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.

People said that Scarlet Rose was the hardest map in existence (according to forums)
Why is it ranked so low in tp?
Is this map underrated?
Adult's toy is also seriously underrated. You can ask almost everyone and find that the consider Adult's Toy harder than say, some random high tp diff such as recommended spell (Spell)
I suggest maybe high bpm songs should rated higher.

I just dont get it. Always the same..

I play song 1st time, i failed 2-3 times, im.. lets say #2000 (B)
And my ranking increased for 50

I play song 2nd time on FC, im lets say #700 (C)
And my ranking DECREASED for 20..

Why does that happened ?

asior wrote:

I just dont get it. Always the same..

I play song 1st time, i failed 2-3 times, im.. lets say #2000 (B)
And my ranking increased for 50

I play song 2nd time on FC, im lets say #700 (C)
And my ranking DECREASED for 20..

Why does that happened ?

Did your pp go down? Or just your rank while pp stayed the same?