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?
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
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.
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.
So I'd assume it'd be worth some.
Lol, my bad... xD- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
Mind linking such a map? Never heard of Control Remote!pold10 wrote:
Control Remote
Indeed it's not easy at all, can't deny that, but I still feel like it's a little too much.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.
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).
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).
Topic Starter
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.
Thats a nice idea, though actually most normals are easy anywayPriti 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.
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 itTom94 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.
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
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.
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
EDIT: *hurt pp gain
it usually kills meTMoI 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)
sameGoldenWolf wrote:
it usually kills meTMoI 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)
although I should have phrased that better, I should have said hurt pp. Will edit.
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.
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.
-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.
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.
Getting combo and decent accuracy on OD 10+ fullscreen jumps doesn't sound like something many people would bother grinding. Remote Control already requires a bit of luck (or a ton of skill if you can do it consistently) to FC without DT.Bassist Vinyl wrote:
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
The idea has been suggested before. Not sure if there has been feedback, but it sure would be nice to compare how much difference combo/accuracy would make xD.TheVileOne wrote:
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.
Here's my proposal. It involves trying to treat streams and singles separately. I'm aware of the general points of the current pp system, but obviously I may be ignorant of lots of things.mcdoomfrag wrote:
-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.
Stress rating of pattern as calculated as a stream:
Speed stress calculation: Stream bpm and length contribute. If average mouse velocity is high (spaced streams), that also contributes to speed.
Aim stress: Average cursor speed. The exact ratio of average_cursor_speed_stream: speed_stress_stream can be different than average_cursor_speed_singles: speed_stress_singles.
Turns add to this based on how fast they change in degrees and the average cursor speed. Change in spacing between stream-distanced spaced notes can also add difficulty.
Singles:
Aim: Primarily based off of average cursor velocity.
Seperate idea: make change in spacing add somewhat to aim difficulty:
Effective distance from note to next note = distance from note to next note + 0.5*difference in spacing from this note to the last note.
Speed stress calculation: Chain length and bpm contribute. Single bpm contributes much more from 200>280-300 1/2 notes than it currently does in pp (which doesn't discriminate between singles and streams for speed calculation).
Very high speed singles calculation (280-300+):
At this point virtually everybody is alternating, so one can take that into consideration when constructing an algorithm. I don't know what the relative difficulties:
Aim: The same as current.
Speed stress calculation: For a base line, the speed difficulty at the boundary from 279 to 280 should be continuous. The bpm contribution to stress probably should go up slower (because aiming and mouse speed become the limiting factors to my knowledge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPlCPRMM2g8).
Judging whether something is singles or stream:
If notes are farther than X distance apart AND have have an average change in angle greater than Y from note to note:
-If <280 bpm: treat as singles
-If >280 bpm: treat as very high speed singles (which tries to estimate difficulty based on assumed alternation.)
Otherwise:
-treat as streams
are sliders still undervalued? http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/1440488 got 0 pp for this even thought it was by far the hardest FC i have. yeah the accuracy is low... but still
Sliders are ignored in accuracy calculations so your acc was like maybe 93% which does hurt a lot. Also as mcdoomfrag pointed out, fast singles that aren't far spaced are underrated for pp. The score was worth 162pp AFAIK on your profile.Soulg wrote:
are sliders still undervalued? http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/1440488 got 0 pp for this even thought it was by far the hardest FC i have. yeah the accuracy is low... but still
Soulg wrote:
are sliders still undervalued? http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/1440488 got 0 pp for this even thought it was by far the hardest FC i have. yeah the accuracy is low... but still
Tom94 wrote:
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'd like this to get some considerationPriti 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.
The "Easy" difficulties I looked at out of those were actually Normals. I don't really think this is a big deal because of that.Zare wrote:
I'd like this to get some considerationPriti 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.
They're not Normals wtf. Most of these use 1/1 at MOST, Normals usually have a fair amount of 1/2 to get them players used to playing these, in an attempt to prepare them for HardsEkaru wrote:
The "Easy" difficulties I looked at out of those were actually Normals. I don't really think this is a big deal because of that.
Sorry if this has been asked or if its a dumb questions, but what is the pp value stated on your top performance. Is it the amount of pp the song is worth and then your percentage is the amount you play gets? because for example on the song souzou forest it says 39 pp 26% on my friends, his says 102pp 9%. I know his play is much better than mines, but i'm still wondering what exactly do teh pp value and the percentage mean, and if the pp on top is already with the calculated percentage.
It works something like this:miroslavklose wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked or if its a dumb questions, but what is the pp value stated on your top performance. Is it the amount of pp the song is worth and then your percentage is the amount you play gets? because for example on the song souzou forest it says 39 pp 26% on my friends, his says 102pp 9%. I know his play is much better than mines, but i'm still wondering what exactly do teh pp value and the percentage mean, and if the pp on top is already with the calculated percentage.
Imagine if you and your friend both get the exact same result from the same map. On both your profiles, it will say that the play was worth 100pp (an example), however, how much you actually get from the map depends on how good the play was relative to your other scores. So, if the play was your best performance to date, you will get 100% from that 100pp (and consequentially, you will gain slightly less pp from all your other previous scores), but if for your friend this was easy compared to his other performances, he will get a much lower percentage of that 100pp.
So this game means to tell me that my best performance ever was on the Jun.A map?
In reality it's not even close to my best.
EDIT I got 99.7% on bloody night...This isn't right.
In reality it's not even close to my best.
EDIT I got 99.7% on bloody night...This isn't right.
On Osutp The refrain song has 4 more levels of speed and 2 more levels of aim than Bloody Night, which means it has overall level 41 vs 38. Not sure how much this means in terms of pp but it seems even if you get close to FC on Bloody Night the overall higher difficulty of The Refrain has given you more pp.rexcannon_iii wrote:
So this game means to tell me that my best performance ever was on the Jun.A map?
In reality it's not even close to my best.
EDIT I got 99.7% on bloody night...This isn't right.
But the map bloody night is much more difficult than refrain.
Actually every map on that list is harder than refrain.
Actually every map on that list is harder than refrain.
about Bloody Night vs Refrain. They're very similar in mapping (barely any hard jumps, streams at 9 circles maximum), but refrain is faster and has higher OD, so naturally it's considered harder by the system
Then the system is flawed. They aren't even close to similar, refrain is a breeze in comparison.
fix'drexcannon_iii wrote:
I think then the system is flawed. I think they aren't even close to similar, I think refrain is a breeze in comparison.
everybody has different strengths and weaknessess, just because you found a score easier to set doesnt mean everybody else finds the same.