I like this idea, although like my post in the other thread: t/98070 i would prefer if it had more map statistics, this is a good start tho, so Support!

Sakura wrote:

I like this idea, although like my post in the other thread: t/98070 i would prefer if it had more map statistics, this is a good start tho, so Support!

I included the possible expandability in the top post, There is one issue with adding said things (jumps?) is that you need a "max" in order to graph into a percentage which means someone is going to have to go figure out what ranked map has the the most of said things unless this is already recorded in peppy's secret laboratory

RBRat3 wrote:

I brought this up in another request and thought it deserved its own request as to not side track the other thats completely different.

I'm sure I've seen star maps come up even before that... but again that's probably lost deep in some other thread, so it's best that it has it's own now.

The main problem with star maps is that they're not actually very good at anything.

There are a number of problems with using them here:

1) Star maps work best when the arms are weighted to be the same. This makes the area represent something consistent (although the human ability to judge that isn't very good, which is part of the reason why star maps aren't very good). This is pretty much impossible to do here objectively. The shape itself does carry some meaning even if the area is inconsistent... however, I'm not so sure how useful those shapes would be with these particular values.

2) OD, AR, DR, and CS are discrete parameters. They have definite set values that people want to know. If they were calculated stats on a continuous scale where people might not care so much about the exact value, then star graphs would work better... because reading values from star graphs is a relative pain. Bar graphs/histograms (ie the stars on the web page listing) work better (most notably because they're aligned to the same direction, which is easier to compare that the star graph's, each one in a different direction). However, in this case, just giving the numbers works best for these four... there's no need to make people count stars in a histogram or ticks on a star, because the specific values of OD and AR for a map are of more interest than a visual representation of the difference between OD and AR for a map (this ties back to why the shapes produced won't be interesting... the correlations between these values is less interesting than the values alone).

3) The star graph is so large it needs to be hidden away and brought up on demand (or alternatively, for those that default to it, it blocks other information that needs to be brought up on demand... for one, it hides that precious "max combo" information that some people love). A more compact format that's small enough to be always up is far better. For example, numbers in icons (eg a number inside a solid circle for CS, a number in a double circle for AR, a number under a left pointing arrow for DR, and a number in a square for OD) are nice and small, give the exact values, and could be squeezed in just about anywhere (ie they can be arranged as a 2x2 square and should be able to squeeze in beside the current displayed Length/BPM/Object/rating info with room to spare)... even on the song tabs (allowing for comparison across maps at a glance).

That isn't to say that a star graph couldn't be pretty... it's just that I wouldn't use it this way. A better way would be to use in not for the set map parameters at all, but only for calculated continuous ones. By calculating a bunch of factors from a map, you could then organize the arms so that the shape carries meaning... ie putting factors that are tied largely to object density on one side and putting the factors related more to movement on the other will create blobs that lean one way or the other depending on how streamy or jumpy a map is.

My only reason for wanting it is the ability to be expandable without occupying any more space than the UI can offer and the ability judge at a glance without consolidating numbers to figure out what that means for my play experience. Its not intended to just show those 4 values for the rest of osu's life and yes an elegant arrangement of value sets needs to be in order to visually show known difficulty shapes. As for making it severely smaller would negate the point of having rule markings essentially losing its precision visually but yes number values can be substituted for it.

More or less this is a start point and a idiot thing if experienced players need the absolute value its already readily available or the number can be included with it. If you know of better value sets to be used along with a calculation method then by all means suggest away ^_^

Rei_Fan49 wrote:

(also circle size is ranged from 0 to 10 , but the allowed ones is only from 3 till 7)

You can still force-select Circle Size as 0~2 and 8~10 via Notepad though.

I think I mentioned about the "radar graph" about this too, but I forgot where I posted it.

Reposting:

I think it would be better if we start basing it off DDR's star graph:



And then change some values to osu! meanings, like Air = Jumps, Voltage = spacing changes?, Chaos = speed changes?, things like that.

Really great idea :3 SUPPORT.

Sakura wrote:

Reposting:

I think it would be better if we start basing it off DDR's star graph:



And then change some values to osu! meanings, like Air = Jumps, Voltage = spacing changes?, Chaos = speed changes?, things like that.

Still need a max to percent off of and a method of calculating the value like how far and time between does a note have to be in order to be called a "jump"?. Should probably poll that

Also to note that title says adopt, This really isn't meant to replace a solid number (can be shown with it) nor replace any current requests that involve showing map statistics in any way... I found a spot for it and I don't see any reason not to bench test the thing while allowing for other requests to be fulfilled, It can always be removed if it doesn't live up to any usefulness just like anything else

The Jump/Speed/whatever ratings could be determined similarly to Tom's difficulty calculator, that does a damn good job at estimating all kinds of stuff.

Luna wrote:

The Jump/Speed/whatever ratings could be determined similarly to Tom's difficulty calculator, that does a damn good job at estimating all kinds of stuff.

Got a link for that?.... Also no one likes estimations XD

t/92485

It's really damn accurate for how basic it is, with a couple of improvements this would work great I'm sure

Luna is right, combine this with Tom's Calculator and this would be a relly nice addition.

Well that took it's sweet ass time for 23k maps This can be added with no issues with the map display when arranged right. I didn't look if a max was being factored or not but when turned into a percentage and graphed it should work great ^_^

If it isn't then all ranked maps need to be calculated to find a max value to at least be remotely accurate by having a boundary to go by otherwise its just a number to any newb.

Any calculations can be easily worked into osu! to calculate when a map is displayed, so that is no issue. I think if this was to be implemented, it'd be best to keep the number of stats to a bare minimum. Four looks really nice, five is alright, but any more just seems crowded and reduces the usefulness of the display.

Sakura wrote:

Reposting:

I think it would be better if we start basing it off DDR's star graph:



And then change some values to osu! meanings, like Air = Jumps, Voltage = spacing changes?, Chaos = speed changes?, things like that.

I'm pretty sure Chaos and Stream would fall under the same category, Chaos in DDR is the non 4th/8th notes ratio in the map (that's why a very streamy chart gets easily 1.00 Chaos)

Anyway I'm for this idea, but actually it should be adjusted to every mode (In Taiko the graph would be very different, I'm pretty sure that we would need as equivalent : Stream, Chaos, Freeze (Spinners and Sliders or Dendens and Drumrolls will be under this). Voltage I still don't know wtf it means, though it's been 7 years I have been playing it, wtf.

peppy wrote:

Any calculations can be easily worked into osu! to calculate when a map is displayed, so that is no issue. I think if this was to be implemented, it'd be best to keep the number of stats to a bare minimum. Four looks really nice, five is alright, but any more just seems crowded and reduces the usefulness of the display.

Well I came up with a min of 8 for simplicity, But the only way it could be useful is getting rid of the ruler and putting actual numbers at the rim like so :S

Somewhat similar to this

Yea I know Pink all up in this *^&$@!

I meant the different type of stats displayed (in the above case, 4) rather than the range of each stat. So yeah, this is fine.

I wouldn't mind this, but we should add Speed/BPM to the graph as it is a huge part of map difficulty.

You can add anything to it but the name of the game is getting an arrangement of value sets where it can form a shape you can understand. Putting things in a random order will just spit out a goofy shape that will leave you sitting there going wtf is this.

For the mock up its pretty straight forward, Bigger the diamond the harder it is.

personally, i don't think circle size would be as needed in the diamond as the other 3. maybe that could be replaced with bpm or something like that?

Gimmie a max bpm estimate to work with and a map and we'll see how it translates

Let BPM cap at 220. Every map above 220 gets the max and maybe an additional small "extra star"

I was going to say 250 because anything faster than that is usually in the approved.

i think 220 bpm is fine. i can only think of one ranked map higher than that. so 220 should do

But if you're on doubletime won't the map need to adjust to the new BPM. Mods like hardrock should also effect it.

MMzz wrote:

But if you're on doubletime won't the map need to adjust to the new BPM. Mods like hardrock should also effect it.

With mods on there can be a dead zone in the star where it would intersect a red ring of sorts...

Id show you what I mean but I'm busy trying to pull something out of my ass and it really isn't working so well XD

what about a second star map that is toggled by the use of mods?

The problem with having a high max number for BPM is that while other elements like approach rate and overall difficulty often reach the higher parts of it's spectrum, BPM will only reach 2/3rds of the way for some of the hardest ranked songs in the game (without mods). BPM should go to 220 or 250, and any BPM that goes over that through mods or whatever get a star or something saying it goes over the max.

Next thing for bpm... What do we do about BPM changes?

Mithost wrote:

The problem with having a high max number for BPM is that while other elements like approach rate and overall difficulty often reach the higher parts of it's spectrum, BPM will only reach 2/3rds of the way for some of the hardest ranked songs in the game (without mods). BPM should go to 220 or 250, and any BPM that goes over that through mods or whatever get stars.

Next thing for bpm... What do we do about BPM changes?

Take all the changes and average it?

RBRat3 wrote:

Mithost wrote:

The problem with having a high max number for BPM is that while other elements like approach rate and overall difficulty often reach the higher parts of it's spectrum, BPM will only reach 2/3rds of the way for some of the hardest ranked songs in the game (without mods). BPM should go to 220 or 250, and any BPM that goes over that through mods or whatever get stars.

Next thing for bpm... What do we do about BPM changes?

Take all the changes and average it?

That could work.

Should other elements that hit their max (AR 10 for example) get an above max notification? I think BPM being the only one to have it would be kinda weird.

Well the thing about averaging it is that it doesn't account for length...

like 300bpm changes to 80bpm but the 80bpm section only lasts 30 seconds which makes the average (190) useless and inaccurate without factoring its length of use.

I suck at math but there is a way to factor it

that wouldn't really work if you look at songs like ICARUS which get up to 251bpm for less than one second and are otherwise around 140bpm. Same thing for songs like New Castle Legions by Dirty Androids, whose bpm goes up throughout the whole song (starts at 120, finishes at 180bpm with 150 and 170 sections in the middle)
Plus imo bpm isn't always a good indicator of a map's difficulty. If you take Skrillex - Bangarang, LC's diff, it's 128bpm and yet not for the faint of heart. And that's an Insane. It makes even less sense on easier difficulties.

I tried to make an equation to do it but honestly for now if you make a minimum length requirement (in bars) for timing sections with BPM changes, you can weed out the small BPM jumps and get an average from that.

Also, BPM isn't the only factor going into the diamond/pentagon.

Honestly we should just stick to the 4 facotrs from difficulty settings. BPM is already displayed anyways, and BPM difficulty is pretty opinionated.
For instance 220 BPM in taiko is nothing for me.

Agreed, some people find some BPMs harder than anothers. For example, I find playing 220~240 BPM streamy maps easier than 165 BPM@accuracy, while it is usually the opposite since lots of players can't stream that fast, but are better at lower BPMs.

really good idea,support.

I still think we should add "Jumps" and "Streams" as additional factors by using Tom's calculator.

This is what I mean by a dead zone, The red ring would represents overages when a mod is applied

BPM shouldn't be used... it's a set parameter of the map like OD, DR, CS, and AR. It has a specific value and it's already displayed in a clear way for people that want to know it. What you want is a measure of EBPM (Effective BPM)... because things like significance of BPM changes (ie how important is the range of BPM displayed) and what baseline the map is mapped to (ie 1/2 beats vs 1/4 beats) are the things that are currently hidden, but can be calculated.

As for how to measure EBPM, well, it's essentially the baseline object density of a map. Objects/second is one measure of that. Also interesting are the peak burst rates (ie the streamy bits) and the lengths of bursts (because the occasional triple isn't a stream). Movement rate is the same... a baseline average velocity (the "air speed" of the map... a measure of the size of the beat spacing), the peak burst rates (how extreme jumps are) and the lengths of those bursts (how long the jump sequences are). These are the things I would be focusing on, and recall that Tom was working on, and had a pretty good grasp of what was needed to extract meaningful numbers (which is why I've never felt the need to play with things personally further). They're also the exact things that you want on a star graph... things like set parameters should just be listed. Derived stats from the mapping are the only things that need be on a star map, and Tom seemed to have a good handle on those, so I'd go with his stuff (although I haven't seriously looked at his stuff, just read the post a while back, I remember it to be fairly solid, and people seem to like the numbers he's producing). If peak burst rates and lengths are combined that gives four stats: an EBPM measure, streaminess, average velocity, and jumpiness.

This leaves room for say some sort of measure of chaos... ie the jerkiness of the map, jerk technically being changes in acceleration, but in this case it could probably be derived somehow from the amount and size of changes in adjacent intervals between objects.

Average queue length would be another possible derived stat that could be used. However, that depends on if AR remains not a preference, and it's also going to be correlated to both AR and the measures of object density (both the average and the burstiness), in a way that might be easily enough judged (assuming that the object density is available on the star graph and the AR is listed elsewhere). So it could probably be left out to keep the map simple (it also has the problem of interpretation... both ends are hard in their own way).

That leaves five stats: two for streams, two for jumps, and one to represent rhythm/flow chaos. Which seems a good mix to me for giving a feeling about what the map itself might be like (as opposed to just the parameters it will be played under).

I thought the polygons were made to measure the intensity (thus the difficulty) of the map. I agree with bwross, but BPM should not be ruled out as it still affects difficulty greatly.

The thing is that BPM doesn't directly affect difficulty at all. What matters is how it's used... a 320BPM map can easily be mapped like it was only 160BPM (or vice-versa). So Just knowing 320 or 160 can be deceptive. That's why the focus should be on the objects in the map, not the music. Which is why you want stats based on the density of objects... which is very much like the BPM (same units), but is actually things the player has to do.

Now, the BPM itself is still useful to know. People like to judge themselves against the BPM level of stream they can do well. But for that you want to know the exact value of BPM, not just an impression of how large it is... and that's something that's currently displayed (and should remain). However, the listing of a song at a BPM you have difficulty streaming at doesn't mean that it has any real streams that you have to go up against (or whether the streams in the map are divided into chunks of a size you can manage, or are put together into a single long death stream where you're going to eventually slide off). To know that, it comes back to the objects and how they're packed in the map. Right now that can be done to an extent by using the number of objects and the length (which can give objects/second)... but deeper analysis of the map and it's bursts could be far more accurate.

I don't mind if speed is added in a different form, but it seemed like some people in the thread were saying the speed of the map (notes and all) have no sway on difficulty. I think more people would be able to play the big black if it was 120 BPM xD. Note Density sounds good, but we still need a way of calculating it then.

I wholly support the idea of showing/visualizing more stats per map, but I can't say I like the "diamond" way. Simple - it takes up too much space, and map selection interface already feels cramped enough. I'd be fine with plain old horizontal bars - for OD, DR, CS, and AR, with colors ranging from dark green (easy) to crimson(insane). Pros: intuitive, expandable (stream intensity, spin rate and other things would be REALLY nice to see :3). Cons: plain, still might take up lots of space depending on implementation.

If they were to add this I would like the stats represented to be things that actually reflected the actual difficulty of the map. Things like average distance snap, approach rate, OD, circle size, stream length/ number of streams, and the stream density of a song. A large amount of factors can be lumped together in major categories like Accuracy, Technical, and Endurance ratings. Each map could also be given an intensity rating.

I just don't think just showing all the basic stats is any indication of a beatmap's actual difficulty, and we all know star rating can be poor at determining that. So a solution would be to detect things that do make a beatmap more difficult and represent those things as data values that we can actually ascertain valuable information from. The base stats are only a partial indication of difficulty.

Edit: A future idea would be a dynamic difficulty graph in which it takes your success rate for playing x difficulty at x average BPM, and it would then compare the stats of the difficulty to the proficiency of the player and then determine how difficult that map will be based off the number differences.

That would be very difficult to implement.

TheVileOne wrote:

If they were to add this I would like the stats represented to be things that actually reflected the actual difficulty of the map. Things like average distance snap, approach rate, OD, circle size, stream length/ number of streams, and the stream density of a song. A large amount of factors can be lumped together in major categories like Accuracy, Technical, and Endurance ratings. Each map could also be given an intensity rating.

so then maybe select maybe 4-5 categories. and those categories could be calculated using things that would effect the overall difficulty? like, as you said, average distance snap, approach rate, OD, circle size, stream length/ number of streams, and the stream density of a song

Timekiller wrote:

I wholly support the idea of showing/visualizing more stats per map, but I can't say I like the "diamond" way. Simple - it takes up too much space, and map selection interface already feels cramped enough. I'd be fine with plain old horizontal bars - for OD, DR, CS, and AR, with colors ranging from dark green (easy) to crimson(insane). Pros: intuitive, expandable (stream intensity, spin rate and other things would be REALLY nice to see :3). Cons: plain, still might take up lots of space depending on implementation.

The way I wanted it is an addon button that shows a page for it, from a default point you wont even see it on the song select until clicked upon...
So I really don't see what space your referring to unless its that tiny 16x16px icon

RBRat3 wrote:

The way I wanted it is an addon button that shows a page for it, from a default point you wont even see it on the song select until clicked upon...
So I really don't see what space your referring to unless its that tiny 16x16px icon

I'm referring to the large space that the diamond inside a circle takes up, regardless of whether it's shown by default :3 where diamond shows 4 stats, you can place 6-7 bar graphs plus some additional info like pass rate, actual bpm spread per song time and whatever else.

The "diamond" can show more stats if you want it to... you just add more arms to the star. Don't focus so much on the graphic mockup... the number of stats and what they are are up for discussion.

nic3 Idea support

Timekiller wrote:

I'm referring to the large space that the diamond inside a circle takes up, regardless of whether it's shown by default :3 where diamond shows 4 stats, you can place 6-7 bar graphs plus some additional info like pass rate, actual bpm spread per song time and whatever else.

Well it is a bar graph at its heart but adding more arms/legs doesn't take up anymore room. Theoretically its limitless but whether or not its discernible is another question XD...

The whole point of using one is being able to associate shapes with a maps difficulty attributes and bar graphs cant do this, well they can but its going to take a little more thought to get the association than you would with a shape and bar graphs tend to make you look at each individual bar rather than looking at it as a whole while a perceptual map allows you to do both.

As stated by bwross the mock up is well a mock up... The main issue is coming up with value sets that actually mean something to you and relate accurately to the map.

All that aside a graph is a graph is a graph... I don't see any reason not to slap a button on that page that will display these value sets in any applicable graphing format you wish after all it is just numbers with eyecandy

RBRat3 wrote:

All that aside a graph is a graph is a graph... I don't see any reason not to slap a button on that page that will display these value sets in any applicable graphing format you wish after all it is just numbers with eyecandy

I always seem to forget that most things can be made configurable If choosing between diamond/bars/something else would be an option, I support. Here, have my precious star

As for speed and density what about averaging the amount of notes in 1 second slots or per deci-minute (1/10th of a minute / 6 sec)...?

AKA average notes per second or average notes per deciminute....

This would factor bpm changes although it would be averaged but it greatly influences the outcome being in 1 sec slots this way, If bpm changes shouldn't be averaged then average the notes per second in the bpm time sections keeping them separate....

You've got my support for this. This would make it easier for players of all skill levels (I know I still get taken by surprise by AR9-10 maps) in being able to tell exactly why a map is difficult before playing it without having to look at it through editor beforehand. Have you thought up of a comprehensive list of potential factors to be included in your graph?

I know there is talk already about BPM but I don't see why it should be included if the BPM of the song is already shown on the top-left of the song selection screen. If anything, if your Star Perceptual graph isn't a feasible feature in terms of how to fit it on or make a new tab for it, I can see the text stats of it being posted under where the current BPM and Objects text is displayed.

I would like to see these particular stats listed though overall so support+!

Yea, awesome idea. Spending my last vote for this.

I spended my one and only vote too...

it is a nice Idea.
why not make this configurable, choose you arms, your shape, or that you want bars...

You forgot something: Some old maps do have Circle Size below 3 and above 7 being set. This is one of Ranked example with Circle Size 0, and this is another Ranked example with Circle Size 8.

I haven't see anyone setting the map with Circle Size above 8 (maximum is 10) though, but it's possible to force-set it.

I think this is a great idea, however just out of curiosity, which one of these screen shots will be the final design because if it's going to partially cover up your own score, like the first picture, I'd be better off without it. I think the one under alternate looks best. It's a nice size and it looks like it is almost proportional to the scoreboard underneath and I like the fact that the black BG is as transparent as the scoreboard. This will really make it blend well. So.... In my opinion... Support!!

Kuro wrote:

I think this is a great idea, however just out of curiosity, which one of these screen shots will be the final design because if it's going to partially cover up your own score, like the first picture, I'd be better off without it. I think the one under alternate looks best. It's a nice size and it looks like it is almost proportional to the scoreboard underneath and I like the fact that the black BG is as transparent as the scoreboard. This will really make it blend well. So.... In my opinion... Support!!

None of them are a final design they're just concept... Im sure peppy would do his own take on the look.

yes but skinnable pls...

why is this even popular. it hardly displays all the necessary information you need.

I want my difficulty rating to be displayed as numbers, not visually like this. This takes up a lot of space.

t/92485
That is how we should display difficulty.

theowest wrote:

why is this even popular. it hardly displays all the necessary information you need.

I want my difficulty rating to be displayed as numbers, not visually like this. This takes up a lot of space.

t/92485
That is how we should display difficulty.

Because you failed to read high points, This can do both at the same time and it only takes the space of a 16px square.

Support. It should scale with for example HR and DT so when you add those mods the graph changes. No need for the difficulty changes the mod makes to be seen the entire time. If you add DT the graph for AR and Over all diff should just go up by it's respective values. It should also have numbers on it.
The hardest approved maps could have an average og 15-20 in over all diff value, while normal insanes could be 10-15 etc.

hmm

maybe up here

too small up there I Like the scoreboard option, coz I dont need it anyway...

My1 wrote:

too small up there I Like the scoreboard option, coz I dont need it anyway...

it should be small.

well, what are settings for...

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

HakuNoKaemi wrote:

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

i prefer that. but hey, they are going to upgrade the difficulty setting.

stamina would be cool to see too.

It shall be based on notes concentration and lenght?
Like an Endless 1/2 or a Deathstream producing higher Stamina and so?

the more notes after each other, the higher stamina. less stamina if there are more breaks, sliders, spinners, etc. less time between the notes (higher bpm) will increase the stamina difficulty.

It should be counted in ms instead of BPM. It all matters how you map after all.
Also, spinners (especially long ones) uses up stamina as well.

Btw RBRat3, I love your graphics


And of course, I fully support this

Idea looks nice! Support!

deadbeat wrote:

also if hard rock will play a factor in the star map, can i suggest having the cap at 11 instead of 10?

what cap do you mean with that? AR?

Saten wrote:

It should be counted in ms instead of BPM. It all matters how you map after all.
Also, spinners (especially long ones) uses up stamina as well.

very good point there. it should be taken into account

Stamina is what all the talk about object density is about. Breaks, sliders, spinners are areas with low density... areas with less time between notes are high density. However, if you're looking for information on how long and fast bursts are, that would be the realm of streaminess. It's best to keep things in the stats used as independent as possible... having stats that always move together means that you've screwed up and should have combined them into a single stat.

HakuNoKaemi wrote:

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

Things like Drain, OD, and CS shouldn't be part of a secondary chart. They're too important... they're not stats that tell you what the map is like, they're parameters that tell you the rules you'll be playing under. Besides, combining OD and CS is silly... the precision that affects OD isn't spacial, it's temporal. CS affects jumps and movement rate stats, because there the size of the target affects how difficult it is to hit. With OD, the change to timing windows means potential more 100s, and with a high DR, that can kill if you're not careful. But that's not important to combine... these are parameters that tell the player the rules of the game, they should be up front with the object and length information, always in sight, regardless of whether the player has up global/local scores or a star map. And that request has been made elsewhere.

Stream and Jump are pretty much universally consented. They're definitely important and what people want. The thing is that they refer to the burst rates of their domains (time for Stream and space for Jump)... they don't give a picture outside of that. Which is why there should be a measure of the base time and space rates as well. Base time is object density, stamina, effective BPM (which is to say, not the BPM of the song, but the BPM experienced in the map). Base space is a measure of the movement of a map, it's velocity, beat spacing, and slider speeds. Stream and Jump are the extremes that those go to.

Chaos has also been brought up a lot, but nobody seems to have presented a picture of what it would be. Well, if chaos is a measure of the entropy of a map, we need to consider what entropy is. Entropy is essentially a measure of the number of states of a system. Consider a glass, it's solid and has a certain shape. The way it's atoms can be arranged in that glass is large, but it's miniscule compared to the number of states if you throw the glass on the ground and break it... where the number of pieces and their shapes and there positions relative to each other adds a nigh infinite number of new positions. And so the glass has gained a lot of entropy by being broken.

What does that mean for osu!... well, consider a stream of 12 overlapping circles in straight line. When such a thing comes up in a map, it registers essentially as one object... it's like a slider, but you need to hit notes instead of holding them. From a stamina point of view, that adds something, but from a mental chaos point of view, it's the same, the stream can be processed as one thing. Now consider replacing one of the circles with a repeating slider. It has a different length than the rest, is a different type of object, and can had a variety of lengths (depending on the number of repeats), and could occur in any of the twelve spots... suddenly the processing has become more than one thing, it's gained some entropy. Take those twelve circles and have them bouncing around in a pattern, and you can get more entropy yet. Add a complex rhythm and you add more possibilities and entropy... add some emphatic spacing for that rhythm (ie jumps, changes in beat spacing) and you add even more.

So what I'm thinking for a way to measure entropy, is that you need to look at adjacent intervals between objects (under various size windows... I'd consider using combo groups as a width for windows (ie 1 group, 2 groups, 3 groups), because they should delineate patterns in the map to some degree). If they represent different notes or have different beat spacing, then entropy is definitely higher than a map of 1/2 beats that trudges around the map at the same beat spacing. Pattern entropy is a harder thing to measure. A simple way that might be worth looking into, is to consider changes in angle between intervals. A straight line is just 0, 0, 0... (note that we're talking change in angle (delta) so the exact direction doesn't really matter, only that each circle heads in the same direction). A slightly curved line might not be more complicated... say, 5, 5, 5 (degrees). Regular polygons (and polygrams) would also register as simple recognizable patters (ie squares would be sequences of 90s). Jumping back and forth from a series of radial points adds a bit more complexity: a 180 to get back to the center, alternated with the angle to the next poiint... as would a zig-zag. Random jumping around would be random. There are a number of ways to potentially analyze such things... one would be to look for cycles and other patterns, but a simpler way might just be to look at the numbers within a window and see if there are one or two dominant values. In the end, a lot of experimentation with real map data will be needed in any case to work out what the weights of any of the factors should be (and how they might combine... ie a sudden change in direction combined with a note of a different duration than anything around it combined with a change in beat spacing). Although, you could also try to apply machine learning to working out the factors... although, then you'd still need reliable expert opinion on what the values should be to teach it.

Anyways, there's a brain dump on "Chaos" as a stat for you.

I'm a derp

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

OMG BUUUUMMPPPPP

what have you done...

Well, since this has now been bumped, I suppose i'll contribute by saying that I think the important thing is to just keep the information shown in the chart fairly simple just to get it implemented. If it needs to be fine-tuned over time then great, but what i mostly wanna see is a more accurate representation of difficulty besides the .5-5 star rating, because lets be honest, the star difficulty rating should really go up to like 15.


tl;dr I support.

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

I'm a derp

how dare you edit my post >.<

Zamura wrote:

the star difficulty rating should really go up to like 15.

Why not scale that 15 down to 5, you will see that isn't the problem

my point was simply that the 1-5 star scale is not exactly a good indicator of a maps difficulty once you reach the 5 star level, which is why i support this idea. It gives a clearer idea of how difficult the map is relative to others, at a glance.

I'd love to see some more detailed info on maps. The star system isn't doing it for me anymore because there are definitely maps that are harder than 5 stars and should be categorized higher like 6 or 7 stars yet can't because it's limited. I feel that this would also let you practice style specific maps. so you want to practice faster AR gradually? this would help. Not only informational, but I can see this as a great tool.

The difficulty rating needs a redesign, and this is a great suggestion because different people find different things hard. Also this seems obvious and someone probably mentioned this in the thread, but it would make the effects of mods like HR and DT visible and obvious, for example as a differently-colored layer behind the base difficulty.
Star~ of course

Oh yeah this request, I almost forgot it.
Seriously, this is a great idea.
Try to merge it with Tom's difficulty calculator in a way and we have a as-perfect-as-possible-map-difficulty-display-...thingy

I prefer to compare difficulties with numbers, not with visual indications which might be hard to differentiate.

The suggestion already has it only brought up on demand. If you don't want to see it, don't hit the button and it won't replace the scoreboard.

Oh wow how did I miss this thread?! Support!

This radar chart will also come in handy in multiplayer game. I sometimes play with beginner friends and I don't know if the circle size in some maps are big enough for HR for them to survive. A radar chart will make the decision a lot easier!

_tear wrote:

The difficulty rating needs a redesign, and this is a great suggestion because different people find different things hard. Also this seems obvious and someone probably mentioned this in the thread, but it would make the effects of mods like HR and DT visible and obvious, for example as a differently-colored layer behind the base difficulty.
Star~ of course

Yes its possible, Was already discussed.

Oinari-sama wrote:

Oh wow how did I miss this thread?! Support!

Simple it sat here got old and grew a beard.

theowest wrote:

I prefer to compare difficulties with numbers, not with visual indications which might be hard to differentiate.

You might need reading glasses, The thing only has 10 notches plus it was already discussed along with different graphing options...

Still, I prefer one number rather than multiple difficulty wings (those that spread out)

bwross wrote:

The suggestion already has it only brought up on demand. If you don't want to see it, don't hit the button and it won't replace the scoreboard.

^^

yay nice bump ppl. i want this.

Aaaaaghhh bump!!! >A<

Support support support support >////A////<''''''''
Also, I agree it would be good to include some more 'complex' difficulty parameters :3


.... Also I will come back to read the rest of this thread later...... :3

This was my idea too. I was actually about to post it until I saw this..

Anyways, you have my support. I'd like to be able to have a bit of an idea what the map will be like before playing it (if there's a lot of jumps, streams, bpm changes, overlapping notes, etc).

Nice Idea, I thought of this too! It would be a great way to see the map overall difficulty, as the stars doesn't tell you that much...
You have my support.

Great idea, full support.

If you could find a way to fit the perceptual map into the song selection as well as have the the numerical identification for AR, HP, CS, and OD in there somewhere too I could see this feature being very well liked (if ever implemented). Space is definitely an issue with how much clutter there is to begin with. Perhaps it could be like a small option beside the 5-star rating that you could click and it would bring up this small, faded-out version of the perceptual map in the middle of the screen which you then scroll over to expand it.

Really cool idea! Big fan ^w^

I Really loved the idea! I really want this =D

Not sure if suggested, but if we were to style it roughly to the size of the DDR like, we could always suggest it in this area of the UI without needing to have a button active:



Extend the black area out roughly an extra 10-15% more, and place it in there.

I have another concept. It's more for the webiste probably though.

For example the stars ring can have a different color depending on the difficulty of the map (more difficult - stronger red color)
I am not a designer, I can't draw cool professional stuff sorry. Excel mad skillz
Maybe speed and aim values can be put here somehow too, but I have no more ideas right now

UPD: And if that's in the game you could make these sectors clickable to let osu! find maps with certain parameters
UPD2: Another variant but with an indicator for high difficulty (I'd say 9, 10 are high for AR, OD and > 5 is high for CS)

No progress on this ? I would really like to see this. The idea should still work with the new difficulty system.