way improving, so you're in a way asking for people who take longer time to achieve improvement to get less of a reward? Skill comes with practice, you know.

Aqo wrote:

The old scores system measured effort and time. The current way PP works, also, measures effort and time spent, over actual skill.

i agree to an extent, but pp goes A DAMN LONG WAY to being skill based in comparison to old ranks. obviousl a system will ALWAYS require effort and time, such as the world chess ratings; you cant just beat the current world top and then you are the world top. you have to work your way up through tournaments and gain rating, regardless of how good you were to begin with.( though i believe you can play at a higher level if you want to and gain faster but thats same as jumping into high level insanes and going to 4k pp in a day)

all rating systems require effort and time to increase your rating to its true level, but skill is the limiting factor (unlike old score where skill wasnt an issue (atleast for most decent players))

boat wrote:

Irregardless of how many times you tried to get the score, you still got it, meaning thats what you are able to do, and that result is what you'll get the points for. Counting the amount of times it took you to reach the goal and cutting it off the PP you gain would be quite silly, in my opinion at least.

Trying to achieve a good accuracy is in a way improving, so you're in a way asking for people who take longer time to achieve improvement to get less of a reward?

The thing is, you ARE improving by practicing that, but the actual amount of skill you end up with varies. A person who grinded a map until getting an SS run on it will still not be able to get an SS every time he plays it again, while a person who got that SS in just one or two tries will be able to get it again many times with ease. That's why the amount of tries has to affect your /skill/ rating. If the person who grinded that map actually got good enough to SS all maps of that level on his first try, good for him! The moment he plays some other maps it will show on his skill rating. But if he keeps getting mediocre accuracies in most of his tries, while somebody else gets good accuracies in very little tries, this should show - or else as mentioned earlier, the system would rate effort and not skill.

nrii mentioned chess ratings. In ELO, it both goes up based on your success and down based on your failures, that's why it correctly rates skill. Yes, you need to put effort into actually playing to get information to be polled for the system, but the way it works makes sense and ensures sensible results.

It makes sense but I don't agree, as its not at all more fair. You still tried a lot to achieve it, and if you did, you're to be rewarded for it, and not get less of a reward for that it took time. And it will in any case in the long run very well show off a significant difference between one who can SS things first try and one who takes a hundred tries to do so. Its another thing if the person who can SS it first try is actually better on whats harder then the map in question, but then its up to said person to show that.

Gettign SS no mods is probabbly easier if you are good enough to do so, and not doing so involves less skill so i find it logical, but regarding the same maps with DT HD perse, doing SS probabbly will require more grinding than skill imo, atleast for personal experience.

Quick question that's probably been answered before but I can't find it.

What happens if you break a combo while still smashing your top rank score's accuracy? Does the accuracy help at all?

Quick explanation:

Previous top rank is an FC of 785 with 96% acc and it's ranked #23. You get bonus points for the FC.
Current rank you break combo at 600 with 99% acc ranked around #300. You don't get bonus points for FC.

The previous rank will still win out because of how much higher the rank is and the fact that it's an FC.

Now if you have lets say:

Previous top rank is an FC of 785 with 96% acc and it's ranked #23. You get bonus points for the FC.
Current rank you break combo at 780 with 99% acc and it's ranked #20. You still don't get FC bonus points.

In this case I have no idea which would win out because I don't know the exact formula. One has the higher accuracy and rank, but the other has the FC bonus. Now some people might say the accuracy should win some might say the FC should win.

Also, if anyone knows anymore about this type of situation feel free to enlighten me as well. I don't really look into PP that much I just play and watch my points rise lol.

My PP graph used to look cool, but now it doesn't.

Thanks for the explanation JAKANYAN

I wanted bonus points

I've found the performance points an interesting addition but I /think/ the distribution/awarding of points is still beta level and has room for thought out tweaks.

I guess I said it often enough already so this will be the last time, this time in detail though:

Why would SS or accuracy or "Perfect" earn you extra PP? This doesn't make any sense!
Having SS earns you a higher map rank over non-SS.
Having higher accuracy earns you a higher map rank over lower accuracy.
Having a "Perfect" earns you a higher map rank over non-"perfect" (because of higher combo obv.).

So why in god's name take those factors into account a 2nd time?
All this is achieving is favoring ranks on

1. easier-to-fc maps (because of "Perfect" bonus)
2. lower OD maps (because of SS and accuracy bonus)

(actually, you indirectly DO take map heuristics into account with doing this, peppy. Even though you said you wouldn't want to. :p)

And because of this players who rank a lot on Hards are put unnaturally high in the list. I'll just take ShadowSoul as an example (no offense ShadowSoul. You are an awesome player, but your rank 10 is ridiculous.)
Just look at this: There are only hard diffs (except of one "expert" and "insane" one)!

Now for the people who say

Then go and take them if it's so easy.

I already did for testing. It took me 10 minutes. I raised my pp by 25 and my rank increased from 40 to 35. With one #1 rank on a hard diff! (meanwhile my rank decreased by a bit through that new SS bonus though.)
It's not fun to grind SS (or 99.99999999% plays) on easier Hard diffs by memorizing the slow patterns. For people who actually want to rank on more challenging stuff this is a problem.

I repeat: No offense. ShadowSoul also got a bunch of awesome ranks. He is an awesome player. But those awesome ranks I know from him aren't even shown under the best performance tab while other easier ranks make him get a ridiculously high rank. In god's name, he is claimed on par with wobeinimacao, Remilia-Scarlet, even as better than Niko-. Please note that this is just an example. There are many other issues with the order.

Before the "perfect" bonus and the SS bonus were added the ranking was a lot better in terms of skill. And I am quite sure that if the additional accuracy-rating is being adjusted (mainly lowered) that the PP ranking would improve further.

Tom94 wrote:

I guess I said it often enough already so this will be the last time, this time in detail though:

Why would SS or accuracy or "Perfect" earn you extra PP? This doesn't make any sense!
Having SS earns you a higher map rank over non-SS.
Having higher accuracy earns you a higher map rank over lower accuracy.
Having a "Perfect" earns you a higher map rank over non-"perfect" (because of higher combo obv.).

So why in god's name take those factors into account a 2nd time?
All this is achieving is favoring ranks on

1. easier-to-fc maps (because of "Perfect" bonus)
2. lower OD maps (because of SS and accuracy bonus)

And because of this players who rank a lot on Hards are put unnaturally high in the list. I'll just take ShadowSoul as an example (no offense ShadowSoul. You are an awesome player, but your rank 10 is ridiculous.)
Just look at this:

only hard diffs

There are only hard diffs (except of one "expert" and "insane" one)!

Now for the people who say

Then go and take them if it's so easy.

I already did for testing. It took me 10 minutes. I raised my pp by 25 and my rank increased from 40 to 35. With one #1 rank on a hard diff! (meanwhile my rank decreased by a bit through that new SS bonus though.)
It's not fun to grind SS (or 99.99999999% plays) on easier Hard diffs by memorizing the slow patterns. For people who actually want to rank on more challenging stuff this is a problem.

I repeat: No offense. ShadowSoul also got a bunch of awesome ranks. He is an awesome player. But those awesome ranks I know from him aren't even shown under the best performance tab while other easier ranks make him get a ridiculously high rank. In god's name, he is claimed on par with wobeinimacao, Remilia-Scarlet, even as better than Niko-. Please note that this is just an example. There are many other issues with the order.

Before the "perfect" bonus and the SS bonus were added the ranking was a lot better in terms of skill. And I am quite sure that if the additional accuracy-rating is being adjusted (mainly lowered) that the PP ranking would improve further.

I agree with this 100%.

I was with Tom94 when he did this and I actually did it myself and gained about 6 ranks in a matter of 30 minutes if that.

Something really needs to be changed because like Tom has said although these are good players some of their ranks are just a little too inflated.

The problem isn't completely the fact that accuracy earns "bonus" pp. The biggest issue is that a lot of "Hard" difficulties seem to be worth significantly more than their Insane counterparts, and there doesn't seem to be much of a real pattern to which maps are worth so much.

In general, the "Hard" difficulties are more worthwhile to play for a number of reasons:

1. Large number of scores from "average" people playing that difficulty because they can't pass Insane maps. Thus, high "contention".
2. Very few "pro" players bother to even play the Hard, so it's very easy to rank top 10 or better with only HD or HD/HR or DT at < OD7.
3. It's very difficult to get top 10 on Insane maps AND get high accuracy, because this usually requires playing HR or DT on something that's OD8 or higher.
4. The mysterious "map difficulty" modifier is still rating these maps pretty high.

A couple examples I found:

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/53700 - Hard is very easy to play HD + HR and is worth so much that there's no reason to even touch the insane.
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/49069 - Again, play Hard with HD + HR. Note how the guy in first has this map as his top play and is ranked overall #24. Don't bother with Lunatic, as no one who played that has it in their top 10, not even the guys with overall rank 200+.

The easiest way to gain points is by clicking around random people's profiles to find hard difficulties that happen to be worth a ridiculous amount, then just playing those. Or just find maps in which the highest difficulty is easy to get 99% with DT + HD, since such a score will be high accuracy AND probably get around top 10.

Here are a couple more maps worth a stupidly large number of points:

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/64909&m=0
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/48646?m=0

I have an SS on the Hard of http://osu.ppy.sh/s/50143 and an 98.75% accuracy FC on its Insane. This got me rank 154 on the Insane and 113 on the Hard. In other words, their ranks are close enough that the Insane should surely give me more pp, right? The Hard has a slightly higher rank and better accuracy, but the difficulty should surely offset it, right? It's not a particularly hard Insane, mind you, but it's still a crapton harder than the Hard.

Wrong. The Insane definitely gave me some pp, but its not in my Best Performances while my SS on the Hard is shining brightly there. Basically, I think Tom has a very good point here. Though, in Butter-Fly's case it's probably both the SS and how the Hard has a lot more submitted scores than the Insane, but the point remains.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Lybydose.

It's just that now we need a new and improved star rating calculation system
Yeah, it's not very fun to find out that some [Hard] or just any random easy [Insane] give you tons of PP but something like KIRBY Mix Compilation give you almost no PP
(I think I got 0 for improving my rank there, I was #30 or something before)
But stuff like this suddenly gave me ~30 PP for 1 100 fl-hd

peppy wrote:

The second-time factors are to rewards certain gameplay attempts over others — specifically devaluing the over-valued mod additions.

But isn't this taking map heuristics like OD into account? Higher OD on the same map -> everyone got lower accuracy -> everyone got lower PP regardless of quality of performance. This also applies to SS scores of course.
Also I would like to ask: Is accuracy taken into account as we see it (in %) or as an absolute offset in MS?

Also: Those "overvalued" mod additions are necessary to rank high anyways there days. You will find a very small amount of maps where the top6 doesn't consist of mod users. And to get really high amounts of PP only top6 scores really are worth something.

In the end this attempt wouldn't devalue the mods but the diff in my opinion. SS or high accuracy are easier to achieve on the lower diffs while one can still rank high with mods. Again, indirect usage of map heuristics. However in the completely wrong direction. Easier map + same contention -> better pp.


If I got some base facts about pp wrong please correct me.

peppy wrote:

Easier map = exponentially less pp = doesn't matter.

Would you mind telling us how the system detects easier maps if not through contention / map heuristics?

peppy wrote:

Think stuff like sparsity of scores relative to highest SS, ratio of SS to S to poorer ranks, pass ratios.

Also consider that it isn't all about finding the most insanely hard maps (though this would be optimal); higher played maps should inherently be considered more because they are more prominent in the community. It doesn't matter so much if they are "only" hard, because if you are a good player you will also be able to do well in these maps. That said, I do plan on making continual adjustments until a consensus is reached that we have a long-term usable solution.

For speculation, I can tell your the currently highest pp-ranked map is http://osu.ppy.sh/b/21010

Thanks for the inside info.
I once again was too stupid too read your edit:

@Lybydose: thanks for the examples provided. I found an edge case which causes hards to get highly prioritised where they shouldn't be. Will make amendments which will propagate tomorrow.

Hoping to see things go better tomorrow. :>

Tom94 wrote:

Would you mind telling us how the system detects easier maps if not through contention / map heuristics?

peppy wrote:

Think stuff like sparsity of scores relative to highest SS, ratio of SS to S to poorer ranks, pass ratios.

Also consider that it isn't all about finding the most insanely hard maps (though this would be optimal); higher played maps should inherently be considered more because they are more prominent in the community. It doesn't matter so much if they are "only" hard, because if you are a good player you will also be able to do well in these maps.

Sparsity of scores cannot be used to evaluate difficulty or anything at all because of the simple reason that not everybody plays every map. It was already mentioned multiple times and yet it seems like you choose to disregard this.

Lybydose wrote:

the "Hard" difficulties are more worthwhile to play for a number of reasons:

1. Large number of scores from "average" people playing that difficulty because they can't pass Insane maps. Thus, high "contention".
2. Very few "pro" players bother to even play the Hard, so it's very easy to rank top 10 or better with only HD or HD/HR or DT at < OD7.
3. It's very difficult to get top 10 on Insane maps AND get high accuracy, because this usually requires playing HR or DT on something that's OD8 or higher.

You said you've taken Lybydose's post into account, but when saying things like "because if you are a good player you will also be able to do well in these maps" it seems like you don't fully comprehend what was being said. There are maps that almost nobody can "do well on", a few examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/29691 - 323117 plays, 12 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41686 - 240405 plays, 7 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/34097 - 190070 plays, 15 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/32661 - 62063 plays, 10 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/48979 - 44550 plays, 9 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/37292 - 49767 plays, 12 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/45528 - 37345 plays, 6 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/34348 - 122467 plays, only about 30 plays with over 90% accuracy
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/142772&m=0 - 43564 plays, very few people with over 95% accuracy
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/27712 - 155553 plays, 11 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/138008&m=0 - 44496 plays, 23 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/152199&m=0 - 56798 plays, 21 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/127047&m=0 - 109244 plays, 19 FCs
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/119021&m=0 - 87665 plays, 24 FCs

All of those are popular maps and yet nobody can seem to FC them (except for a few top players, who had to work very hard for it) or get high accuracy. With a system that gives extra point for FC and SS or even S you're basically telling people "don't bother playing maps that are actually hard, you won't get rewarded for those at all. Instead go ahead and play many easy maps with a popular song where a lot of new players had bad plays".

sparsity of scores relative to highest SS... using sparsity of scores makes no sense at all if you ignore who those scores are coming from and the amount of retries. Easy maps (and by this I mean, all of the [Hard]s and all of the low-bpm and low-od [Insane]s) are going to have way more plays on them, simply because more people are going to try playing them at all (compared to actually-hard maps), and yet those more-plays will usually be lower quality plays for the same reason - that they're being played by newer/inexperienced players. The end result is that those easy maps reward a ton of pp because pp thinks that if a lot of people tried a map and did poorly on it it must mean that map is hard; but no, it usually just means that map is easy and thus more accessible for a bigger playerbase.

Also, since the system doesn't take into account amount of retries taken to get a score, low OD maps are waaaaaaay easier to get pp on than high OD ones, because if you just grind a low-od map enough times you will be able to get good accuracy on it for free, meanwhile on a high OD map you won't get good accuracy no matter how much you retry until you actually get good at being accurate.

There's also the fact that high end players would usually not want to play the easier maps at all because they're boring to them, which means that getting a high-rank on those is again waaaaay easier because even if the amount of plays is really high the true contention you're dealing with on those maps is very low - by this I mean, there's less players you actually have to pass for that high rank because there's less players who actually play good enough to get that top rank who care to actually play that map and get that top rank on it. If you told WW, Niko, Silvia, etc, to play a bunch of [Hard] maps and try to aim for a top rank on those they'd be able to get it very easily and that would knock out a ton of people who previously had top ranks on that [Hard], but since the top players are not going to waste their time on playing maps that don't challenge them for a rank it means that other mid-range players can get a top rank on those maps for free.

peppy wrote:

The cases you mention where Hard is worth "more" than insane (I checked the provided ones) isn't actually a huge difference

Just don't know how you can say this. There is a huge difference and the examples people have given shows it clearly. All of those combined:

1. PP not taking into account amount of retries
2. Top players not bothering to play every single low-difficulty
3. Most players choosing to play low-difficulties over the higher ones, even if they do poorly them, because they'd do even poorer on the higher ones

Means that if you want to get high PP, you need to play low difficulties where the superficial contention is going to be high due to amount of plays from players who can't handle even that difficulty, and you can just grind those difficulties again and again until you get a good score on them, because even if a better player tries that difficulty he might only try it once, possibly get a random 1x100 or even a miss due to not caring, and not really care to fix that because that map isn't fun for him, and then somebody else who grinds that map for 50-100 times would get a higher score/rank but that doesn't mean he can play better.
Meanwhile on maps where top players are actually going to care to retry a lot, getting good acc or anything close to a top rank will be near impossible, and that means those maps are essentially pointless to play if you want to be ranked unless you're already a top-30 player who can contend with all the other top-30 players who have many retries on those maps.

If you actually want more examples for this, you don't even have to search hard because it's everywhere, just open any top-50 or hell any player at all profile and look at their top plays, there will usually be [Hard] maps there that were probably easy as hell for that player to get a top rank on, and the only reason he bothered to do it is usually because he liked that specific song or whatever; meanwhile a bunch of A/B ranks from actual hard plays that player is capable of doing on maps like what I listed in the earlier part of this post give that player nothing, even if he had to work much harder for those and they take a lot more skill.

;;

To sum this all up: the premise of pp was that it would let you just play whatever you want normally and then rank you correctly based on that.
In reality, pp only ranks correctly (and even that not very) the highest top players who all contend on the same few hardest maps. For everybody else, to get PP you basically need to find maps that are not hard enough to interest the top players, and yet have a popular song that attracts a lot of the general mass to play them, and then grind those maps until you get a better score on them than everybody else who cared enough to grind them.

To put it bluntly, if you want PP you need to farm it. This is just a farmable stat that requires you to farm a few select maps instead of farming many different ones as was with scores. That's it.

---

PP should completely ignore the total amount of plays on a map. This stat is more related to how popular a song is and has nothing to do with contention. If you really want to know how contended a top rank on a map is, you need to check how many top contenders had a lot of retries on it. One map can have 100,000 plays and only 50 of those come from players with the ability to S that map, while another map can have 30,000 plays but 20000 of them would come from much better players than the previous case; the latter should reward you way more, but in practice it's the opposite.

A map like http://osu.ppy.sh/s/48979 is very popular amongst top players, but even getting 80% accuracy or passing it at all is hard for the large majority of the players, and most inexperienced players wouldn't dare to play this at all - in reality it's very contended, and yet PP is just going to ignore most of people's plays on it (due to low accuracy and falling much lower in the ranks under all of the top players' scores on this). Meanwhile there's a ton of old maps with 100k+ plays on them but very few plays from top players (and even if there's a score from a top player, it's probably just an FC he did while setting a minor goal for himself, and not his actual best potential for a play on that map if he cared to practice to rank on it) that give a ton of PP despite realistically much lower contention.

peppy wrote:

I have a suggestion though Aqo: do you want to become the ranking system yourself? Wire yourself in and rate everyone from 1 to 1 million? , updating as close to realtime as possible? This will likely make you happy, though I doubt you'll have time to play anymore.

I play for fun, not for rank. 90% of my plays are on unranked/unapproved maps; I wouldn't care for rank at all if it wasn't for people who, now, look at profile's PP and use that to judge the value of a person's post. It just strikes me odd how you ignore people's constant reports on issues with your system. I tried to point out the key issues and explain them thoroughly to make it as clear as possible just in case other people's posts weren't clear enough for you, but when you reply with messages like:

A lot of what you are saying is incorrect what is? (and is in fact already considered, or contradicting yourself contradicting where? I said the same things 3 times in different ways, and linked a ton of specific rank/score information for you to work with ), but I am not going to join the conversation as I find it counter-productive.

It feels like you're just trying to dodge the issues. Could you stop being vague please? If anything I said is incorrect, then point it out specifically. Everything I wrote is based on actual numbers and information that is publically available and everybody sees. If any of this is wrong then publically shown information must be wrong? Then please show us the hidden numbers you're working with?

Like somebody already said - if PP really wasn't farmable, there would be absolutely no reason to hide how it works - because it would mean that even if we knew how it works we'd have to just play better to get more pp and it would be impossible to farm it.

Right now, you're choosing to hide how PP works, and people have a lot of known ways to farm it (i.e. pick a map for a popular song, grind a low-diff with mods, +pp get). This only leads to one conclusion: PP doesn't work, and PP is farmable. Sorry peppy, it's not that I don't have trust in you, but some of your decisions make no sense and it seems like you try to round corners and avoid certain topics/points. If the huge recent surge in threads with people (and I'm not talking about the new players, this thread is filled with output from top-100 material, look at the previous pages) complaining about PP and even pointing out specific problems with it is not indication for you that something is wrong then I just don't know what to say.


And no, I'm not expecting more replies from you, peppy. I'm hoping to see the thoughts of other players on the matter though.

Thanks, going to go over that spreadsheet over the week.

I'd just like to point something out that just occurred to me, which is related to how scoring and the PP system works with taking into account only good plays and not bad ones:

We have Player A and Player B, playing a map.

Player A first played that map with 89% accuracy and a few miss, and then proceeded to retry that map again and again for several hours, having about 50-100 retries on it, until eventually getting an SS on it. Even despite getting that SS, if Player A kept playing that map he would most likely get 95%-97% accuracy on an average run.

Player B played that map and had 98% accuracy on his first try. He thought he might try going for an SS on it, so he played it again, then getting about 98% again, maybe slightly higher. He then decided this map isn't very fun for him, and moved on.

Who do you think is a more skilled player, A or B?
And who is PP going to rate higher?

Only rewarding good plays and not penalizing for bad plays is one of the main factors that lead PP to rate farming over skill on a lot of the maps. While it's understandable that penalizing bad plays might be demoralizing for all of the players who are not used to competitive ranking boards, the system has to work in a way that makes sense when going with the decision of only taking into account good plays (this is related to worth of SS/S/etc, on different levels of OD. An SS on low OD usually means no more than "farming" and not actual "skill" with the current system and the nature of what maps players choose to play. Rewarding extra for high-accuracy on a system that ignores retries basically rewards extra for farming and for playing easier maps).

Lybydose wrote:

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/64909&m=0

This one is funny because while it's called [Hard], it totally feels like your average Insane to me.

But yeah, it's in my top 3 best performance too for some reason. ;_;

peppy wrote:

https://docs.google.com/a/ppy.sh/spread ... oY0E#gid=0

brb farming

Tom94 wrote:

Having SS earns you a higher map rank over non-SS.

Nah, if you get a SS but spin poorly, non-SS ranks could beat you on the spinner.

Aqo wrote:

We have Player A and Player B, playing a map.

Player A first played that map with 89% accuracy and a few miss, and then proceeded to retry that map again and again for several hours, having about 50-100 retries on it, until eventually getting an SS on it. Even despite getting that SS, if Player A kept playing that map he would most likely get 95%-97% accuracy on an average run.

Player B played that map and had 98% accuracy on his first try. He thought he might try going for an SS on it, so he played it again, then getting about 98% again, maybe slightly higher. He then decided this map isn't very fun for him, and moved on.

Who do you think is a more skilled player, A or B?
And who is PP going to rate higher?

Who is the more skilful player, you judge by yourself.

No one is going to earn pp just sitting there playing nothing, however good they might be.

JappyBabes wrote:

peppy wrote:

https://docs.google.com/a/ppy.sh/spread ... oY0E#gid=0

brb farming

inb4 countless FL ranks pop up outta nowhere

peppy wrote:

making public is not yet possible due to the complexity. i am constantly moving towards that direction, and you will likely see more information as time goes on and the process is refined. people complaining is fine, but we are already in a better state than "ranked score ranks", and i am constantly looking for improvements to the calculation. as i previously said, keep up the feedback, but try and keep it constructive.

here is a fully editable spreadsheet with the top 1000 weighted maps. you're free to leave comments beside beatmaps you feel are out of place or not getting the love they deserve (or follow up in this thread).
https://docs.google.com/a/ppy.sh/spread ... oY0E#gid=0

Now everyone will farm pp doing somehow high-weighted hard diffs S:

@Aqo You must realize that this isn't a potential skill rankings, it's a ranking based on your performances.

Also, airman isn't even on that spreadsheet.

JappyBabes wrote:

@Aqo You must realize that this isn't a potential skill rankings, it's a ranking based on your performances.

Also, airman isn't even on that spreadsheet.

spreadsheet is flawed in general, i know of a few hard maps that will be top or near top on many top 100 players that arent on this list

edit: equally looking at tom94's tops, he has a hd+hr SS on a map that is 327 on this list, lower ranked than a hd+hr non SS of a map that is 409 on this list. the map weighting is lower, hes rank 1 on both, and his acc is higher on bulletproof, so why does the lower weighted map give more pp?

nrii wrote:

JappyBabes wrote:

@Aqo You must realize that this isn't a potential skill rankings, it's a ranking based on your performances.

Also, airman isn't even on that spreadsheet.

spreadsheet is flawed in general, i know of a few hard maps that will be top or near top on many top 100 players that arent on this list

edit: equally looking at tom94's tops, he has a hd+hr SS on a map that is 327 on this list, lower ranked than a hd+hr non SS of a map that is 409 on this list. the map weighting is lower, hes rank 1 on both, and his acc is higher on bulletproof, so why does the lower weighted map give more pp?

Afaik the "best performance" tab isn't ordered. I believe ppy once said something about that.

Tom94 wrote:

Afaik the "best performance" tab isn't ordered. I believe ppy once said something about that.

i've had friends play maps that are my top's and they also appear at the top of their list, it has to be ordered by something

i also had a marisa map on my top, then dropped 2 ranks on it and it moved down by 1 and then off. pretty sure it is ordered by pp.

I actually assume it's ordered as well. My list has been absolutely the same for a long time, until I SS'd Jutenija, when suddenly it came out on top (and gained quite alot of pp for it).

While the spreadsheet might be "flawed" in our eyes, keep in mind that we don't know how pp is calculated, and from what I can tell those maps probably have a much higher contesting rate than others, thus the pp earnings are bigger. I might be wrong though.

I haven't really done anything lately, but my Best Performance is moving itself around lol, and those maps seem kinda old so I don't think contention played a role in it. So idk, doesn't seem to be related to best pp on my list, but I guess we'll see some day.

Aqo wrote:

We have Player A and Player B, playing a map.

Player A first played that map with 89% accuracy and a few miss, and then proceeded to retry that map again and again for several hours, having about 50-100 retries on it, until eventually getting an SS on it. Even despite getting that SS, if Player A kept playing that map he would most likely get 95%-97% accuracy on an average run.

Player B played that map and had 98% accuracy on his first try. He thought he might try going for an SS on it, so he played it again, then getting about 98% again, maybe slightly higher. He then decided this map isn't very fun for him, and moved on.

Who do you think is a more skilled player, A or B?
And who is PP going to rate higher?

You are basically trying to rank people by using one song. The thing is you really can't do that. Even in a perfect pp calculation world, you still need an average of at least several maps. It doesn't really matter if Player B played a few times, got a good score, got a little less pp than Player A, and moved on to either just take a break or play/rank on other maps. If Player B is truly better, he would then be able to get much better scores than Player A on other maps, in which case his PP would clearly show (though I'm still assuming a perfect pp calculation world). Obviously, right now, that may not be the case, but I'm just saying that you can't attribute this to one map... It doesn't matter if on one map a "worse" player obtains a higher rank than you. Secondly, the computer cannot measure your emotional state, and calculating pp by play count is WAY too unreliable. So much crap happens in the real world that could make your play count skyrocket for certain reasons or another (whether emotional or physical (e.g. you are tired or you are depressed, or your mom is being an ass, not that my mom is )

Aqo wrote:

We have Player A and Player B, playing a map.

Player A first played that map with 89% accuracy and a few miss, and then proceeded to retry that map again and again for several hours, having about 50-100 retries on it, until eventually getting an SS on it. Even despite getting that SS, if Player A kept playing that map he would most likely get 95%-97% accuracy on an average run.

Player B played that map and had 98% accuracy on his first try. He thought he might try going for an SS on it, so he played it again, then getting about 98% again, maybe slightly higher. He then decided this map isn't very fun for him, and moved on.

Who do you think is a more skilled player, A or B?
And who is PP going to rate higher?

I don't think someone who can only do 89% can magically get a SS even if playing for 3-5 hours

I think, by tring to get the SS, player A practise a lot on his limits(?), so player A will get more pro, but player B just brush score, and stays the same skill

so pp system is in order to encourage people play for skill~

Really aqo, you're not getting the point. ar3sgice mentioned it already, but I'll have a go at it too. Person B is to not gain more PP than another simply because he is on a higher level than person A, as how well you can do on a map is limited. Rather, its up to said person to if he wants his performance rank to reflect how good of a player he is, its up to him to play and score well on harder maps in order to prove that he is a more skilled player, but the score on a map of said level shouldn't give more or less depending on how long it took for a person to achieve a perfect score.

You know what the irony here is?
Just because this list is now revealed, everyone will play those maps, meaning other maps will receive even less attention. Haha.

inb4 conspiracy theory!

I don't think that popularity should have any effect on the ranking at all.

think about it. if a map is popular, many top players have ranks on it, with mods. yes, if I now play that map, my rank isn't that high, and it would be higher if there weren't that many ranks on it. but does it make me a worse player? no, of course not. your effort is the same, whether the map is popular or not, it doesn't change the actual difficulty of your accomplishment.

a little example here: we take one map, and every player plays his best on this one map. after everybody has done that, we freeze time.
what we now have is an almost exact ranking of skill to that point of time on that specific map. sure, some people played the map more often than others, and luck and momentum is also a random factor, but overall, it is pretty accurate.

in reality, not everyone will play his best on every map, or even play every map. so you might get ranks on maps that you wouldn't achieve if everybody played this map with everything he got. but still, this doesn't make you worse, or others better. it just shows that many people didn't played the map, or only played them no mod.

long story short: the ranks of other players (and so your rank) on a map should not affect the PP, because it takes no additional skill to play a map many others played before you.
I hope my point is somewhat clear, as I had difficulties to really say what i wanted to say

The reason it exists is because if a song is popular, a rank #100 will be worth more than a rank#100 on a non-popular song. On non-popular songs it's easier to get higher ranks, and so rank #1 on some map not many people like to play is not nearly as hard to achieve then #1 on a very popular map (because a lot more pros start playing the map). With that in mind, a rank #10 on that popular should be worth a lot more than rank #1 on some map no one really cares much about. Removing this will probably cause a lot of weird pp changes, probably for the worse (because there are a lot of maps where not as pro people have #1's or top 10's that could mess up the pp rankings)

winber1 wrote:

The reason it exists is because if a song is popular, a rank #100 will be worth more than a rank#100 on a non-popular song. On non-popular songs it's easier to get higher ranks, and so rank #1 on some map very people like to play is not nearly as hard to achieve then #1 on a very popular map (because a lot more pros start playing the map). With that in mind, a rank #10 on that popular should be worth a lot more than rank #1 on some map no one really cares much about. Removing this will probably cause a lot of weird pp changes, probably for the worse (because there are a lot of maps where not as pro people have #1's or top 10's that could mess up the pp rankings)

Just gonna quote this to spare myself some typing. I'm gonna be acting as if the pp algorithm is really simple here, for clarity reasons.

To continue on this, let's take two maps, for example, Bad Apple's hardest diff and a map the simply completely copied that map and got ranked anyhow. We now have a map that get's weighted the same except for the fact that the original Bad Apple has a crazy amount of plays. Now you friggin love Bad Apple so you play both maps to SS but you have a principal distaste towards mods, so it's just gonna be a gold SS.

On the original Bad Apple (I'm gonna be pulling numbers out of my ass now) this would land you on #1230. On the copy-cat map, you're #60. If the popularity of the map wouldn't be taken into account, the new map would be worth a lot more points, you've made it into the top 100 after all! This shows that it wouldn't be fair to treat the maps that way, since you've preformed equally on them. With a modifier for popularity these ranks should give more or less the same amount of pp (again, I'm kind of pulling that out of my ass, but I think that's the ideal reasoning).

The problem right now is that your ranks above 500 won't even get considered. But peppy already told us this will be changed somehow, we just have to wait how exactly this will turn out.

"tons of FCs with high acc, why is it here? because osu"

I really did saw a nightcore at top rankings... But this...

suddenly, 8 new scores appear in the top 40 of lonely dreaming girl

I wonder why it can happen that you improve your score but lose pp? It just happened to me on a song which was in my Best Performance list. I improved my rank and I lost around 20 pp. (I also lost 0,01 accuracy, maybe that's the problem)

lol someone deleted everything

Blue Dragon wrote:

lol someone deleted everything

Yeah. As long as people act like this I doubt anything good can happen out of all of this. :<

Just as I was beating those unfairly high players, this happens... Someone must have had it saved, other than peppy.

// and it's back.

roym899 wrote:

I wonder why it can happen that you improve your score but lose pp? It just happened to me on a song which was in my Best Performance list. I improved my rank and I lost around 20 pp. (I also lost 0,01 accuracy, maybe that's the problem)

Ok I improved the accuracy now, too and the PP got way higher now.

But I also have another question: When only scores in the top 500 are considered, is also only the accuracy of these scores considered?

roym899 wrote:

I wonder why it can happen that you improve your score but lose pp? It just happened to me on a song which was in my Best Performance list. I improved my rank and I lost around 20 pp. (I also lost 0,01 accuracy, maybe that's the problem)

Nope, I had the same issue even though I also improved the accuracy of my record. I guess it's some weird bug or something like that.

roym899 wrote:

I wonder why it can happen that you improve your score but lose pp? It just happened to me on a song which was in my Best Performance list. I improved my rank and I lost around 20 pp. (I also lost 0,01 accuracy, maybe that's the problem)
Ok I improved the accuracy now, too and the PP got way higher now.

Well, that's nice for you then. PP can still decrease even with improved accuracy though.

Aqo wrote:

I'd just like to point something out that just occurred to me, which is related to how scoring and the PP system works with taking into account only good plays and not bad ones:

We have Player A and Player B, playing a map.

Player A first played that map with 89% accuracy and a few miss, and then proceeded to retry that map again and again for several hours, having about 50-100 retries on it, until eventually getting an SS on it. Even despite getting that SS, if Player A kept playing that map he would most likely get 95%-97% accuracy on an average run.

Player B played that map and had 98% accuracy on his first try. He thought he might try going for an SS on it, so he played it again, then getting about 98% again, maybe slightly higher. He then decided this map isn't very fun for him, and moved on.

Who do you think is a more skilled player, A or B?
And who is PP going to rate higher?

Player C realized that under the new Aqo replay point rewarding system, he should play the map a 1000 times on a machine disconnected from the net until he could do it in his sleep. Then he moved over to the connected machine, played it once and SSed it, scoring beau coup de Aqo-PP.

Factoring in number of plays is Capital-B Bad. It just encourages silly and aberrant player behaviour. People shouldn't ever feel obligated to hide their practicing or to avoid the online aspects of the game. People shouldn't be punished because their machine lags more than someone else's and costs them more replays. People shouldn't feel that they need to always be in top condition and ready to play seriously whenever they play... they should be able to kick back and play casually, even if they're drunk or sick in bed or playing offhanded for fun and can barely get through songs.

Yes, Player A might have gotten a bit lucky. But that's okay, the system doesn't need to penalize bad play to correct for that, decay will eventually take away any points that Player A cannot reproduce again easily. Plus, while Player A was playing that map a 100 times, Player B could be scoring well on many maps, or doing what A is doing and scoring an SS on a much harder map. All told, Player B probably outscored Player A in PP during that time period, even if Player B didn't get more PP on that one map.

Only rewarding good plays and not penalizing for bad plays is one of the main factors that lead PP to rate farming over skill on a lot of the maps. While it's understandable that penalizing bad plays might be demoralizing for all of the players who are not used to competitive ranking boards, the system has to work in a way that makes sense when going with the decision of only taking into account good plays (this is related to worth of SS/S/etc, on different levels of OD. An SS on low OD usually means no more than "farming" and not actual "skill" with the current system and the nature of what maps players choose to play. Rewarding extra for high-accuracy on a system that ignores retries basically rewards extra for farming and for playing easier maps).

That's not farming. Farming would be if you could just keep playing new maps and have your PP grow without end. You can't do that in the new system, because the weighting curve will cut you off after so many maps, and the only way you can get more PP then is to score higher than your previous plays. It might look like you can farm, because if your PP is built on junk already, playing low level maps can stoke things up a bit and look like farming. But it's ultimately self defeating... eventually you'll need to post better and better plays to advance. Plus, better scores means that you get to add more of them together (because the weighting function won't push them under the threshold until later)... it's bonus squared. Sure there is a bit of an issue with PP being "soft" for lower values... where a player might be able to advance quicker in the short term with lower level maps, but another player playing higher level maps will be actively becoming a better player, and will ultimately be able to score higher.

Besides, the problem you seem to be going on about can be addressed better (and without destroying the game) by addressing OD. I'm sure peppy has already considered that low OD makes high accuracy less impressive and the bonuses involved might need to be tweaked accordingly, because that's pretty obvious.

That's not to say the PP system is ideal. It would be nice if a player could feel that a 560th place SS rank Hard/Insane was worth something and didn't feel that they'd have been better off underplaying their ability on the Normal map for a top-40. An ideal system would recognize that a player capable of one was capable of the other and their ranking would be set accordingly without making players ever feel they should or need to underplay. But that would require an excellent objective measure of difficulty, which is a very hard problem... the PP system approaches from a more subjective angle, which is a good approach to the problem given the constraints and difficulties posed. The weighting function is an excellent approach, as is the decay, they make a solid statistical approach to calculating a variable that's expected to trend. The top-500 cutoff is a bit ugly, IMO, but I can see why it's there, even if it does contribute to underplay behaviour (one suggestion to alleviate this a bit would be to consider having SSes be eligible at any rank... past 500 they're probably not worth much anyways (and might well be worth 0 if too far down), so it's not like you can farm a million 500+ rank SSes and have them count for much given the other limitations). The fact that you can lose PP on a map when you improve a score on it is also less than ideal.

Lybydose wrote:

suddenly, 8 new scores appear in the top 40 of lonely dreaming girl

9 now, +6pp thx

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

Jordan wrote:

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

and what's stopping good players doing the same and beating the "noobs" ranks?

btw you could already do this by checking people like sette and shadowsouls top ranks, full of hards you could dt for easy pp

nrii wrote:

and what's stopping good players doing the same and beating the "noobs" ranks?

laziness

Jordan wrote:

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

i thought the point of online games with rankings WAS competitivity

Blue Dragon wrote:

Jordan wrote:

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

i thought the point of online games with rankings WAS competitivity

funny, I thought the point of games overall was fun :/

jokes aside, leaking this list was probably not the best thing to do, since now, like lolcubes said, everyon will farm these maps, making other maps even more worthless.

plus some bored cracks could get behind the alggorythm, but that's really unrealistic.

Is there a "sliding scale" for points distribution vs number of unique players instead of a flat cut-off point e.g. rank #1000?

Some maps have pretty much everyone playing them making the chances of getting into the points zone very slim and a lot more demanding. Even if you do really well there's already another 4000 that have done slightly better, it can put you off spending time at the map. Perhaps the reward makes up for it but idk because I don't rank high enough

How does the system handle maps with few scores (<500) but high difficulty with plenty of the top ranking players?

Note my curves should actually be curvy.


Note: I understand this could be unworkable nonsense

Tanzklaue wrote:

plus some bored cracks could get behind the alggorythm, but that's really unrealistic.

why would anyone do that anyways? the list of highest pp ranks is there.

Blue Dragon wrote:

Tanzklaue wrote:

plus some bored cracks could get behind the alggorythm, but that's really unrealistic.

why would anyone do that anyways? the list of highest pp ranks is there.

but it is and it isnt, the list goes some way but is flawed imo, either with high rank maps that dont give much, or maps that arent even on it that give a fucking shitload
edit couple examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/86377 #782 on list and giving insane amounts
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/134550&m=0 just took #2 on this and its in my top 4 top ranks, not even on the list
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/48506 #741 on list yet kyou-kun's top ranked map, ahead of her f.i score which is map rank #206

this isnt to say the list is wrong, but i get the feeling there is more to it than just this list

nrii wrote:

Jordan wrote:

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

and what's stopping good players doing the same and beating the "noobs" ranks?

btw you could already do this by checking people like sette and shadowsouls top ranks, full of hards you could dt for easy pp

This is like score farming. Boring. That's what stops at least me from doing it. The original aim of PP was to reward good scores, not a certain set of beatmaps. :>

Tom94 wrote:

This is like score farming. Boring. That's what stops at least me from doing it. The original aim of PP was to reward good scores, not a certain set of beatmaps. :>

dont get me wrong im not saying its good this way, just that this guy is crying over nothing

nrii wrote:

Jordan wrote:

ROFL just as expected. Now that everyone knows high weighted maps every noob can go farm good ranks on simple maps and get loads of pp for nothing. Gj publishing the list...

and what's stopping good players doing the same and beating the "noobs" ranks?

btw you could already do this by checking people like sette and shadowsouls top ranks, full of hards you could dt for easy pp

Everyone loves playing hards with DT...

Yo man, I just came to say yo.. system's whack man!

#46 PEACE

JAKANYAN wrote:

Everyone loves playing hards with DT...

No

Am I the only one who cannot access the top weighted maps list on google docs?

peppy deleted his post about it too... it seems he decided to cancel making the list public xD

nrii wrote:

Tom94 wrote:

This is like score farming. Boring. That's what stops at least me from doing it. The original aim of PP was to reward good scores, not a certain set of beatmaps. :>

dont get me wrong im not saying its good this way, just that this guy is crying over nothing

I'm not really crying over nothing xD just saying what Tom said: farming is boring. I want to play the hardest diff of a map to gain pp (talking of already high rank) not simple diffs that give me 5 times more pp than some insanes :[

^That would be fucking hard to calculate, in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the aim peppy was trying to achieve in the first place.

Anyway, yea I just noticed, even though hards on DT are easier than most insanes, I get more pp from hard DT than hidden insane FC.Top rank: Hard DT.

I only ever played 2 hards and both on DT, yet they both are on my top ranks list.

Something needs to be done about this.

Well, weightning is seriously too influenced by amount of plays or something, because
Demetori - Solar Sect of Mystic Wisdom ~ Nuclear Fusion
I got 2 PP for these really small circles
Is that okay?

UPD: this is probably another case and is related to how HR modifier works
It should have a higher multiplier for higher OD and circle size and on the countrary

I wish there wasn't a hard floor on required rank (#500 or no points), even if it inflated pp. As someone who rarely places in the top 500 and prefers to dabble in maps rather than listen to the same song on repeat, I don't feel a sense of progress at all, really. With Score I realized at least that while I would never play often enough to pass a certain point (about 14k), coming back every other week to fight for those 300 ranks I'd slipped at least felt like progressing, or fighting degression.

Again, this.

peppy wrote:

I plan on making a fallback pp calculation for people with less top-500 records. I don't plan on increasing the number past 500 (because it begins to get both intensive to calculate, and less meaningful with the current algorithm) but do plan on allowing people without such records to still improve their pp to visible levels. This will likely work based on your ranks achieved (and possible ranked score).

Just be patient~

does anyone else think 95-97% hr needs a boost? i've overwrote a couple of my easy hd SS with this range of hr acc and lost 3-4 pp per score. i know that the acc is bad but as someone who doesnt play hr, its a lot harder in my eyes to get a 97% on hhr than an SS on hd yet the hd SS was giving me more pp for a lower rank

pp result from me playing Beck - Timebomb [Normal]

- Before playing the map: 5,214pp
- After playing the map (getting #1 with just 1 100, Accuracy 99.76%): 5,223pp
- Playing again (this time, an SS): 5,225pp

nrii wrote:

does anyone else think 95-97% hr needs a boost? i've overwrote a couple of my easy hd SS with this range of hr acc and lost 3-4 pp per score. i know that the acc is bad but as someone who doesnt play hr, its a lot harder in my eyes to get a 97% on hhr than an SS on hd yet the hd SS was giving me more pp for a lower rank

Depends on OD of course
I'd say that 97+ is good enough for OD8 HR+HD and could be counted as a better score than HD SS
96+ for OD9 and OD10

Kert wrote:

Depends on OD of course
I'd say that 97+ is good enough for OD8 HR and could be counted as a better score than HD SS
96+ for OD9 and OD10

the map i lost loads on was od8, i grinded it for an hour and took a 98% hd+hr and gained loads more than hd SS was worth, so thats fine, but the 96~ run i made to start dropped me by 4 pp from a hd SS. i forgot to mention this was actually hd+hr, so double mod vs hd ss and i still lost pp just from the acc drop.

Oops
I meant HR HD plays
Fixed that post

That also depends on the map too. Some maps are easier to get higher acc with hdhr than some others, regardless of the map settings.
@Kert, there is no difference in OD on hard rock if it's 8 or greater.

For some reason I was thinking it's the same starting from OD9
But yeah - t/64265
My bad

Yuugoh wrote:

Again, this.

peppy wrote:

I plan on making a fallback pp calculation for people with less top-500 records. I don't plan on increasing the number past 500 (because it begins to get both intensive to calculate, and less meaningful with the current algorithm) but do plan on allowing people without such records to still improve their pp to visible levels. This will likely work based on your ranks achieved (and possible ranked score).

Just be patient~

I am skeptical about this. Programs have managed to do much more complicated things without unreasonable performance strains. It seems more likely that peppy doesn't want to fix a design flaw with the algorithm itself that makes going past 500 ranks meaningless. In the programming world, these flaws are probably based on dependencies.

My opinion on pp is simple. It doesn't need to have a dependency on rank, because really just boils down to Rank = pp earned. The only complicated bit outside of removing pp as rank goes down is how much pp is earned per x number of ranks. That is the bulk of the algorithm and is already in place. the missing link is the part that takes rank, and turns it into a decimal number that is used to determine how much pp a rank is worth.

Example
rank = 2000

pp multiplier = 0.001

rank * ppm = 2.

Divide by 10

Rank factor = 0.2

Base pp is calculated based on popularity, age, other factors that it already uses to calculate.

Base - Base * rank factor = pp earned.

It will need to check whether the player's score actually gains pp. That is simple to do.

First check whether rank is higher, if not then don't calculate pp. If it is calculate pp gained from first score, and calculate pp from second score, and if the difference is greater than or equal to 1 then give the rounded pp amount to the player.

The real performance intensive part is checking players that will lose pp below your rank when you move past them. There are many ways this could be done and is probably peppy's concern when it comes to intensive operations. A class could be programmed that maps point gain tables for each beatmap could be used to increase performance. Basically since the performance table which would be based off the max amount of pp obtainable for that beatmap difficulty, it wouldn't change that often, and it would have all the ranges where players would gain a point amount, and when a player submits a score, it would remove points according to the table. It would be complicated. But really if performance is the main concern, then this would improve performance even with only 500 players. It's a win win situation.

How do you know how complicated this is?
It's okay to assume stuff, but it's not okay to judge others based on assumptions though. Noone except for peppy currently knows the pp formula, and it already took so long to make it update in real time (without actually dropping in pp, which is still calculated once a day I believe, due to the massive amounts of information, I could be wrong).
Just sayin'.

This post is TL;DR. Read the section titles and only refer to some parts of it if not everything interests you.

Related to the list of top PP-giving maps:

In an ideal osu!, star ratings would show the true difficulty of maps.
In an ideal osu!, the hardest maps would give the highest rating for the rankings.
In an ideal osu!, competitive players would know which maps are the hardest, would be able to easily find them with search filters, and play them to rank the best.

Revealing which maps give the most pp obviously leads players to try them out, but that is not wrong - that's what SHOULD happen. Like BD said: the whole point of online ranking is the competitiveness, and a competitive player would naturally strive to play the most competed maps. While I think that those maps should be the hardest ones in their raw level, PP judges this by their "contestedness" level which can be more or less ok too - but that means showing which maps are the most contested should be public information, just like showing which maps are the hardest. Hiding the list of top-pp maps shows distrust in the quality of the pp system;

If you have trust in pp, there would should be no problem with revealing the top pp-giving maps, because it means that playing just those map specifically would not make players rate higher than usual - since the way they would rank on those maps would be consistent with their skill in the way they played until now, and thus stay as it always was. (i.e. they'd get lower ranks on top-pp listed maps, compared to lower maps on the list or maps outside the list where it would be easier to get higher ranks.)

Hiding the list means that you believe some maps on the top-pp list are actually getting higher pp worth than they actually deserve - which means the pp system is flawed if it really is the case.

I was really impressed with peppy first choosing to reveal the list, because it meant he really trusts the pp system, but now that it was hidden it seems like even the creator himself doesn't trust the accuracy of his system. Disappointing.

Putting aside lowdiffs that showed on the list, even stuff like Blue Night being higher than Chipscape looks like nonsense; Blue Night is obviously more popular because it's much much easier, and I'm sure I can FC with enough retries until I stop getting random miss on stack, while chipscape is hard to even just pass no matter how much you play it. Earthquake Super Shock 0108 is also a pretty easy map to FC and you could add Hidden on top of that no problem, but on since it's on a very popular mapset it rates higher than many other harder maps. And yet, I'm sure most of the people who played the 0108 of supershock didn't FC it often, which means the contestedness level of it is very high without really being very truly contested. The top 50 for it is nomod S with 99.33%... anyone can pass this rank with Hidden.

---

@ response to winber1, [CSGA]Ar3sgice, boat (from 2 pages ago):
Player B is worse than Player A, because he does less to try to rank well on the competition system. So he deserves a lower score (and we already have a scoring system). However PP is supposed to rate skill, not effort, right? While Player B may not be as dedicated as Player A, if they both played a new map that just came out, who do you think would do better on it? That's what I meant by "more skilled", which is different.
PP claims to rate players by skill, not by effort. This sort of rating can be useful; for example, if you're hosting a multiplayer room, you will play maps that require a certain skill, so knowing your own skill as well as others' is a good way to find a multiplayer room that will be fun for you to play in. But if PP rates skill incorrectly and instead rates your desire to have high PP then its existence is pretty much pointless isn't it?

"...to rank people by using one song..." - the thing is, I actually meant the opposite. This example was to show that players are going to put different effort levels into different maps. Player A might pour a lot of effort into one group of maps, which player B would pour a lot of effort into other groups of maps. They can both beat each other and lose to each other on the rankings based on how much effort they put into each map they played. However with the current system, the player who was lucky to play more popular maps would end up ranking higher - and this would be independent of skill, it would boil down to whether you were lucky to choose to play popular maps. This is the problem with a system that contests based on map popularity instead of map difficulty.

" I don't think someone who can only do 89% can magically get a SS even if playing for 3-5 hours" this is actually not uncommon in low levels of play :p high level players can adapt quickly, but low level players take longer to adapt. For example I usually play 170-190 bpm maps, if I'd play a 140bpm map now I'd get very poor accuracy on it. But if I'd spend 1-2 hours playing 140bpm maps, I'd probably be able to gold SS it. I'm sure a lot of you can find something similar to this on your plays (maybe jumps, spacing, reading patterns on a specific map, etc. retries on one map can specifically help you for that map without helping your general skill except for other maps similar to that one).

---

In response to concern of low-pp-rated maps getting less attention because of publication of the list:

This is actually still the same as what I said earlier. Players will still play whatever they like the most. And if a player likes just playing for fun, knowing the top-contested maps won't make him play just them if he doesn't like them.
Meanwhile, if a player only plays to get the highest rank the fastest, then right now he'll already check top ranks of top players, as well as go over maps and check their top50 ranks, and then intentionally only play the stuff where he knows it's the easiest for him to rank the highest for the most points.

So this changes nothing. Knowing the top pp-giving list won't make any maps be more popular or less popular, players will still play like they always have. It will only make PP-farming easier, but if PP really isn't farmable like it intends to be then this wouldn't be possible. If revealing the list actually allows people to farm PP easier, then this proves PP weightings are not functioning correctly. And wasn't this the point of revealing the list? To let players check the maps on it and report what is weighted higher or lower than it should be, to provide useful feedback and will help tune the PP system to be more accurate. I really don't understand why was this list hidden.

Are you worried that some players would suddenly get higher PP than they deserve due to revealing this? If this is even a concern, it means clear distrust in the quality of the PP system. Are you worried that players would complain about info on the list and call PP bad? afaik PP is considered to still be in beta stages of development and is not final, so just ignore those complaints and use the output from them as feedback to improve the system.

---

In renpose to bwross:

"Player C grinded a map on an offline machine, to get a good accuracy on it on his first try online. This is why amount of retries should not be taken into account".
My response to this is a little complicated, so read carefully:

1. If the map is easy enough to SS consistently once you practice it enough, then you will most likely be able to SS consistency every single map on that level on your first try once you learn to do it for that map. Keep reading.

2. Some maps are so hard that, even if you can SS them sometimes, you won't be able to do it every time. Even if you played that map 1000 times offline and had several SS ranks on it offline, you cannot guarantee that on your first try online you'd get an SS, and if you're not good enough to SS it reliably every time then it most likely won't happen.

3. Grinding a map until you get really good at it will make you about as good on all maps of that same level. Like I stated earlier with the 140bpm example, I really suck at 140bpm right now, but from past experience if I practice this specific range for a while it's possible to get good accuracy on it consistently on all maps that have that bpm.

Now lets combine 1 & 2 & 3. The concern is: players hiding their skill, and getting rewarded higher than they deserve for high accuracy on maps due to offline retries.
The system I suggested takes into account your accuracy on every try that you do. It doesn't just go "oh hey, this player got 99.5%, and it took him 20 tries.". It goes "the player played x, had 99%, give him +/- y points. the player played x (again), had 98.5%, give him +/- y points." etc, per retry. If you actually got good enough to play a certain level with reliable accuracy on every try, allowing you to get that level of accuracy on your first try online, then you're actually good enough to do it and you deserve the rating you get. Had you done those 1000 retries online, your rating would slowly go up over time until reaching your level, while by doing it offline your rating just suddenly spikes upwards, but you end up on the same spot.

Aqo wrote:

However PP is supposed to rate skill, not effort, right?

It ranks effort, no viable skill ranking will ever be incorporated into osu

JappyBabes wrote:

Aqo wrote:

However PP is supposed to rate skill, not effort, right?

It ranks effort, no viable skill ranking will ever be incorporated into osu

Are you suggesting its impossible?

Skill is not that broad of a term as it sounds. It's just "how likely is this guy going to be able to get good results on maps when playing them".

There is no system in the world which measures true skill. These aren't skill points, they are performance points, and they judge a person's performance. A person can be skilled to unmeasurable levels, however if he doesn't perform then he won't have good performance points.

While performance is affected by skill, it is not skill rating.

lolcubes wrote:

There is no system in the world which measures true skill. These aren't skill points, they are performance points, and they judge a person's performance. A person can be skilled to unmeasurable levels, however if he doesn't perform then he won't have good performance points.

While performance is affected by skill, it is not skill rating.

Ok, good point. However performance is still directly related to skill. To perform well you must first perform, and if you don't perform enough or at all you won't get rated for it - this much is true. But to be able to perform well you need the skill to do it, or else even with enough time it shouldn't be possible for you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my belief that PP was introduced because people complained that the old scoring system rated how much time players put into the game and not how "good" they are, which is why the need for a new rating system arose.
While players who don't perform do not deserve a high performance rating, isn't the inverse true as well? Players who do get high performance rating should be the ones that perform well, not just the one who perform a lot.

Aqo wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my belief that PP was introduced because people complained that the old scoring system rated how much time players put into the game and not how "good" they are, which is why the need for a new rating system arose.

This is true, but back then you had to spend a year or so to get even to top 100, because of the amount of beatmaps. It certainly doesn't take a year to get to high PP, if you really deserve it. Playing should be rewarded, not how "good" you are while you aren't playing.

While players who don't perform do not deserve a high performance rating, isn't the inverse true as well? Players who do get high performance rating should be the ones that perform well, not just the one who perform a lot.

Well, this is already happening. It's just that you probably didn't get to that number yet.

I have to say this about differences in harder difficulties. My thoughts i that it would be balanced if the pp system took percent failed in mind when it decided how Easy/Hard something is. And the harder a map is, the lower the pass rate, and that means it will be worth more pp regardless of if it's popular. Remember there are different factors that determine how much pp a difficulty is worth. I'm not sure what exactly those factors are, but I have no reason to assume they are inaccurate and we shouldn't make such claims without evidence of such inaccuracies.

Besides the difference is probably fairly insignificant anyways. But even if I did assume it would matter, then it would give difficulty the point advantage anyways, which would invalidate the balance claim. Harder difficulties get higher pp gains. What's so wrong with associating difficulty with skill level?

It's already considering the number of people who succeeded, and how well. It might be overkill to have it consider individual fails. They'd have to be weighted individually for the set of mods used. It's an interesting idea, though.

I just lost pp for beating an old score:

Before:




After:




Better score, rank, accuracy and it's newer so there should be less "decay", I lost 11pp.

TheVileOne wrote:

I have to say this about differences in harder difficulties. My thoughts i that it would be balanced if the pp system took percent failed in mind when it decided how Easy/Hard something is. And the harder a map is, the lower the pass rate, and that means it will be worth more pp regardless of if it's popular. Remember there are different factors that determine how much pp a difficulty is worth. I'm not sure what exactly those factors are, but I have no reason to assume they are inaccurate and we shouldn't make such claims without evidence of such inaccuracies.

Besides the difference is probably fairly insignificant anyways. But even if I did assume it would matter, then it would give difficulty the point advantage anyways, which would invalidate the balance claim. Harder difficulties get higher pp gains. What's so wrong with associating difficulty with skill level?

I thought we already established that even if we had a perfect difficulty calculation formula for maps it wouldn't be used to rankings because: I don't have a clue why not actually

In response to the difficulty calculator thread:

peppy wrote:

Such thoughts could potentially be used to make a new star rating system, but are redundant in pp calculations. I am not using any map heuristics in pp calculations because they always have limitations, and can be manipulated by mappers.

I still feel almost everyone would prefer a system based on difficulty rather than the amount of players which play a map; I think it would be less flawed than the current system atleast. Even if one in 5 maps were slightly out it's still better than the current weightings which appear to be random maps everywhere.

Lol. Today I actually tried ranking hards to see how far I could get. In mere 3hours of ranking I got from #37 to #25 #23! What the hell. (Nearly) all of the #1s I did today were easier than the DT I did yesterday... which earned me zero to 1 PP per rank.

We srsly need a way to properly filter the easier maps. It's just ridiculous how easy one can rank if one just ranks the easy, boring stuff. D:
Well.. to be fair, I got a good day in terms of accuracy today.

Tom94 wrote:

Lol. Today I actually tried ranking hards to see how far I could get. In mere 3hours of ranking I got from #37 to #25 #23! What the hell. (Nearly) all of the #1s I did today were easier than the DT I did yesterday... which earned me zero to 1 PP per rank.

We srsly need a way to properly filter the easier maps. It's just ridiculous how easy one can rank if one just ranked the easy, boring stuff. D:
Well.. to be fair, I got a good day in terms of accuracy today.

plus those maps were insanes, but you are too good for this game

Tanzklaue wrote:

Tom94 wrote:

Lol. Today I actually tried ranking hards to see how far I could get. In mere 3hours of ranking I got from #37 to #25 #23! What the hell. (Nearly) all of the #1s I did today were easier than the DT I did yesterday... which earned me zero to 1 PP per rank.

We srsly need a way to properly filter the easier maps. It's just ridiculous how easy one can rank if one just ranked the easy, boring stuff. D:
Well.. to be fair, I got a good day in terms of accuracy today.

plus those maps were insanes, but you are too good for this game

Still easy compared to the ranks I usually do... and the ones other good players usually do. :>