It is how it is, and it won't be changed.
Good points! You said that people would get exactly same scores. I dind't say that combos shouldn't count at all, just that they should count much less. FOr example in Guitar Hero, Rock Band and other quality rythm games, the maximum multiplier is 4x. That's way better. Well, and don't forget the spinning extra points.GenoClysm wrote:
Wrong section buddy, move to gameplay and rankings.
or suggestions or something
As for this suggestion, this shouldn't be changed and will not be changed. rhythm games are almost completely based off of combos, that's how it's been and will always be.
Aswell, overall skill in rhythm games is more consistency than anything, and the only way that can be told is through combos.
Combos also act as a multiplier that makes for much more score diversity, making perfection more perfect and seperating unique scores. If you haven't noticed, there are easy and normal maps with 50+ people with literally the exact same score, all of them getting SS's. If combos didn't completley make score in harder maps, we'd have a similar situation likely. Everyone with 1 miss will have the exact same score, everyone with 2 100's will have the exact same score, etc etc.
What you are asking for is impossible. Rhythm games and competition in them are (almost)COMPLETELY structured around combos, and without them being almost entirely the weight, rankings would be in chunks of people, not individuals lol
What you said that scores would be wiped, that's not really true. A rpgram could calculate all the scorse again based on the replays and then re-order the lists. I know it would be a shock a first, but it would work.YayMii wrote:
peppy has been aware of this problem for a while already. The score system can not be changed though, as such change will result in millions upon millions of scores getting wiped. This is one of the reasons why the pp system weighed other factors more heavily than score alone.
RaneFire wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/157821
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/149146
Read this part: http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/2604353
It could be better. It still wouldn't be perfect.Pelaaja_X wrote:
I read all of those. They are logical, and perhaps I have to re-think. But still, that the multiplier grows this fast as it grows in osu!, is not very smart. As I said, for example in Guitar Hero and Rock Band maximum multipliers are the class of 4. And that's somthing osu! could learn from.
GenoClysm wrote:
Wrong section buddy, move to gameplay and rankings.
or suggestions or something
Rewben2 wrote:
peppy thinks the game would be better this way (but he can't change it now, it would upset too many people) and I agree, accuracy is a better measurement than combo in my opinion.
I think this brings up a good point, perhaps combo is a better system for rankings. But I think accuracy would be better for things like the upcoming ladder system or the OWC, because anyone can lose concentration for a moment and miss while someone else, who may be doing much worse in terms of accuracy, would fc and win.RaneFire wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/157821
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/149146
Read this part: http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/2604353
I don't get it. osu! is about aim, not accuracy, why would you make it the main measurement?Rewben2 wrote:
peppy thinks the game would be better this way (but he can't change it now, it would upset too many people) and I agree, accuracy is a better measurement than combo in my opinion.
I'd like to think it's about both but just leaning a bit more towards aim.GoldenWolf wrote:
I don't get it. osu! is about aim, not accuracy, why would you make it the main measurement?Rewben2 wrote:
peppy thinks the game would be better this way (but he can't change it now, it would upset too many people) and I agree, accuracy is a better measurement than combo in my opinion.
I explained myself - I believe rankings should stay the same but things like OWC should rely on accuracy if you're trying to determine who the better team/player is. Anyone can randomly drop and be consistent throughout the rest of the song - While someone else who is constantly getting 100's may fc with an unimpressive accuracy and win. I think it's just a more accurate way of determining who is a better player opposed to combo. Perhaps misses could be more of a detriment to accuracy than it is now if there was a system that was accuracy based, to prevent people doing what was listed in the thread above (Ignoring hard parts of the song and just doing well on the rest).GoldenWolf wrote:
I don't get it. osu! is about aim, not accuracy, why would you make it the main measurement?Rewben2 wrote:
peppy thinks the game would be better this way (but he can't change it now, it would upset too many people) and I agree, accuracy is a better measurement than combo in my opinion.
About the point that the combo system gives variation to scores: it is possible to make a combo system at the same time that serves the same purpose, but without making the score so dependent on it:Rewben2 wrote:
I think this brings up a good point, perhaps combo is a better system for rankings. But I think accuracy would be better for things like the upcoming ladder system or the OWC, because anyone can lose concentration for a moment and miss while someone else, who may be doing much worse in terms of accuracy, would fc and win.RaneFire wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/157821
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/149146
Read this part: http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/2604353
About the point that the combo system gives variation to scores: it is possible to make a combo system at the same time that serves the same purpose, but without making the score so dependent on it:Full Tablet wrote:
I think this brings up a good point, perhaps combo is a better system for rankings. But I think accuracy would be better for things like the upcoming ladder system or the OWC, because anyone can lose concentration for a moment and miss while someone else, who may be doing much worse in terms of accuracy, would fc and win.
I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.Philantropist wrote:
Isn't not missing/keeping a combo an integral part of the game? (aim)
Being consistent in not missing is a skill in itself.
Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.Rewben2 wrote:
I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
It totally depends on the map.Rewben2 wrote:
I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
I guess so for a map like airman with those jumps near the start I don't even know if that's a good example at all but I think generally speaking, if the map is pretty similar difficulty throughout then the higher accuracy would be more impressive. 5% away from an SS is a huge difference compared to .5% away from an SS.GoldenWolf wrote:
It totally depends on the map.Rewben2 wrote:
I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
Yeah, creating a system for a ladder in a rhythm game that is actually accurate and will determine the better player each time is incredibly hard because of inconsistencies. Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?Almost wrote:
Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.Rewben2 wrote:
I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics. There is more luck involved in tournaments in a combo based system but the most important aspect of the game is aim so it's not worth removing that because there may be worse players in tournaments doing better.Rewben2 wrote:
Yeah, creating a system for a ladder in a rhythm game that is actually accurate and will determine the better player each time is incredibly hard because of inconsistencies. Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?Almost wrote:
Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.
What do you mean by "removes half the game mechanics"?Almost wrote:
Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics.
Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.Rewben2 wrote:
What do you mean by "removes half the game mechanics"?Almost wrote:
Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics.
Rewben2 wrote:
Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.Almost wrote:
Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.Rewben2 wrote:
It's not like aim isn't required in an accuracy based tournament... Anyways,Rewben2 wrote:
Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?
I mentioned that in an earlier post.Full Tablet wrote:
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.Almost wrote:
Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
Aim > Accuracy, i'd rather see remote control 95% DT than HD HR 100%Full Tablet wrote:
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.Almost wrote:
Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
I agree, it's just I don't think that a match should be decided on who misses, because ultimately it is. A player with slightly better aim can beat someone with far better accuracy as a result of this. But when trying to rank in a map, the accuracy player would always get a higher rank because they can just retry until its a fc. Would you agree on an accuracy-based system if the misses were penalised much higher than it is now - but not to the point that it's the decider of a game?Almost wrote:
It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.
I would love to have an accuracy-based mode in a tournament where players play some random OD10 map and the game is decided by highest accuracy (average for a team game). But other than that, I would not support it.Rewben2 wrote:
I agree, it's just I don't think that a match should be decided on who misses, because ultimately it is. A player with slightly better aim can beat someone with far better accuracy as a result of this. But when trying to rank in a map, the accuracy player would always get a higher rank because they can just retry until its a fc. Would you agree on an accuracy-based system if the misses were penalised much higher than it is now - but not to the point that it's the decider of a game?Almost wrote:
It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.
The server only keeps track of the replays for the top 50 scores, so that can't work. He could just keep the top 50 scores and rearrange those, but that would be unfair to all of the other players. The only other option would be to completely wipe the score database, which won't happen.Pelaaja_X wrote:
What you said that scores would be wiped, that's not really true. A rpgram could calculate all the scorse again based on the replays and then re-order the lists. I know it would be a shock a first, but it would work.
You even linked threads of months ago discussing a similar thing - What are you talking about?RaneFire wrote:
pp disappears for 1 week and look what happens
The discussion came back to life.Rewben2 wrote:
You even linked threads of months ago discussing a similar thing - What are you talking about?RaneFire wrote:
pp disappears for 1 week and look what happens
I don't see any connections to pp being disabled in this thread, it could have been made 2 weeks ago and nothing would be different. I'm sure the op knows there's no way the system would be so changed in such a major way after the way it has been running for years - peppy has also talked about this exact topic in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjuaFiLia6w this vid and said it won't be changed.RaneFire wrote:
The discussion came back to life.
He seems to be doing no more than taking note of a coincidence. It may feel far fetched to you, but as I see it, his logic goes some along the lines of this:Rewben2 wrote:
I don't see any connections to pp being disabled in this thread, it could have been made 2 weeks ago and nothing would be different. I'm sure the op knows there's no way the system would be so changed in such a major way after the way it has been running for years - peppy has also talked about this exact topic in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjuaFiLia6w this vid and said it won't be changed.RaneFire wrote:
The discussion came back to life.