[ 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.