I know your algorithm version isn't over but, i'm not sure we talked about "hitting big notes" in the difficulty of the maps. When the bpm is high it becomes harder to hit the big notes even if you alternate. The big notes density inside the map should also be considered as a + in the difficulty. (more the bpm is high and more the big notes density is high more difficult the map is) When there are big notes you are supposed to hit them. And even if you try to avoid them they are a pain for you to read correctly the next part of the map. Imo it's important cause I think it's one of the reasons that makes "Unpleasant Sonata " so hard to FC.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Taiko)
posted
Total Posts
645
While it's understandable that everyone is focusing more on how the converts get converted and how the hard maps get valued, but let's talk about lower maps a little.
We have *** Passionate (TV Size) which is valued the same as Dragons. I FCd Passionate with hard rock where I barely get an A on Dragons, with a low combo. Dragons is so much harder because of really odd rhythms and because it's kinda long compared to the TV Size thing.
Then you have Hades in the Heaven which is valued slightly above but then you have a couple of much easier maps, namely Night of Fire by lepidon which is a lot higher above. Certain pattern chain in the middle of the map make Hades really really hard to FC, while Night of Fire has quite simple patterns and is something I consider a beginner's map. Thank you for playing isn't that difficult either and it's even further above.
Also in the mid class you have Intersect Thunderbolt 7491's Oni which is below Ernst Oni. I highly disagree with this, despite Ernst being a bit more pattern heavy. The patterns in Ernst aren't difficult, it's just slightly a more dense map, but in Intersect Thunderbolt you have high speed pattern changes, namely a quite hard 1/3 stream to perform correctly due to it's bpm which contains multiple hand swaps.
Just some thoughts.
We have *** Passionate (TV Size) which is valued the same as Dragons. I FCd Passionate with hard rock where I barely get an A on Dragons, with a low combo. Dragons is so much harder because of really odd rhythms and because it's kinda long compared to the TV Size thing.
Then you have Hades in the Heaven which is valued slightly above but then you have a couple of much easier maps, namely Night of Fire by lepidon which is a lot higher above. Certain pattern chain in the middle of the map make Hades really really hard to FC, while Night of Fire has quite simple patterns and is something I consider a beginner's map. Thank you for playing isn't that difficult either and it's even further above.
Also in the mid class you have Intersect Thunderbolt 7491's Oni which is below Ernst Oni. I highly disagree with this, despite Ernst being a bit more pattern heavy. The patterns in Ernst aren't difficult, it's just slightly a more dense map, but in Intersect Thunderbolt you have high speed pattern changes, namely a quite hard 1/3 stream to perform correctly due to it's bpm which contains multiple hand swaps.
Just some thoughts.
TimmyAkmed wrote:
I know your algorithm version isn't over but, i'm not sure we talked about "hitting big notes" in the difficulty of the maps. When the bpm is high it becomes harder to hit the big notes even if you alternate. The big notes density inside the map should also be considered as a + in the difficulty. (more the bpm is high and more the big notes density is high more difficult the map is) When there are big notes you are supposed to hit them. And even if you try to avoid them they are a pain for you to read correctly the next part of the map. Imo it's important cause I think it's one of the reasons that makes "Unpleasant Sonata " so hard to FC.
No, score is enough of a measure. Consider big notes as a bonus points not increase in diff.
I like this, it's really close to a real difficulty. Though 51 is harder than chipscape.
I gave you the wrong version of one of the maps I suggested, here is the interesting one :
http://puu.sh/72lL2.zip
@lolcubes, you are right, but focusing on high-tier maps (not including Firces forces and cie though) is good to have a global overview of how each aspect are weighted, which is more difficult to see on standards onis and uber-insane ones.
http://puu.sh/72lL2.zip
@lolcubes, you are right, but focusing on high-tier maps (not including Firces forces and cie though) is good to have a global overview of how each aspect are weighted, which is more difficult to see on standards onis and uber-insane ones.
I still think the same, when a mapper put big notes in his map he wants us to hit them like big notes. Being able to FC maps like Distorted Lovesong Taikocalypse DX without hitting the big notes doesn't mean to me that you are able to play the map the way it has been thought for (sorry i'm not sure everybody will know what I mean here) If we avoid to hit the big notes it's because it's obviously harder.EBAWER123 wrote:
No, score is enough of a measure. Consider big notes as a bonus points not increase in diff.
And for example even if it's only on Unrankable stuff i'm sure almost everybody who'll see big notes in patterns will have trouble to read it "normally"
Topic Starter
Since the bonus in score is so small and there are no disadvantages over normal notes when hitting them like normal notes I don't think they should coult as "difficulty". If they'd break combo or reduce accuracy if hit wrong, then I'd agree with you more.TimmyAkmed wrote:
I still think the same, when a mapper put big notes in his map he wants us to hit them like big notes. Being able to FC maps like Distorted Lovesong Taikocalypse DX without hitting the big notes doesn't mean to me that you are able to play the map the way it has been thought for (sorry i'm not sure everybody will know what I mean here) If we avoid to hit the big notes it's because it's obviously harder.EBAWER123 wrote:
No, score is enough of a measure. Consider big notes as a bonus points not increase in diff.
And for example even if it's only on Unrankable stuff i'm sure almost everybody who'll see big notes in patterns will have trouble to read it "normally"
But even if I did agree, it'd be impossible to check scores for having hit big notes with 2 buttons, which in turn makes it impossible to have sensible pp calculations if big notes would be factored in as difficulty.
missing a big note is like getting 2x100. i wouldn't call that smallTom94 wrote:
Since the bonus in score is so small
Topic Starter
Relative to a map with maybe 2,000 hit circles it is. But yeah, depending on how many hit circles there are and how many big notes there are the bonus can also be big, I stand corrected.AnFace wrote:
missing a big note is like getting 2x100. i wouldn't call that smallTom94 wrote:
Since the bonus in score is so small
The rest of the argument still stands, though.
Looking at the most recent one, I'd say its pretty accurate towards the top. Mad Machine being at the top is expected if we're going to weigh converts equally due to the stupidly high speed of the converted streams, and the taiko maps themselves are ordered pretty well. Some of the maps that I'd consider to be harder have harder finisher patterns in them, which aren't weighted by the system now from what I read.
It might be a good idea to come up with some way of weighting finishers because honestly they are a pretty big deal in how maps are read. As an example, The first kiai for Loctav's Oni in this mapset in its current state is absolutely insane to read the finisher section towards the end (and some of it is unrankable, but I digress), and is notably harder than the same pattern without finishers to read.
It might be a good idea to come up with some way of weighting finishers because honestly they are a pretty big deal in how maps are read. As an example, The first kiai for Loctav's Oni in this mapset in its current state is absolutely insane to read the finisher section towards the end (and some of it is unrankable, but I digress), and is notably harder than the same pattern without finishers to read.
Topic Starter
I'd love to give finishers a proper bonus, but since it's impossible to check whether a player hit the finishers or not this would greatly overvalue maps with finishers when applied to pp for people who did not play them correctly.Tasha wrote:
Looking at the most recent one, I'd say its pretty accurate towards the top. Mad Machine being at the top is expected if we're going to weigh converts equally due to the stupidly high speed of the converted streams, and the taiko maps themselves are ordered pretty well. Some of the maps that I'd consider to be harder have harder finisher patterns in them, which aren't weighted by the system now from what I read.
It might be a good idea to come up with some way of weighting finishers because honestly they are a pretty big deal in how maps are read. As an example, Loctav's Oni for this map in its current state is absolutely insane to read the finisher section towards the end (and some of it is unrankable, but i digress), and is notably harder than the same pattern without finishers to read.
Also glad to hear, that the recent version looks good.
I'll check the other feedback regarding specific maps when I find time and will try to work around it.
What about just applying a bonus for finishers that are in denser parts of the map? Even if the finishers aren't hit, its still technically harder to read them. My previous example (while exaggerated) shows that quite well imo.
Topic Starter
As said in the private discussion I just had with you: Finishers can be skinned small, so they don't make reading more challenging. :/Tasha wrote:
What about just applying a bonus for finishers that are in denser parts of the map? Even if the finishers aren't hit, its still technically harder to read them. My previous example (while exaggerated) shows that quite well imo.
As Tom said, we can't tell if a player hit the big note with both keys or as a regular note. If we give a bonus to a map due to its finishers, some people will just play them as if they don't exist and earn a lot of pp, while others players will try to hit them and fail.
Yes it does affect the reading, but if you play them like regular notes, you can make abstraction of the finisher pretty easily (Also some players can change their skin too)
Yes it does affect the reading, but if you play them like regular notes, you can make abstraction of the finisher pretty easily (Also some players can change their skin too)
Already discussed it with Tom in private, and unfortunately there really is no way to work finishers into the algorithm.
It could be possible if the condition is a full combo though. There is extra score after all.
Could have small calculation issues with sliders though, but they give only a certain amount of score so...
Out of curiosity, how are sliders calculated then? You don't have to hit a slider to full combo, but it should show skill too, there are some maps where sliders become absolutely brutal if you have DT activated. Unreal BPMs and all (above 300).
Could have small calculation issues with sliders though, but they give only a certain amount of score so...
Out of curiosity, how are sliders calculated then? You don't have to hit a slider to full combo, but it should show skill too, there are some maps where sliders become absolutely brutal if you have DT activated. Unreal BPMs and all (above 300).
They become brutal above 200 1/4 DT @cubes.
And past 250 you come to 1/2 ticks :U
And past 250 you come to 1/2 ticks :U
120 BPM maps get 240 BPM drumrolls, which is increased to 360 BPM 1/4 by DT
Just an example
I don't really see a way to incorporate big notes/drumrolls/spinners into a difficulty algorithm without per-hitobject data on scores tho (unless it's an SS)
Just an example
I don't really see a way to incorporate big notes/drumrolls/spinners into a difficulty algorithm without per-hitobject data on scores tho (unless it's an SS)
Yes, that's what I said. Any BPM above 200 with DT applied make them over 300 BPM real time._Gezo_ wrote:
They become brutal above 200 1/4 DT @cubes.
And past 250 you come to 1/2 ticks :U
Tom, could you possibly add some DT maps to the difficulty list so we can see how those are rated?
Stuff like this maybe:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/132889&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/214251&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/267841&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/153886&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/161275&m=1
All of those are hard DT maps, some moreso than others. I'd just like to see what your program thinks of them.
Thanks!
Stuff like this maybe:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/132889&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/214251&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/267841&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/153886&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/161275&m=1
All of those are hard DT maps, some moreso than others. I'd just like to see what your program thinks of them.
Thanks!
Topic Starter
The first issue you mentioned seems to be well fixed in the newest list. Regarding hades in the heaven, the difference between the maps you called and this one seems to have shrunk, but there still is quite a gap.lolcubes wrote:
While it's understandable that everyone is focusing more on how the converts get converted and how the hard maps get valued, but let's talk about lower maps a little.
We have *** Passionate (TV Size) which is valued the same as Dragons. I FCd Passionate with hard rock where I barely get an A on Dragons, with a low combo. Dragons is so much harder because of really odd rhythms and because it's kinda long compared to the TV Size thing.
Then you have Hades in the Heaven which is valued slightly above but then you have a couple of much easier maps, namely Night of Fire by lepidon which is a lot higher above. Certain pattern chain in the middle of the map make Hades really really hard to FC, while Night of Fire has quite simple patterns and is something I consider a beginner's map. Thank you for playing isn't that difficult either and it's even further above.
Also in the mid class you have Intersect Thunderbolt 7491's Oni which is below Ernst Oni. I highly disagree with this, despite Ernst being a bit more pattern heavy. The patterns in Ernst aren't difficult, it's just slightly a more dense map, but in Intersect Thunderbolt you have high speed pattern changes, namely a quite hard 1/3 stream to perform correctly due to it's bpm which contains multiple hand swaps.
Just some thoughts.
Pattern difficulty can only be considered to a certain extent due to subjectivity and due to the fact, that for the algorithm there is no way to find out about "1/3" or "1/4". All there is are relative timings, so I can't promise much improvement in that direction without ruining weightings for other maps.
The thunderbolt vs ernst thing is very similar, you even called the 1/3 out... there's not much the algorithm can do in that regard. Also 1/3 can be trained just as easily as 1/4 - the only reason many people are bad at them is because they are so uncommon.
Can't selectively apply mods for some maps for now. That'd require some very unnecessary program loogic for the final purpose if weighting pp and (imho) is a waste of time to implement. If the algorithm works well with the current maps you throw at it, then it should work well with pretty much any map and thus also those DT maps. All it does is create a new map with 1.5 the speed anyway.Luna wrote:
Tom, could you possibly add some DT maps to the difficulty list so we can see how those are rated?
Stuff like this maybe:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/132889&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/214251&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/267841&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/153886&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/161275&m=1
All of those are hard DT maps, some moreso than others. I'd just like to see what your program thinks of them.
Thanks!
Sliders can't really be factored in for the same reasons as big notes. There might be one way to do it, though, which is to consider score relative to the maximum possible score instead of things like 300, 100, 50 and miss counts.lolcubes wrote:
It could be possible if the condition is a full combo though. There is extra score after all.
Could have small calculation issues with sliders though, but they give only a certain amount of score so...
Out of curiosity, how are sliders calculated then? You don't have to hit a slider to full combo, but it should show skill too, there are some maps where sliders become absolutely brutal if you have DT activated. Unreal BPMs and all (above 300).
Do you guys think the taiko scoring system is good enough to be used as a basis for pp?
From what we are sawing, I think we can give it a try so that we can see how it goes for every maps instead of a limited list and then adjust the algorithm little by little
Topic Starter
That means implementing pp with it. Can't go and post gigantic lists with 30,000+ entries.Nashmun wrote:
From what we are sawing, I think we can give it a try so that we can see how it goes for every maps instead of a limited list and then adjust the algorithm little by little
But yeah, things are going forward.
Yeah I know, just saying that implementing it with pp would help us understand more how it weight every maps and then adjust the algorithm to be even more accurate
Nashmun wrote:
Yeah I know, just saying that implementing it with pp would help us understand more how it weight every maps and then adjust the algorithm to be even more accurate
Since a full implementation in the current state would probably cause a lot of confusion/panic in the community, maybe we can get a thing like ppy did with the initial standard ppv2 testing, where he'd have a seperate (hidden) ppv2 ranking to observe changes etc? If you'd post the link to that ranking in this thread, we could give way more specific feedback without confusing the general public.
Topic Starter
I don't think using the difficulty values it can be any worse than what currently is in place. It's not yet decided how it will be done, though.Luna wrote:
Since a full implementation in the current state would probably cause a lot of confusion/panic in the community, maybe we can get a thing like ppy did with the initial standard ppv2 testing, where he'd have a seperate (hidden) ppv2 ranking to observe changes etc? If you'd post the link to that ranking in this thread, we could give way more specific feedback without confusing the general public.
Yeah, I don't think it would be worse or anything, but since the algorithm is still unrefined, it would probably require quite a few (maybe big) algorithm changes. And looking at the community reaction every time that happens for standard, it feels like a better idea to do the first few iterations in a seperate ranking. Might be a unnecessary, dunno; personally I'd be completely fine with just implementing pp based on what you currently have and seeing what happens.
You didn't get the reason I called them though hehe.Tom94 wrote:
The thunderbolt vs ernst thing is very similar, you even called the 1/3 out... there's not much the algorithm can do in that regard. Also 1/3 can be trained just as easily as 1/4 - the only reason many people are bad at them is because they are so uncommon.
The thing is, the kat patterns in that 1/3 stream are very difficult. Despite being slower than 1/4, that bpm is still very high and you have multiple hand switches during the 1/3 stream, in addition to no hand switches at the first part of the stream, which is odd for a 1/3 based rhythm.
That's why I consider it much harder, because before I changed my playstyle I could almost FC Ernst (had an unlucky miss), while I would consistently get destroyed on that 1/3 stream, which is why I think Ernst being above isn't as realistic.
Besides, now when I swapped my playstyle to full alt and began training from scratch so my skill is much lower than it used to be, I can still get a B or A if lucky on Ernst, while I still can't pass Intersect.
No rush in fixing this, I'm sure you have other priorities, but I am just explaining this better since you seem to have misunderstood my 1/3 call over there.
Pattern difficulty can only be considered to a certain extent due to subjectivity and due to the fact, that for the algorithm there is no way to find out about "1/3" or "1/4"How so? Given the BPM, can't you calculate the timing between the notes? Or just scan them from the .osu?
1/3 is slower than 1/4 so it's easier, no?
Also I don't see any point in calculating sliders and finishers in difficulty, have u ever played TnT on arcade? Noone ever hits big notes on hard maps, lol. Sliders, spinners and finishers just give me score, you don't really have any difficulties with them, given the same acc and mods, person with more score will get more pp, I thought it worked this way. Ot at least it should be like this I think.
On a side note, people who play ddkk/kkdd or kddk on the numpad like pm___ can hit finishers with 1 hand even on kddk due to the layout of numpad so for people like these hitting finishers is not a difficulty but instead free points
P.S. It would be really cool to have rating of songs not just players somewhere maybe not on the main site but like a .txt file on dropbox or smthn which would automatically update with each ranked map.
Also I don't see any point in calculating sliders and finishers in difficulty, have u ever played TnT on arcade? Noone ever hits big notes on hard maps, lol. Sliders, spinners and finishers just give me score, you don't really have any difficulties with them, given the same acc and mods, person with more score will get more pp, I thought it worked this way. Ot at least it should be like this I think.
On a side note, people who play ddkk/kkdd or kddk on the numpad like pm___ can hit finishers with 1 hand even on kddk due to the layout of numpad so for people like these hitting finishers is not a difficulty but instead free points
P.S. It would be really cool to have rating of songs not just players somewhere maybe not on the main site but like a .txt file on dropbox or smthn which would automatically update with each ranked map.
Topic Starter
The bpm specified by the mapper can't be trusted... just look at The Big Black. And even if it could be trusted, there still would be songs which naturally require 1/3 most of the time, making 1/4 in turn harder. There is no general consensus, that 1/3 is harder thsn 1/4. And on top of that it's a very subjective thing - many people tell me, that 1/3 isn't hard for them at all.lolcubes wrote:
You didn't get the reason I called them though hehe.Tom94 wrote:
The thunderbolt vs ernst thing is very similar, you even called the 1/3 out... there's not much the algorithm can do in that regard. Also 1/3 can be trained just as easily as 1/4 - the only reason many people are bad at them is because they are so uncommon.
The thing is, the kat patterns in that 1/3 stream are very difficult. Despite being slower than 1/4, that bpm is still very high and you have multiple hand switches during the 1/3 stream, in addition to no hand switches at the first part of the stream, which is odd for a 1/3 based rhythm.
That's why I consider it much harder, because before I changed my playstyle I could almost FC Ernst (had an unlucky miss), while I would consistently get destroyed on that 1/3 stream, which is why I think Ernst being above isn't as realistic.
Besides, now when I swapped my playstyle to full alt and began training from scratch so my skill is much lower than it used to be, I can still get a B or A if lucky on Ernst, while I still can't pass Intersect.
No rush in fixing this, I'm sure you have other priorities, but I am just explaining this better since you seem to have misunderstood my 1/3 call over there.Pattern difficulty can only be considered to a certain extent due to subjectivity and due to the fact, that for the algorithm there is no way to find out about "1/3" or "1/4"How so? Given the BPM, can't you calculate the timing between the notes? Or just scan them from the .osu?
Topic Starter
EBAWER123 wrote:
1/3 is slower than 1/4 so it's easier, no?
Also I don't see any point in calculating sliders and finishers in difficulty, have u ever played TnT on arcade? Noone ever hits big notes on hard maps, lol. Sliders, spinners and finishers just give me score, you don't really have any difficulties with them, given the same acc and mods, person with more score will get more pp, I thought it worked this way. Ot at least it should be like this I think.
On a side note, people who play ddkk/kkdd or kddk on the numpad like pm___ can hit finishers with 1 hand even on kddk due to the layout of numpad so for people like these hitting finishers is not a difficulty but instead free points
P.S. It would be really cool to have rating of songs not just players somewhere maybe not on the main site but like a .txt file on dropbox or smthn which would automatically update with each ranked map.
Difficulty of maps is planned to be displayed on the website and as new star rating.
The point of BPM was you can get the timelines where the notes are snapped and by this you can detect how far are from each other. You don't need exact bpm to determine the difficulty of a stream.Tom94 wrote:
The bpm specified by the mapper can't be trusted... just look at The Big Black. And even if it could be trusted, there still would be songs which naturally require 1/3 most of the time, making 1/4 in turn harder. There is no general consensus, that 1/3 is harder thsn 1/4. And on top of that it's a very subjective thing - many people tell me, that 1/3 isn't hard for them at all.
For example, if two notes are apart by 75ms that means they can be 1/4 on 200, 1/8 on 100 or even 1/2 on 400 BPM. If it's 100ms then it can be 1/3 on 200 BPM, 1/6 on 100 BPM and 2/3 on 400 BPM.
You are still missing the point of the 1/3. 1/3 isn't hard to hit by default, the kat patterns inside is what can make it really weird to play.
For example a kdddk on 1/4 feels natural to play if both kats are located on beats, while kdddk on 1/3 is not so natural if alone if it starts on a beat, because the final kat will pass the beat. While this doesn't require the hand switch, rhythmically it can be quite complicated because it's not intuitive as kddk on 1/3, because while the hand switch occurs, both kats are located on the beats so it's actually expected and intuitive to perform.
If a kdddk on 1/3 starts one tick before a beat, that's ok too, but if it starts on a beat, then it can get weird, especially if it's a chain, because all your kats are becoming one tick off beat every repetition it occurs.
Hope this explains my view better.
P.S. for a good example you can check La Cataline's VANESSA, lepidon's taiko. That's a really good example of good 1/3 rhythms, almost the whole map needs hand switching on streams, but they are really intuitive because of the beat logic I explained above, and that is why it's not a hard map despite all the hand switching (for me at least).
edit:
Pics.
^ A classic kdddk chain which is easy to hit because every kat is located on a beat, making it intuitive to play
^ A kdddk chain on 1/3. Despite looking symmetrical, check how kats are 1 tick late. That's not intuitive to play at all, despite no hand switch required.
Also, check this out:
While it's just a simple stream, kat patterns like that, while they probably won't be used ever because such a pattern probably doesn't even exist in music, or is just so obscure it almost never gets used, check how dumb the kat rhythm is, always being late by 1 tick. It would need a few more repetitions for it to get back to the downbeat too, I just didn't want to repeat it until that because the picture would be too long.
This kind of pattern is also much harder to play because while it's unintuitive, it also requires a hand switch on every kat.
Topic Starter
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?lolcubes wrote:
The point of BPM was you can get the timelines where the notes are snapped and by this you can detect how far are from each other. You don't need exact bpm to determine the difficulty of a stream.
For example, if two notes are apart by 75ms that means they can be 1/4 on 200, 1/8 on 100 or even 1/2 on 400 BPM. If it's 100ms then it can be 1/3 on 200 BPM, 1/6 on 100 BPM and 2/3 on 400 BPM.
I'm not missing the point. Trust me, I understand you. There are also patterns which are very hard to play on 1/4 which in turn get easier on 1/3.lolcubes wrote:
You are still missing the point of the 1/3. 1/3 isn't hard to hit by default, the kat patterns inside is what can make it really weird to play. [...]
But since those 2 can't be distinguished (as described above) it's impossible to apply any weightings in the first place.
My other point still stands, that other taiko players told me they'd find similar patterns easy on 1/3, but hey, that's pretty much an irrelevant discussion about something very subjective, because - once again - 1/3 and 1/4 can't reliably be distinguished anyways.
If you think otherwise, then it'd be cool if you could drop me a PM with an exact method how to, but I'm faily confident, that you'd have to go down to analyzing the mp3 itself for doing that without trusting the mapper / artist, and we all know how unreliable algorithms are that try to analyze music data in such a way.
Uh, I worded it really carefully, if the BPM is 200, and someone chooses to halve or double it, you still get information you need. Incorrectly timed songs are unrankable and can't really get a scoreboard, right? That's why it's reliable enough.Tom94 wrote:
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?
Why not? If you can get the timing difference between the notes and you know the bpm, you can easily know what snap it's using. More importantly, you know where the beats are as long as you have a bpm and an offset.Tom94 wrote:
I'm not missing the point. Trust me, I understand you. There are also patterns which are very hard to play on 1/4 which in turn get easier on 1/3.lolcubes wrote:
You are still missing the point of the 1/3. 1/3 isn't hard to hit by default, the kat patterns inside is what can make it really weird to play. [...]
But since those 2 can't be distinguished (as described above) it's impossible to apply any weightings in the first place.
I probably confused you because I used the same pattern as an example, I should have used beat logic instead. I have used those specific values in ms because I was assuming someone made a mistake with BPM, halving or doubling it. You gave an example of big black, and this is exactly how this can get solved.
Lets say you have 2 beats, which are expressed with kats. Between them you can have a 1/2, two 1/3 or three 1/4 notes. That's how snapping works and is always true. If you have dons between those two kats, regardless of what pattern it makes, it's gonna be easy to play because it's intuitive. That's just how rhythm works.
Now, if you create broken rhythms, like I showed in the final pic, that is not only unintuitive but much harder than some really complex type of a stream.
For example, let's use a 1/4 stream of 16 notes with patterns inside:
kddddkddddkddddkd vs kkddkdkkdkddkdkkd
I am fairly sure despite it's complexity, the 2nd stream is easier to play because the rhythm is intuitive compared to the first one. Once you get really skilled you can probably play both of them, but rhythmically, the first one makes no sense whatsoever. This is an extreme case though, I'm fairly sure you will never see such a stream as I described as #1 up here, and I can understand your concerns about not being able to pickup the difficulty of a pattern just from the snap without scanning the mp3, however if something starts on a beat, usually it ends on a beat as well and rarely goes past it, and if it does it's usually another set of patterns that usually continue with a tick just before another beat as well.
Example: kdddkd dk, kdddkk kd or whatever. This is what I would call intuitive because it doesn't break the beat logic. Things like this can go off beat for a while when people map own rhythms (which is exactly why I am not fond of them, because they go against the beat usually) but that is ok as long as there is a visible pattern.
Well, long story short, if the algorithm considers the first stream as easier because it's less complex and more repetitive, I believe we have a problem. Intuitiveness is arguably a subjective topic here, but on a standard 4/4 song, the 2nd example will almost always, if not 99.99% of the time be easier to play if you just follow how the beats work.
Before people come at me that I am not using kats on beats in the 2nd stream, I was just trying to make a complex stream which feels intuitive given a 4/4 full measure, compared to the first one.
Another part that is probably getting ignored is the time signature. I am not saying a certain time signature is harder than the other one, I am saying a same pattern put into a different time signature will feel different and probably wrong as well, which in turn increases the difficulty because it's unintuitive.
This is probably very hard to detect and explain via an algorithm however if that can't be done I don't think the calc will be as accurate.
Not blaming you or anything, just giving you my thoughts in hopes you see why am I so stuck on this.
I'd say about 95% songs are 4/4 standard rhythm songs and most of the time people will play them. But every once in a while a really odd song may appear, where both BPM and time signature can be so weird you probably can't even recognize it while listening, creating chaos and all.
Sorry for a long post again, but it would really help if other people comment as well. I know that I am probably touching a subject not everyone can relate to, but having increased feedback will bring more accurate results.
kddddkddddkddddkdWow, just looking at this stream makes me incredibly angry. I'm pretty sure if I ever encountered something like that in a real map I'd ragequit haha
It's not terribly hard to play, but I'd still take the second example stream over that one any day.
Tom, actually i have a way find all those stream and get their complexity. But if the map have BPM change in the middle, i need a better i/o to get all timing point in.
If you don‘t mind i give you my complexity calculation method and you try to include that to see if it feel better
If you don‘t mind i give you my complexity calculation method and you try to include that to see if it feel better
@lolcubes
I'm a human and I still don't get what you explained D:
The only thing I can say is that kddddkddddkddddk is the same as kddkddkddkddkddk and they are both easy to play and read
I'm a human and I still don't get what you explained D:
The only thing I can say is that kddddkddddkddddk is the same as kddkddkddkddkddk and they are both easy to play and read
Topic Starter
The algorithm is supposed to work with any map, not just ranked maps, so your argument is invalid. Also keep in mind, that there are some horribly timed old ranked maps.lolcubes wrote:
Uh, I worded it really carefully, if the BPM is 200, and someone chooses to halve or double it, you still get information you need. Incorrectly timed songs are unrankable and can't really get a scoreboard, right? That's why it's reliable enough.Tom94 wrote:
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?
And once again, I understood your point about patterns. I can see, that there are unintuitive patterns and intuitive patterns, also depending on BPM, division and so on.
The problem - once again - is, that multiple people tell me different things. "Unintuitive" and "intuitive" are very subjective things which can't be considered in the algorithm because exactly this. It is supposed to be objective and working for all playstyles.
It already does consider color changes from an even amount of circles with a color to an odd amount of circles with the other color and vice versa. It also considers rhythm changes from (M * 2 ^ X) to (N * 2 ^ X), that means from for instance (... 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ...) to (... 3, 1, 1/3, 1/6, 1/12 ...). But it can only work with relative data, not with absolute data. Once again: Mapper information can not be trusted, because it has to work with all maps. Simply changing metadata BPM which doesn't affect the map at all should not affect the map difficulty. That'd be just wrong.
By the way, the algorithm would consider your both examples about equally hard, if not your first example harder, due to the switches from odd to even colors.
Hi, I posted this earlier on another thread and they directed me here. Sorry for coming out of nowhere.
I would just like to ask, with the current pp system out of order, are the current ranks not accurate? I have not been too active in Taiko lately and nowadays no matter how much I play, my rank goes down by hundreds. At times when I do play well, my rank would either drop a little (usually 1 to 10) or would remain stagnant.
If the system does return functional in the future, will my performance (and thus my pp) be rescaled to account for the downfall?
I would just like to ask, with the current pp system out of order, are the current ranks not accurate? I have not been too active in Taiko lately and nowadays no matter how much I play, my rank goes down by hundreds. At times when I do play well, my rank would either drop a little (usually 1 to 10) or would remain stagnant.
If the system does return functional in the future, will my performance (and thus my pp) be rescaled to account for the downfall?
You will have your rank calculated for all maps played online.
So if you play a good performance now you will have a higher rank if the new system goes online then if you don't play.
The ranking system we have now is not properly displaying your rank and is only a placeholder, so don't give it much credit and just try to improve for yourself to get ready and have good scores if the new system goes online.
So if you play a good performance now you will have a higher rank if the new system goes online then if you don't play.
The ranking system we have now is not properly displaying your rank and is only a placeholder, so don't give it much credit and just try to improve for yourself to get ready and have good scores if the new system goes online.