Why on earth would this take my rank down by 1, obviously it isn't about accuracy since the accuracy was about 5% above my average and it is a rather difficult map... Is there such a thing implemented now as raking pp down o.0

What probably happened is, you didn't gain pp for your play, so you stayed where you were before. However, in the time it took you to finish the map, a different player surpassed your pp, thus dropping you by a rank.
Finishing the map was not the cause for your rank drop, activity by other players was.

Tom94 wrote:

1) That would add way more complexity to the algorithm, making it a lot harder to consider every score (since then every score has to be periodically checked for which rank it is). In addition to that - as mentioned multiple times - contest on maps is different. For instance way more good players play [Insane] maps than [Hard] maps and thus what you suggest would boost [Hard] maps without any solid reason.

You still can add pp bonus only for 1'st places, that doesn't seems to add too much complexity.Why would it would boost hard maps, if hard maps already weighted lower and i am talking about percentage pp boost.
And doesn't many cheaters get caught only because of user reports?

anticlone111 wrote:

You still can add pp bonus only for 1'st places, that doesn't seems to add too much complexity.Why would it would boost hard maps, if hard maps already weighted lower and i am talking about percentage pp boost.
And doesn't many cheaters get caught only because of user reports?

Even a bonus for 1st places only would make it easier to get pp on hard maps compared to how it is right now - by a bigger ratio than it would benefit insanes. You can verify the maths if you want, I don't want to dip into specifics.
Regarding your second point - you don't have to worry about it. There won't be more specific answers to that.

anticlone111 wrote:

Tom94 wrote:

1) That would add way more complexity to the algorithm, making it a lot harder to consider every score (since then every score has to be periodically checked for which rank it is). In addition to that - as mentioned multiple times - contest on maps is different. For instance way more good players play [Insane] maps than [Hard] maps and thus what you suggest would boost [Hard] maps without any solid reason.

You still can add pp bonus only for 1'st places, that doesn't seems to add too much complexity.Why would it would boost hard maps, if hard maps already weighted lower and i am talking about percentage pp boost.
And doesn't many cheaters get caught only because of user reports?

Giving a pp bonus while taking rank into consideration is just illogical with the score system.
You might have a lower acc but still have a higher score, so you get a pp bonus for being worse. (both are fcs)

..Why would you do that.

rank on maps has nothing to do with contest anyway
it's not like if you get #1 on a certain map you're the #1 player in the world who can play that map better than everybody else, it just means rrtyui didn't play it yet

high rank on maps does not equal "you played this map better than many other players".
high rank on maps equals "players who are good enough to play this map way better than you find it boring and don't bother wasting time on it".

a good ranking system simply rates people high based on random plays they do without forcing people to have to play maps they don't like just to get a higher rank (which is also known as farming)

Aqo wrote:

rank on maps has nothing to do with contest anyway
it's not like if you get #1 on a certain map you're the #1 player in the world who can play that map better than everybody else, it just means rrtyui didn't play it yet

I laughed. That's a good point though. generally I think it's been pretty frustrating to gain a good score on a map that's highly contested and you gained nothing for it because it depended too much on rank. In reverse, I felt pretty bad when I played a map that was barely contested. I've had the feeling that my pp was undeserved. So rank shouldn't correlate with pp at all, I totally agree.

Overall:
I really like the new system. It's always been pretty irritating to see people above me in rank that have only played Easy and Normal maps while I bothered to learn playing Insanes (well ofc it was much more fun). My "Best Performances" are pretty accurate, too. Some of those were rather lucky FC's or high combos I definitely couldn't do every day. While there are some minor points to improve (like difficulty calculating on some maps, but that's what you're gonna take care of), I'm very satisfied.

And by the way, did you recently change that you don't have to get a top score to gain pp? I've recently had a try which resulted in 98% accu whereas my FC try had only about 94-95% and I gained pp and accu incrase even though it was neither an FC nor a top score.

pp doesn't take score into consideration because all ranks count towards pp now

Kert wrote:

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/269963?m=0 - random DT gives more points than
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/96095?m=0 with HR

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/49067?m=0 gives way too much points, cosnsidering it's a lot easier than any of the above

In general I feel that DT gives qute a lot more than it should and HR on really small circles isn't as rewarding

And also FL?
FL is not favoured at all?
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/18156 - this must be one of my top plays, yet it's nowhere close
(my assumption is results are ordered almost in the same way as in tp)

This

buny wrote:

pp doesn't take score into consideration because all ranks count towards pp now

Maybe I wasn't clear enough or maybe I didn't quite understand just now, dunno. I meant the local top score. Some days ago I've read about complaints that you need a local top score to gain pp even though you might do something that is more impressive but it doesn't give any pp since it's not your personal top score or you might even lose pp because of a higher score. For example you have:

10 million pts., 800 combo, 94%, afterwards you have a try with
8 million pts., 700 combo, 98%.
The second try gave no pp, even though you were actually better on the map.

Or you have:
8.5 million pts., 700 combo, 93%, DT, afterwards you'll have
12 million pts., 900 combo, 99%, nomod.
And you lose a bunch of pp.

Those kinds of things were complained about. And I recently experienced that things didn't happen like that.
So I wondered if that's been changed.

Omgforz wrote:

Yes, please weigh hidden a lot more, because obviously you have to re-learn rhythm and accuracy when playing hidden. nomod od and hidden od are like 2 different worlds.

Playing with hidden is as if the od has been doubled.

I agree but hidden is pretty easy if you train it. Not doubled but something like 0.8 maybe

Ziggo wrote:

It's even more astounding that Gokuris 99.38% HR score gives more Acc value than ShadowSouls 99.28% HDHR score. I don't know how much HD should boost accuracy, but as it is in osutp (don't know if it's the same in pp right now) seems disproportional.

About the acc value:

RaneFire wrote:

HD affects your aim score, not your accuracy score, and will give you more bonus on maps with higher aim requirements. This can outweigh accuracy loss on maps which are easy to get accuracy, or alternatively very hard to aim on (aim > acc), getting away with a few % less. However, maps with a higher accuracy requirement than aim, will be negatively affected by losing any accuracy, even with HD's aim bonus (which will be very small in comparison to accuracy). In this case, 1% is enough to knock a Silver S below a nomod S.

Illus wrote:

[...] And I recently experienced that things didn't happen like that.
So I wondered if that's been changed.

What you experienced was probably connected to another score you made previously. Your online top-score in a particular map is still the only score that counts towards your pp on that map.

make hidden weight like this -> if a score is less 1% of the other score with hidden with will give less pp like this :
no mod 98 > with hidden 97 < worst
or this hr 98 < hr with hd 97,50 < better

tell me what you think of this pls

Illus wrote:

buny wrote:

pp doesn't take score into consideration because all ranks count towards pp now

Maybe I wasn't clear enough or maybe I didn't quite understand just now, dunno. I meant the local top score. Some days ago I've read about complaints that you need a local top score to gain pp even though you might do something that is more impressive but it doesn't give any pp since it's not your personal top score or you might even lose pp because of a higher score. For example you have:

10 million pts., 800 combo, 94%, afterwards you have a try with
8 million pts., 700 combo, 98%.
The second try gave no pp, even though you were actually better on the map.

Or you have:
8.5 million pts., 700 combo, 93%, DT, afterwards you'll have
12 million pts., 900 combo, 99%, nomod.
And you lose a bunch of pp.

Those kinds of things were complained about. And I recently experienced that things didn't happen like that.
So I wondered if that's been changed.

sorry i missed a bit of your previous post

but yeah you're correct. it'll only change if peppy added a system that would calculate the amount of pp that a score would gain and sort by that or if we could pick the score that we want to submit online

i like the suggestion someone had where we have the ability to delete completely a score of ours if we chose.

Tom94 wrote:

2) Also answering all the other people who gave feedback on this: I disagree, that hidden should affect accuracy more. Playing with the rhythm of the map is not very connected to reading the map. The small bonus is gives to accuracy is only there to make up for rare pattern misreads, that might occur while playing with it.

I guess what you're saying might be true for high level players, I can't tell. For low level players this might be different, though. Let me give you an example on that.

When I manage to get 98% no mod on a certain map, I will probably get about 96% with HD. With 95% no mod, I will get about 91% with HD. With 90% no mod, I will get about 83% with HD. So the lower my initial accuracy is, the more HD will lower my accuracy. To counter this, HD should maybe give a relative bonus according to the achieved accuracy, instead of a static multiplication bonus. That way high level plays with high accuracy will not be influenced, but HD keeps being viable on lower levels. What do you guys think about that?

Just order the rankings according to the amount of pp obtained instead of score. It would solve the main issues i have with the current pp.

Performance shouldn't be upped with HD when you can't play it anyway, so let the HD players have a reasonable bonus for doing well, not badly. It's just a different way of reading, as opposed to approach circles.

Many players argue that HD is just as easy as nomod once you learn to play it (trap notes aside). So how do you rate skill? The bonus was given to aim, but I still don't know if that's the right place. It seems like a patch-solution.

There is also the problem that some people play a map nomod and move on, setting hundreds of nomod ranks. But you also get people who use HD all the time and do the same. This is almost as bad as Hards vs Insanes, where different people play HD, compared to those who play nomod, and is almost impossible to compare the two other than to say the non-HD players have less skill because they can't play a mod, but by how much? Surely once they learn to play HD, they will be just as good if not better, but they're not interested.

I'm one of these people who never really delved into HD because it's not the challenge I'm looking for. When I mess up, it's not like my rhythm was bad, or my aim was bad, it's because I didn't fucking see the circle there, or saw it a bit late, putting my timing off, and that just annoys me so I don't play it much. I know I can get better at it, but why bother. I'm fine with a few less ranks, but if I learned to play HD really well, what then? I gained no mechanical skills by doing so, I just learned to read it, like AR10 doesn't give any bonus compared to AR9/8, because it's subjective. You just need to learn to read it. It is hard to rate something by it's obfuscation, which is HD and FL (memorisation).

Ziggo wrote:

With 95% no mod, I will get about 91% with HD. With 90% no mod, I will get about 83% with HD. So the lower my initial accuracy is, the more HD will lower my accuracy.

This translates to: the less you can read the map, the more HD would expose the fact that you can't read it as you will no longer be able to catch stuff you couldn't read ahead by their approach circles. The system is supposed to rate you for how well you can play, and not compensate you for stuff you can't play.

Aqo wrote:

Ziggo wrote:

With 95% no mod, I will get about 91% with HD. With 90% no mod, I will get about 83% with HD. So the lower my initial accuracy is, the more HD will lower my accuracy.

This translates to: the less you can read the map, the more HD would expose the fact that you can't read it as you will no longer be able to catch stuff you couldn't read ahead by their approach circles. The system is supposed to rate you for how well you can play, and not compensate you for stuff you can't play.

Uhm, no? This happens even if I can read 100% of the map. It's just that hitting accurately without approach circles is way harder when you are barely able to play a certain OD.

If you are "barely able to play" it then you're not in a state you can say you can read the map 100%.

Aqo wrote:

If you are "barely able to play" it then you're not in a state you can say you can read the map 100%.

I was only talking about the OD right there. Anyway, if it's a reading problem, then this would just support my proposal even more. Like Tom said, the current Acc bonus for HD is to compensate reading errors. So on scores with more reading errors the Acc bonus should be higher as well.

RaneFire wrote:

[...]

This is why I don't understand why HR and HD have the same rate score.
And I can said the same for DT and FL.

Mods have to be balanced imo, because they aren't.

Ziggo, you're supposed to read accuracy by the music, not by looking at approach circles. If you play correctly HD has no impact on acc reading difficulty ;v only on the positions where you land, which is why aim makes sense.

Aqo wrote:

Ziggo, you're supposed to read accuracy by the music, not by looking at approach circles. If you play correctly HD has no impact on acc reading difficulty ;v only on the positions where you land, which is why aim makes sense.

100% agree. I have absolutely no problem with hd accuracy. Aim is more of a problem

Omgforz wrote:

Yes, please weigh hidden a lot more, because obviously you have to re-learn rhythm and accuracy when playing hidden. nomod od and hidden od are like 2 different worlds.

Playing with hidden is as if the od has been doubled.

are you for real

Just a little suggestion here

It would be cool and useful if you added some details on the Top Performance, like the mods




the algorithm seems working very well (btw, when will it be open?)

Sephibro wrote:

SPOILER

Just a little suggestion here

It would be cool and useful if you added some details on the Top Performance, like the mods




the algorithm seems working very well (btw, when will it be open?)

I can't give any answers regarding your first suggestion yet. The algorithm will be openly described in a wiki artivle, which I will write as soon as I have the time. I am currently very busy with personal things and the wiki article has the highest priority directly followed by pp for the other gamemodes of what I will be doing afterwards. ETA for the wiki article is in a bit over a week.

MiniTokki wrote:

RaneFire wrote:

[...]

This is why I don't understand why HR and HD have the same rate score.
And I can said the same for DT and FL.

Mods have to be balanced imo, because they aren't.

Those bonuses don't really mean anything in terms of rank any more. The only reason why they aren't changed is because it's too late to change them.

Ziggo wrote:

When I manage to get 98% no mod on a certain map, I will probably get about 96% with HD. With 95% no mod, I will get about 91% with HD. With 90% no mod, I will get about 83% with HD. So the lower my initial accuracy is, the more HD will lower my accuracy. To counter this, HD should maybe give a relative bonus according to the achieved accuracy, instead of a static multiplication bonus. That way high level plays with high accuracy will not be influenced, but HD keeps being viable on lower levels. What do you guys think about that?

Some players can get better accuracy on HD than they can without it so it would more likely unbalance the system.

Wait a second, so only your best score would get recorded for pp?

WubWoofWolf got about a 500 combo on Remote Control with HD and DT, but getting full combo on no mod would get him a higher score but less pp. So if he max combo'd with no mod FIRST (hypothetically) and then got about a 500 on HD and DT, would that not count for pp? Because on his profile even that low score counted for a ton.

Shenanigans wrote:

Wait a second, so only your best score would get recorded for pp?

WubWoofWolf got about a 500 combo on Remote Control with HD and DT, but getting full combo on no mod would get him a higher score but less pp. So if he max combo'd with no mod FIRST (hypothetically) and then got about a 500 on HD and DT, would that not count for pp? Because on his profile even that low score counted for a ton.

He would lose pp if he beats the score without DT. If he had a non-DT score the DT score wouldn't count.

http://osu.ppy.sh/b/33695?m=0
Gives toooooo much pp. It has beaten all my best pp scores which is funny

Full Tablet wrote:

Shenanigans wrote:

Wait a second, so only your best score would get recorded for pp?

WubWoofWolf got about a 500 combo on Remote Control with HD and DT, but getting full combo on no mod would get him a higher score but less pp. So if he max combo'd with no mod FIRST (hypothetically) and then got about a 500 on HD and DT, would that not count for pp? Because on his profile even that low score counted for a ton.

He would lose pp if he beats the score without DT. If he had a non-DT score the DT score wouldn't count.

That seems like a slightly flawed system. I noticed the same thing before ppv2 with high accuracy and no mod vs low accuracy and DT

Soarezi wrote:

Aqo wrote:

Ziggo, you're supposed to read accuracy by the music, not by looking at approach circles. If you play correctly HD has no impact on acc reading difficulty ;v only on the positions where you land, which is why aim makes sense.

100% agree. I have absolutely no problem with hd accuracy. Aim is more of a problem

Why would it influence your aim but not your accuracy? If your timing is the same and the position of the circles is the same... I don't get it, guess I'm just weird or something.

HoboEater wrote:

That seems like a slightly flawed system. I noticed the same thing before ppv2 with high accuracy and no mod vs low accuracy and DT

This has been discussed multiple times in this thread already. It's a known issue which I wish could be resolve, but it's not as easy as it seems, dealing wiith the huge amount of scores that exist.
Only keeping your best pp scores is also not a good option, because pp is an ever-changing system, where changes might often make a previous score worth more suddenly.

The system feels like it weighs high accuracy too heavily over actual map difficulty.

Mickiemoemoe wrote:

The system feels like it weighs high accuracy too heavily over actual map difficulty.

It's the exact opposite for me, so I guess it depends on your personal strengths.

Mickiemoemoe wrote:

The system feels like it weighs high accuracy too heavily over actual map difficulty.

that was the issue of peppy's ppv2

that system was like get SS or take a cancer
1x100 was worth nothing, SS was lightyears more rewarding, that was just COMPLETELY RETARDED.. it also was one of the flaws ppv1 had (ppv1 didn't have so many flaws btw), but it was much much less silly than peppy's ppv2

it's clear that this system has been thought by a good player who knows what's the real "hard" in this game

Ziggo wrote:

Why would it influence your aim but not your accuracy? If your timing is the same and the position of the circles is the same... I don't get it, guess I'm just weird or something.

Hidden forces you to "remember" where circles are so you aren't all accurate in positioning your cursor with it. It's also a lot harder to play things that are difficult for you to read with hidden on and a large part of aim is being able to read. Accuracy on the other hand doesn't really get affected at all since OD is unaffected. The only more difficult to accuracy things are the ones with poor flow and sections that require a large amount of guess work (and it's only really harder on sight reading most of the time).

Sephibro wrote:

(ppv1 didn't have so many flaws btw)

ppv1 had so many flaws...

Kind of enjoying a nice consistent rise in ranks but what I'm not so sure about is how I can spend ages working on a really hard beatmap and when I finally complete it it doesn't count anything towards my pp at all. But if I go and find the easiest beatmap I have, wack on a few mods and get a good score really easily, that gives me loads of pp. Don't quite understand that at all :/

[ Zetka ] wrote:

Kind of enjoying a nice consistent rise in ranks but what I'm not so sure about is how I can spend ages working on a really hard beatmap and when I finally complete it it doesn't count anything towards my pp at all. But if I go and find the easiest beatmap I have, wack on a few mods and get a good score really easily, that gives me loads of pp. Don't quite understand that at all :/

Barely passing a hard beatmap might not reward you as much pp as getting a good score on an easier one.

Brian OA wrote:

Barely passing a hard beatmap might not reward you as much pp as getting a good score on an easier one.

Yes that is what I've found, what I mean is it when it takes a really tough performance to complete a hard beatmap you get 0 pp but when it takes 0 effort to get a good score on an easy beatmapyou get loads of pp, so the fact they're called performance points isn't making much sense to me

[ Zetka ] wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Barely passing a hard beatmap might not reward you as much pp as getting a good score on an easier one.

Yes that is what I've found, what I mean is it when it takes a really tough performance to complete a hard beatmap you get 0 pp but when it takes 0 effort to get a good score on an easy beatmapyou get loads of pp, so the fact they're called performance points isn't making much sense to me

Yet when you get a good score on the hard beatmap you'll get much more than the easy one.

Look at it this way: the system rewards good performance, and your performance on both maps aren't the same. You did poorly on the hard beatmap, so there'd be no sense in rewarding you for it. However, you did well on the easy one, so there's a reward for you. You've effectively gotten every pp that score was worth. The thing is the same can't be said of the hard map.

When will Flashlight and the other mods change their points?

didn't recive a single point for that. ty tom and peppy -.-

Well, #962 doesn't look like a particularly good performance

Luna wrote:

Well, #962 doesn't look like a particularly good performance

but for 12k noob like me... and its pluto dude.

pp is designed to reward good performance on maps. While it might be harder, to just pass a very hard map compared to full-comboing an easy map, you still perform badly on that particular hard map when just barely passing.

If you want to gain more pp, then go for full combos and high accuracy on the maps where you can barely achieve those.

Edit: Seems like I overlooked Brian OA's previously reply. He formulated it pretty well:

Brian OA wrote:

Look at it this way: the system rewards good performance, and your performance on both maps aren't the same. You did poorly on the hard beatmap, so there'd be no sense in rewarding you for it. However, you did well on the easy one, so there's a reward for you. You've effectively gotten every pp that score was worth. The thing is the same can't be said of the hard map.

Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.

­

ks- wrote:

Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.

Yes.

Rank (insert #2573 here) is not considered. It gauges your performance on an individual basis using the map difficulty algorithm. If that was a good play, you'll get rewarded, whether the map is highly contested and putting you down 2500 ranks or not.

I still think that HD weighted too lightly...
It can be hard for HD in maps
i) have both 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 music spacing (the change half a beat and a third of a beat throws people off)
ii) maps that have poor flow
iii) maps with jumps
iv) old maps (before 2010) (they've got strange spacing and strange beats)
IN those cases, HD should be weighted a lot more because it's significantly harder to play those maps with HD
Even in normal cases, HD is weighted far too lightly. A bonus of about 3% is just too small for most maps.
I think that HD should be weighted to about 5-6%, as a bonus for people who play HD

Also, the EZ mod should be rewarded, not punished, because it's actually harder to play with EZ than without...
(IN maps with high AR, it is impossible to play EZ)

What's more is that FL mod should also be rewarded more as in most cases it's incredibly hard to play FL
(if you don't use multiscreens)

That's all for now, thanks for listening
p.s. A great thanks to Tom for the new ppv2!

It's significantly harder to play those maps with HD only if you can't play HD

HD doesn't change anything, it's the same map, with the same OD AR CS and HP drain, if you play by listening the music it won't change much, except for stacks that are harder to read

2GoldenWolf

Airman is only hard if you can't aim it, so why not weight it lightly?
HD removes quite a lot of visual information which makes it very hard on lower AR, so it should influence aiming quite a lot on old maps.
Oh wait, I forgot, if someone finds it easy due to training then it doesn't matter.

Except learning HD is QUITE easier than learning how to aim airman's jumps


HD doesn't make things much harder if at all, the actual bonus seems enough

dennischan wrote:

SPOILER

I still think that HD weighted too lightly...
It can be hard for HD in maps
i) have both 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 music spacing (the change half a beat and a third of a beat throws people off)
ii) maps that have poor flow
iii) maps with jumps
iv) old maps (before 2010) (they've got strange spacing and strange beats)
IN those cases, HD should be weighted a lot more because it's significantly harder to play those maps with HD
Even in normal cases, HD is weighted far too lightly. A bonus of about 3% is just too small for most maps.
I think that HD should be weighted to about 5-6%, as a bonus for people who play HD

Also, the EZ mod should be rewarded, not punished, because it's actually harder to play with EZ than without...
(IN maps with high AR, it is impossible to play EZ)

What's more is that FL mod should also be rewarded more as in most cases it's incredibly hard to play FL
(if you don't use multiscreens)

That's all for now, thanks for listening
p.s. A great thanks to Tom for the new ppv2!

HD was used to give cheap n' easy PP for pretty much no work on most maps. It is treated as such in ppv2, because this is a rating of skill, not freebies.
As for your "hard in HD maps"...
i) Pretty much all maps have 1/2 and 1/4, and an occasional 1/3 where you just have to LISTEN and REMEMBER where it is in the music. Probably can't do it the first time, but who seriously sight reads with HD all the time? Maybe for fun or on easy maps, but seriously, it's not that hard to remember a few parts.
ii) Poor flow as in... Can't keep up, too many jumps?
iii) Lol
iv) ppv2 is designed for newer maps and they even TELL you to play the newer maps, why complain about it when they already mentioned it?

The hard parts in HD, are maps with a ridiculous amount of stacks, back-and-forth jumping (Even something easy like Ha-tenya becomes ridiculously annoying) or hidden circles under/after/between sliders (Heaven's Race Guitar Style?)

FL is rewarded where fit. As Tom previously said, FL gives a whopping 36% bonus when it's hard to play. Most maps with FL records are ones that are easy, hence the low reward value.

StormR1d3r wrote:

Airman is only hard if you can't aim it, so why not weight it lightly?

What.

2nooblet

Make a map full of jumps on AR6 and a speed on which you can hit 200-300 notes nomod in a combo before it becomes too hard to maintain it, then try to see if you can get the same amount of hits with HD and give us results. You'll see that HD makes jumps harder.

Yes, of course HD increases difficulty if you haven't learned to read HD.
That doesn't mean its bonus should be increased; it already gives a fair amount in a jumpy map (I mean I played a beatmap I had previously fc'd without pp gain with HD added on and got a nice amount from it...)

Learning to play HD is easy.

HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.

HD already gets a huge bonus for lower ARs starting small at 8 and going big as you approach 0 and even the below-0 ones possibly with HalfTime.

Without the AR-bonus HD already gives 18% more aim pp! That's quite a lot and I don't see any reason to increase it any further. Of course Hidden won't give you a lot of pp if you have to sacrifice a lot of accuracy for it or if the map you are playing doesn't require much aim.

ok, thanks for explaining

RaneFire wrote:

ks- wrote:

Current system seems like a relatively fun and fair one.
However, I don't quite understand how I got a big load of PP from https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136649?m=0 (Insane) by getting rank #2573, 96,02% acc and 379 combo (out of the possible 777). Does the system consider that map difficult enough to give a rank 19k a lot of PP even if the performance is really not that good? I'm very confused.

Yes.

Rank (insert #2573 here) is not considered. It gauges your performance on an individual basis using the map difficulty algorithm. If that was a good play, you'll get rewarded, whether the map is highly contested and putting you down 2500 ranks or not.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

StormR1d3r wrote:

2nooblet

Make a map full of jumps on AR6 and a speed on which you can hit 200-300 notes nomod in a combo before it becomes too hard to maintain it, then try to see if you can get the same amount of hits with HD and give us results. You'll see that HD makes jumps harder.

Wishy wrote:

Learning to play HD is easy.

HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.

What Wishy said, or you're talking about [easy] or [normal] diffs if you're saying AR6. In that case, the specifics in PP probably don't affect them as much anyways, so just play harder maps if you want PP. There's no real point for doing a difficult AR6 map...

Wishy wrote:

Learning to play HD is easy.

HD is hard on ultra low AR maps which are non-existent, and on most of them you just add HR.

I'd like to see someone play Chocobo with HR.

I find chocobo is easier with HR. I can get further into the map with HR and with better acc/combo, than with nomod.

Give us a "Best performance" score list on the web pages in addition to the score ranking, please.

Nerf HD aim. Buff aim for higher BPMs. 18% aim bonus seems way too generous, especially when it starts beating out scores that are clearly far more difficult. More often than not it doesn't even feel like adding HD was *that* much harder.

nooblet wrote:

but who seriously sight reads with HD all the time?

I've been doing it for several months and it's worked out for me just fine.

imo, hidden is only really hard when you get circles underneath sliders, or tricky patterns. It makes them a LOT harder to read.
Here's the worst example of this I've ever seen: Hatsuki Yura - Intense Desire [Lunatic]. It's do-able on regular DT, but it's ridiculous on hidden DT, seriously.
It really depends on the map, because it could be a nightmare or it could be "free points". If there was a way to tell what maps are harder on hidden than others, that'd be brilliant.

­

pielak213 wrote:

Hidden is also easier for some people.

Because some people find HD easier you want to nerf the bonus for everyone? Make sense.

I haven't really examined my scores when I did some TP farming 2 months ago, but from what I can tell is that mods give a huge bonus compared to no mod. And what I mean is that a 'no mod' map gives far less PP than it should compared to a random map with DT. I see a lot of maps with only a few FCs and it gives far less PP than a random DT map where the entire top 50 is DT.

I mean, a pretty easy 'Sayonara Goodbye' DT map is worth as much as an FC on Revolution Deathsquad. That's insanity to say the least. Nearly nobody is capable of FCing that map yet Sayonara Goodbye is completely filled with DT scores in the top 50.

GladiOol wrote:

I haven't really examined my scores when I did some TP farming 2 months ago, but from what I can tell is that mods give a huge bonus compared to no mod. And what I mean is that a 'no mod' map gives far less PP than it should compared to a random map with DT. I see a lot of maps with only a few FCs and it gives far less PP than a random DT map where the entire top 50 is DT.

I mean, a pretty easy 'Sayonara Goodbye' DT map is worth as much as an FC on Revolution Deathsquad. That's insanity to say the least. Nearly nobody is capable of FCing that map yet Sayonara Goodbye is completely filled with DT scores in the top 50.

Thanks for pointing that one out. Mods aren't getting any special treatment - they are simply applied to the map and then a new difficulty is calculated with the exact same algorithm that also runs on nomod maps. The revolution deathsquad vs 'Sayonara Goodbye' thingie is definitely something I need to address, though. It mostly is connected to the insanely high map-length, since the map itself would be as easy, if not easier than 'Sayonara Goodbye' if it had only a 717 max-combo.

Tom94 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that one out. Mods aren't getting any special treatment - they are simply applied to the map and then a new difficulty is calculated with the exact same algorithm that also runs on nomod maps. The revolution deathsquad vs 'Sayonara Goodbye' thingie is definitely something I need to address, though. It mostly is connected to the insanely high map-length, since the map itself would be as easy, if not easier than 'Sayonara Goodbye' if it had only a 717 max-combo.

It's a bit like strain values on attention span and nerves, isn't it? That and also all the spaced streams in dragonforce maps makes messing up your combo really easy because there's so much movement, the chance of being 1 note ahead/behind at some point is quite high.

The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:

1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.

2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?

3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?

Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.

­

I have to say i like the new system, i'm not by any means a good player but with this system i can see a progress, earning PP with enarly every map.

The only weird thing i encountered is as Cook said the loss of PP when you improve a score. I know it's because only the best score gets saved and could be worth less PP, but it kinda give you a weird feeling if you managed to improve a score and loose ranks for that :-/

Anyways would be nice if you guys could find a way to get rid of that but its nothing that makes the new system terrible.

Keep up the good work!

agreed that FL is seriously underrated, but we have to take in account fake FL players using two screens

CookChefSteak wrote:

The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:

1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.

2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?

3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?

Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.

1. See point 2 below. I also want to remark, that the score itself, that you get on a particular play is not relevant. Your combo and your miss/50/100/300 are what is important. I also want to note, that having far-below FC is heavily punished by the system. You shouldn't expect to gain a lot of pp from maps that you can't get decent scores on just by them being hard (see adult's toy, dragonforce and such).


2. see below
3. see below


Your suggestions:
1. Is planned, will likely happen.

2. Accuracy is worth less than a third of your play in the general case. Could you provide specific cases where you believe it is overrated? Otherwise I'll have a hard time debugging. By the way, accuracy doesn't simply give you a factor. You can theoretically get 50% accuracy and if you FC a hard map you can still get a very huge amount of points. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this, since many other people claim accuracy to be worth too little. Combo:Accuracy never was global and it does scale (a lot) with maps.

3. This is not something that can be just "disabled". It's also not specific to pp. The scoring system simply works by only storing your highest score on a particular map. I'd love to see this limitation get lifted at some point, but even only having the highest scores is already an extremely huge amount of data to work with.

You still answer the questions o_o Crazy

Anyway, how soon the documentary (wiki page?) to the ppv2 will be released?

Tom94 wrote:

CookChefSteak wrote:

The new system feels really accurate overall, although it does have several flaws as people mentioned here. I will try to list some of them:

1. Accuracy is overrated - I've noticed a lot of times that clearing really hard maps with accuracy lower than ~95% but with a pretty good score will not give you any performance points. For example, over 15m points on Adult's Toy(which is not easy to get a good score on) but with 88% accuracy will be counted as a bad play, and the same goes for getting over 20m on Dragonforce maps with less than 90% accuracy and similar other situations. It's like the algorithm automatically ignores every play under 90% which is just silly, imho.

2. Penalties - "There are no penalties for a bad performance" yeah right.. If you improve your score on a map(even if by a lot) but have like 2% less in terms of accuracy you WILL lose pp if you got pp for the previous score(accuracy overrated, anyone?). How stupid is that? I can recall a few times I lost between 5 to 10 pp after improving a score(from 3-4 mistakes to fc) but having 2-4% less. PP should not be reducible, especially if those said plays happen within 2 hours from each other. Not to mention this system heavily discourages trying to improve scores and FCing on maps that gave you pp because of the fear of losing your points if you don't manage to get the same accuracy or higher. If the new system has no problems giving you a second chance when you randomly miss and break your FC, why does it penalize you so hard if you randomly mess up a stream(happens to everyone) and get a few 50s?

3. FL is severely underrated - Just look at BluOxy and worst fl player. Need I say more?

Suggestions:
1. Give more weight to FL especially when it's FLDT or FLHD, it's a really hard mod
2. Weigh performance on maps using other things than accuracy. What I mean by that is don't automatically toss a play just because it's not a 95% accuracy play. I don't know if you're working on it already or something like that, but some maps are really hard to keep a combo on, and in those maps you should give a lot more weight to combo and less to accuracy. Combo:Accuracy rating ratio should NOT be global as it feels right now. It should change with each map.
3. Disable pp penalties. There is really no sense in reducing someone's pp because his accuracy got slightly lower, since if he managed to get his accuracy to make such a difference, there is no doubt he'll be able to do it again. And if you call on the "lucky play" card, well I can just as validly pull the "unlucky play" card, so it's really meaningless.

1. See point 2 below. I also want to remark, that the score itself, that you get on a particular play is not relevant. Your combo and your miss/50/100/300 are what is important. I also want to note, that having far-below FC is heavily punished by the system. You shouldn't expect to gain a lot of pp from maps that you can't get decent scores on just by them being hard (see adult's toy, dragonforce and such).


2. see below
3. see below


Your suggestions:
1. Is planned, will likely happen.

2. Accuracy is worth less than a third of your play in the general case. Could you provide specific cases where you believe it is overrated? Otherwise I'll have a hard time debugging. By the way, accuracy doesn't simply give you a factor. You can theoretically get 50% accuracy and if you FC a hard map you can still get a very huge amount of points. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this, since many other people claim accuracy to be worth too little. Combo:Accuracy never was global and it does scale (a lot) with maps.

3. This is not something that can be just "disabled". It's also not specific to pp. The scoring system simply works by only storing your highest score on a particular map. I'd love to see this limitation get lifted at some point, but even only having the highest scores is already an extremely huge amount of data to work with.

1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?

2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.

3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.

CookChefSteak wrote:

1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?

2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.

3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.

1. Of course. This is not exactly how the algorithm works but should yield a sufficient approximation. That being said, correctly judging X is the problem here.

2. "2%" accuracy is usually a huge margin. Most people see "accuracy goes from 0% to 100%, therefore 2% is not a big difference" which is a completely wrong assumption. First of all, it greatly depends on where you've been previously. 96% and 98% are a 2% difference, but you have twice as many 100s in a 96% score than in a 98% score. That's a 100% relative difference! In your case you went down from around 95% to 92%. While not doubling your 100 count it still increased by a lot. Judging by how short the map is, you shouldn't expect to get too much of a bump for full-comboing it. Imho the decrease of pp is justified on that map.

3. No. The system needs to sort all your current scores to determine your user-pp, so it needs to be able to access your highest pp on a per-map basis for what you suggest to work. That'd force us to store 2 high-scores per map per player. Another problem is, that the pp algorithm will be tweaked frequently, so plays that previously were not deemed good enough and discarded might end up deserving the top spot in the future.

I want to ask that why I played a hard level map
with HD,HR, full combo
but no pp is added?
I played the map 32mins ago

SaberBB wrote:

I want to ask that why I played a hard level map
with HD,HR, full combo
but no pp is added?
I played the map 32mins ago

this is the map
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/355973?m=0
And my performance
Personal Best (#223 achieved 35 minutes ago)
Score 1,095,165 (96.05%)
Max Combo 262
300 / 100 / 50 147 / 8 / 1
Misses 0
Geki (Elite Beat!) 20
Katu (Beat!) 7
Mods HD,HR

not very good but at least 1 pp, right?

If you don't get pp then the system doesn't consider your score good enough. You can also get less than 1pp and not directly see it because of rounding. I won't be answering any "Why didn't get pp for X?" questions anymore for now.

Tom94 wrote:

If you don't get pp then the system doesn't consider your score good enough. You can also get less than 1pp and not directly see it because of rounding. I won't be answering any "Why didn't get pp for X?" questions anymore for now.

OK....

Tom94 wrote:

CookChefSteak wrote:

1. If a certain map requires X amount of skills to get a decent score at and that X correlates to a certain pp range, then should pp gain not be expected when you are below that pp range and acquire such a score?

2. As far as I've noticed, accuracy is weighed too heavily on any map below 1.5 minutes(or >1 minute with DT). Try looking at maps like Eggman's Theme on DT. I lost around 6 pp(out of overall 8) because I improved a score but had 2% less. Note the score I improved had 3-4 mistakes and the improvement was an FC, so it really makes no sense to me. That map shouldn't give that much pp anyways imho, it's too easy to fc on DT.

3. Wouldn't checking whether or not the newly calculated pp would be less or more than the old one be enough? I mean, the servers already store everybody's pp so you have all the data you need available for comparison. But then again, I don't know how the scoring system is programmed so I don't want to assume things.

1. Of course. This is not exactly how the algorithm works but should yield a sufficient approximation. That being said, correctly judging X is the problem here.

2. "2%" accuracy is usually a huge margin. Most people see "accuracy goes from 0% to 100%, therefore 2% is not a big difference" which is a completely wrong assumption. First of all, it greatly depends on where you've been previously. 96% and 98% are a 2% difference, but you have twice as many 100s in a 96% score than in a 98% score. That's a 100% relative difference! In your case you went down from around 95% to 92%. While not doubling your 100 count it still increased by a lot. Judging by how short the map is, you shouldn't expect to get too much of a bump for full-comboing it. Imho the decrease of pp is justified on that map.

3. No. The system needs to sort all your current scores to determine your user-pp, so it needs to be able to access your highest pp on a per-map basis for what you suggest to work. That'd force us to store 2 high-scores per map per player. Another problem is, that the pp algorithm will be tweaked frequently, so plays that previously were not deemed good enough and discarded might end up deserving the top spot in the future.

But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.

CookChefSteak wrote:

But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.

That works only for the first new score coming in. Imagine a new (higher) pp value gets chosen and updated while the score which caused the pp increase doesn't get saved, since there is a higher score lying around already.
Now the same scenario happens again: The newly calculated pp value only features the one new score + all old ones in the database. The score used previously to increase the pp is completely lost!

Also, just to clarify: pp is a floating point number. Even if the number you see doesn't change with a score you get, you still might have gotten a fraction of a pp.

Guys, just be patient and wait for the wiki article. I am sure all of your questions will be answered there.

Tom94 wrote:

CookChefSteak wrote:

But since every player's current pp is stored as an integer on the server, why is it not possible or plausible to store newly calculated pp as a temporary variable before calling on the server's pp-update method, and compare it with the stored[old] pp value? It looks like a simple if statement in my head. It just seems like something like that should be very possible in a well-modulated algorithm. I'll say it again though, I don't know how you programmed it so it might not be that simple. Maybe if you could shed some light on the technical aspects of the algorithm I'll understand better.

That works only for the first new score coming in. Imagine a new (higher) pp value gets chosen and updated while the score which caused the pp increase doesn't get saved, since there is a higher score lying around already.
Now the same scenario happens again: The newly calculated pp value only features the one new score + all old ones in the database. The score used previously to increase the pp is completely lost!

Also, just to clarify: pp is a floating point number. Even if the number you see doesn't change with a score you get, you still might have gotten a fraction of a pp.

Correct, the old score is lost, but the old PP value(the raw floating point number) doesn't have to be. If it's stored temporarily as just a number, you could regularly calculate a player's pp after he sets a highscore then compare it to that temporarily stored raw value. That is, store it before you update a player's pp, compare it, update with the appropriate value, and delete the temporary memory segment. There is no need to recalculate the old pp value again using 2 highscores per map as you said. It's a really quick and simple algorithm, and I honestly do not see the problem in implementing that. You must know something regarding the algorithm that I don't if you're still not convinced.


anyways an example:
1. a highscore is achieved
2. current player pp is 2280
3. 2280 stored as float = current_pp
3. pp method runs with the highscore as an argument
4. algorithm yields 2270 as the appropriate pp considering the new score(float newpp = ppcalculate(args);)
5. newpp > current_pp ? server.query(newpp) : server.query(current_pp);

that's it...

CookChefSteak wrote:

Correct, the old score is lost, but the old PP value(the raw floating point number) doesn't have to be. If it's stored temporarily as just a number, you could regularly calculate a player's pp after he sets a highscore then compare it to that temporarily stored raw value. That is, store it before you update a player's pp, compare it, update with the appropriate value, and delete the temporary memory segment. There is no need to recalculate the old pp value again using 2 highscores per map as you said. It's a really quick and simple algorithm, and I honestly do not see the problem in implementing that. You must know something regarding the algorithm that I don't if you're still not convinced.

anyways an example:
1. a highscore is achieved
2. current player pp is 2280
3. 2280 stored as float = current_pp
3. pp method runs with the highscore as an argument
4. algorithm yields 2270 as the appropriate pp considering the new score(float newpp = ppcalculate(args);)
5. newpp > current_pp ? server.query(newpp) : server.query(current_pp);

that's it...

You're wrong, this doesn't work. The old floating point value that's still lying around is useless for computing what pp the user would have with the new score. The previously discarded score would be necessary for that computation.

I wrote you a PM in case you want to know why and/or want to continue the discussion - it doesn't fit in this thread.

Tom, sorry if this has been asked before:

Any thoughts about replacing the whole score based ranking system with pp?

I mean, right now you can beat "your best pp score" with a "worse pp score". It would also be a nice addition since they original % bonus each mod gives has always been broken, we could get to see some nice rankings like we can see on osu!tp. I mean there are several maps where some epics DTs are buried under random HR HDs lol, you know what to mean. Same thing with HRs being buried under HDs. Having the alternative to order top scores by pp gained instead of score would be really nice, also it would kind of resolve the "you can lose pp by beating your own score" thing.

can we have separate pp (aim, speed, accuracy) shown on our profile page?

I think the tp rating system is better than the pp one since it's easy to farm pp on maps that aren't at the limits of your skill. In tp, you can have top 10 scores that don't give you any tp since they aren't challenging your individual attributes at all but may grant you a lot of pp just because the play averages out harder.

I agree that seperate scores for our ability
I.e speed accuracy aim
Should be implemented,
However if tom hasn't got the time it's not likely to happen.

Why did remote control hdhr give me 0 pp but is really high on my best performances ?

Well, tp might not be the same as pp, but muh FL ;;

http://osutp.net/scores?bid=27204
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=76663
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=52781
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=37249
(^Yeah my accuracy might not be the coolest ever, but still, I'd imagine some of the jumps in those maps should be hard enough.)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=121000 (99.67 FLDT is not enough to beat a HDDT SS)
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=64468 (Same as above, a HDHR SS is better than a HDHRFL 99.55% run.)

Also, just a map in my top performance:
http://osutp.net/scores?bid=49067 , which seems to give a bunch of accuracy, and I guess it might be because of the amount of circles vs amount of sliders and AR. But because the map has a very steady and constant 1/2 rhythm, getting high accuracy on it isn't really that hard.

A bit late but...

[ Zetka ] wrote:

Kind of enjoying a nice consistent rise in ranks but what I'm not so sure about is how I can spend ages working on a really hard beatmap and when I finally complete it it doesn't count anything towards my pp at all. But if I go and find the easiest beatmap I have, wack on a few mods and get a good score really easily, that gives me loads of pp. Don't quite understand that at all :/

In most cases, when you barely pass a map you aren't really demonstrating that you can play it competently. What you're typically showing is that you're able to bullshit your way through it. Here's an example: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/34544

Passing that map isn't too tough because the HP Drain's at 5 and the notes are fairly close together most of the time since I designed the map to be a Hard (in hindsight i should've just made it an Insane but w/e). Because of this you can just mash your way through the 1/4 sections and nail the rest and be fine. However, SSing it isn't easy for most people because of said 1/4 sections.

Someone who mashes shouldn't really be getting pp, but that SS should still have PP potential (for low ranked players, at least). This goes for quite a lot of maps. The easiest way to do this is to not give out pp to low accuracy unless the map warrants it and that's more or less how it's done.

EDIT: It's also possible that it's only you who finds that map really hard. People are different so this happens at times.

-Soba- wrote:

Why did remote control hdhr give me 0 pp but is really high on my best performances ?

usually when a score gives you nothing when it should you just have to set a new best score on any map for it to update.