Am I the only one who cannot access the top weighted maps list on google docs?
forum
Performance Points
posted
Total Posts
534
peppy deleted his post about it too... it seems he decided to cancel making the list public xD
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 :[nrii wrote:
dont get me wrong im not saying its good this way, just that this guy is crying over nothingTom94 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. :>
^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.
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
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.
Just be patient~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).
nrii_old
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
- 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
Depends on OD of coursenrii 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
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
nrii_old
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.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
Oops
I meant HR HD plays
Fixed that post
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.
@Kert, there is no difference in OD on hard rock if it's 8 or greater.
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.Yuugoh wrote:
Again, this.Just be patient~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).
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'.
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.
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.
It ranks effort, no viable skill ranking will ever be incorporated into osuAqo wrote:
However PP is supposed to rate skill, not effort, right?
Are you suggesting its impossible?JappyBabes wrote:
It ranks effort, no viable skill ranking will ever be incorporated into osuAqo wrote:
However PP is supposed to rate skill, not effort, right?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
Before:
After:
Better score, rank, accuracy and it's newer so there should be less "decay", I lost 11pp.
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 actuallyTheVileOne 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?
In response to the difficulty calculator thread:
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.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.
Tom69_old
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.
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.
plus those maps were insanes, but you are too good for this gameTom94 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.
Tom69_old
Still easy compared to the ranks I usually do... and the ones other good players usually do. :>Tanzklaue wrote:
plus those maps were insanes, but you are too good for this gameTom94 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.
nrii_old
Just take every single top rank from himnrii wrote:
please keep farming shadowsouls top ranks, pleaseTom94 wrote:
Still easy compared to the ranks I usually do... and the ones other good players usually do. :>
If he still thinks that he's the best player in Germany after that, well shit.
he doesn't think that, nobody in germany thinks that.thelewa wrote:
Just take every single top rank from himnrii wrote:
please keep farming shadowsouls top ranks, please
If he still thinks that he's the best player in Germany after that, well shit.
I don't know what's happend .. I can only do a local score http://prntscr.com/dhj8r
yesterday I had 3 maps in first place and all moves to local score only no online score
yesterday I had 3 maps in first place and all moves to local score only no online score
You probably lost internet connection and scores didn't submit online.RAMPAGE88 wrote:
I don't know what's happend .. I can only do a local score http://prntscr.com/dhj8r
yesterday I had 3 maps in first place and all moves to local score only no online score
I do. Not really.Tanzklaue wrote:
he doesn't think that, nobody in germany thinks that.
I need some help.
I was ranking some beatmaps to get PP , but I'm not getting any point... , here is the list of songs that I was playing today (I did not earn any PP..)
Is it bugged or something ?
Again.. I did not earn any pp
I was ranking some beatmaps to get PP , but I'm not getting any point... , here is the list of songs that I was playing today (I did not earn any PP..)
Is it bugged or something ?
Again.. I did not earn any pp
It is, everybody is having some problem here or there. Though, peppy said he'll fix it.
Yeah, over the last few days i've been getting a lot of hidden FCs on 4.90+ difficulty maps (yes i am a noob) and in the top 500 but getting no PP at all for them.
ive been getting a lot of pp only to see them disappear over night, but i think there is a topic in technical support about it
I don't think I've gotten any PP at all either in the last few days. I just lose PP for getting higher scores and better accuracy. I've gotten like 12 top40s on insane maps with hidden/hardrock in the last two days, some being top20s, and some even top10s. I even improved some of the rank 30 somethings with hidden/hardrock by 2-3% better accuracy and ranking 10-15 places higher, but lost PP for doing so. The more I rank, the more I lose. All maps are insane 5.0 star maps. I don't really care much about my performance score, but just adding in some feedback due to seeing other people having problems as well. I thought at first it was just because my accuracy was in the 94-95% range with hd/hr, but when I went back and improved everything to 97-98% or better and got worse overall scoring, I figured something was up. I'm just personally happy to be seeing improvements every day, so it doesn't bother me that much.
This.silmarilen wrote:
ive been getting a lot of pp only to see them disappear over night, but i think there is a topic in technical support about it
Today's actually the first day after about 6 or 7 days that my PP didn't vanish over night. I lost about 20 PP a day and I was not the only one.
Something like this. I got 20 pp daily then all of them disappears until I'm sleeping. And even the graph is not showing it.silmarilen wrote:
ive been getting a lot of pp only to see them disappear over night, but i think there is a topic in technical support about it
i have a normal nomod in my best performance
normal's too hard
normal's too hard
I'm starting to get pissed off
I'm still at #10 even though I'm not supposed to even be in the top 100
I'm still at #10 even though I'm not supposed to even be in the top 100
Bullshitlewa strikes again!thelewa wrote:
I'm starting to get pissed off
I'm still at #10 even though I'm not supposed to even be in the top 100
You belong where you are, really.
i agree #10 is too high, but you definetly belong in the top 100
Yes and you belong in top 5.silmarilen wrote:
i agree #10 is too high, but you definetly belong in the top 100
lewa is at a perfectly fine spot and should actually be ranked higher than Shadowsoul and Sette because he can actually 100% insanes and not just hards.
woot im so pro i belong at #5
Self-explanatory.
0 fucks given
So much hate lol
just sick of people crying about how their epic ultra scores didn't give them pp at all.
peppy please fix standard maps giving more pp than taiko difficulties. there's a huge skill-difference between them, and it's annoying to see easy/normal #1 hunters having a better overall rank than people who are at least ABLE to get into the top 40 of a taiko diff. (while those easy/normal rankers barely pass them)
peppy please fix standard maps giving more pp than taiko difficulties. there's a huge skill-difference between them, and it's annoying to see easy/normal #1 hunters having a better overall rank than people who are at least ABLE to get into the top 40 of a taiko diff. (while those easy/normal rankers barely pass them)
same can be done with standard lowering the pp you get from hards or increasing the pp you get from insanes
Well, this is a thread made to point out questions and discuss about the system in general. So we post its errors in order for peppy to fix them...BrokenArrow wrote:
just sick of people crying about how their epic ultra scores didn't give them pp at all.
peppy please fix standard maps giving more pp than taiko difficulties. there's a huge skill-difference between them, and it's annoying to see easy/normal #1 hunters having a better overall rank than people who are at least ABLE to get into the top 40 of a taiko diff. (while those easy/normal rankers barely pass them)
It's okay if you don't care, though that "0 fucks given" was unnecesary, and no, i'm not crying or anything. It's just weird, that's all
yeah I forgot for 1 minute that this isn't Offtopic, my fault.VelperK wrote:
Well, this is a thread made to point out questions and discuss about the system in general. So we post its errors in order for peppy to fix them...BrokenArrow wrote:
just sick of people crying about how their epic ultra scores didn't give them pp at all.
peppy please fix standard maps giving more pp than taiko difficulties. there's a huge skill-difference between them, and it's annoying to see easy/normal #1 hunters having a better overall rank than people who are at least ABLE to get into the top 40 of a taiko diff. (while those easy/normal rankers barely pass them)
It's okay if you don't care, though that "0 fucks given" was unnecesary, and no, i'm not crying or anything. It's just weird, that's all
Krep, it gives 0pp because that song is not hard enough in the pp system ...
lol
BrokenArrow wrote:
just sick of people crying about how their epic ultra scores didn't give them pp at all.
peppy please fix standard maps giving more pp than taiko difficulties. there's a huge skill-difference between them, and it's annoying to see easy/normal #1 hunters having a better overall rank than people who are at least ABLE to get into the top 40 of a taiko diff. (while those easy/normal rankers barely pass them)
This should get fixed.
Wait for proper taiko difficulty ratings first.
And in any case, taiko specific maps do give significantly more PP, undoubtedly.
And in any case, taiko specific maps do give significantly more PP, undoubtedly.
A's killing the PP. DXVelperK wrote:
It's just weird, that's all
This reminds me of another bad example:
I had a #27 and a #23 on the same map. same Diff, different time. The #27 gave me 8 PP but I thought I could increase my score a bit more and made it to #23 - and of the 8PP given were 6 left. Because #27 was SS and #23 S.
I don't want to sound impatient, but...is the Hard-Insane issue something peppy is currently considering? I think it's a serious issue that's somewhat undermining the purpose of the system right now. Getting better at the game and increasing pp should be synonymous, but I've found it's infinitely more pp-efficient to rank Hards than to actually play difficult Insanes. I've been trying to ignore pp and do what's best for my skill, but it's frustrating when I get 0-1 pp from spending an hour on a HD FC of an Insane or even a nomod FC of a more difficult Insane, then turn around and get 20 pp from spending 5 minutes on a HD+DT FC of some random Hard.
I think a potential contributing factor is that the skill distribution on the Hard leaderboards is a lot different than any other. Few top players waste their time with Hards, so with those scores conspicuously absent, ranking Hards is trivial for any decent Insane player. Furthermore, people who spend their time 3 or 4-mod SS'ing songs far beneath their level are mostly ranking Easy/Normals, and similarly don't waste time on Hards. So not only are there not many people playing Hards (making it far easier to rank at least #500), the people who do play Hards are mostly players who are actually at that level of play. I suspect that the ratio of "high-skill" plays on Hards (FC's with at least 1 mod) to non-FC's is a lot more skewed than any other difficulty, so when someone throws together a HD+DT FC, the system erroneously thinks they're really good. And even if the Insane distribution is similar, because there are so many more Insane scores, even if I do better than 95% of them, it often won't get me anything due to the hard #500 cap. I know peppy said not to think about it, but honestly, as long as it's there, it's impossible not to think about it. That's like telling an Olympian not to worry about other athletes' scores.
7 of my top plays are random of Hards I did on a whim. As someone who considers himself an Insane player, that's honestly kind of embarrassing. A re-balancing of the system will probably hurt my pp considerably, but I wouldn't care. I just want to know that doing harder things is giving me more pp than doing easier things.
I think a potential contributing factor is that the skill distribution on the Hard leaderboards is a lot different than any other. Few top players waste their time with Hards, so with those scores conspicuously absent, ranking Hards is trivial for any decent Insane player. Furthermore, people who spend their time 3 or 4-mod SS'ing songs far beneath their level are mostly ranking Easy/Normals, and similarly don't waste time on Hards. So not only are there not many people playing Hards (making it far easier to rank at least #500), the people who do play Hards are mostly players who are actually at that level of play. I suspect that the ratio of "high-skill" plays on Hards (FC's with at least 1 mod) to non-FC's is a lot more skewed than any other difficulty, so when someone throws together a HD+DT FC, the system erroneously thinks they're really good. And even if the Insane distribution is similar, because there are so many more Insane scores, even if I do better than 95% of them, it often won't get me anything due to the hard #500 cap. I know peppy said not to think about it, but honestly, as long as it's there, it's impossible not to think about it. That's like telling an Olympian not to worry about other athletes' scores.
7 of my top plays are random of Hards I did on a whim. As someone who considers himself an Insane player, that's honestly kind of embarrassing. A re-balancing of the system will probably hurt my pp considerably, but I wouldn't care. I just want to know that doing harder things is giving me more pp than doing easier things.
LOL MY NAME IS JESSE
I don't think this has to do anything with this thread.jesse1412 wrote:
LOL MY NAME IS JESSE
no, he single-handedly resolved this whole issue.Kurokami wrote:
I don't think this has to do anything with this thread.jesse1412 wrote:
LOL MY NAME IS JESSE
LOL..?? seriously 0 pp VelperK!VelperK wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/p/beatmap?b=27737&m=2
0 pp
That was one of hardest songs and with Hidden you did [[ anyway you are amazing]]
3 pp, that's fair! system works fine for me xD
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/114882&m=0
1 pp master race
Not sure what to think. Is this supposed to give you a low pp score? It doesn't really make much sense to me, considering a #33 gave me +-30 pp and I'd consider the former to be much more difficult than the latter.
1 pp master race
Not sure what to think. Is this supposed to give you a low pp score? It doesn't really make much sense to me, considering a #33 gave me +-30 pp and I'd consider the former to be much more difficult than the latter.
Again I had a pp drop.. I'm stuck at 4220-4227.
Yesterday I was 4253 .. And the peak only says i was 4226 ¬¬ wtf is wrong with this ? I can see people who keeps ranking and ranking... And nothing to me :/ .They don't drop as much as me.. Does anyone know why ?
Btw, I'm always ranking songs in SS Hidden and nothing happens.. =/
When would the sign that says "Yes, I am making constant changes to the calculations" [...] dissapear ?
I want to know if I'm the only one who had this problem and if this will be fixed.. (will ppy give us the PP dropped for no reason?)
If I'm wrong and this is not a problem, please help me, and tell me what's going on!
Thanks for the attention!
btw I'm not good at english , sry.
edit : My pp rank doesnt seem to be changing so much.. But I know that Later it will drop to 620 or something like that. (Im 579)
I'm having this problem almost 3 days ago in ctb.
Yesterday I was 4253 .. And the peak only says i was 4226 ¬¬ wtf is wrong with this ? I can see people who keeps ranking and ranking... And nothing to me :/ .They don't drop as much as me.. Does anyone know why ?
Btw, I'm always ranking songs in SS Hidden and nothing happens.. =/
When would the sign that says "Yes, I am making constant changes to the calculations" [...] dissapear ?
I want to know if I'm the only one who had this problem and if this will be fixed.. (will ppy give us the PP dropped for no reason?)
If I'm wrong and this is not a problem, please help me, and tell me what's going on!
Thanks for the attention!
btw I'm not good at english , sry.
edit : My pp rank doesnt seem to be changing so much.. But I know that Later it will drop to 620 or something like that. (Im 579)
I'm having this problem almost 3 days ago in ctb.
Jordan wrote:
ok I got no pp from http://osu.ppy.sh/b/699
what
the
fuck
A similar thing happened to me in this map: http://osu.ppy.sh/b/132411
Not an "easy" insane, though it wasn't a really crazy map, but I somehow managed to get it with DT+HD and ranked #4 getting a better score AND acc than Darksonic, Tom94, Rain, JAKANYAN, WhiteWolf and other REALLY skilled players, but didn't even get 1pp from that song.
Also I managed to get #7 on this one: http://osu.ppy.sh/b/90452?m=0 , and got like 50pp from that one.
my graph hasnt updated in 3 days :/
Man, I feel so pro whenever I gain 1 pp
I get pp drops since 3-4 consecutive days \o/
all of them happen when it is evening-night in germany.
all of them happen when it is evening-night in germany.
That is because the maps you played have been de-valuated fast. Usually new maps. I gained about 50 pp for one map (it was a new map), and when pp loss was calculated I lost 26 pp on that map. I think this is actually working as intended.Tanzklaue wrote:
I get pp drops since 3-4 consecutive days \o/
all of them happen when it is evening-night in germany.
Also some of your year long scores might have been fading out.
Same happened to me with a #1 on a new maplolcubes wrote:
That is because the maps you played have been de-valuated fast. Usually new maps. I gained about 50 pp for one map (it was a new map), and when pp loss was calculated I lost 26 pp on that map. I think this is actually working as intended.Tanzklaue wrote:
I get pp drops since 3-4 consecutive days \o/
all of them happen when it is evening-night in germany.
Also some of your year long scores might have been fading out.
That has never happened to me
my pp's Origin is Stillness
my pp's Origin is Stillness
lost 7 pp after 12 days of doing nothing
feels good when you gain most of your pp from becoming top 100 - 500on pro insanes.
feels good when you gain most of your pp from becoming top 100 - 500on pro insanes.
lol no my pp stood still even when I took a 1 month breakG0r wrote:
You may play so much that you even out or gain.
yes that's the best choice of words for this
stood still
stood
i did this yesterday and i actually lost 1pp instead lol
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/85874
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/85874
Yesterday my PP suddenly somehow rocketed to 2k and today it drop again to 1,3k 
Bummer.Geryon wrote:
Yesterday my PP suddenly somehow rocketed to 2k and today it drop again to 1,3k
http://osu.ppy.sh/u/270396
2341pp, rank 58110
My PP and my rank don't follow. :/ For some reason my rank went from 38k down to 58k last night, even as my PP should make my rank the former. I was previously at rank 56k with 1711 pp.
2341pp, rank 58110
My PP and my rank don't follow. :/ For some reason my rank went from 38k down to 58k last night, even as my PP should make my rank the former. I was previously at rank 56k with 1711 pp.
Perfect bonus is surprisingly high... a bit lower?
Many hards give less points that the respective sets Insane as referred by some players
EDIT:
I expected a #560 Insane and a #168 Hard "did" gave some pp. Instead I losed 1 pp.
Many hards give less points that the respective sets Insane as referred by some players
EDIT:
I expected a #560 Insane and a #168 Hard "did" gave some pp. Instead I losed 1 pp.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but if you are wondering why you got pp for passing the hard map and not the insane you probably haven't read anything available regarding pp otherwise you would know exactly why a rank over 500 would give less than a rank under 500. You do however seem to have a point - hard difficulties can give just as much, if not more than an insane. If it's not the hardest difficulty it shouldn't give pp after a player has accumulated a certain amount of pp (tweaked for approved maps). A players pp from easy maps should be limited to say 500 in total, normals 1000 in total, insane 2500 in total and approved/higher tier 3000 in total. Of course this would be a terrible system and giving pp based on a maps actual difficulty would be 200% more accurate.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
Perfect bonus is surprisingly high... a bit lower?
Many hards give less points that the respective sets Insane as referred by some players
EDIT:
I expected a #560 Insane and a #168 Hard "did" gave some pp. Instead I losed 1 pp.
Right now it's like someone has picked a bunch of random maps and then took a random difficulty inside said maps and put them as the most rewarding save for a few high reward maps.
Currently this: Beck - Timebomb (IcePagoda) [Normal]
Is worth more than freedom dive on four dimensions.
nrii_old
take the list with a pinch of salt, didnt winshley rank 1 that with a hd fl SS and only gain 20 pp at 5.2k? even though the weighting is lower on 4d i bet if he rank 1'd it he'd be gaining 80+ ATLEASTjesse1412 wrote:
Currently this: Beck - Timebomb (IcePagoda) [Normal]
Is worth more than freedom dive on four dimensions.
i gained 40 for a rank 1 i set the other day at 5.7k pp and it was like 300th overall on that list
I was pointing out how this map was worth nothing on pp, while most hards give more and are much easier. It's not because it's old or it has received a few plays, so I guess there's some problem in the algorhythmjesse1412 wrote:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but if you are wondering why you got pp for passing the hard map and not the insane you probably haven't read anything available regarding pp otherwise you would know exactly why a rank over 500 would give less than a rank under 500. You do however seem to have a point - hard difficulties can give just as much, if not more than an insane. If it's not the hardest difficulty it shouldn't give pp after a player has accumulated a certain amount of pp (tweaked for approved maps). A players pp from easy maps should be limited to say 500 in total, normals 1000 in total, insane 2500 in total and approved/higher tier 3000 in total. Of course this would be a terrible system and giving pp based on a maps actual difficulty would be 200% more accurate.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
Perfect bonus is surprisingly high... a bit lower?
Many hards give less points that the respective sets Insane as referred by some players
EDIT:
I expected a #560 Insane and a #168 Hard "did" gave some pp. Instead I losed 1 pp.
Right now it's like someone has picked a bunch of random maps and then took a random difficulty inside said maps and put them as the most rewarding save for a few high reward maps.
Currently this: Beck - Timebomb (IcePagoda) [Normal]
Is worth more than freedom dive on four dimensions.
This give seriously more points than it should, for example
AH, I didn't strangely get points for passing Insane and Hard of Bokutomo's OP(map linked in my previous post), instead I saw my pp decaying by 1 point ( I losed 1 point )
Did you play something a year ago? Because another map might have reached that magic 1 year number, which makes it worth no pp.
this chocoliti guy seems to have gained at least 200pp from when cookiezi played for him, and none of the scores are even FC as far as i can see. imagin if someone beat him on freedom dive another, or got FC on 4D, im sure they would gain more than just a bit of pp
edit: unless you are serea, then you dont get any
edit: unless you are serea, then you dont get any
A thing I like about pp is that there is actually some hope in getting higher ranks without grinding on easy insanes for score. I'm #88 for taiko in Canada, #7108 world wide! I've been enjoying this system.
that's only the case in taiko. in standard, grinding is a possibility.Mithost wrote:
A thing I like about pp is that there is actually some hope in getting higher ranks without grinding on easy insanes for score. I'm #88 for taiko in Canada, #7108 world wide! I've been enjoying this system.
0 pp for that rank 1 ? o_Osilmarilen wrote:
this chocoliti guy seems to have gained at least 200pp from when cookiezi played for him, and none of the scores are even FC as far as i can see. imagin if someone beat him on freedom dive another, or got FC on 4D, im sure they would gain more than just a bit of pp
edit: unless you are serea, then you dont get any
yep, he got 0pp
There are map that are worth MANY pp that are 4 years old. That map was worth no pp while being LESS than 3 month old. and still played like high-pp worthy maps.lolcubes wrote:
Did you play something a year ago? Because another map might have reached that magic 1 year number, which makes it worth no pp.
So the algorhythm need some adjustment.
hes saying that you might have gotten a score 1 year ago, so that stopped giving pp.
I'm so bad at this game, a map that should be worth 0 pp by now is still up in my top pp maps orz
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/44348?m=0
That's my best performance ever and I played that like 1 or 2 times only, this is kind of random.
That's my best performance ever and I played that like 1 or 2 times only, this is kind of random.