Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings

Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,749
show more
GoldenWolf
2,983 posts
Joined May 2012
GoldenWolf

Soinou 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 ?
Some things are objectively hard; like a 129 circles stream at 222bpm
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.
Alarido
1,744 posts
Joined September 2012
Alarido
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.
Last edited by Alarido , edited 1 time in total.
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

Alarido wrote:

Well, the calculation formulas are perfect now :3

just need two adjsutements:
Do you realize how hypocritical this is?

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.
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:

- 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 like this, but I think it's already been mentioned, and I recall Tom saying that he would probably implement it in the future.
sjoy
1,032 posts
Joined April 2012
sjoy
I think the length of the song can influence the PP in the same difficulty
Xevenst
25 posts
Joined May 2013
Xevenst
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
RaneFire
1,181 posts
Joined May 2011
RaneFire
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.
Last edited by RaneFire , edited 1 time in total.
Horolynn
47 posts
Joined August 2010
Horolynn

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.
RaneFire
1,181 posts
Joined May 2011
RaneFire

Draxuss wrote:

Open "osu!" collection.
I meant on the website, which has the proper star difficulty rating. The osu! client does not at present.

"Beatmap Listing" is the web name. "Song Select" is the client name.
Lancelot
72 posts
Joined October 2013
Lancelot
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 .
Yano
191 posts
Joined November 2012
Yano

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 .
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)

If ppv2 would give you much PP for passing hard songs, then I would be Rank 5k+- 8k+-

Your friend and I should learn FC these Maps and not only to pass them :)
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa
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.
tokaku
275 posts
Joined May 2013
tokaku

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 .
This basically means that his 0108 passes doesn't have as much skill as your other plays.
Yano
191 posts
Joined November 2012
Yano

-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)
Yes it's how you said ... but FCing Maps is a better way to gain much PP
Also pass hard Maps give you much PP when your "skill level" is under the Map difficult but not as much as FCing Maps
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa
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.
UsaTewi
17 posts
Joined November 2012
UsaTewi
Why is this map only rated 1.60 star?
It's a map that almost no one can FC with HR ...
RaneFire
1,181 posts
Joined May 2011
RaneFire

UsaTewi wrote:

Why is this map only rated 1.60 star?
It's a map that almost no one can FC with HR ...
Too many breaks in continuity. Mapping style is not intuitive. The map doesn't even feel right for the music.

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.
UsaTewi
17 posts
Joined November 2012
UsaTewi

RaneFire wrote:

UsaTewi wrote:

Why is this map only rated 1.60 star?
It's a map that almost no one can FC with HR ...
Too many breaks in continuity. Mapping style is not intuitive. The map doesn't even feel right for the music.

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.

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
RaneFire
1,181 posts
Joined May 2011
RaneFire

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
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.

Yeah I've got pretty bad habits for ninja editing.
miharih
6 posts
Joined July 2013
miharih
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?
jesse1412
1,457 posts
Joined January 2010
jesse1412

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?
Pretty sure it's all already based on the 'new' method.
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne
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.
Almost
2,154 posts
Joined May 2012
Almost
Going to try to explain as best I can.

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.
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:

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.
Again, FL scales with how much aim it gives normally.

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.
It does, but only if you do well.

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.
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
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne
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.
Almost
2,154 posts
Joined May 2012
Almost

TheVileOne wrote:

It just should count more than 1% difference in accuracy.
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.
Full Tablet
2,544 posts
Joined September 2011
Full Tablet

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. ._.
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%).

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.
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne
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.
PinkHusky
28 posts
Joined April 2013
PinkHusky
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?
uzzi
786 posts
Joined September 2012
uzzi

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?
I believe you'd have to be a little more specific and base it on the misses/100s/50s count as well.
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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?
Combo is very relevant for PP. You've doubled your combo!
nooblet
630 posts
Joined December 2011
nooblet
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.

The score
CookChefSteak
98 posts
Joined August 2013
CookChefSteak

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.

The score
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.
blissfulyoshi
osu! Alumni
4,755 posts
Joined July 2008
blissfulyoshi
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)
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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)
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.

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.
Lach
1,118 posts
Joined November 2012
Lach
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.
kozuka
8 posts
Joined June 2013
kozuka

Lach 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.
Wow yes, this is great :D
mcdoomfrag
94 posts
Joined June 2013
mcdoomfrag
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 ?
NotThat
23 posts
Joined June 2013
NotThat
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.
PlasticSmoothie
242 posts
Joined March 2010
PlasticSmoothie
I believe Tom has said he's working on it.
Kasugunai
31 posts
Joined July 2012
Kasugunai
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?
Soulg
575 posts
Joined February 2013
Soulg

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?
the pp shown on your profile is the raw pp amount, before the pp equation is applied.

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.
Kasugunai
31 posts
Joined July 2012
Kasugunai
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.
Full Tablet
2,544 posts
Joined September 2011
Full Tablet

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.
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.
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94
Soon the percentage by how much a given score is weighted will be shown along with the raw pp value to avoid confusion. :)
Shimatora
30 posts
Joined January 2013
Shimatora

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.
I approve of this.
Fanker
28 posts
Joined April 2012
Fanker
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 :)
Soulg
575 posts
Joined February 2013
Soulg

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. :)
Any plans to implement a raw PP values into the "Recent Plays" area of a profile? Or something equal to that?
NotThat
23 posts
Joined June 2013
NotThat

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 :)
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.
-Chronopolis-
74 posts
Joined December 2009
-Chronopolis-
PP scores on profile are awesome.
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur
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 ;-;
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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 ;-;
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.

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.
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur
Ah, alright, that makes sense. Thanks.
Zitan
11 posts
Joined April 2013
Zitan

Tom94 wrote:

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 ;-;
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.

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 made
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur

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
More mods!

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?
Zitan
11 posts
Joined April 2013
Zitan

TMoI wrote:

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
More mods!

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 mods
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

snosey wrote:

i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.

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
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.
Horolynn
47 posts
Joined August 2010
Horolynn

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
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.
Zitan
11 posts
Joined April 2013
Zitan

-Scylla- wrote:

snosey wrote:

i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.

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
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.
i interpreted he/her answer wrong thank you for clarifying me

Draxuss wrote:

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
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.
"
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 :D
pop102
15 posts
Joined April 2013
pop102
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?
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

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?
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.
Full Tablet
2,544 posts
Joined September 2011
Full Tablet

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.
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.

-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.
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).
Last edited by Full Tablet , edited 1 time in total.
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne

Full Tablet wrote:

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.
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.
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.
Luna
2,354 posts
Joined November 2010
Luna
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)
Full Tablet
2,544 posts
Joined September 2011
Full Tablet

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.
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.
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.
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

Full Tablet wrote:

-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.
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).
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
2,544 posts
Joined September 2011
Full Tablet

-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?
In theory, all scores are counted.
For performance reasons, there could be a cut-off rank (since after so many ranks, each score adds a meaningless amount to the total).
Luna
2,354 posts
Joined November 2010
Luna
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.
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne

Full Tablet wrote:

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.
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.
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.
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?
Luna
2,354 posts
Joined November 2010
Luna
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
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne
Maths...

I used to be good at it. >.>
NotThat
23 posts
Joined June 2013
NotThat
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.
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

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.
Why would this even be necessary?
RaneFire
1,181 posts
Joined May 2011
RaneFire

-Scylla- wrote:

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.
Why would this even be necessary?
I also prefer it as "recent" as it is currently.

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.
NotThat
23 posts
Joined June 2013
NotThat
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?
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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?
Mind elaborating what you mean by 'max PP'? Where would you derive them from if not from beatmap difficulty?
NotThat
23 posts
Joined June 2013
NotThat
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.
Avena
2,158 posts
Joined December 2012
Avena
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.
Ekaru
3,617 posts
Joined July 2008
Ekaru
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of "Easy" difficulties are actually Normals, though.
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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.
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.
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.
mcdoomfrag
94 posts
Joined June 2013
mcdoomfrag

Tom94 wrote:

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.
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.
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?

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?
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

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?
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.

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. :)
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko
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?
Pold
20 posts
Joined May 2013
Pold
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...
uzzi
786 posts
Joined September 2012
uzzi

pold10 wrote:

Control Remote
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko
it definitely overrates jumps hence why remote control is harder than just about every 0108 map according to it
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur

- [ U z z I ] - wrote:

pold10 wrote:

Control Remote
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53857
hehe
1,975 posts
Joined November 2012
hehe
not overrated at all. those jumps with DT are bloody difficult.
uzzi
786 posts
Joined September 2012
uzzi

TMoI wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53857
Oh but that's Remote Control!!! Not Control Remote!!!

Haha.

Yeah those jumps on DT are a whole new thing, especially with that OD.
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur
Yeah, as it is now, it's OD9 AR9 with jumps that stretch across the screen at a decent BPM and normal CS.

So I'd assume it'd be worth some.
Pold
20 posts
Joined May 2013
Pold

- [ U z z I ] - wrote:

pold10 wrote:

Control Remote
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!
Lol, my bad... xD

TMoI wrote:

Yeah, as it is now, it's OD9 AR9 with jumps that stretch across the screen at a decent BPM and normal CS.

So I'd assume it'd be worth some.
Indeed it's not easy at all, can't deny that, but I still feel like it's a little too much.
-ArmoredTitan-
2 posts
Joined October 2013
-ArmoredTitan-
Not sure if this counts as a suggestion or a feature request, but it would be nice to have a separate sub-ranking and/or best performance list for selected mods :)

For example, one would be able to choose a combination of mods (e.g. HDFL only) so that only scores using those mods will contribute to pp. That way we can compete with people who use specific mod combinations, as well as see where we ourselves are positioned.

An alternative for the second feature (best performance) would be to display the mods used to achieve that score next to the pp value. That way we can distinguish between HDDT and HDHR scores (because as of now, we'll never know what mods a player used to get that C in his best performance).
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94
It's a known issue, that jumps scale too much in the very high end. Since this only concerns a veeeery small amount of scores (e.g. the ones that come close to FCing remote control with DT) it doesn't have a high priority, though.
dennischan
454 posts
Joined June 2013
dennischan

Priti wrote:

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.
Thats a nice idea, though actually most normals are easy anyway
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko

Tom94 wrote:

It's a known issue, that jumps scale too much in the very high end. Since this only concerns a veeeery small amount of scores (e.g. the ones that come close to FCing remote control with DT) it doesn't have a high priority, though.
I guess remote control with dt will be the next big thing to grind, seems many people already are trying to get good scores at it

Though that's just because it's an X difficulty.. being done with DT... I think if any other X were able to be fc with DT similar thing would happen.
..im just assuming the new star system is directly related to ppv2
TheVileOne
osu! Alumni
8,436 posts
Joined March 2010
TheVileOne
I just wanted to throw out this idea I've been thinking of. I've been worrying about losing pp when I play a song with mods because I get more 100s. Perhaps we should be allowed to choose whether we want to submit a ranked score if it rewards less pp than our current personal best. It would certainly alleviate my concerns about replacing a SS with something not a SS but with mods.
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur
Also, how much does not FCing due to 100s on sliders hurt you? (i.e. x1000 v x999 due to getting a 100 on a slider)

EDIT: *hurt pp gain
Last edited by Oskur , edited 1 time in total.
GoldenWolf
2,983 posts
Joined May 2012
GoldenWolf

TMoI wrote:

Also, how much does not FCing due to 100s on sliders hurt you? (i.e. x1000 v x999 due to getting a 100 on a slider)
it usually kills me
Oskur
40 posts
Joined September 2012
Oskur

GoldenWolf wrote:

TMoI wrote:

Also, how much does not FCing due to 100s on sliders hurt you? (i.e. x1000 v x999 due to getting a 100 on a slider)
it usually kills me
same

although I should have phrased that better, I should have said hurt pp. Will edit.
-Chronopolis-
74 posts
Joined December 2009
-Chronopolis-
I find that fast single tap maps (bpm 210-250) that aren't jumpy are underrated.

For example, I think http://osu.ppy.sh/s/45422 is at least about as hard as http://osu.ppy.sh/s/43466 , but the stacks and small jumps make dear you more highly rated.

The difficulty comes from tapping and snapping at 220 bpm, and there are a few chains of up to 10.

Low spacing with higher bpm--> Aim-Algorithm sees as being easier, because the average cursor speed is lower.
220bpm single tap --> Speed-Algorithm sees this as being easier, because 220 bpm 1/2 is nowhere near 172 1/4.
mcdoomfrag
94 posts
Joined June 2013
mcdoomfrag

-Chronopolis- wrote:

Low spacing with higher bpm--> Aim-Algorithm sees as being easier, because the average cursor speed is lower.
220bpm single tap --> Speed-Algorithm sees this as being easier, because 220 bpm 1/2 is nowhere near 172 1/4.

Tom94 wrote:

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.
Horolynn
47 posts
Joined August 2010
Horolynn
To add to it, Tom already said that to get a proper algorithm that considers every possible aspect he'd need to have per-hitobject data, which is currently not available.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
809 / 2,749