XPJ38 wrote:
Why?
22:15 Dolphin: score calculation should reward accuracy a lot more than combo
22:15 Dainesl: but both are based off of one thing: consistency
22:16 Dainesl: higher accuracy requires more consistency, higher combo requires higher consistency, therefore we need to balance them more!
22:16 uguu: A 99% acc play with 1 miss halfway through is a lot more impressive than a 94% acc FC.
22:16 Dainesl: i agree
22:17 Dainesl: But I think the scoring system is trying to emulate the older games
22:17 Dainesl: (i say older games but this isn't a sequel, this is an adaptation .w.)
22:17 Dolphin: like isn't the point of rhythm games to actually have rhythmical accuracy?
22:18 Dolphin: beatmania IIDX rewards accuracy rather combo which is awesome
22:18 uguu: The scoring is note value * combo
22:18 uguu: roughly
22:18 Dainesl: but unless you are awful at timing, you shouldn't be getting too bad of an accuracy if you can play the map .w.
Can't really compare beatmania with osu!standard because beatmania doesn't require an aim component. This is why the combo is so highly weighted on score in osu!standard. The current system is good as it is.onotoleonide wrote:
22:18 Dolphin: beatmania IIDX rewards accuracy rather combo which is awesome
Raw score is SS without spinners bonus. Object's number is like remove all NCs in any map, object's number = combo numberFull Tablet wrote:
What is "Object's number" in the formula? (I will suppose it is a constant...)
Problems with that formula:
- It doesn't punish you enough for getting misses IMO (since it doesn't use the combo mechanic, and it doesn't replace with anything else).
- It would give similar scores for plays that vary a lot in terms of performance. For example: Getting 6 100s would discount about the same as getting 4 Misses.
A solution for that would be changing the way accuracy is calculated (Giving 100%acc for 300s, 33.33%acc for 100s, 16.17%acc for 50s and 0%acc for Misses, and then averaging the accuracy in each hit is an arbitrary way to calculate accuracy anyways).
Examples of accuracy values with an alternate formula (which is arbitrary too):
In a map with 500 circles, 200 sliders, 50 spinners:
All 300s: 100%acc.
1 100 (in a circle), the rest 300s: 95.36%Acc.
1 100 (in a slider), the rest 300s: 96.57%Acc. (Circles are more important since they are more closely related to accuracy than sliders).
1 50 (in a circle), the rest 300s: 90.93%Acc.
1 Miss (in a circle), the rest 300s: 86.96%Acc.
5 100s (in circles), the rest 300s: 90.10%Acc.
Circles: 2 Misses, 1 50, 10 100s, the rest 300s. Sliders: All 300s. Accuracy: 74.09%Acc
etc...
rrtyui's big black score has 3 misses and one 100, does that count? =Ponotoleonide wrote:
where have you seen someone with four misses and whole 300s?
watonotoleonide wrote:
that's rrtyuiLuna wrote:
rrtyui's big black score has 3 misses and one 100, does that count? =P
This doesn't make sense. Or rather it's common sense, no point in even stating it x_x (Or I simply don't get the meaning of "combo oriented games")Hula wrote:
score is fine as it is, it's how it is in any other combo orientated games, the longer you keep a combo going, the more rewarding
Call me stubborn, but I'm fully attached to the current system. I like that my combo grows exponentially better. It's not static like Guitar Hero or Rock Band. It's no good if you take this part of the system away.iDolan wrote:
I honestly think that the current formula for scoring is perfect the way it is and shouldn't change at all.
