Why do you want to compare this map with other maps? The point was comparing no mod and HR on the very same map. And the map you mentioned is really difficult with HR as well, so getting 97% with HR should easily be on a level with 100% no mod.RaneFire wrote:
Yes, but getting an SS on that map with OD7, or even just 99%, is many times more difficult than getting 97% on other OD10 maps because of the way it's made.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
How does the algorithm work for accuracy ? Does it compute an estimated unstable rate (or a range) ?
What calculation method did you use?GhostFrog wrote:
I ran the same calculation as I did earlier - getting 97% consistently on OD9.8 (assuming normal distribution, hits centered at perfect timing) means getting > 99.98% consistently on OD7.
If you interpolated this table http://www.mediafire.com/download/pgb55 ... te_v2.xlsx for the "99%confidence" value (guessing since it gives similar results to what you give), take into consideration that, for example, an unstable rate of 100 in a map of 1000 circles should hardly ever result in less than 93.75%accuracy on OD10. For comparing purposes I think low confidence percentages make more sense (since most records are from maps the players have retried several times).
It uses a formula made by Tom94 http://pastebin.com/XDDgKEvw#_=_ (this pastebin is outdated though, it is probably somewhat different currently).KaosFR wrote:
How does the algorithm work for accuracy ? Does it compute an estimated unstable rate (or a range) ?
Something I assume is much less sophisticated than what the table uses. I found the standard deviation of hit timings that would give 97% accuracy on OD9.8 and found what percent of 300s that would give on OD7 (I basically counted 100s as misses instead to be on the safe side). If you're consistently getting that standard deviation, you should consistently be getting the corresponding OD7 accuracy, unless I did something wrong.Full Tablet wrote:
What calculation method did you use?GhostFrog wrote:
I ran the same calculation as I did earlier - getting 97% consistently on OD9.8 (assuming normal distribution, hits centered at perfect timing) means getting > 99.98% consistently on OD7.
Computers everywhere. Not one who plays the game.
i personally find getting 97% on hr many times more difficult that getting (almost) SS on od8, but that's also because of the increased ar and circle size. usually if i can SS a map on nomod first try i get like 90-95% first try on hr (assuming i can play the map with hr, which i usually cant)
The thing is that i'm not a DT player.Aqo wrote:
DT players saying it's too easy to get points with DT and too hard with HR
HR players saying it's too easy with HR and too hard with DT
hmmmmmmmmmm
Well, sorry for my totally useless posts, it was just me trying to blame something for being bad, but well, I'll try to be a bit more clear about what I think even if nobody cares.
I think the problem with the current system is that it gives pp based on the difficulty of the maps.
However, what is difficulty ? How is it possible to accurately evaluate difficulty for every players ?
For example, like you all point out, my top scores are DT, but ... I find them really easy. I almost never practiced for DT, I just play DT from times to times and that's where I got these scores, which gave me a lot of pp because the system evaluates them as "hard", while they're kinda easy.
But, I got some HD scores only after a long long time practicing HD, and it took me several weeks training with this mod to have some scores like my 96% FC on Torikago, which is considered as bad by the system, because the map is not considered difficult, while this is very difficult for me.
The point I'm trying to make is that, with this system, you get rewarded doing something easy to achieve, and you get no reward doing something that took you a lot of training, and really hard to achieve.
I find this kinda sad.
But well, you'll probably say that it's just me trying to blame the system for being bad or something, or that I just suck, and i should stop/farm DT or anything else, so feel free to ignore me, delete my post or anything, I don't care.
Topic Starter
Hmm, that's not exactly intended though. I'll try to make it more appropriate in that direction.Ziggo wrote:
GhostFrog wrote:
I don't know exactly how pp handles OD or how it treats SS, but if you can consistently get 97% on OD10, then, assuming your hits are normally distributed and centered on the correct timing, you can consistently get > 99.9% on OD8. If 97% OD10 isn't giving comparable pp to OD8 SS (I don't know if it does or not), that's unfair to HR players.
You find the beatmaps with DT easy because you already have the skills and experience required to play it. Just because you didn't have to "work" for a certain score, doesn't mean it was an easy feat. Half of my top scores were done in less than 5 plays (complete fluke plays of course), while the other half I probably had to play up to probably 50 times over the course of a few weeks (Which is ridiculously high for me, I've never retried past 10 in one go).Soinou wrote:
SPOILERThe thing is that i'm not a DT player.Aqo wrote:
DT players saying it's too easy to get points with DT and too hard with HR
HR players saying it's too easy with HR and too hard with DT
hmmmmmmmmmm
Well, sorry for my totally useless posts, it was just me trying to blame something for being bad, but well, I'll try to be a bit more clear about what I think even if nobody cares.
I think the problem with the current system is that it gives pp based on the difficulty of the maps.
However, what is difficulty ? How is it possible to accurately evaluate difficulty for every players ?
For example, like you all point out, my top scores are DT, but ... I find them really easy. I almost never practiced for DT, I just play DT from times to times and that's where I got these scores, which gave me a lot of pp because the system evaluates them as "hard", while they're kinda easy.
But, I got some HD scores only after a long long time practicing HD, and it took me several weeks training with this mod to have some scores like my 96% FC on Torikago, which is considered as bad by the system, because the map is not considered difficult, while this is very difficult for me.
The point I'm trying to make is that, with this system, you get rewarded doing something easy to achieve, and you get no reward doing something that took you a lot of training, and really hard to achieve.
I find this kinda sad.
But well, you'll probably say that it's just me trying to blame the system for being bad or something, or that I just suck, and i should stop/farm DT or anything else, so feel free to ignore me, delete my post or anything, I don't care.
The scores may have felt easy, but you wouldn't have been able to pull it off when you just started, right? Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, the system can't compensate for everyone individually. In other words, what's easy for you may not be easy for others.
Well, I know that the system can't compensate for everyone individually, but it feels kinda sad that the system rewards you for choosing simplicity over hard work.nooblet wrote:
You find the beatmaps with DT easy because you already have the skills and experience required to play it. Just because you didn't have to "work" for a certain score, doesn't mean it was an easy feat. Half of my top scores were done in less than 5 plays (complete fluke plays of course), while the other half I probably had to play up to probably 50 times over the course of a few weeks (Which is ridiculously high for me, I've never retried past 10 in one go).
The scores may have felt easy, but you wouldn't have been able to pull it off when you just started, right? Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, the system can't compensate for everyone individually. In other words, what's easy for you may not be easy for others.
@soinou
You're missing something though; it's not because you find something easy that it is easy, same when you find something hard it doesn't mean it is hard.
Example: I find these slow ar8 maps hard since I can't SS them, mostly because I suck at reading stuff, but it doesn't mean they're any hard.
So,
You're missing something though; it's not because you find something easy that it is easy, same when you find something hard it doesn't mean it is hard.
Example: I find these slow ar8 maps hard since I can't SS them, mostly because I suck at reading stuff, but it doesn't mean they're any hard.
So,
you may not always get rewarded for something you find hard, but you'll get rewarded for something that is hard, depends on what you're good/bad at.Soinou wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that, with this system, you get rewarded doing something easy to achieve, and you get no reward doing something that took you a lot of training, and really hard to achieve.
Yeah, but being "hard" or "easy" depends on the player, so how can you judge the difficulty of a map for every players, and say a map "is" hard ?GoldenWolf wrote:
you may not always get rewarded for something you find hard, but you'll get rewarded for something that is hard, depends on what you're good/bad at.
This is true. I've managed to do good performances on some maps easily that some of my friends couldn't do at all, even if they can easily clear maps I have lots of trouble with (For example, I FC'd LeaF - MEPHISTO, something none of my other friends managed to do, but I'm nearly at the bottom of my friends list on Nico Nico Chorus - Leia, even though the map isn't that hard). Everyone is good at different things, some people are better with higher AR's, others with lower ones, some are HR players, others HD players, and others DT players. You can't really say "X mod is easier than Y mod", since it varies for everyone. I find HR easier than HD, because I have trouble reading HD and perform better on AR10, even though I'm sure many people think HD is easier than HR.nooblet wrote:
You find the beatmaps with DT easy because you already have the skills and experience required to play it. Just because you didn't have to "work" for a certain score, doesn't mean it was an easy feat. Half of my top scores were done in less than 5 plays (complete fluke plays of course), while the other half I probably had to play up to probably 50 times over the course of a few weeks (Which is ridiculously high for me, I've never retried past 10 in one go).
The scores may have felt easy, but you wouldn't have been able to pull it off when you just started, right? Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, the system can't compensate for everyone individually. In other words, what's easy for you may not be easy for others.
It's best to just calculate based on what the mod changes on the map (for example, in my opinion, HD should give a similar bonus to HR for aim, since you have to aim for disappearing notes, while HR should give a significantly larger bonus than HD for accuracy, since HD doesn't alter the map's accuracy settings at all). But I think this has already been done quite well, and I don't think anyone should be trying to get the algorithms to change based on what they find easy or hard. It's different for everyone.
Some things are objectively hard; like a 129 circles stream at 222bpmSoinou wrote:
Yeah, but being "hard" or "easy" depends on the player, so how can you judge the difficulty of a map for every players, and say a map "is" hard ?
Other things are subjectively hard; like low AR, old maps, squares, ...
+
-Scylla- wrote:
It's best to just calculate based on what the mod changes on the map (for example, in my opinion, HD should give a similar bonus to HR for aim, since you have to aim for disappearing notes, while HR should give a significantly larger bonus than HD for accuracy, since HD doesn't alter the map's accuracy settings at all). But I think this has already been done quite well, and I don't think anyone should be trying to get the algorithms to change based on what they find easy or hard. It's different for everyone.
Well, the calculation formulas are perfect now :3
just need two adjsutements:(many of you will NEVER understand what I said here - that's the cradle of eventual profanity against it).
- fix star diff rating to reflect exactly the challenge level, according to the date in which a given map was ranked. Such challenge approaches varies from year to year, from epoque to epoque, so diff star rating would be made really great when it consider the epoque when the map got ranked (2007 maps challenge people in different fashion of current maps does). It would help with relax a bit with diff names, etc.
- calculate a 'personal difficulty profile' for each player, so it'll take the correct pp/rank for each person according to relative skills, instead of pushing an universal skill profile for everyone.
just need two adjsutements:(many of you will NEVER understand what I said here - that's the cradle of eventual profanity against it).
- fix star diff rating to reflect exactly the challenge level, according to the date in which a given map was ranked. Such challenge approaches varies from year to year, from epoque to epoque, so diff star rating would be made really great when it consider the epoque when the map got ranked (2007 maps challenge people in different fashion of current maps does). It would help with relax a bit with diff names, etc.
- calculate a 'personal difficulty profile' for each player, so it'll take the correct pp/rank for each person according to relative skills, instead of pushing an universal skill profile for everyone.
Do you realize how hypocritical this is?Alarido wrote:
Well, the calculation formulas are perfect now :3
just need two adjsutements:
This has already been asked, and it's not really high priority. Doing it based on date would be stupid, though a visible difficulty meter based on the map would be useful.Alarido wrote:
- fix star diff rating to reflect exactly the challenge level, according to the date in which a given map was ranked. Such challenge approaches varies from year to year, from epoque to epoque, so diff star rating would be made really great when it consider the epoque when the map got ranked (2007 maps challenge people in different fashion of current maps does). It would help with relax a bit with diff names, etc.
I like this, but I think it's already been mentioned, and I recall Tom saying that he would probably implement it in the future.Alarido wrote:
- calculate a 'personal difficulty profile' for each player, so it'll take the correct pp/rank for each person according to relative skills, instead of pushing an universal skill profile for everyone.
I think the length of the song can influence the PP in the same difficulty
I have actually 915 pp,but after 3 days,I checked the pp again and it is 879, how could pp reducing?
please make it not reducing anymore if ranking reducing it's okay but please not the pp
please make it not reducing anymore if ranking reducing it's okay but please not the pp
When selecting "osu!" on the beatmap listing, is it possible to make the "sort by difficulty" ignore difficulties from other game modes in the same mapset as standard difficulties? Bunch of apples and drums amongst the stars are bringing far too many irrelevant maps to the top, because of their SR, when trying to look for standard difficulties. Or is there some technicality preventing that? (Not talking about entire mapsets devoted to taiko/ctb/mania)
EDIT: I mean on the website.
EDIT: I mean on the website.
RaneFire wrote:
When selecting "osu!" on the beatmap listing, is it possible to make the "sort by difficulty" ignore difficulties from other game modes in the same mapset as standard difficulties? Bunch of apples and drums amongst the stars are bringing far too many irrelevant maps to the top, because of their SR, when trying to look for standard difficulties. Or is there some technicality preventing that? (Not talking about entire mapsets devoted to taiko/ctb/mania)
Select "Mode" from the dropdown.
Open "osu!" collection.
I meant on the website, which has the proper star difficulty rating. The osu! client does not at present.Draxuss wrote:
Open "osu!" collection.
"Beatmap Listing" is the web name. "Song Select" is the client name.
So far I think that the rank are accurate. I went to 130k to 70k after the update.
But I feel like there's something wrong , one of my friend is better than me but his rank is lower than mine
probably because he don't fc song but he can acutally plays 0108 songs and I cannot .
But I feel like there's something wrong , one of my friend is better than me but his rank is lower than mine
probably because he don't fc song but he can acutally plays 0108 songs and I cannot .
I can also play (pass) 0108 songs or harder songs like HujuniseikouyuuP - Talent Shredder [Lesjuh Style] (3.63 Stars) or TJ.Hangneil - Kamui [SHD] (4.14 Stars)Lancelot wrote:
So far I think that the rank are accurate. I went to 130k to 70k after the update.
But I feel like there's something wrong , one of my friend is better than me but his rank is lower than mine
probably because he don't fc song but he can acutally plays 0108 songs and I cannot .
If ppv2 would give you much PP for passing hard songs, then I would be Rank
Your friend and I should learn FC these Maps and not only to pass them
Not really. You will still gain pp if you do a good performance on a hard map without FC'ing it. I remember getting more pp for passing (but with a relatively high combo) Yumemi Sunrise [Insane] than for silver SS'ing both Signal Graph [Insane] and One Reason [Insane].
It all has to do with how hard the map is as compared to how much pp you already have. Obviously, the more pp you have, the better your performances have to be for an increase in pp (if that wasn't the case, pp should be thrown out right away), and above-average performances give above-average pp. Not that you shouldn't learn how to FC hard maps, but do keep in mind that you'll be awarded for your performance (given that your top performance is also your #1 score)
People should learn to at least skim the thread before posting.
It all has to do with how hard the map is as compared to how much pp you already have. Obviously, the more pp you have, the better your performances have to be for an increase in pp (if that wasn't the case, pp should be thrown out right away), and above-average performances give above-average pp. Not that you shouldn't learn how to FC hard maps, but do keep in mind that you'll be awarded for your performance (given that your top performance is also your #1 score)
People should learn to at least skim the thread before posting.
This basically means that his 0108 passes doesn't have as much skill as your other plays.Lancelot wrote:
So far I think that the rank are accurate. I went to 130k to 70k after the update.
But I feel like there's something wrong , one of my friend is better than me but his rank is lower than mine
probably because he don't fc song but he can acutally plays 0108 songs and I cannot .
Yes it's how you said ... but FCing Maps is a better way to gain much PP-Scylla- wrote:
Not really. You will still gain pp if you do a good performance on a hard map without FC'ing it. I remember getting more pp for passing (but with a relatively high combo) Yumemi Sunrise [Insane] than for silver SS'ing both Signal Graph [Insane] and One Reason [Insane].
It all has to do with how hard the map is as compared to how much pp you already have. Obviously, the more pp you have, the better your performances have to be for an increase in pp (if that wasn't the case, pp should be thrown out right away), and above-average performances give above-average pp. Not that you shouldn't learn how to FC hard maps, but do keep in mind that you'll be awarded for your performance (given that your top performance is also your #1 score)
Also pass hard Maps give you much PP when your "skill level" is under the Map difficult but not as much as FCing Maps
I noticed that, even if I play a Hard map with HDDT, where the HDDT Hard is harder than HD Insane, I still get more pp for the Insane. I don't really understand that. But maybe it's because I suck with DT, and generally get <97% accuracy on the Hard, while getting >98% accuracy on the Insane.
Too many breaks in continuity. Mapping style is not intuitive. The map doesn't even feel right for the music.UsaTewi wrote:
Why is this map only rated 1.60 star?
It's a map that almost no one can FC with HR ...
The algorithm can't accurately weight complexity at present, but I doubt it's just that. The music plays a part.
It's probably mostly due to those stepped streams though.
It's just tsuka's mapping style. I think it matches the music pretty well.RaneFire wrote:
Too many breaks in continuity. Mapping style is not intuitive. The map doesn't even feel right for the music.UsaTewi wrote:
Why is this map only rated 1.60 star?
It's a map that almost no one can FC with HR ...
The algorithm can't accurately weight complexity at present, but I doubt it's just that. The music plays a part.
It's probably mostly due to those stepped streams though.
Whether you like it or not, it has a jumpy part, and is obvious not a [Hard] map.
edit: Oh, I just saw your last sentence
It's not about liking it or not. After playing many other maps, that style of mapping is particularly more difficult to anticipate with the music for some reason. Maybe a better player could give you a better answer, since it is subjective.UsaTewi wrote:
It's just tsuka's mapping style. I think it matches the music pretty well.
Whether you like it or not, it has a jumpy part, and is obvious not a [Hard] map.
edit: Oh, I just saw your last sentence
Yeah I've got pretty bad habits for ninja editing.
Doesn't the star difficulty affect the amout of points you get? How will thet be handled, when the new star difficulty system gets implemented?
Pretty sure it's all already based on the 'new' method.miharih wrote:
Doesn't the star difficulty affect the amout of points you get? How will thet be handled, when the new star difficulty system gets implemented?
I have a pp anomaly to report.
I have https://osu.ppy.sh/b/30275 in my top 10 performances without any mods, but I played https://osu.ppy.sh/b/212095 with Hidden and it's not in my top 10 performances, despite being much harder than the first example.
Normal
Hard
I checked the new pp star rating for both of these difficulties and the Normal difficulty rates 1.87 compared to the Hard at 1.85. The Hard difficulty is clearly harder, despite the Normal having more clickable objects. The jumps in the Hard are much harder than any pattern in the Normal, so I think one more 100 shouldn't make that much of a difference in two maps that should be considered nearly equal in difficulty (supposedly), and certainly not enough to outweigh a Hidden mod play of it. Anyways the difficulty of the Normal should not be anywhere close to the difficulty in my Hard. It's not difficult to play.
Also I found that https://osu.ppy.sh/b/10878 play isn't in my top performances as well. I know it's a Normal, but really I'm playing Flashlight with Hardrock for over 3 minutes and I only get 2 100s. I'm really surprised that this hasn't shown up higher. It is my most played song for a reason. This was not easy for me to get this score, mainly because of how awkward the note spacing is.
I think note density is playing too high an importance in these cases. A higher note density does necessarily mean that a map is harder, and the opposite is true for a map will less note density. Also circle size and the smaller hit window when HardRock is applied doesn't seem to make a huge difference when you play with mods that inhibit your ability to be accurate. I'm not sure, I don't usually play with mods in standard.
Longer maps with flashlight should definitely get more of a bonus than shorter maps and the difficulty raises extremely high when you get to harder difficulties. So much so that I wont even bother, but if I want to put the effort to spend 8 hours learning a normal map in Flashlight and FCing it I want to be rewarded. Skill with playing with accuracy reduction mods is more important than maps that just like to give you 100s without mods, because most likely the beat is awkward to follow.
I have https://osu.ppy.sh/b/30275 in my top 10 performances without any mods, but I played https://osu.ppy.sh/b/212095 with Hidden and it's not in my top 10 performances, despite being much harder than the first example.
Normal
Hard
I checked the new pp star rating for both of these difficulties and the Normal difficulty rates 1.87 compared to the Hard at 1.85. The Hard difficulty is clearly harder, despite the Normal having more clickable objects. The jumps in the Hard are much harder than any pattern in the Normal, so I think one more 100 shouldn't make that much of a difference in two maps that should be considered nearly equal in difficulty (supposedly), and certainly not enough to outweigh a Hidden mod play of it. Anyways the difficulty of the Normal should not be anywhere close to the difficulty in my Hard. It's not difficult to play.
Also I found that https://osu.ppy.sh/b/10878 play isn't in my top performances as well. I know it's a Normal, but really I'm playing Flashlight with Hardrock for over 3 minutes and I only get 2 100s. I'm really surprised that this hasn't shown up higher. It is my most played song for a reason. This was not easy for me to get this score, mainly because of how awkward the note spacing is.
I think note density is playing too high an importance in these cases. A higher note density does necessarily mean that a map is harder, and the opposite is true for a map will less note density. Also circle size and the smaller hit window when HardRock is applied doesn't seem to make a huge difference when you play with mods that inhibit your ability to be accurate. I'm not sure, I don't usually play with mods in standard.
Longer maps with flashlight should definitely get more of a bonus than shorter maps and the difficulty raises extremely high when you get to harder difficulties. So much so that I wont even bother, but if I want to put the effort to spend 8 hours learning a normal map in Flashlight and FCing it I want to be rewarded. Skill with playing with accuracy reduction mods is more important than maps that just like to give you 100s without mods, because most likely the beat is awkward to follow.
Going to try to explain as best I can.
HD increases the aim difficulty in the calculations by a percentage of it's value so at extremely low values, it's not going to add that much extra pp. Also, the ratio of 100:300 is a lot higher in the hard which shows that the amount of accuracy points you are getting is a lot lower in the hard.TheVileOne wrote:
I checked the new pp star rating for both of these difficulties and the Normal difficulty rates 1.87 compared to the Hard at 1.85. The Hard difficulty is clearly harder, despite the Normal having more clickable objects. The jumps in the Hard are much harder than any pattern in the Normal, so I think one more 100 shouldn't make that much of a difference in two maps that should be considered nearly equal in difficulty (supposedly), and certainly not enough to outweigh a Hidden mod play of it. Anyways the difficulty of the Normal should not be anywhere close to the difficulty in my Hard. It's not difficult to play.
I checked the new pp star rating for both of these difficulties and the Normal difficulty rates 1.87 compared to the Hard at 1.85. The Hard difficulty is clearly harder, despite the Normal having more clickable objects. The jumps in the Hard are much harder than any pattern in the Normal, so I think one more 100 shouldn't make that much of a difference in two maps that should be considered nearly equal in difficulty (supposedly), and certainly not enough to outweigh a Hidden mod play of it. Anyways the difficulty of the Normal should not be anywhere close to the difficulty in my Hard. It's not difficult to play.
Again, FL scales with how much aim it gives normally.TheVileOne wrote:
Also I found that https://osu.ppy.sh/b/10878 play isn't in my top performances as well. I know it's a Normal, but really I'm playing Flashlight with Hardrock for over 3 minutes and I only get 2 100s. I'm really surprised that this hasn't shown up higher. It is my most played song for a reason. This was not easy for me to get this score, mainly because of how awkward the note spacing is.
It does, but only if you do well.TheVileOne wrote:
I think note density is playing too high an importance in these cases. A higher note density does necessarily mean that a map is harder, and the opposite is true for a map will less note density. Also circle size and the smaller hit window when HardRock is applied doesn't seem to make a huge difference when you play with mods that inhibit your ability to be accurate. I'm not sure, I don't usually play with mods in standard.
Longer maps with FL already do give more bonus compared to shorter maps I think. The "FL should award more pp" debate is heavily opinionated and I personally think grinding a map for hours with the only difficulty increase being to memory (a skill that shouldn't even be in a rhythm game) should give stupidly large bonuses. Last sentence doesn't really make sense to me anyway.TheVileOne wrote:
Longer maps with flashlight should definitely get more of a bonus than shorter maps and the difficulty raises extremely high when you get to harder difficulties. So much so that I wont even bother, but if I want to put the effort to spend 8 hours learning a normal map in Flashlight and FCing it I want to be rewarded. Skill with playing with accuracy reduction mods is more important than maps that just like to give you 100s without mods, because most likely the beat is awkward to follow.
0.44% difference is a lot lower? I think the hidden bonus should outweigh a 0.44% difference. And the star rating is not accurate. It says the Normal is harder than the Hard, which has substantially larger spacings at relatively the same BPM. The aim value for my Hard should be much higher than the Normal. This difference along with the Hidden bonus should outweigh a 0.44% difference in accuracy IMO. It doesn't make sense to start judging accuracy differences below 1% when you include mod weights in the mix. It just should count more than 1% difference in accuracy.
Edit: Well I beat my score on the normal and now it's even higher on the list. I can see why it's rated so highly, and it's a long map. I can still play it much more consistently than I can Raise This Barn Hidden, which wears my arm out very quickly. ._. The only reason I get 100s in the Normal is that the OD is a tad high and it's easy to derp 100.
Edit: Well I beat my score on the normal and now it's even higher on the list. I can see why it's rated so highly, and it's a long map. I can still play it much more consistently than I can Raise This Barn Hidden, which wears my arm out very quickly. ._. The only reason I get 100s in the Normal is that the OD is a tad high and it's easy to derp 100.
No, it should count every bit of accuracy. If you only counted accuracy differences of >1%, long songs where 10s of 100s may only count for a fraction of a percent would not be valued correctly.TheVileOne wrote:
It just should count more than 1% difference in accuracy.
There is a considerable difference between 98.88% and 98.40% accuracy. Also, take into consideration that Je t'aime has a bigger circle:slider ratio (it's circle accuracy is about 98.5%, while the Raise This Barn play has an equivalent accuracy of about 96.8%).TheVileOne wrote:
0.44% difference is a lot lower? I think the hidden bonus should outweigh a 0.44% difference. And the star rating is not accurate. It says the Normal is harder than the Hard, which has substantially larger spacings at relatively the same BPM. The aim value for my Hard should be much higher than the Normal. This difference along with the Hidden bonus should outweigh a 0.44% difference in accuracy IMO. It doesn't make sense to start judging accuracy differences below 1% when you include mod weights in the mix. It just should count more than 1% difference in accuracy.
Edit: Well I beat my score on the normal and now it's even higher on the list. I can see why it's rated so highly, and it's a long map. I can still play it much more consistently than I can Raise This Barn Hidden, which wears my arm out very quickly. ._.
As for the difficulty, I don't feel there is a very noticeable difference in difficulty between both maps (but that is subjective). I think the Raise this Barn is actually easier, since the song is easier to follow and has less awkward patterns.
It's easier. The only reason the patterns are awkward is because of the OD which tends to generate random 100s. Actually a LOT of my top 10 is songs with paths where it is easy to 100. I will see what I get when I eventually beat my score (it's not that easy to beat my score) and see if it overtakes my Hard Rock play on another song with a lot of 100s. I still consider both of these top performances even if they aren't on my list. I just wanted sufficient reasoning why they were not on my list.
Edit: I'll just go back to playing CTB.
Edit: I'll just go back to playing CTB.
How big of a PP boost does a FC give? Since this is like osu!tp would it be the misses that are hurting me greatly? I thought that was something peppy was trying to do away with?
On the song 1 Year 2 Months 20 Days (Mapped by Athena Tennos) - Difficulty "Neko" Using DT only I got as follows.
Score: 2,156,908 (x295) 90.96% DT
Current PP: 1808
New Score: 3,012,150 (x276) 95.74% DT
PP Change: 1809
New Score: 5,971,551 (x569) 93.99% DT
PP Change: 1830
New Score: 6,055,706 (x570) 95.31% DT
PP Change: 1835
An almost 5% accuracy increase gave me 1 PP.
A Score only increase and 2% accuracy decrease gave me 21 PP.
Then a small increase of 1.5% accuracy gave me 5 after that.
Intended? No misses the way to go?
On the song 1 Year 2 Months 20 Days (Mapped by Athena Tennos) - Difficulty "Neko" Using DT only I got as follows.
Score: 2,156,908 (x295) 90.96% DT
Current PP: 1808
New Score: 3,012,150 (x276) 95.74% DT
PP Change: 1809
New Score: 5,971,551 (x569) 93.99% DT
PP Change: 1830
New Score: 6,055,706 (x570) 95.31% DT
PP Change: 1835
An almost 5% accuracy increase gave me 1 PP.
A Score only increase and 2% accuracy decrease gave me 21 PP.
Then a small increase of 1.5% accuracy gave me 5 after that.
Intended? No misses the way to go?
I believe you'd have to be a little more specific and base it on the misses/100s/50s count as well.PinkHusky wrote:
How big of a PP boost does a FC give? Since this is like osu!tp would it be the misses that are hurting me greatly? I thought that was something peppy was trying to do away with?
On the song 1 Year 2 Months 20 Days (Mapped by Athena Tennos) - Difficulty "Neko" Using DT only I got as follows.
Score: 2,156,908 (x295) 90.96% DT
Current PP: 1808
New Score: 3,012,150 (x276) 95.74% DT
PP Change: 1809
New Score: 5,971,551 (x569) 93.99% DT
PP Change: 1830
New Score: 6,055,706 (x570) 95.31% DT
PP Change: 1835
An almost 5% accuracy increase gave me 1 PP.
A Score only increase and 2% accuracy decrease gave me 21 PP.
Then a small increase of 1.5% accuracy gave me 5 after that.
Intended? No misses the way to go?
Topic Starter
Combo is very relevant for PP. You've doubled your combo!PinkHusky wrote:
How big of a PP boost does a FC give? Since this is like osu!tp would it be the misses that are hurting me greatly? I thought that was something peppy was trying to do away with?
On the song 1 Year 2 Months 20 Days (Mapped by Athena Tennos) - Difficulty "Neko" Using DT only I got as follows.
Score: 2,156,908 (x295) 90.96% DT
Current PP: 1808
New Score: 3,012,150 (x276) 95.74% DT
PP Change: 1809
New Score: 5,971,551 (x569) 93.99% DT
PP Change: 1830
New Score: 6,055,706 (x570) 95.31% DT
PP Change: 1835
An almost 5% accuracy increase gave me 1 PP.
A Score only increase and 2% accuracy decrease gave me 21 PP.
Then a small increase of 1.5% accuracy gave me 5 after that.
Intended? No misses the way to go?
Is it a direct relation like (combo/max combo)*(Rest of PP calculation)? I have an almost-FC score that I don't think I'll ever beat in accuracy (and it's second in my top plays), so I'm not sure if it's even worth the effort, I don't wanna end up losing PP for the loss in acc + combo gain.
I think it depends on the length of the map and the actual possible combo. I had a DT play with 3 misses and 96% acc and when I improved to FC but ruined my acc(92%) I lost like 4 pp. It was 40 seconds on DT.nooblet wrote:
Is it a direct relation like (combo/max combo)*(Rest of PP calculation)? I have an almost-FC score that I don't think I'll ever beat in accuracy (and it's second in my top plays), so I'm not sure if it's even worth the effort, I don't wanna end up losing PP for the loss in acc + combo gain.
Is it just me, or are more slider pattern oriented maps seemed to have low star ratings in comparison to more circle patten oriented maps.
For example:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/28425 (Black Rebel 3.43 stars) vs https://osu.ppy.sh/b/178966&m=0 (Talent Shredder 3.29 stars), but I am pretty sure most will agree that Talent Shredder is harder than Black Rebel.
Or take Skystar maps that frequently depend on you to leave sliders early to do jumps have lower star ratings than maps that depend on circle jumps
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122658 (Maware (Skystar) 3.42 stars) and https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L (Skystar) 3.38 stars ) versus Fycho's https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122233 (Univer Page 3.33 stars) or https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L 3.52 stars )
(Sorry for the limited selection of songs, mostly just using the songs I was farming recently)
For example:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/28425 (Black Rebel 3.43 stars) vs https://osu.ppy.sh/b/178966&m=0 (Talent Shredder 3.29 stars), but I am pretty sure most will agree that Talent Shredder is harder than Black Rebel.
Or take Skystar maps that frequently depend on you to leave sliders early to do jumps have lower star ratings than maps that depend on circle jumps
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122658 (Maware (Skystar) 3.42 stars) and https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L (Skystar) 3.38 stars ) versus Fycho's https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122233 (Univer Page 3.33 stars) or https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L 3.52 stars )
(Sorry for the limited selection of songs, mostly just using the songs I was farming recently)
Topic Starter
The reason is, that the current way sliders are dealt with is very generous in terms of the slider's favor. Currently there is no measure as how hard it is to actually follow a slider. The minimum distance you have to move to complete the slider is added up to the jump to the next hitobject, but that's it atm. This "minimum distance" is required to not give fast repeatsliders, or even worse: slider-streams, ridiculous pp amounts.blissfulyoshi wrote:
Is it just me, or are more slider pattern oriented maps seemed to have low star ratings in comparison to more circle patten oriented maps.
For example:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/28425 (Black Rebel 3.43 stars) vs https://osu.ppy.sh/b/178966&m=0 (Talent Shredder 3.29 stars), but I am pretty sure most will agree that Talent Shredder is harder than Black Rebel.
Or take Skystar maps that frequently depend on you to leave sliders early to do jumps have lower star ratings than maps that depend on circle jumps
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122658 (Maware (Skystar) 3.42 stars) and https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L (Skystar) 3.38 stars ) versus Fycho's https://osu.ppy.sh/s/122233 (Univer Page 3.33 stars) or https://osu.ppy.sh/b/318294&m=0 (S.M.L 3.52 stars )
(Sorry for the limited selection of songs, mostly just using the songs I was farming recently)
I'll look into how this can be addressed without being too arbitrary.
Another reason at least for some of these maps to be underrated is, that they feature quick single passages with low spacing which gets underrated in the current algorithm. Couldn't really find a way to fix that without completely breaking spaced streams yet.
Holy shit, Tom (or whoever actually did this). Thank you for the pp values for scores on profile. I just spent a few minutes getting to the bottom, and felt so nostalgic.
Wow yes, this is greatLach wrote:
Holy shit, Tom (or whoever actually did this). Thank you for the pp values for scores on profile. I just spent a few minutes getting to the bottom, and felt so nostalgic.
Does the star difficulty in itself take into consideration the length of the song, or is it the length only taken into consideration when the PP gained ?
Example: 2 maps, exact same level of difficulty, but one is 3 minutes and the other is 6 minutes. Will they both be 3 stars, but give different amounts of PP, or will one be 3 stars and the other 3.2 stars ?
Example: 2 maps, exact same level of difficulty, but one is 3 minutes and the other is 6 minutes. Will they both be 3 stars, but give different amounts of PP, or will one be 3 stars and the other 3.2 stars ?
Displaying PP on webpage is awesome. I am loving the direction the ranking system is headed ever since the introduction of PPv2. Well done <3
I still suggest replacing the in-game star system with the web one (which I assume matches PPv2 'level' system). I have resorted to doing it manually
It's a lot of hassle to do, the in-game collection system is quite poor (messed up when a map belongs in more than one collection, requires external tool to sort). Integrating the PPv2 star system would also allow updating the level display based on selected mods. Additionally it would help people find maps to play that match their skill level. Currently there's only 2 star difficulties: "5 stars" and "don't bother", I imagine it's the same for many people. PPv2 star system makes a lot more sense where it's an actual spectrum.
I remember when I started playing and reached the point where hard maps were too easy, but I couldn't find suitable maps as most 5 star ones were too hard. Now I can FC many 5 star maps, but I still have a hard time finding good maps to play as most 5 star maps are still either too easy or too hard.
I still suggest replacing the in-game star system with the web one (which I assume matches PPv2 'level' system). I have resorted to doing it manually
It's a lot of hassle to do, the in-game collection system is quite poor (messed up when a map belongs in more than one collection, requires external tool to sort). Integrating the PPv2 star system would also allow updating the level display based on selected mods. Additionally it would help people find maps to play that match their skill level. Currently there's only 2 star difficulties: "5 stars" and "don't bother", I imagine it's the same for many people. PPv2 star system makes a lot more sense where it's an actual spectrum.
I remember when I started playing and reached the point where hard maps were too easy, but I couldn't find suitable maps as most 5 star ones were too hard. Now I can FC many 5 star maps, but I still have a hard time finding good maps to play as most 5 star maps are still either too easy or too hard.
I believe Tom has said he's working on it.
I just checked out those pp values and played a map that supposedly granted me 39 pp, the value increased to 52 yet my pp is still the same. Is this intended? If so, how does it work?
the pp shown on your profile is the raw pp amount, before the pp equation is applied.Kasugunai wrote:
I just checked out those pp values and played a map that supposedly granted me 39 pp, the value increased to 52 yet my pp is still the same. Is this intended? If so, how does it work?
also i have a suggestion; maybe show the raw pp a play is worth ingame on the score screen? to give an idea of how much the song would be worth.
It's still weird that a D-rank play (around 66% acc) is worth 52 raw pp when it's not even worth 1 after the equation is applied.
That 52 raw pp should be worth about 6pp (according to it's position on the rank list), but by making that score, any performance worth less than 52pp gives 5% less (except the scores that were worse than 39 raw pp, but those were giving practically zero anyways), so you might end up getting practically nothing.Kasugunai wrote:
It's still weird that a D-rank play (around 66% acc) is worth 52 raw pp when it's not even worth 1 after the equation is applied.
Topic Starter
Soon the percentage by how much a given score is weighted will be shown along with the raw pp value to avoid confusion.
I approve of this.Soulg wrote:
also i have a suggestion; maybe show the raw pp a play is worth ingame on the score screen? to give an idea of how much the song would be worth.
New update, showing PP super, but can you add information about mod which played map (HR, DT, DT+HD, None...), and "new" as in the TP system. It is simply amazing
Any plans to implement a raw PP values into the "Recent Plays" area of a profile? Or something equal to that?Tom94 wrote:
Soon the percentage by how much a given score is weighted will be shown along with the raw pp value to avoid confusion.
And Accuracy as well would be nice. When I go over my top ranks I find myself looking for low accuracy plays to improve upon.Fanker wrote:
New update, showing PP super, but can you add information about mod which played map (HR, DT, DT+HD, None...), and "new" as in the TP system. It is simply amazing
PP scores on profile are awesome.
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
Topic Starter
The weight is only based on the position of the score's pp value compared to the other pp values of the player's scores. This basically ensures that there is no "farming" or whatever you may call it. In other words: Only your best pp scores count towards your final pp.TMoI wrote:
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
It has nothing to do with map difficulty. If it had, then someone could keep playing maps of the same difficulty and keep getting pp for that, which would be quite contrary to what pp wants to encourage: Play harder maps, improve.
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are madeTom94 wrote:
The weight is only based on the position of the score's pp value compared to the other pp values of the player's scores. This basically ensures that there is no "farming" or whatever you may call it. In other words: Only your best pp scores count towards your final pp.TMoI wrote:
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
It has nothing to do with map difficulty. If it had, then someone could keep playing maps of the same difficulty and keep getting pp for that, which would be quite contrary to what pp wants to encourage: Play harder maps, improve.
More mods!snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
rrtyui is that far up because he DTHD'd several maps that only have HRHD in the top rankings.
And at that point, I'm assuming that it's kinda hard to rank because everyone there is just as good as you, you know?
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without modsTMoI wrote:
More mods!snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
rrtyui is that far up because he DTHD'd several maps that only have HRHD in the top rankings.
And at that point, I'm assuming that it's kinda hard to rank because everyone there is just as good as you, you know?
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.snosey wrote:
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol
It is hard. If it was easy, it wouldn't be impressive to be the #1. The goal is to make it hard, so that the top player deserves their position. I don't see what's bad about this.snosey wrote:
i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without mods
They are supposed to win less for playing maps that are not up to their standard. Did you even bother reading what you just wrote? They get such small amounts of pp for those maps because they are capable of doing much harder ones. That's how the system is supposed to work. They're not playing to get pp for playing maps they can do without even breaking a sweat. They, like everyone else, are supposed to improve to go further in pp. They have already gained all the pp that "other people are getting for doing hdhr", so don't compare it to that.snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
i interpreted he/her answer wrong thank you for clarifying me-Scylla- wrote:
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.snosey wrote:
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lolIt is hard. If it was easy, it wouldn't be impressive to be the #1. The goal is to make it hard, so that the top player deserves their position. I don't see what's bad about this.snosey wrote:
i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without mods
"Draxuss wrote:
They are supposed to win less for playing maps that are not up to their standard. Did you even bother reading what you just wrote? They get such small amounts of pp for those maps because they are capable of doing much harder ones. That's how the system is supposed to work. They're not playing to get pp for playing maps they can do without even breaking a sweat. They, like everyone else, are supposed to improve to go further in pp.snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
what you just said was what i wrote just without the "without even breaking a sweat" they will have to do harder maps but after some time the maps that don't give much pp are still really hard this is what i wanted to say but forget it let time pass by and see were this system will go have fun playing
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
Yes.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
In that case, if all your scores are worth 100 raw pp (and assuming you got many of them), then your total pp would be about 2000pp, and you won't ever be able to get more than 2000pp total unless you get scores that are worth over 100 raw pp.
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).-Scylla- wrote:
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.Full Tablet wrote:
Yes.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
In that case, if all your scores are worth 100 raw pp (and assuming you got many of them), then your total pp would be about 2000pp, and you won't ever be able to get more than 2000pp total unless you get scores that are worth over 100 raw pp.
The function does in fact converge, so you'll never be able to surpass 2000pp unless you get at least one score with a pp value of 101 or better (Assuming the current decay value of 0.95)
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.TheVileOne wrote:
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.
Theoretically:
10 100pp scores: 862.4 total pp.
100 100pp scores: 1988.75 total pp.
1,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 10^(-19) total pp.
100,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 4.36*10^(-2225) total pp.
The values in practice could be different because of rounding errors with floating-point calculations, but even then the errors would be incredibly small.
Then I undercounted, since I started counting at 1%. Would it be safe to assume that 110 scores are counted, or would this still vary per player?Full Tablet wrote:
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).-Scylla- wrote:
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.
In theory, all scores are counted.-Scylla- wrote:
Then I undercounted, since I started counting at 1%. Would it be safe to assume that 110 scores are counted, or would this still vary per player?
For performance reasons, there could be a cut-off rank (since after so many ranks, each score adds a meaningless amount to the total).
In case you guys are interested in the maths behind all of this (for example why it's impossible to break certain pp barriers), it's called a "geometric series". You can find lots of online resources with information on the topic.
Well I guess that it could approach any value without ever reaching it. What makes you say that value is 2000 and not some other number?Full Tablet wrote:
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.TheVileOne wrote:
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.
Theoretically:
10 100pp scores: 862.4 total pp.
100 100pp scores: 1988.75 total pp.
1,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 10^(-19) total pp.
100,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 4.36*10^(-2225) total pp.
The values in practice could be different because of rounding errors with floating-point calculations, but even then the errors would be incredibly small.
Geometric series have easily calculatable limits, and it's 20 for 0.95.
100pp*20 = 2000pp limit
/E: To be more specific, the limit is 1/(1-x), with x being 0.95 here
100pp*20 = 2000pp limit
/E: To be more specific, the limit is 1/(1-x), with x being 0.95 here
Maths...
I used to be good at it. >.>
I used to be good at it. >.>
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
Why would this even be necessary?NotThat wrote:
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
I also prefer it as "recent" as it is currently.-Scylla- wrote:
Why would this even be necessary?NotThat wrote:
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
What could be done is to add a sort option just for the first place ranks, but top performances should already cover that... so I don't see a point either.
The point is when viewing his top PP ranks, you have to click 'show me more' a bunch of times. After each time fastest way to get to the 'show me more' button again is to scroll to the bottom of the page. What ends up happening is you accidentally click the 'show me more' of the first place list instead of the overall plays list. That's fine and dandy because if you're viewing his profile for top plays there's a good chance you came there to search his first place play of some map to see how much PP it gave him, which means you can find it on his 'first ranks' list just as well. If the list is unsorted and he has many first place plays, you gonna have a mess real fast.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
Topic Starter
Mind elaborating what you mean by 'max PP'? Where would you derive them from if not from beatmap difficulty?NotThat wrote:
The point is when viewing his top PP ranks, you have to click 'show me more' a bunch of times. After each time fastest way to get to the 'show me more' button again is to scroll to the bottom of the page. What ends up happening is you accidentally click the 'show me more' of the first place list instead of the overall plays list. That's fine and dandy because if you're viewing his profile for top plays there's a good chance you came there to search his first place play of some map to see how much PP it gave him, which means you can find it on his 'first ranks' list just as well. If the list is unsorted and he has many first place plays, you gonna have a mess real fast.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
The PP score awarded for SS'ing the map. I assume that's basically what the 'Level' number from osu!tp website is with some conversion, except the maximum PP value obtainable from a playthrough of a map is a more relatable number to players. It would be nice to know that I got 145PP out of 163PP obtainable on a map with no mods, etc.
At the moment, it seems like N is more common for Easy diffs than the intended E, I'd suggest to put the minimal value for an N a bit higher.
Examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6257 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41379 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/87630 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/155457 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/81557 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/102307 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/152786 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/119359 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/134220 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150242 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150784 And many more.
Examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6257 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41379 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/87630 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/155457 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/81557 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/102307 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/152786 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/119359 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/134220 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150242 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150784 And many more.
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of "Easy" difficulties are actually Normals, though.
Topic Starter
That couldn't possibly take mods into consideration which again would make it not quite right, because mods have different effects depending on the beatmap.NotThat wrote:
The PP score awarded for SS'ing the map. I assume that's basically what the 'Level' number from osu!tp website is with some conversion, except the maximum PP value obtainable from a playthrough of a map is a more relatable number to players. It would be nice to know that I got 145PP out of 163PP obtainable on a map with no mods, etc.
But it's a nice idea. It'd make for a very good alternative measure, but I doubt the big change would be worth the benefits.
Why not just make the top ranks go something like : "193pp/230pp", where the latter is the max possible pp gained with the mod being used?Tom94 wrote:
That couldn't possibly take mods into consideration which again would make it not quite right, because mods have different effects depending on the beatmap.NotThat wrote:
The PP score awarded for SS'ing the map. I assume that's basically what the 'Level' number from osu!tp website is with some conversion, except the maximum PP value obtainable from a playthrough of a map is a more relatable number to players. It would be nice to know that I got 145PP out of 163PP obtainable on a map with no mods, etc.
But it's a nice idea. It'd make for a very good alternative measure, but I doubt the big change would be worth the benefits.
Or maybe you could just make it so that information available elsewhere, as to not clutter the top ranks, but I agree that it would be interesting to know what the max pp gained from a song is. Maybe some kind of pp calculator to test different scenarios without having to play the maps ourselves? For example you select a beatmap and input all variables into the result yourself (300s/100s/50s etc....), then it shows you how much pp you would gain?
Topic Starter
I plan on making all the underlying formulas open in the wiki, so anyone will be free to implement his own pp calculator. I'm not sure if or how that would fit into the game or the website, though. I'd say it'd be better as a 3rd party program.mcdoomfrag wrote:
Why not just make the top ranks go something like : "193pp/230pp", where the latter is the max possible pp gained with the mod being used?
Or maybe you could just make it so that information available elsewhere, as to not clutter the top ranks, but I agree that it would be interesting to know what the max pp gained from a song is. Maybe some kind of pp calculator to test different scenarios without having to play the maps ourselves? For example you select a beatmap and input all variables into the result yourself (300s/100s/50s etc....), then it shows you how much pp you would gain?
Showing the maximum possible pp for a given mod combination sounds juicy. It likely won't happen unless the pp formulas get implemented into the client, though. Online adding a mod selection or even worse: a display for each possible mod combination would be far too much clutter in the current state.
Keep in mind that those limitations can always change, so I wouldn't rule it out completely. I like the idea.
So new scores always replace old ones even if the pp value is the same? I had a 51 pp play as my #1 play for the longest time, but it was just passed [and consequently weighted less] by an equal pp play. Is it because the more recent one has higher accuracy? Is it because it gives a higher amount of pp but in decimals? Or do newer but equal pp plays always replace older ones?
edit: could it also be because of DT?
edit: could it also be because of DT?
Now that we can see the PP gain for each song, I can't help it but think that jumps or some other thing is being overrated, CONTROL REMOTE is overrated, I was ok with that score being rrtyui's top performance, even being www's or dragonhuman's best, but the difference is way too much, what I mean is... 542pp ?? (rrtyui's), seriously? then, his second best is 454pp. I KNOW that Control Remote on DT is just freaking hard, and just a few can do something like that, but I still feel like something is wrong there...
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!pold10 wrote:
Control Remote
it definitely overrates jumps hence why remote control is harder than just about every 0108 map according to it
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53857- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!pold10 wrote:
Control Remote
not overrated at all. those jumps with DT are bloody difficult.
Oh but that's Remote Control!!! Not Control Remote!!!TMoI wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53857
Haha.
Yeah those jumps on DT are a whole new thing, especially with that OD.