Not really a suggestion or feedback, but pretty dumb question; How hard is it to get points by playing nomod compared to playing with mods?
Good job with the new ranking system.
Good job with the new ranking system.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
Do you ever plan on using play statistics to enhance the accuracy of the map difficulty algorithm or do you intend to use map data only?
Tom you should really try to concisely explain to people that this iteration of pp is fundamentally different since a lot of people think of this as just an improved version of ppv1
Topic Starter
Spyrunite wrote:
This song seems really under-valued to me. - http://osu.ppy.sh/b/137166?m=0
I spent quite a while getting a DT HD FC on it and got basically nothing, some of my other top scores though I would say are no where near as hard as it was for me to FC doll house.
For some reason this seems to be giving a lot of PP - http://osu.ppy.sh/b/95431?m=0
It doesn't seem like that hard of a map to me, not easy, but not worth the points it is giving imo.
I think that speed is being overvalued. Almost all of my top ranks are songs that just put out a lot of notes with not too much difficulty in-between them. Anyway just stuff I've been noticing and don't quite agree with. This system is already miles ahead of PPv1 so I'm happy with it, but it can always be better.
I personally consider the second map you linked harder, than the first one. While having less demanding jumps, there still are quite a few near the end and it also challenged the streaming aspect of the game while those are pretty much inexistent in the first map you linked. Also the different ApproachRates are considered equally difficult when they lie in the interval 8 to 10, since many players have different subjective opinions about those.
Not saying, that your opinion is invalid, this is just my personal view on it. If the future feedback will go further in the direction you suggested, then I'll tweak the algorithm a bit.
Topic Starter
If I ever get an idea regarding map statistics, that would work, then I'd be more than happy to include it. The problem with it is, that constantly changing difficulty numbers mean a lot more stress to the processor. Using all available scores for the computation would be a lot harder this way.Ziggo wrote:
Do you ever plan on using play statistics to enhance the accuracy of the map difficulty algorithm or do you intend to use map data only?
The most important downside is what I mentioned earlier, though. Since the people who play [hard] maps are not the same people who play top-tier maps, a statistical comparison would just be wrong. Those only work well when you have the same sample data to work with.
I'm really tempted to answer with your current signature, but I'm sure some people would get that wrong.thelewa wrote:
Tom you should really try to concisely explain to people that this iteration of pp is fundamentally different since a lot of people think of this as just an improved version of ppv1
As stated in the news post a wiki article is planned.
I'm not sure if that's even necessary. Comparing the current top50 rankings between pp and tp I feel like the pp one might actually be better. Or maybe that's just me...Tom94 wrote:
Due to processing limitations the total score value is used at score stage already. This might change in the future, but until then scores won't be weighted in all 3 categories independently.
Please explain Tom. :3Almost wrote:
If ppv2 is using the same difficulty calculations on maps as tp, why is it that my highest and 3rd highest tp maps don't make my best performance even though everything below did?
Topic Starter
That's not the only difference between tp and pp. It'll all make more sense when I found the time to write the wiki article - but don't expect it too soon. Unfortunately I'm very busy for the next 1.5 weeks.Ziggo wrote:
I'm not sure if that's even necessary. Comparing the current top50 rankings between pp and tp I feel like the pp one might actually be better. Or maybe that's just me...Tom94 wrote:
Due to processing limitations the total score value is used at score stage already. This might change in the future, but until then scores won't be weighted in all 3 categories independently.
Topic Starter
The algorithms are not the same - they are just similar. I'll look into it, but can't give any definitive answer at the moment.Almost wrote:
Please explain Tom. :3Almost wrote:
If ppv2 is using the same difficulty calculations on maps as tp, why is it that my highest and 3rd highest tp maps don't make my best performance even though everything below did?
Alright, I'll wait for the wiki then. But still, I believe getting good aim, speed and accuracy in a single score is more impressive than doing the same thing in 3 different scores. But I guess you are already aware of that and have a solution in mind.Tom94 wrote:
That's not the only difference between tp and pp. It'll all make more sense when I found the time to write the wiki article - but don't expect it too soon. Unfortunately I'm very busy for the next 1.5 weeks.Ziggo wrote:
I'm not sure if that's even necessary. Comparing the current top50 rankings between pp and tp I feel like the pp one might actually be better. Or maybe that's just me...
Ninja edit to make thelewa look stupid.
that's the best quoting I've ever seen
My questions:
- Since it says it both factors in difficulty and checks all scores, will you get pp for, let's say, a low acc pass of Freedom Dive 4D? (Or insert any other appropriately hard map) Or is FCing still heavily important?
- Is there still a huge bonus for SS?
- How much is accuracy weighted compared to ppv1?
Topic Starter
In order:Ippikiryu wrote:
My questions:
- Since it says it both factors in difficulty and checks all scores, will you get pp for, let's say, a low acc pass of Freedom Dive 4D? (Or insert any other appropriately hard map) Or is FCing still heavily important?
- Is there still a huge bonus for SS?
- How much is accuracy weighted compared to ppv1?
Misses are penalized very strongly if you have more than just a few. Your combo relative to the maximum possible combo also plays a huge role. But you can indeed get a huge amount of pp for lower scores. A prime example would be jesus1412's C score on https://osu.ppy.sh/b/124501?m=0 . It is a 86% 500 combo with DoubleTime in case you are curious. That's an insane score on such a map, you are free to look at Auto-mode play it with DoubleTime.
SS does not have a huge bonus by itself, but due to the high accuracy required to get one (100% is quite high, eh? :p) it indirectly is worth a lot.
Accuracy is still very relevant, however not as much as in ppv1 anymore.
Well, keep in mind that what I'm proposing is a purely contextual metric.Tom94 wrote:
The problem with this concept, is that the people who play [hard] diffs, old maps or top-tier maps are very different and therefore the data we have to analyze will also be different. This was one of the main issues of previous pp iterations, making [hard] and old maps being weighted much more, because statistically they seemed harder than they were since most of the good players didn't play them.EvaRia wrote:
SPOILERI had an interesting idea.
I know peppy wants to try to put a lot of emphasis on "Contextually relevant" scores into a ranking system, something like a ladder.
I've noticed an effect amongst certain scoreboards, something I guess we can call Scoreboard Stability.
It's hard to explain well, so examples are best I guess?
Highly "Unstable" Scoreboards (The top scores vary heavily on the same mod tier, few if any FCs or SS):
FREEDOM DiVE
osu! Stream Compilation
Don't say "lazy"
Usually incredibly difficult, long, or new maps.
Highly "Stable" Scoreboards (The top scores on the same mod tiers are incredibly similar):
Sis puella magica!
Chousai Kenbo Sengen
Usually incredibly easy or highly played maps.
I think maps with a higher unstable rate scoreboards are generally more "Contextual" (OMG, who's going to be the first to FC this? Who will be the first to FC this with HDHR? DT? FL? First to SS?)
For example, plays like some of Mesita's Flashlight plays (World's End, Gold Dust) or some of Cookiezi's old DT/HR/SS plays (Leia, Airman, Kokou no Sousei) are particularly impressive because they're pretty much the only ones who have charted with those mods or stats.
On the other hand, getting a first place in something like Chousai Kenbo Sengen, while impressive, is slightly less so because so many others have proven themselves of accomplishing it. Unless it's SS, which in this comparison I guess you could consider a Mod tier.
Anyways, I think if you had a way of comparing scoreboard instability and either compiling a chart or weighting the PP top ranks towards more unstable maps we would have a nice context relevant ranking formula.
The rough scale would range from the feasible infinite instability (Nobody has ever even passed this) to the quite impossible infinite stability (Literally ever user in existence has SS.) and award most possible points if you're the only existing user who's achieved the rank. (Mesita only user to S rank World's End on HDFL or better.)
Am I making sense?
This would give flashlight players something to hunt for as they can get high PP values of maps that nobody else has gotten a FL FC in before.
It also would weight more recent plays higher since scoreboards naturally stabilize more over time with some significantly slower outliers.
I agree that as far as pure skill is involved, the difficulty of the map itself is the most relevant for determining skill level.
But since you're calculating primarily based on difficulty and not on context, where I'm proposing a metric based on context with no regard for difficulty, they could theoretically exist as different metrics right?
Even shoutouts to unique awesome plays (mostly for top tier players) would make things interesting.
"<NAME> is the first to achieve rank <RANK> or better using <MODS> on <BEATMAP> (<RANKING>)!"
I don't know how exactly it would be implemented right now, but as far as a ladder system or proper context frame goes, I feel like it would be better than whatever's currently popular. It gives a certain focus on undermining scores and record-hunting that I think would be neat to see. It would also be pretty dynamic, I think.
Unstable maps are played to get the score bonus, but as they get played they stabilize again. This leaves the more difficult maps that take much longer to stabilize lingering at the top of the chart and looking through it gives you a handy way of finding the most "relevant" leaderboards.
Maybe this doesn't work the way I imagine it would though?
Topic Starter
What you're describing is somewhat dimilar to what the previous pp iterations tried to do and you've seen where it led to. Nobody has the time to play _all_ the overrated old / easy diffs to farm and make them "stable".EvaRia wrote:
SPOILERThe problem with this concept, is that the people who play [hard] diffs, old maps or top-tier maps are very different and therefore the data we have to analyze will also be different. This was one of the main issues of previous pp iterations, making [hard] and old maps being weighted much more, because statistically they seemed harder than they were since most of the good players didn't play them.
Well, keep in mind that what I'm proposing is a purely contextual metric.
I agree that as far as pure skill is involved, the difficulty of the map itself is the most relevant for determining skill level.
But since you're calculating primarily based on difficulty and not on context, where I'm proposing a metric based on context with no regard for difficulty, they could theoretically exist as different metrics right?
Even shoutouts to unique awesome plays (mostly for top tier players) would make things interesting.
"<NAME> is the first to achieve rank <RANK> or better using <MODS> on <BEATMAP> (<RANKING>)!"
I don't know how exactly it would be implemented right now, but as far as a ladder system or proper context frame goes, I feel like it would be better than whatever's currently popular. It gives a certain focus on undermining scores and record-hunting that I think would be neat to see. It would also be pretty dynamic, I think.
Unstable maps are played to get the score bonus, but as they get played they stabilize again. This leaves the more difficult maps that take much longer to stabilize lingering at the top of the chart and looking through it gives you a handy way of finding the most "relevant" leaderboards.
Maybe this doesn't work the way I imagine it would though?
With a lot of work a system like that might be tuned to be somewhat correct, but from my past experiences (yes, I also tried those kind of things with tp to a small degree) it doubt it'd be feasible.
The shoutouts you mention are indeed very interesting, but that would be even harder to implement with the way scoring works at the moment.
Planned or actually going to happen?Tom94 wrote:
. Pattern difficulty is not yet implemented but definitely planned.
i will have my old Rank ;_; please give it back
30k-->18k-->5k-->8k-->31k ;(
30k-->18k-->5k-->8k-->31k ;(
It's time to learn to play Insanes++ (:NaThaNeL wrote:
i will have my old Rank ;_; please give it back
30k-->18k-->5k-->8k-->31k ;(
um, well, i am really confused with the new system, but why is there a BIG difference between a player tp and the ranking? Sorry if I kinda offended anyone here....
Topic Starter
Don't worry, asking as question shouldn't offend anyone.Kinji wrote:
um, well, i am really confused with the new system, but why is there a BIG difference between a player tp and the ranking? Sorry if I kinda offended anyone here....
tp and pp while being more similar now are still very different. Especially in lower ranks, since tp was neither able to obtain information about sub-top50 scores nor designed for casual players in the lower rankings. You can look at tp for a general guideline of how much your scores are worth, but that's about it. Don't expect the two systems to overlap too much.
I just played https://osu.ppy.sh/b/263384&m=0 on Nogard for the first time and passed it, and lost 4pp. Is there any particular reason for that?
Thx, but if its like that, then what is the algorithm or method that the new pp system is running by? Its by calculating all your scores right? Isn't that a advantage for old players that have played alot more beatmaps than the new players? Or is it using a similar system as osu!tp? Because osu!tp is calculating the player aim, speed and accuracy, which is the closest to calculating the skill of the players.....? 
Well, still the pp are bad. 
Probably the system updatingMazzerin wrote:
I just played https://osu.ppy.sh/b/263384&m=0 on Nogard for the first time and passed it, and lost 4pp. Is there any particular reason for that?
Magnolia
Topic Starter
You can't lose pp by getting a completely new score - that is by passing a map you never passed before. Everything is being reprocessed at the moment, so instabilities like this may occur for a short while. Did you maybe have a NoFail pass on the map before? That one might have been considered better.Mazzerin wrote:
I just played https://osu.ppy.sh/b/263384&m=0 on Nogard for the first time and passed it, and lost 4pp. Is there any particular reason for that?
If I would present you with a system where players are strictly ranked by amount of #1s, then believe me, you wouldn't be happy about it. Or do you support farming easy diffs with all possible mods all day?HandHeldPillow wrote:
this system seems semi messed up. i mean in all honesty the person with the most #1's should be #1 not someone who has a few #1's on some retarded maps, i mean this was proven yesterday 1 person 20 #1's and 8k pp, this system is super flawed
HandHeldPillow wrote:
this system seems semi messed up. i mean in all honesty the person with the most #1's should be #1 not someone who has a few #1's on some retarded maps, i mean this was proven yesterday 1 person 20 #1's and 8k pp, this system is super flawed
I hope this a sincere troll. By your logic, if I went and got the most #1's on easy maps, I should be #1 world? Please.HandHeldPillow wrote:
the person with the most #1's should be #1
i don't like it :'(
To get more pp i must pass and read insane
But thats what i can't!!
Iam on Hard + HD so Insane needs to long!
So i must give up my Rank
To get more pp i must pass and read insane
But thats what i can't!!
Iam on Hard + HD so Insane needs to long!
So i must give up my Rank
Well thats the rank you deserve if you can't do the insanes.
...
Magnolia
i dont believe that farming easy and normals should not reward pp at higher levels, but i do believe that hards should be taken account and give some (not as much as ppv1 but some) pp, in the current state it seems that i have to become a circle clicking god to gain ranks, sadly my asian levels have not hit 9000 yet
Topic Starter
Hards still do give a considerable amount of pp - if your best scores consist of hards or worse. You seem to already have climbed up to some Insanes. A ranking system, that tries to tell people how good they are shouldn't reward you a lot for playing maps that are more or less easy for you. Farming is not a bad thing and actually already built in for your first few thousand scores, but with 20,000 plays this has already more or less come to a halt for you.HandHeldPillow wrote:
i dont believe that farming easy and normals should not reward pp at higher levels, but i do believe that hards should be taken account and give some (not as much as ppv1 but some) pp, in the current state it seems that i have to become a circle clicking god to gain ranks, sadly my asian levels have not hit 9000 yet
NaThaNeL wrote:
i don't like it :'(
To get more pp i must pass and read insane
But thats what i can't!!
Iam on Hard + HD so Insane needs to long!
So i must give up my Rank
If you want ranks, you need to get better. You don't need to be Cookiezi to make your rank higher than it is, you just need to be better than you are right now.HandHeldPillow wrote:
i dont believe that farming easy and normals should not reward pp at higher levels, but i do believe that hards should be taken account and give some (not as much as ppv1 but some) pp, in the current state it seems that i have to become a circle clicking god to gain ranks, sadly my asian levels have not hit 9000 yet
Constantly gaining rank for doing what you always do is exactly what farming is. If you no longer gain rank from what you are doing, the system is telling you that it is time to bite the bullet and improve.
If you don't need to improve to increase rank, what's the point of it?
I think there could be a separate ranking to Speed, Accuracy and Aim, instead of only for Score and overall Performance. You can already calculate each of them, right? It would help give people a notion to what they should improve and what they can already do.
Don't you think No Fail and Slow passes should be left out? I mean, I don't even know why they're ranked in the first place, but allowing these to give pps just makes things even messier.Tom94 wrote:
You can't lose pp by getting a completely new score - that is by passing a map you never passed before. Everything is being reprocessed at the moment, so instabilities like this may occur for a short while. Did you maybe have a NoFail pass on the map before? That one might have been considered better.
I really think that having the speed, acc and aim thing here as well will help every player to know what they lack and how to improve, since tp and pp now are really like each other whenever i want to farm pp i'd go to tp and see what gives me points and the most important thing, WHY it gives me points (high speed, aim etc) and that way i'm recognizing the 'training' i'm doing to increase my ranking. (And with this i mean we should be able to see that here too, it's not a big deal but since maps are calculated in another way here, there is a difference from what we're seeing on osutp.net and what we would be seeing here)
I'm sorry if explain myself like a retard but well, i tried.
Also i guess this would be dealed with when the wiki comes so it's not like things like this aren't planned, just saying.
I'm sorry if explain myself like a retard but well, i tried.
Also i guess this would be dealed with when the wiki comes so it's not like things like this aren't planned, just saying.
Not at all, see this hypothetical example, there is a long song with 1000 notes (fc) and 220 bpm, which has a long stream at the end. Player 1 can't stream at that speed, so he plays with NF, and gets a 90% acc 600 combo score, player 2 can barely stream at that speed, and gets a 75% acc 300 combo score, without mods. At least, if you ask me, Player 1 deserves more pp, by far, and that score shouln't be left out.FlameseeK wrote:
Don't you think No Fail and Slow passes should be left out? I mean, I don't even know why they're ranked in the first place, but allowing these to give pps just makes things even messier.Tom94 wrote:
You can't lose pp by getting a completely new score - that is by passing a map you never passed before. Everything is being reprocessed at the moment, so instabilities like this may occur for a short while. Did you maybe have a NoFail pass on the map before? That one might have been considered better.
And when the more important stuff is settled, a place where you can see all your contributing maps and their scores.ChaosVictor wrote:
I think there could be a separate ranking to Speed, Accuracy and Aim, instead of only for Score and overall Performance. You can already calculate each of them, right? It would help give people a notion to what they should improve and what they can already do.
What you're basically asking for here is for an increase in rank without an increase in skill. This is exactly why the old ranking system was removed. If you don't like your rank - improve as a player. If you don't want to improve as a player, accept the rank you have.HandHeldPillow wrote:
i dont believe that farming easy and normals should not reward pp at higher levels, but i do believe that hards should be taken account and give some (not as much as ppv1 but some) pp, in the current state it seems that i have to become a circle clicking god to gain ranks, sadly my asian levels have not hit 9000 yet
Wasn't nofail only going to give a 0.05x score decrease? I think this is better, since there are some maps that I can play quite fine until one part that I always fail. Being able to still get a reasonable score for doing well on the rest of the map should be fair.pold10 wrote:
Not at all, see this hypothetical example, there is a long song with 1000 notes (fc) and 220 bpm, which has a long stream at the end. Player 1 can't stream at that speed, so he plays with NF, and gets a 90% acc 600 combo score, player 2 can barely stream at that speed, and gets a 75% acc 300 combo score, without mods. At least, if you ask me, Player 1 deserves more pp, by far, and that score shouln't be left out.