tom can't be trusted
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.
I know someone who lost all motivation to play because pp was removed because he was close to top 50. Not me.blahpy wrote:
No one cares of pp anyway so no need for a ruckus. Most people only care of (and I agree that they only should care of) tp as it is.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.
Osu!tp is good, but if it is truly accurate, we should see jappy in top 20 of 2013. I hopped over to the voting thread, and couldnt see any votes for him.Lemme quote the key phrase lewa said in the first post of the voting thread. (It's now deleted)
The community voice
COMMUNITYPeople there were voting for SiLviA even though his 2013 playcount is under 100. I'd say the voting is more inaccurate than the TP lol
heil mouseAmaiHachimitsu wrote:
People there were voting for SiLviA even though his 2013 playcount is under 100. I'd say the voting is more inaccurate than the TP lol
Also I voted for Jappy :<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowdAmaiHachimitsu wrote:
People there were voting for SiLviA even though his 2013 playcount is under 100. I'd say the voting is more inaccurate than the TP lol
Also I voted for Jappy :<
AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
I again suggest allowing TP rank to count more than just top 50 (how about top 300?500? w/e)
please learn how a system works before assuming things. oh wait, this whole topic's existance is based on assuming things before knowing how a system works, oh wellRewben2 wrote:
Ehh, one of the reasons I think it's good being top 50 is because it takes skill to get top 50 in most songs (easy/norms are pretty easy but they are also toned down in terms of how much tp they give). That being said, turning it up to 300-500 would make it quite easy for a lot of people to get osutp for songs, and it would become farmable in a way. Instead of working hard to get ranks that take time to get, you can just play tons of different songs a few times, get rank 400~ and earn a lot of tp, hence getting a high rank. This would put you ahead of the people who work hard for getting lower ranks, because getting a lot of easier ranks is easier (and less time consuming for some) than getting a single good score.AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
I again suggest allowing TP rank to count more than just top 50 (how about top 300?500? w/e)
It would make it more appealing and easier to climb for casuals/worse players (who can't get top 50 in songs) though.
Lolwut? One of the problems with tp is that it's difficult for low ranked players.Rewben2 wrote:
Ehh, one of the reasons I think it's good being top 50 is because it takes skill to get top 50 in most songs (easy/norms are pretty easy but they are also toned down in terms of how much tp they give). That being said, turning it up to 300-500 would make it quite easy for a lot of people to get osutp for songs, and it would become farmable in a way. Instead of working hard to get ranks that take time to get, you can just play tons of different songs a few times, get rank 400~ and earn a lot of tp, hence getting a high rank. This would put you ahead of the people who work hard for getting lower ranks, because getting a lot of easier ranks is easier (and less time consuming for some) than getting a single good score.AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
I again suggest allowing TP rank to count more than just top 50 (how about top 300?500? w/e)
It would make it more appealing and easier to climb for casuals/worse players (who can't get top 50 in songs) though.
My bad, I'm just working with what I know.silmarilen wrote:
please learn how a system works before assuming things. oh wait, this whole topic's existance is based on assuming things before knowing how a system works, oh well
tp scores are weighted, by the time you get to score #20 its worth like 1tp, so farming hundreds of maps all worth 20 tp still wont get you past someone who only has 5 scores worth 100 each
As he rightfully should.Zeraph wrote:
silmarilen bringing down the hammer on stupidity.
I said that?Almost wrote:
Lolwut? One of the problems with tp is that it's difficult for low ranked players.
http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/infoRewben2 wrote:
My bad, I'm just working with what I know.silmarilen wrote:
please learn how a system works before assuming things. oh wait, this whole topic's existance is based on assuming things before knowing how a system works, oh well
tp scores are weighted, by the time you get to score #20 its worth like 1tp, so farming hundreds of maps all worth 20 tp still wont get you past someone who only has 5 scores worth 100 each
So for clarification, the amount of tp you get from a map goes down the more maps you have? Sorry, the way you explained it doesn't make sense to me.
lets say you have some scoresRewben2 wrote:
My bad, I'm just working with what I know.silmarilen wrote:
please learn how a system works before assuming things. oh wait, this whole topic's existance is based on assuming things before knowing how a system works, oh well
tp scores are weighted, by the time you get to score #20 its worth like 1tp, so farming hundreds of maps all worth 20 tp still wont get you past someone who only has 5 scores worth 100 each
So for clarification, the amount of tp you get from a map goes down the more maps you have? Sorry, the way you explained it doesn't make sense to me.
It says it adds the aim/speed/accuracy for a score. Ok yeah, I follow.Zeraph wrote:
http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info
http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info
http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info http://osutp.net/info
The last step after computing score rating is to collect all of the aim, speed and accuracy scores from every player. The scores are then sorted decreasingly by their value and the best ones form each player's tp rating in aim, speed or accuracy respectively. To make it clear: aim, speed and accuracy ratings are calculated separately.It gets the scores from all players and sorts them decreasingly, so whoever does better has a higher score. So that means that that if people were ranked #300 or so in osutp, they would have to be getting little points?
Each player's total tp rating is simply the sum of his/her aim, speed and accuracy rating.
No you didn't?Rewben2 wrote:
I said that?Almost wrote:
Lolwut? One of the problems with tp is that it's difficult for low ranked players.
Thankyou, a response that actually explains why you would be getting so little points. The link http://osutp.net/info doesn't explain that anywhere, all it says is "we add them together to get a score and whoever did better gets more", which really doesn't explain the weighted thing at all.silmarilen wrote:
lets say you have some scores
rating in aim speed and acc
90 90 90
80 80 80
and so on
what happens now is that the tp each of the maps gives is (actual tp)*0.85^(rank-1) (i think, could also just be rank)
so that means the 2nd score only gives 80*0.85^1m or 80*0.85 tp to each stat, by the time you get to rank 20 (lets assume its worth 30 in each stat) it would be 30*0.85^19, which is 1.36, so its pretty much worthless already.
if your 200th rank had 20tp, it would be 20*0.85^199 which is less than 1 billionth.
Almost wrote:
No you didn't?
Rewben2 wrote:
It would make it more appealing and easier to climb for casuals/worse players (who can't get top 50 in songs) though.
I'm implying that it's harder for low ranked players...Rewben2 wrote:
it takes skill to get top 50 in most songs
Rewben2 wrote:
Almost wrote:
No you didn't?Rewben2 wrote:
It would make it more appealing and easier to climb for casuals/worse players (who can't get top 50 in songs) though.I'm implying that it's harder for low ranked players...Rewben2 wrote:
it takes skill to get top 50 in most songs
Read what I wrote...Almost wrote:
One of the problems with tp is that it's difficult for low ranked players.
Uh, so you quoted me to point out something I already implied?Almost wrote:
Read what I wrote...
Derailing threads in a good way for daysSoulg wrote:
at least the topic is on tp and not children whining that their numbers are getting replaced with different numbers
Rewben2 wrote:
Uh, so you quoted me to point out something I already implied?Almost wrote:
Read what I wrote...
The whole "lolwut" made me think you were disagreeing with what I said... *shrugs*
I mentioned this as a benefit in my initial post...Almost wrote:
I was saying it's a problem with tp while you were saying it's good that only top 50 scores count. Are you autistic or something?
Yes, I'm disagreeing with the top 50 being a benefit for tp because low ranked players have problems with it. Having any ranking system omitting scores is a flawed one. Yes, I did see you mention it being more appealing for low ranked players but that was more of a side note.Rewben2 wrote:
I mentioned this as a benefit in my initial post...Almost wrote:
I was saying it's a problem with tp while you were saying it's good that only top 50 scores count. Are you autistic or something?
When you quoted me and said "lolwut", I assumed you were disagreeing with what I was saying and your reason being "One of the problems with tp is that it's difficult for low ranked players." I had already mentioned this in my post so I was confused.
So yeah, you did quote me to repeat something I said, and now you're calling me autistic. Alright.
It was hardly a side note, I made a new paragraph for it at the end... Anyways, lets drop this, it was some confusion, but there's no need to call people autistic.Almost wrote:
Yes, I'm disagreeing with the top 50 being a benefit for tp because low ranked players have problems with it. Having any ranking system omitting scores is a flawed one. Yes, I did see you mention it being more appealing for low ranked players but that was more of a side note.
He doesn't run tp, but you could tweet @ him for an answer if you want. If the rankings are weighted so people who ranked like #200 really get such a low amount of tp and it can't be farmed like I thought it could, I have nothing against raising the required rank.AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
Ok enough, guys above.
Now, will Peppy give answer to my suggestion?
It isn't based on the global score rank, it is based on the rank in the list of your scores.Rewben2 wrote:
He doesn't run tp, but you could tweet @ him for an answer if you want. If the rankings are weighted so people who ranked like #200 really get such a low amount of tp and it can't be farmed like I thought it could, I have nothing against raising the required rank.AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
Ok enough, guys above.
Now, will Peppy give answer to my suggestion?
Full Tablet wrote:
It isn't based on the global score rank, it is based on the rank in the list of your scores.
For example:
A player has as best Speed Rank 100tp, and his second best is 80tp. Then both of those songs give 100+80*0.85 speed tp to the total of the player.
???????????silmarilen wrote:
lets say you have some scores
first giving 90 aim, 2nd 80 aim
and so on
what happens now is that the tp each of the maps gives is (actual tp)*0.85^(rank-1) (i think, could also just be rank)
so that means the 2nd score only gives 80*0.85^1m or 80*0.85 tp to each stat, by the time you get to rank 20 (lets assume its worth 30 in each stat) it would be 30*0.85^19, which is 1.36, so its pretty much worthless already.
if your 200th rank had 20tp, it would be 20*0.85^199 which is less than 1 billionth.
It's talking about rank when you sort your scores by aim/speed/accuracy.Rewben2 wrote:
Full Tablet wrote:
It isn't based on the global score rank, it is based on the rank in the list of your scores.
For example:
A player has as best Speed Rank 100tp, and his second best is 80tp. Then both of those songs give 100+80*0.85 speed tp to the total of the player.???????????silmarilen wrote:
lets say you have some scores
first giving 90 aim, 2nd 80 aim
and so on
what happens now is that the tp each of the maps gives is (actual tp)*0.85^(rank-1) (i think, could also just be rank)
so that means the 2nd score only gives 80*0.85^1m or 80*0.85 tp to each stat, by the time you get to rank 20 (lets assume its worth 30 in each stat) it would be 30*0.85^19, which is 1.36, so its pretty much worthless already.
if your 200th rank had 20tp, it would be 20*0.85^199 which is less than 1 billionth.
I see, I think I understand...Almost wrote:
It's talking about rank when you sort your scores by aim/speed/accuracy.