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?
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
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.
Hey everyone,
what could be the reason that, even if I improve my ranking on a beat map - my global ranking goes lower?
Just played http://osu.ppy.sh/b/125785 on Normal and got a ranked around 3000 because I missed one note close to the end my global ranking was around #53,359. So I replayed the song with 2x time and got ranked at 893 and ended up with a global ranking of #53,361 - which doesn't make really sense too me, can anyone enlighten me?
what could be the reason that, even if I improve my ranking on a beat map - my global ranking goes lower?
Just played http://osu.ppy.sh/b/125785 on Normal and got a ranked around 3000 because I missed one note close to the end my global ranking was around #53,359. So I replayed the song with 2x time and got ranked at 893 and ended up with a global ranking of #53,361 - which doesn't make really sense too me, can anyone enlighten me?
While you were playing that map, other people passed you in rankings. It only updates when you set scores.
I don't think you got any pp for that score, so all it did for you was to update your rank.
I don't think you got any pp for that score, so all it did for you was to update your rank.
Correct.PlasticSmoothie wrote:
While you were playing that map, other people passed you in rankings. It only updates when you set scores.
I don't think you got any pp for that score, so all it did for you was to update your rank.
The score didn't give any pp because it's weighted st 0%. That's because you have scores that are rated much harder than this one, so all this score did for you was, as PlasticSmoothie said, updating your pp. Other players have passed you before and thus your rank was lowered. (You're still in a range where you need very few pp for huge ranking changes, so it's not uncommon for a fair amount of people to surpass you in a relatively short amount of time.)
Thanks for clarificationZare wrote:
Correct.PlasticSmoothie wrote:
While you were playing that map, other people passed you in rankings. It only updates when you set scores.
I don't think you got any pp for that score, so all it did for you was to update your rank.
The score didn't give any pp because it's weighted st 0%. That's because you have scores that are rated much harder than this one, so all this score did for you was, as PlasticSmoothie said, updating your pp. Other players have passed you before and thus your rank was lowered. (You're still in a range where you need very few pp for huge ranking changes, so it's not uncommon for a fair amount of people to surpass you in a relatively short amount of time.)
silmarilen wrote:
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.
This is a feedback thread, too often do I see this answer though. I understand difficulty can be subjective but in this case the maps are flat out different in their difficulty to the point it should be obvious so I'm providing feedback according to this and so are the other users that get hit with this answer.
That eliminates the point of a feedback thread.
i played both the maps and i agree that bloody night is more difficult on a technical level, but it is lower bpm and the od is lower so it makes sense that it may give less pprexcannon_iii wrote:
silmarilen wrote:
fix'd
everybody has different strengths and weaknessess, just because you found a score easier to set doesnt mean everybody else finds the same.
This is a feedback thread, too often do I see this answer though. I understand difficulty can be subjective but in this case the maps are flat out different in their difficulty to the point it should be obvious so I'm providing feedback according to this and so are the other users that get hit with this answer.
That eliminates the point of a feedback thread.
I was wondering if maps with a high OD + a large amount of hit circles would give more pp than maps with high OD, but lots of sliders. I know you're taking each skill set into consideration (aim, speed, accuracy), but I feel like high OD maps with much more hit circles than sliders should be favored slightly more over sliderspam maps. Maps with lots of sliders and high BPM should give an aim boost rather than accuracy, especially if the AR is high.
Speaking of high AR's, are they considered in the calculation at all? AR8 and AR10+ definitely deserve some sort of boost. Reading is a skill separate from the others (aim, speed, accuracy) and should be taken into consideration in my opinion, especially on maps that go above AR10 with DT. DTHR is an extremely hard mod combo, and I know that it would probably give a good boost already, but I wondered if it's AR changes affected pp gain in any way.
Also, silmarilen is right. I've played both of those, and though Bloody Night might be harder in terms of jumps, Refrain is harder overall. It has smaller jumps and slightly shorter streams, but it's faster and has higher OD. I always miss at least one note on it, and when I don't, I get shit accuracy. It's much easier to get a good accuracy on Bloody Night.
Speaking of high AR's, are they considered in the calculation at all? AR8 and AR10+ definitely deserve some sort of boost. Reading is a skill separate from the others (aim, speed, accuracy) and should be taken into consideration in my opinion, especially on maps that go above AR10 with DT. DTHR is an extremely hard mod combo, and I know that it would probably give a good boost already, but I wondered if it's AR changes affected pp gain in any way.
Also, silmarilen is right. I've played both of those, and though Bloody Night might be harder in terms of jumps, Refrain is harder overall. It has smaller jumps and slightly shorter streams, but it's faster and has higher OD. I always miss at least one note on it, and when I don't, I get shit accuracy. It's much easier to get a good accuracy on Bloody Night.
Topic Starter
AR above 10 and below 8 gives a bonus. Only circles are taken into consideration for accuracy.
There is so much pages and I can't read it fully so I might repeat some guys, sorry for this.
I just wanted to point out some things about mods' worth. That may be wrong but that's my feeling about it right now.
In my rank, I just see that I can't win anything if I don't play DT. I'm not a HR player so I can't tell with this mod but HD seems to be completely devaluated.
I'll try to give one example :
This is only one example and I've seen this many times. For a HD player, I just feel that playing with HD became useless : using DT with a higher accuracy allow you to earn more pp. Sadly, the difficulty is increased with HD so, technically, I should earned more. (at least for a diff less than 1% acc)
So here come my suggestion : Is there any possibility that HD get a better place in general and vs DT? Secondly, when you add it to DT mode, is it possible to be rewarded more than only using DT?
I just think that if we do nothing, this mod will just die.
If you want something more detailled, I can do it later but I just wanted to expose the main idea first.
Thank you for reading <3
I just wanted to point out some things about mods' worth. That may be wrong but that's my feeling about it right now.
In my rank, I just see that I can't win anything if I don't play DT. I'm not a HR player so I can't tell with this mod but HD seems to be completely devaluated.
I'll try to give one example :
ExampleThe map is https://osu.ppy.sh/b/155404?m=0
Scores are
My top rank
His top rank
Scores are
My top rank
His top rank
This is only one example and I've seen this many times. For a HD player, I just feel that playing with HD became useless : using DT with a higher accuracy allow you to earn more pp. Sadly, the difficulty is increased with HD so, technically, I should earned more. (at least for a diff less than 1% acc)
So here come my suggestion : Is there any possibility that HD get a better place in general and vs DT? Secondly, when you add it to DT mode, is it possible to be rewarded more than only using DT?
I just think that if we do nothing, this mod will just die.
If you want something more detailled, I can do it later but I just wanted to expose the main idea first.
Thank you for reading <3
HD does give a pp bonus (18% bonus to the aim part of the calculation, and a very small bonus to accuracy). So, currently, HD gives a bonus mainly to maps that are hard aim-wise.shARPII wrote:
There is so much pages and I can't read it fully so I might repeat some guys, sorry for this.
I just wanted to point out some things about mods' worth. That may be wrong but that's my feeling about it right now.
In my rank, I just see that I can't win anything if I don't play DT. I'm not a HR player so I can't tell with this mod but HD seems to be completely devaluated.
I'll try to give one example :ExampleThe map is https://osu.ppy.sh/b/155404?m=0
Scores are
My top rank
His top rank
This is only one example and I've seen this many times. For a HD player, I just feel that playing with HD became useless : using DT with a higher accuracy allow you to earn more pp. Sadly, the difficulty is increased with HD so, technically, I should earned more. (at least for a diff less than 1% acc)
So here come my suggestion : Is there any possibility that HD get a better place in general and vs DT? Secondly, when you add it to DT mode, is it possible to be rewarded more than only using DT?
I just think that if we do nothing, this mod will just die.
If you want something more detailled, I can do it later but I just wanted to expose the main idea first.
Thank you for reading <3
Also, take in consideration that difference between 99.64%acc and 98.92%acc is considerable.
That's why I said that, for me, the bonus is too low corrently.Full Tablet wrote:
HD does give a pp bonus (18% bonus to the aim part of the calculation, and a very small bonus to accuracy). So, currently, HD gives a bonus mainly to maps that are hard aim-wise.
Also, take in consideration that difference between 99.64%acc and 98.92%acc is considerable.
Moreover, less than 1% difference isn't and shoudn't be considerable. HD is adding an other difficulty so, for this, it should be the same value or even more.
I'm just saying that taking the risk to pick HD isn't rewarded at all or, if it is, not enough.
The difference between 92% and 93% is fairly insignificant. The difference between 98.92% and 99.64% is not (and if you think it's insignificant, why don't you have a 99.64% score?) because 98.92% is literally 3 times as many 100s as 99.64%. The "risk" of picking hidden is actually rewarded a ton if you play hidden well. To a lot of people, hidden is identical to nomod on most maps and it's worth an 18% bonus to aim. If that bonus isn't enough for you, it simply means that you're not good enough at hidden.
A way of comparing 99.64%acc and 98.92%acc in that map.shARPII wrote:
That's why I said that, for me, the bonus is too low corrently.Full Tablet wrote:
HD does give a pp bonus (18% bonus to the aim part of the calculation, and a very small bonus to accuracy). So, currently, HD gives a bonus mainly to maps that are hard aim-wise.
Also, take in consideration that difference between 99.64%acc and 98.92%acc is considerable.
Moreover, less than 1% difference isn't and shoudn't be considerable. HD is adding an other difficulty so, for this, it should be the same value or even more.
I'm just saying that taking the risk to pick HD isn't rewarded at all or, if it is, not enough.
If the chance of hitting a 300 in a slider is assumed to be 100%, then, if the chance of hitting 300 in a circle is 97.61% (assuming you get a 100 if you don't get a 300), then the chances of getting 98.92%acc or more are about 50%. With that same probability of hitting a circle (97.61%), the chances of getting an accuracy of 99.64% or more are 1.28%.
The difference is not that big when comparing 2 accuracies that aren't so close to 100%
Comparing 90%acc with 91%acc:
If the probability of getting a 300 is 79.33% for each circle, the probability of getting at least 90%acc is 50%. With that same probability for each circle, the chances of getting at least 91%acc are 15.89% (the difference in probability is considerably less in this case).
Because of this, the accuracy score shouldn't increase linearly with the accuracy percentage. Instead, each 1% of increment should award more than the last one when comparing 90%acc with 91%acc, 91%acc with 92%acc, etc... (like it does currently).
Sadly, saying that hidden is identical to nomod simply means that you don't play HD or you're not good enough with it.
Well, ok, I agree with you Full Tablet (for the part about accuracy).
But I'm just trying to say that HD isn't "gainful" currently. If I want the same pp than the other one, I'll need what? 1 or 2 one hundred more than his score max?
I feel this is stupid. You make 1 more 100 than a friend and you'll get the same pp than him without HD when that's easier?
Why playing HD then, when you can assure easily a better accuray with no mod? You'll be sure to get the same amount of pp without any risk.
So yeah...
Well, ok, I agree with you Full Tablet (for the part about accuracy).
But I'm just trying to say that HD isn't "gainful" currently. If I want the same pp than the other one, I'll need what? 1 or 2 one hundred more than his score max?
I feel this is stupid. You make 1 more 100 than a friend and you'll get the same pp than him without HD when that's easier?
Why playing HD then, when you can assure easily a better accuray with no mod? You'll be sure to get the same amount of pp without any risk.
So yeah...
I suck at hidden and almost never play it. However, I was quoting people who do play hidden well (in fact, I know someone who has a lot more trouble playing maps without hidden than with it). The irony is that this statement actually just shows that you aren't good enough with it. Sure, there are maps out there that are harder with hidden (and some considerably so), but there are plenty of people out there who won't find the average map at their level any more difficult with hidden than without.shARPII wrote:
Sadly, saying that hidden is identical to nomod simply means that you don't play HD or you're not good enough with it.
What you're not understanding (and what a lot of people who post in this thread don't understand) is that the pp system isn't meant to reward you for what YOU find hard. It's meant to reward you for doing things that require more skill to do. Maybe you personally aren't good enough with hidden to match your nomod accuracy closely enough to avoid completely nullifying your 18% aim bonus, but that doesn't mean you should get points for playing hidden - it means you SHOULDN'T get points for playing hidden because you're not playing it up to par.
Ultimately, since pp rewards FC plays so highly in comparison to non-FC plays (and really high acc plays very highly in comparison to lower acc plays), the scores that get you a lot of points will often feel overvalued and easy and the scores that give you fewer points are the ones that you'll feel were hard. While it may occasionally be due to quirks and flaws in the pp system, the effect is largely due to the fact that you get more pp for things you can play well and less pp for things you can't play well, making the latter feel undervalued.
I wish more people understood that. They really need to read this post and TRY to understand it, instead of just disregarding it and going "why am I not getting pp for ~90% acc on scarlet rose hurr"GhostFrog wrote:
I suck at hidden and almost never play it. However, I was quoting people who do play hidden well (in fact, I know someone who has a lot more trouble playing maps without hidden than with it). The irony is that this statement actually just shows that you aren't good enough with it. Sure, there are maps out there that are harder with hidden (and some considerably so), but there are plenty of people out there who won't find the average map at their level any more difficult with hidden than without.shARPII wrote:
Sadly, saying that hidden is identical to nomod simply means that you don't play HD or you're not good enough with it.
What you're not understanding (and what a lot of people who post in this thread don't understand) is that the pp system isn't meant to reward you for what YOU find hard. It's meant to reward you for doing things that require more skill to do. Maybe you personally aren't good enough with hidden to match your nomod accuracy closely enough to avoid completely nullifying your 18% aim bonus, but that doesn't mean you should get points for playing hidden - it means you SHOULDN'T get points for playing hidden because you're not playing it up to par.
Ultimately, since pp rewards FC plays so highly in comparison to non-FC plays (and really high acc plays very highly in comparison to lower acc plays), the scores that get you a lot of points will often feel overvalued and easy and the scores that give you fewer points are the ones that you'll feel were hard. While it may occasionally be due to quirks and flaws in the pp system, the effect is largely due to the fact that you get more pp for things you can play well and less pp for things you can't play well, making the latter feel undervalued.
The problem is, that the difficulty of HD is perceived differently for everyone. The guy in charge considers it to affect aim by a lot and accuracy only by a little, so he manipulated the pp calculations according to that. This may not make sense to you and a lot of other players, but it's just the way it is.shARPII wrote:
Sadly, saying that hidden is identical to nomod simply means that you don't play HD or you're not good enough with it.
Well, ok, I agree with you Full Tablet (for the part about accuracy).
But I'm just trying to say that HD isn't "gainful" currently. If I want the same pp than the other one, I'll need what? 1 or 2 one hundred more than his score max?
I feel this is stupid. You make 1 more 100 than a friend and you'll get the same pp than him without HD when that's easier?
Why playing HD then, when you can assure easily a better accuray with no mod? You'll be sure to get the same amount of pp without any risk.
So yeah...
Topic Starter
I'm actually trying to represent the opinions which I'm seeing most frequently / prominently. pp would look quite a bit differently if it'd be just based only on what I'd like to see.Ziggo wrote:
The problem is, that the difficulty of HD is perceived differently for everyone. The guy in charge considers it to affect aim by a lot and accuracy only by a little, so he manipulated the pp calculations according to that. This may not make sense to you and a lot of other players, but it's just the way it is.shARPII wrote:
Sadly, saying that hidden is identical to nomod simply means that you don't play HD or you're not good enough with it.
Well, ok, I agree with you Full Tablet (for the part about accuracy).
But I'm just trying to say that HD isn't "gainful" currently. If I want the same pp than the other one, I'll need what? 1 or 2 one hundred more than his score max?
I feel this is stupid. You make 1 more 100 than a friend and you'll get the same pp than him without HD when that's easier?
Why playing HD then, when you can assure easily a better accuray with no mod? You'll be sure to get the same amount of pp without any risk.
So yeah...
So yeah, your opinions don't go unheard, even if I don't respond. Often I find other people answering questions / explaining behaviour well enough, making me not feel the need to answer.
This is generally the case for me. If I know a map's rhythm, playing it with HD only makes it hard to aim occasionally (with hit circles under sliderends that I don't always see) but that's about it. If I can FC a map nomods without too much trouble, FC'ing it with HD won't be much more trouble, and I suck with HD (as compared to other HD players of around my level).GhostFrog wrote:
shARPII wrote:
there are plenty of people out there who won't find the average map at their level any more difficult with hidden than without.
Also, 98->99% accuracy is a 100% increase in 100's. You're just underestimating the difference between 98 and 99% accuracy. Try getting >99% on that map and watch what happens with your pp.
Perhaps it is easy for you, because you have played enough that you have just become more accurate in general. Being able to time hits correctly is a skill that some people take for granted when they play. Many people develop bad habits that make them less accurate. The people who know what they are doing don't need to rely on the approach circles to be accurate. They had to develop this ability though. It is far easier to take advantage of the generous hit window instead of actually learning when to hit.
The same also applies to streaming, but in a more skillful way. It takes skill to stream at a particular BPM. Streaming at the correct BPM for the song is far better than taking advantage of the hit window that allows you to lag behind or hit late and still get a 300.
Hidden takes away some of the things that people with bad habits use to play. Lagging behind on a stream will certainly ruin your timing coming out of the stream, and it becomes harder to recover. People who stay accurate will not need to deal with finding the rhythm again and will find playing easier.
Hidden is harder in that it obscures that hit window, and requires that the player remember the hit window, and the BPM. In most cases, this mod will increase a player's unstable rate for a song unless there is a really well defined rhythm. The more chances where a player can lose the rhythm, the harder the map will be to play with hidden. This is why easier difficulties tend to be harder with hidden. It is easier to lose the rhythm and the delay between when a circle appears and when it needs to be hit is longer.
I reckon it would be hard to define the difficulty of hidden on a per map level.
Some quick guidelines
-Lower AR = harder with hidden (Because our brains our used to playing with higher ARs/less delay)
-2/1 or greater gaps in the beat = harder with hidden (We can't rely on consistent rhythm to hit these. It is why people have problems hitting the first object in a map in Hidden)
-Faster jumps and streams tend to require more accuracy by default and so the burden to keep timing is less apparent (This is why people find Hidden not a large step up from how they usually play. Faster = easier. Slower = harder)
-Sliders are not any more difficult in Hidden. (However maps that contain streams that alternate between sliders and circles can interfere with a player's timing)
-Stacked/hidden objects are slightly more difficult. People who haven't yet started playing according to musical cues or hasn't developed muscle memory to overcome the need for musical cues will find that obscure objects will be harder to hit, because they can't observe the object's fade, and as such will have to know beforehand the correct timing to hit the object. A single mistimed hit can spoil the whole string of objects.
-Most will probably find Hidden+ Flashlight harder than Hardrock + Flashlight given the same amount of skill level in playing both hidden and hardrock alone in the same map. Flashlight with hidden has the side effect of rendering the entire map as if it is obscured like a stack. There is no space for error when you can't see what you are hitting.
The same also applies to streaming, but in a more skillful way. It takes skill to stream at a particular BPM. Streaming at the correct BPM for the song is far better than taking advantage of the hit window that allows you to lag behind or hit late and still get a 300.
Hidden takes away some of the things that people with bad habits use to play. Lagging behind on a stream will certainly ruin your timing coming out of the stream, and it becomes harder to recover. People who stay accurate will not need to deal with finding the rhythm again and will find playing easier.
Hidden is harder in that it obscures that hit window, and requires that the player remember the hit window, and the BPM. In most cases, this mod will increase a player's unstable rate for a song unless there is a really well defined rhythm. The more chances where a player can lose the rhythm, the harder the map will be to play with hidden. This is why easier difficulties tend to be harder with hidden. It is easier to lose the rhythm and the delay between when a circle appears and when it needs to be hit is longer.
I reckon it would be hard to define the difficulty of hidden on a per map level.
Some quick guidelines
-Lower AR = harder with hidden (Because our brains our used to playing with higher ARs/less delay)
-2/1 or greater gaps in the beat = harder with hidden (We can't rely on consistent rhythm to hit these. It is why people have problems hitting the first object in a map in Hidden)
-Faster jumps and streams tend to require more accuracy by default and so the burden to keep timing is less apparent (This is why people find Hidden not a large step up from how they usually play. Faster = easier. Slower = harder)
-Sliders are not any more difficult in Hidden. (However maps that contain streams that alternate between sliders and circles can interfere with a player's timing)
-Stacked/hidden objects are slightly more difficult. People who haven't yet started playing according to musical cues or hasn't developed muscle memory to overcome the need for musical cues will find that obscure objects will be harder to hit, because they can't observe the object's fade, and as such will have to know beforehand the correct timing to hit the object. A single mistimed hit can spoil the whole string of objects.
-Most will probably find Hidden+ Flashlight harder than Hardrock + Flashlight given the same amount of skill level in playing both hidden and hardrock alone in the same map. Flashlight with hidden has the side effect of rendering the entire map as if it is obscured like a stack. There is no space for error when you can't see what you are hitting.