we don't need the /schimeralolz wrote:
Obviously we just need ranked matchmaking. /s
I think he is, but I mean at the end of the day it is still his game.Wishy wrote:
I mean it's not like you have to develop a new idea, it's already there and it's been proven to work. Just take that and make it even better, you got access to every score in the game to do trial and error, it shouldn't be too hard to tweak some stuff you see doesn't work.
Not saying it should be easy but I think peppy is trying to reinvent dynamite rather than just use it.
i'm confused as to how in the fuck a ladder system would be good for osu in any way[AirCoN] wrote:
we don't need the /schimeralolz wrote:
Obviously we just need ranked matchmaking. /s
because it would be 10x better, click find a match, wait to be matched up with people of similar rank, gain/lose elo based on outcomes
People like to ignore any public announcements though. I swear the last time ppv2's listings were up, peppy put huge, bold, all-caps scrolling text on top of the page about it being unfinished and people still complained about its inaccuracy. So I doubt that better communication would've made a difference.ClawViper wrote:
I think what caused the shitstorm was a lack of good PR. If peppy had explained things clearly that visible ppv2 that day was broken to the maximum and does not reflect the real future ranking system, and addressed the concerns and complaints politely, I doubt the outrage would be so big.
I don't see why it wouldn't be? At least explain why you think it would be bad. There's other rhythm games that have 1v1 modes, and using a 1v1 mode you can easily establish a ladder based on an elo system or something.JappyBabes wrote:
i'm confused as to how in the fuck a ladder system would be good for osu in any way
^ this.PlasticSmoothie wrote:
NEW THINGS ARE SHINY.
there is no reason that can be given that would indicate a ladder system would be better or more fitting than one from ranking on maps. what are you going to do with a ladder system, get people to challenge others to a 1v1 on a specific map under certain conditions? if the two people are both capable of playing what the challenge is, regardless of the actual skill disparity between the two, the outcome may as well be decided by luck. if you want a ranking to be based on ELO and skill for that matter, why would you be so content with adding luck into the equation? it strays from what you're trying to achieve. if you want this ladder ranking to be the main metric used to measure one's skill, what place do specific map rankings have anymore? people will just go queue into a 1v1 and to be blunt, even the top players now will play like absolute shit and be rewarded for it. god forbid they, you know, try to set an impressive score on a map instead of taking part in a ranking system that has no place in osu. even as a side ranking i couldn't bring myself to take a ladder ranking seriously.Rewben2 wrote:
I don't see why it wouldn't be? At least explain why you think it would be bad. There's other rhythm games that have 1v1 modes, and using a 1v1 mode you can easily establish a ladder based on an elo system or something.JappyBabes wrote:
i'm confused as to how in the fuck a ladder system would be good for osu in any way
Ah, so pretty much the fact that it's luck-based. I don't think a ladder will ever replace the pp system, but would definitely be something on the side. One way to make it more fair would be to choose a random map (out of a large pool so people don't memorise maps as much) and have it be a best out of 10 or something, so it isn't decided from few games.JappyBabes wrote:
there is no reason that can be given that would indicate a ladder system would be better or more fitting than one from ranking on maps. what are you going to do with a ladder system, get people to challenge others to a 1v1 on a specific map under certain conditions? if the two people are both capable of playing what the challenge is, regardless of the actual skill disparity between the two, the outcome may as well be decided by luck. if you want a ranking to be based on ELO and skill for that matter, why would you be so content with adding luck into the equation? it strays from what you're trying to achieve. if you want this ladder ranking to be the main metric used to measure one's skill, what place do specific map rankings have anymore? people will just go queue into a 1v1 and to be blunt, even the top players now will play like absolute shit and be rewarded for it. god forbid they, you know, try to set an impressive score on a map instead of taking part in a ranking system that has no place in osu. even as a side ranking i couldn't bring myself to take a ladder ranking seriously.
Only my Opinion, but I think, that Osu!tp is only the small form from the PPv1 System ... in PPv1 you gained Points for Ranks under 1000 and it was Easy to Farm with Easy-HardsSoarezi wrote:
Peppy, why don't you do work with tom and make TP the main ranking system? I'm pretty sure TP would be even better if you'd participate in it.
that's also problematic as each player has their own merits so choosing a map randomly doesn't help in an overall ranking which is decided by your elo, i see that as more luck. i don't think it's a system where the randomness becomes acceptable/negligible after a certain amount of results either. and yeah owc has that along with a whole range of other issues.Rewben2 wrote:
Ah, so pretty much the fact that it's luck-based. I don't think a ladder will ever replace the pp system, but would definitely be something on the side. One way to make it more fair would be to choose a random map (out of a large pool so people don't memorise maps as much) and have it be a best out of 10 or something, so it isn't decided from few games.
Don't you think the OWC has a similar issue?
You don't get TP at all from easy/hards so it's not farmable.Ultrayano wrote:
Only my Opinion, but I think, that Osu!tp is only the small form from the PPv1 System ... in PPv1 you gained Points for Ranks under 1000 and it was Easy to Farm with Easy-HardsSoarezi wrote:
Peppy, why don't you do work with tom and make TP the main ranking system? I'm pretty sure TP would be even better if you'd participate in it.
In Osu!tp you gain tp for be in the Top 50 in a Map ...
All Skilled Players will play normal, but all not so good Players (The Players who can't reach Top 50 in a Insane (Like me)) will farm Easy's and Normal's, maybe Hards
PPv1 was Easy to farm and Osu!tp would it be also if it would be the primary System
^Yeah, my English is bad
---------------------------------------
Haha PP are Hidden ... i laughed so hard, when I saw this
Soarezi wrote:
You don't get TP at all from easy/hards so it's not farmable.
Touhosu?peppy wrote:
Let's just leave it at this: Introducing change is *hard*. Even if you are making completely forward and beneficial progress, you are still going to piss a group off. people will still get pissed off when I restore the ranking later this week (roughly half of you, who had your rank decreased). I don't really have anything for you in this situation except to persevere as Rewben2 says. Learn and adapt; it's a very good skill to have.
Also be goddamn excited. I have some interesting stuff planned and you should lighten up, calm down, and osu! on.
Easy/normal top 50s are only effective for getting your first few tp points. After you get to around the 1500~ tp points at least, getting a top 50 score is pretty easy and it's more about how hard it is to actually get the score.Ultrayano wrote:
It would be easier to get tp for low ranked players but it wouldn't be much easier for high ranked players since most scores are in the top 50 and even if you got a sub rank 50 score, other people would also get sub rank 50 scores which would equalize all the ranks.Ultrayano wrote:
Soarezi wrote:
PPv1 was Easy to farm and Osu!tp would it be also if it would be the primary System
Sorry but you have to play this game to make a system that's goodEphemeral wrote:
There are pros and cons to many different sorts of ranking systems, and developing a solid one is an extremely difficult affair. TP seems promising, certainly, but it has serious issues with lower-level players, as stated above.
I've seen the backend of ppv2 being worked on and I personally felt it was a lot more accurate than ppv1, which was flawed in a number of ways (specifically regarding mod weighting). I've looked at the code for both, and ppv2 is much better, much more fluid, and makes a lot more sense. Trust me, when it's finished and comes into general use, I can see a lot of people enjoying it a lot more over than simply farming Hard difficulties for pp, even if a lot of people do take a fairly huge initial ranking hit from the reconfiguration.
ppv2 is just overall a lot better than I think a lot of people can readily gauge at this point, given that the public was only given a tiny, tiny glimpse into a half-finished system that was kind of ass-backwards at the time. Have some faith!
I have to say, that those issues rise pretty much completely from only having top50 scores to work with. Lower level players don't get any tp for 99.9% of their scores, sadly.Ephemeral wrote:
There are pros and cons to many different sorts of ranking systems, and developing a solid one is an extremely difficult affair. TP seems promising, certainly, but it has serious issues with lower-level players, as stated above.
).Rewben2 wrote:
Sorry but you have to play this game to make a system that's good
/s
What Ephemeral said is really reassuring to me that ppv2 will be good.Ephemeral wrote:
Have some faith!
And due to the obvious top50 problem, lower level players can also rank higher than mediocre players just by playing all the new maps as they come out to get their scores on tp. The degree to which this is done varies between players and it's what makes anyone other than high-ranked players inaccurate.Pancake wrote:
I have to say, that those issues rise pretty much completely from only having top50 scores to work with. Lower level players don't get any tp for 99.9% of their scores, sadly.
Zeraph wrote:
the "obvious top50 problem" could be easily solved and make TP way more viable than pp or ranked score ever were. too bad. ^^
Bad example, I still want the old 2007 design back, everything past that was shit hahaUltrayano wrote:
Let's wait on PPv2 and see how it is
It's the same with the Designs of YT ...
At the begin all said "What a shit Design" then it change again and then "No, we want the old back" xD
The problem is, that what most players consider "skill" is not represented very well in an objective way within the game's mechanics. People often talk about aim, speed, jumps and so on, yet the only objective data available are the amount of 300s, 100s, 50s and misses... and score. Accuracy can be inferred.Ephemeral wrote:
I don't really agree with the premise that properly creating a ranking for your own game requires you to play it at a quasi-professional level. The rulesets are clear and ranking assessments can be made objectively on raw data alone without introducing arbitrary multipliers and other shonky things that are based purely on "experience" over any tangible representation in the game's mechanics.
True but a lot of ppl who said Google+ is shit, like it now ... it's the same ... all have different opinionsLuna wrote:
Bad example, I still want the old 2007 design back, everything past that was shit hahaUltrayano wrote:
Let's wait on PPv2 and see how it is
It's the same with the Designs of YT ...
At the begin all said "What a shit Design" then it change again and then "No, we want the old back" xD
But yeah, just give ppv2 a chance.
I still think input from those higher ranked players is valuable. As a player who plays mostly with Hard Rock, I can tell you that the increase in difficulty with respect to accuracy is beyond what I could have imagined when I was a new player. Yes, you can look at data, but it's really hard to understand some of the finer parts of the game without some experience. This showed up to some extent in the iterations of ppv2 that have been publicized so far: the HD+HR players consistently took a big hit in rank. During the iteration where it showed the top ranks, none of my HD+HR scores were in there despite almost all of my best scores using that particular mod combination.Ephemeral wrote:
I don't really agree with the premise that properly creating a ranking for your own game requires you to play it at a quasi-professional level. The rulesets are clear and ranking assessments can be made objectively on raw data alone without introducing arbitrary multipliers and other shonky things that are based purely on "experience" over any tangible representation in the game's mechanics.
Playing the game to that degree certainly infers a degree of knowledge about said mechanics, but it's not everything. I think you should rest assured that peppy does have your best interests at heart in this new ranking system that's on the way and is not doing it purely to ruin your day, but rather to improve the nature of competitive play overall - even if it seems a bit unfair or shaky during its initial implementation.
This post is interesting to me, because I gained many pp from new maps that were ranked within these last months...peppy wrote:
If they play for competition, they should have quite over the last few months. There was no way to make pp on new maps, after all.