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.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
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.
Partially disagree with this, first note is hard to hit because there is no music before (in most cases) so you have no clue what's the rhythm there, when you're already playing the map you can at least have a metronome going on in your head to keep the beat, even on 2/1 4/1 or more, but the first note is generally some luck on top of reading the fade-in like an approach circle.TheVileOne wrote:
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)
Can i erase a score on a map ? I get like 66pp map worth on a map with only HR mode , after that i tried HRHD and i make like 50pp map worth and the score is better with HRHD but with lower acc ... and now even if i make SS with HR only i don't beat my score on HRHD ... so that map is lost for me .. I don't know but for me this isn't fair ... maybe if u make a option to erase a score ... or boost HD , its incredible useless
and the score is better with HRHD but with lower acc ... and now even if i make SS with HR only i don't beat my score on HRHD ... so that map is lost for me .. I don't know but for me this isn't fair ... maybe if u make a option to erase a score ... or boost HD , its incredible uselessI find 1/3 and 2/3 notes with HD more difficult than any other neatly divisible timing on my first play (2/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/4). By the second play I remember where they are, only if there are a couple, so I don't think these are an issue except in conjunction with low AR and many interchanges between these different timings in a map. i.e. changes in rhythm + low AR + HD.TheVileOne wrote:
-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)
Unfortunately the algorithm is tailored to measure your skill based on your absolutely best performances, so you can't count trivial stuff likes changes in rhythm, when retrying a map is what people do anyway to remember anything relatively difficult. The system may not see every map's difficulty the same way we see it, but it is certainly working very well. Even if the methodology is not quite human, it's still a reasonable estimate of skill.
this update turned my osu into shitty laggy game..
quit or wait for them to fix this?
quit or wait for them to fix this?
It's probably not the software that is causing lag. By the way this is not the place to report this. Please post in Tech Support.
Shameless self quoting for bumping purposes.Priti wrote:
At the moment, it seems like N is more common for Easy diffs than the intended E, I'd suggest to put the minimal value for an N a bit higher.
Examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6257 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41379 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/87630 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/155457 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/81557 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/102307 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/152786 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/119359 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/134220 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150242 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150784 And many more.
I was comparing some scores, and noticed something weird...
I split the top plays into five columns. Just wondering, even though the top scores are higher on the left-hand side, why does the one on the right end up with more PP? It's a small amount, but higher nonetheless, even though the top 5 scores alone are worth 28.45 more PP for the left side.
I split the top plays into five columns. Just wondering, even though the top scores are higher on the left-hand side, why does the one on the right end up with more PP? It's a small amount, but higher nonetheless, even though the top 5 scores alone are worth 28.45 more PP for the left side.
I hope I calculated it right
10*1.00 + 4*.95 + 7*.90 + 5*.86 + 5*.81
Topic Starter
I can check up exactly nothing without you telling me which users this is about.nooblet wrote:
I was comparing some scores, and noticed something weird...
I split the top plays into five columns. Just wondering, even though the top scores are higher on the left-hand side, why does the one on the right end up with more PP? It's a small amount, but higher nonetheless, even though the top 5 scores alone are worth 28.45 more PP for the left side.I hope I calculated it right10*1.00 + 4*.95 + 7*.90 + 5*.86 + 5*.81
That being said my theory would be, that the 2nd guy has far more scores in general than the first guy, ending up with a bit more pp due to the base-pp which every score gives.
I forgot to mention this on the wiki-page:
Every score gives a small base pp amount of 0.25, decreasing by a bit with every new highscore that you make. With 1000 highscores you get around 200pp and with 5000 around 400pp. The cap is 416.666pp at the moment, assuming infinitely many highscores are possible.
(pp gain = 0.25 * sum 0.9994^i, i=0 to amount of highscores)
This gets less and less relevant the higher your pp goes and is meant to both encourage playing more maps for the lower-level players and prevent big rank losses after making a new score at the lower ranks.
In the mid-high ranks it is pretty much irrelevant, since 99% of the people have enough highscores to be less than 50pp away from the cap.
Ah thank you, that's definitely it then. Guess it's time to download more beatmapsTom94 wrote:
I can check up exactly nothing without you telling me which users this is about.
That being said my theory would be, that the 2nd guy has far more scores in general than the first guy, ending up with a bit more pp due to the base-pp which every score gives.
I forgot to mention this on the wiki-page:
Every score gives a small base pp amount of 0.25, decreasing by a bit with every new highscore that you make. With 1000 highscores you get around 200pp and with 5000 around 400pp. The cap is 416.666pp at the moment, assuming infinitely many highscores are possible.
(pp gain = 0.25 * sum 0.9994^i, i=0 to amount of highscores)
This gets less and less relevant the higher your pp goes and is meant to both encourage playing more maps for the lower-level players and prevent big rank losses after making a new score at the lower ranks.
In the mid-high ranks it is pretty much irrelevant, since 99% of the people have enough highscores to be less than 50pp away from the cap.
I don't even have that many beatmaps (including other modes) in total yet 
After checking the algorithm for speed value of a score I have a question.
According to this, the OD of a map is not taken into account. Why is that? I mean sure, OD >supposedly< only affects accuracy, but if OD is completely ignored while calculating speed difficulty, or the value of a score, wouldn't that mean that the system thinks that every player who gets an 98% score on a random OD6 or OD7 200 BPM stream map is actually able to stream that fast, even when they're effectively just streaming 170 BPM? they can still SS relatively long streams if they start clicking early and end late when the map is low OD like that.
Or is this covered/prevented by the Accuracy factor which is also mentioned?
According to this, the OD of a map is not taken into account. Why is that? I mean sure, OD >supposedly< only affects accuracy, but if OD is completely ignored while calculating speed difficulty, or the value of a score, wouldn't that mean that the system thinks that every player who gets an 98% score on a random OD6 or OD7 200 BPM stream map is actually able to stream that fast, even when they're effectively just streaming 170 BPM? they can still SS relatively long streams if they start clicking early and end late when the map is low OD like that.
Or is this covered/prevented by the Accuracy factor which is also mentioned?
Topic Starter
The accuracy factor also depends on OD, so yeah, it is effected by this.Zare wrote:
After checking the algorithm for speed value of a score I have a question.
According to this, the OD of a map is not taken into account. Why is that? I mean sure, OD >supposedly< only affects accuracy, but if OD is completely ignored while calculating speed difficulty, or the value of a score, wouldn't that mean that the system thinks that every player who gets an 98% score on a random OD6 or OD7 200 BPM stream map is actually able to stream that fast, even when they're effectively just streaming 170 BPM? they can still SS relatively long streams if they start clicking early and end late when the map is low OD like that.
Or is this covered/prevented by the Accuracy factor which is also mentioned?
- Length of the beatmap in hit objects / hit circlesWhat exactly is going on here? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this part of the wiki :S
- Example: Draining time is 2 minutes; 1,000 objects > 500 objects.
- Likewise: 1,000 objects; Drain time 2 minutes > Drain time 5 minutes
Edit:
Oh, now I get it. I wouldn't have guess that the figures were used to explain such a simple concept. I feel dumb nowLuna wrote:
Basically, high note density = hard, low density = easy
10 notes per second is harder than 5 notes per second
Simple stuff like that
Basically, high note density = hard, low density = easy
10 notes per second is harder than 5 notes per second
Simple stuff like that
10 notes per second is harder than 5 notes per second
Simple stuff like that
Just another quick question here.
I must have the wrong idea how this works because I look at this score I got here,
Doesn't this mean it's supposed to give me 17% of 106pp (18pp)? Because I 'm pretty sure it didn't give me any pp at all.
I must have the wrong idea how this works because I look at this score I got here,
Doesn't this mean it's supposed to give me 17% of 106pp (18pp)? Because I 'm pretty sure it didn't give me any pp at all.
The score did give you 18pp, but you didn't see the full effect because by getting the score, you also pushed down a lot of other scores into lower weightings.
So while this score gave you a bunch of pp, the slightly worse scores you already had previously lost some of their value. It evened out and you probably gained slightly less than a full pp after everything was calculated.
So while this score gave you a bunch of pp, the slightly worse scores you already had previously lost some of their value. It evened out and you probably gained slightly less than a full pp after everything was calculated.
It's to avoid people farming pp by getting scores around their average skill all the time. You only really get noticable increases from your absolute top performances.
It's not supposed to encourage you. It's there to reflect your skill level at the current time. The pp amount grows when you keep getting better and better scores, meaning that you are getting better and able to set those scores. Fun gameplay and getting better should be the encouragement and if isn't fun for you, you shouldn't really be playing it cause you will get burnt out and frustrated really quickly.
Topic Starter
That's not what that part of the wiki is supposed to say at all. It should just say, that beatmap length is measured is based on amount of hitobjects, not on time. It has exactly nothing to do with density, since a 5 minute map with 1000 hitobjects would get the same length bonus as a 1 minute map with 1000 hitobjects.Luna wrote:
Basically, high note density = hard, low density = easy
10 notes per second is harder than 5 notes per second
Simple stuff like that
I'll fix the last line of that section of the wiki. No idea what the person who added it was thinking when saying, that shorter beatmaps would be weighted more with the same amount of hitobjects. I didn't put that in originally.
I made a thread but then realized there was this thread so I nuked the other one. Just going to copy/paste it into here.
So how do you calculate star diffiuclty with mods, or is this a ppv2 wiki/future topic we will have to wait for? I'm curious as to how much it affects the star rating when adding DT / HR / HD so I can gauge more accurately how difficult a map is. Like say someone was to play this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/132095 [Hard] with DT the star rating would go from 2.05 to ? as compared to playing HR+HD. HD and DT have static multipliers to the difficulty while HR has that ceiling effect (excluding CS) so I'd assume it's not something to be so easily calculated without using a program/the game?
So how do you calculate star diffiuclty with mods, or is this a ppv2 wiki/future topic we will have to wait for? I'm curious as to how much it affects the star rating when adding DT / HR / HD so I can gauge more accurately how difficult a map is. Like say someone was to play this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/132095 [Hard] with DT the star rating would go from 2.05 to ? as compared to playing HR+HD. HD and DT have static multipliers to the difficulty while HR has that ceiling effect (excluding CS) so I'd assume it's not something to be so easily calculated without using a program/the game?
http://osutp.net/beatmapsDexus wrote:
I made a thread but then realized there was this thread so I nuked the other one. Just going to copy/paste it into here.
So how do you calculate star diffiuclty with mods, or is this a ppv2 wiki/future topic we will have to wait for? I'm curious as to how much it affects the star rating when adding DT / HR / HD so I can gauge more accurately how difficult a map is. Like say someone was to play this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/132095 [Hard] with DT the star rating would go from 2.05 to ? as compared to playing HR+HD. HD and DT have static multipliers to the difficulty while HR has that ceiling effect (excluding CS) so I'd assume it's not something to be so easily calculated without using a program/the game?
Those aren't weighted the same due to various difficulty settings actually being factored into the star difficulty.
This will be easier to figure out when the game's internal star system gets updated and to work dynamically with the mods selected.
This will be easier to figure out when the game's internal star system gets updated and to work dynamically with the mods selected.
basically DT > HR > FL > HD. i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "various difficulty settings actually being factored into the star difficulty" since ppv2 is pretty much based of tp and hence the song's difficulty is the same. if you want to see what the mods do, tick the boxes and you can see how the level goes up. HD and FL just give bonus aim points (there are 3 components, aim(cursor), speed(mostly bpm) and accuracy (self explanatory)). an perfect FC give maximum speed and aim points, and more accuracy gives more accuracy points.Dexus wrote:
Those aren't weighted the same due to various difficulty settings actually being factored into the star difficulty.
This will be easier to figure out when the game's internal star system gets updated and to work dynamically with the mods selected.
DT: increases OD, AR and BPM. all three stats are increased dramatically.
HR: increases CS, AR, OD, HP. HP does not really matter for FCs. higher OD increase than DT, thus more points given for better accuracy. CS and AR affect aim, but not as much as BPM and AR in DT.
HD and FL: bonus aim points.
EZ: extremely low AR is also awarded bonus acc.
HT: opposite of DT.
Topic Starter
tastystew is correct. However there can be edge-cases where DT / HR might have a different ordering or even be below FL or HD. Really depends on the maps. Detailed explanations on how the difficulty is computed are a future wiki topic.
this is good to hear.Tom94 wrote:
tastystew is correct. However there can be edge-cases where DT / HR might have a different ordering or even be below FL or HD. Really depends on the maps. Detailed explanations on how the difficulty is computed are a future wiki topic.
I know what the mods do in general to aim/speed/etc , you're not really understanding me. I really just want to see how the star rating is affected through mods. From what I can see the "level" in osutp isn't the same as it only seems to factor the aim/speed while "star rating" includes OD, AR, CS, etc. So looking at the lists there are differences in how it is sorted. It's fine for now as I can see in the future the star rating changes due to mod usage on a map may possibly be shown.
It's just weird because two different maps, Map A having a higher star rating while B has a lower star rating (they are relatively close) . Both are done with mods and get the same acc yet map B rewards more. I wanted to see if possibly when mods are on they show that map B may possibly have a higher rating than map A.
I hope that makes sense.
It's just weird because two different maps, Map A having a higher star rating while B has a lower star rating (they are relatively close) . Both are done with mods and get the same acc yet map B rewards more. I wanted to see if possibly when mods are on they show that map B may possibly have a higher rating than map A.
I hope that makes sense.
Topic Starter
The star rating at the moment is pretty much equivalent to the osu!tp level, just scaled in another way. Therefore the same changes through mods apply.Dexus wrote:
I know what the mods do in general to aim/speed/etc , you're not really understanding me. I really just want to see how the star rating is affected through mods. From what I can see the "level" in osutp isn't the same as it only seems to factor the aim/speed while "star rating" includes OD, AR, CS, etc. So looking at the lists there are differences in how it is sorted. It's fine for now as I can see in the future the star rating changes due to mod usage on a map may possibly be shown.
It's just weird because two different maps, Map A having a higher star rating while B has a lower star rating (they are relatively close) . Both are done with mods and get the same acc yet map B rewards more. I wanted to see if possibly when mods are on they show that map B may possibly have a higher rating than map A.
I hope that makes sense.
So star rating does not currently take OD into account? Also, I know that HP Drain is not relevant to pp calculations due to how they work, but I think it could be relevant for something like star system, especially for newer players who are not worried about full combos? I guess a star system rating how hard maps are to pass would be entirely different, but maybe it could be useful as a very small factor or something.
I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall that you said something about OD eventually being incorporated into the star system. If this is the case, a feature showing star system with different mods (probably best displayed after integration with the client) would be very useful imo, even if that is not the case currently.
I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall that you said something about OD eventually being incorporated into the star system. If this is the case, a feature showing star system with different mods (probably best displayed after integration with the client) would be very useful imo, even if that is not the case currently.
I'm curious: the new star system looks like it compresses the previous 1-to-just-below-5 range into maybe a third or less of what it was (perhaps 1 to ~2.2). Is anything planned to allow searching for ranges of difficulty, similarly to with OD, AR, HP, and CS? (ex. "sd>1.9 sd<2.2"). Maybe something like this (other than the difficulty sort, which groups things by a full star apart) already exists and I just don't know about it. If it doesn't though, it seems like it might become much harder to search for beatmaps around the same level of difficulty when the star difficulty changes are brought into the client. This is all assuming the 1-to-5 star range stays around of course.
electrolytes wrote:
I'm curious: the new star system looks like it compresses the previous 1-to-just-below-5 range into maybe a third or less of what it was (perhaps 1 to ~2.2). Is anything planned to allow searching for ranges of difficulty, similarly to with OD, AR, HP, and CS? (ex. "sd>1.9 sd<2.2"). Maybe something like this (other than the difficulty sort, which groups things by a full star apart) already exists and I just don't know about it. If it doesn't though, it seems like it might become much harder to search for beatmaps around the same level of difficulty when the star difficulty changes are brought into the client. This is all assuming the 1-to-5 star range stays around of course.
Its in the works.Tom94 wrote:
All planned.Keeby wrote:
It would be nice to implement the star system in-game, if possible.
is this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/155691 really supposed to be 5.00 stars? tp rates it at lvl 67
Topic Starter
Fixed. It didn't get updated with its actual difficulty value for some reason. The internal pp difficulties were stored correctly. (rrtyui only got 211 for his #1)silmarilen wrote:
is this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/155691 really supposed to be 5.00 stars? tp rates it at lvl 67
Curious about how much of a bonus is applied when playing at low AR's (sub 4.5/5). Is it possible to use EZ mod on hard+/insane songs and get a higher PP than if you were using nomod? Not sure how EZ mod is calculated for a difficulty and if there's any bonus for the huge clusters of notes
How does weighting add up to such a high amount of pp for players when stuff exponentially yields less in comparison to your Top most performance. A mass amount of scores are weighted as 0%. Am I reading the list wrong and the weighting is already applied to the shown pp amount?
If it isn't then I would like for the top performances if possible to show the pp*weighting amount automatically; and then next to the % show the current displayed mount of pp without the percentage affecting it; that way instead of showing a bunch of 400pp, 300pp, 300pp, it would show the right amounts 400pp, 285pp, 270pp, etc.
The way the weighting is displayed and how much you actually have is pretty confusing to me personally.
If it isn't then I would like for the top performances if possible to show the pp*weighting amount automatically; and then next to the % show the current displayed mount of pp without the percentage affecting it; that way instead of showing a bunch of 400pp, 300pp, 300pp, it would show the right amounts 400pp, 285pp, 270pp, etc.
The way the weighting is displayed and how much you actually have is pretty confusing to me personally.
Topic Starter
That would mislead many people into thinking the scores were considered "worse" instead of only having a weight applied.Dexus wrote:
How does weighting add up to such a high amount of pp for players when stuff exponentially yields less in comparison to your Top most performance. A mass amount of scores are weighted as 0%. Am I reading the list wrong and the weighting is already applied to the shown pp amount?
If it isn't then I would like for the top performances if possible to show the pp*weighting amount automatically; and then next to the % show the current displayed mount of pp without the percentage affecting it; that way instead of showing a bunch of 400pp, 300pp, 300pp, it would show the right amounts 400pp, 285pp, 270pp, etc.
If you want to know how this pp amount adds up just check the math behind it and verify it yourself. It is correct.
Well then can you show the weighted amount of pp NEXT to the weight percentage then? Why fool people into thinking pp for a map is worth something when it really isn't worth anything?
Edit:
Edit:
sounds cool, i'm too lazy to do the math most of the time so yeahDexus wrote:
I was wondering how people had such high PP's when their top scores didn't have many high scores, too. It's most likely due to this
I really like the idea of showing how much PP it's worth after weighing though. Perhaps to a decimal or two for the ones giving base PP?Tom94 wrote:
Every score gives a small base pp amount of 0.25, decreasing by a bit with every new highscore that you make. With 1000 highscores you get around 200pp and with 5000 around 400pp. The cap is 416.666pp at the moment, assuming infinitely many highscores are possible.
(pp gain = 0.25 * sum 0.9994^i, i=0 to amount of highscores)
This gets less and less relevant the higher your pp goes and is meant to both encourage playing more maps for the lower-level players and prevent big rank losses after making a new score at the lower ranks.
In the mid-high ranks it is pretty much irrelevant, since 99% of the people have enough highscores to be less than 50pp away from the cap.
Topic Starter
Fair enough, it does show the actual pp it gives now. I'm still against the decimals though, since it clutters things too much.
Best solution would probably be title= whatever in the div so you can get a lot more information into a tooltip. That would make it so you could just have the pp numbers listed and then hover over for more detail on weightings, mods, etc.
Thanks for adding the weighted amounts!
Thanks for adding the weighted amounts!
I'm extremely confused about the ranking system. I mean, take rrtyui for example. He's #1 on The Quick Brown Fox yet it only gave him 275pp. His best performance is Saiya and that gave him 542pp. I mean, like dafaq?
newsflash: big black is not the hardest thing in existence
Newsflash: That wasn't the point.silmarilen wrote:
newsflash: big black is not the hardest thing in existence
so... what else would be the point?
It's a significantly more difficult map. Not to mention he's got like a 8 million lead...silmarilen wrote:
so... what else would be the point?
That's the point silmarilen addressed tho.
Remote Control on HDDT is harder to FC than Big Black Nomod.
Remote Control on HDDT is harder to FC than Big Black Nomod.
165 * 2 = 330 as opposed to 360.3 BPM on The Big Black. If you add in the sudden jumps and hidden it probably is a more difficult map, but that's subjective really. 7,802,730 point lead and 3.80% more accurate than HappyStick. The map has also been played much more than Remote Control. The PP system is horribly vague...Zare wrote:
That's the point silmarilen addressed tho.
Remote Control on HDDT is harder to FC than Big Black Nomod.
please, if you dont know what you're talking about, dont talk about it. just the fact that you think double time doubles the bpm already shows you dont, not to mention all the other flaws in your argument.
Yeah no I don't even
lol
lol
ppv2 doesn't take your lead into consideration .Even if rryui was second, third or last, it wouldn't matter. Also, take into consideration that rrtyui missed 3 times on big black, which greatly reduces his pp gained from the map.MPGHThunder wrote:
165 * 2 = 330 as opposed to 360.3 BPM on The Big Black. If you add in the sudden jumps and hidden it probably is a more difficult map, but that's subjective really. 7,802,730 point lead and 3.80% more accurate than HappyStick. The map has also been played much more than Remote Control. The PP system is horribly vague...Zare wrote:
That's the point silmarilen addressed tho.
Remote Control on HDDT is harder to FC than Big Black Nomod.
I obviously DON'T have a grasp of what I'm talking about, but that was apparent from the first post. So instead of giving me half-baked answers, how about you stop for a second and actually give me a concise answer instead of acting like I'm an idiot. OK? Thanks.silmarilen wrote:
please, if you dont know what you're talking about, dont talk about it. just the fact that you think double time doubles the bpm already shows you dont, not to mention all the other flaws in your argument.
ok then very well.
first of all, big black may be mapped at 360 bpm, but it plays like a 180 bpm map, so for all intents and purposes it is considered 180 bpm.
second of all, DT multiplies the bpm by 1.5x, not by 2x, so remote control DT would be 247.5.
ok now that that's out of the way lets move on to the next point
the score rrtyui got compared to someone else doesnt matter, all that matters is how difficult the map is according to the difficulty algorithm and rrtyui's combo/accuracy/amount of misses. so even if #2 had only 5 combo it still wouldnt make a difference to the amount of pp rrtyui would get. even if rrtyui was rank 4.000.000/4.000.000 it still wouldnt influence his pp at all
and then lets get on to the difficulty of the maps. as i already said, big black is not the hardest thing there is, i would look at it as an easier version of this map if it wasnt for the sliders
remote control has some fullscreen jumps (which are bigger than the ones on big black aswell) and adding DT makes it 247.5 bpm (thats a whole 67.5 more than big black, since we already agreed on that it's just 180 bpm). it also has a lot of triples and 1/2 notes at the start with difficult movement without much time for breathing. so yes, remote control is harder than big black
first of all, big black may be mapped at 360 bpm, but it plays like a 180 bpm map, so for all intents and purposes it is considered 180 bpm.
second of all, DT multiplies the bpm by 1.5x, not by 2x, so remote control DT would be 247.5.
ok now that that's out of the way lets move on to the next point
the score rrtyui got compared to someone else doesnt matter, all that matters is how difficult the map is according to the difficulty algorithm and rrtyui's combo/accuracy/amount of misses. so even if #2 had only 5 combo it still wouldnt make a difference to the amount of pp rrtyui would get. even if rrtyui was rank 4.000.000/4.000.000 it still wouldnt influence his pp at all
and then lets get on to the difficulty of the maps. as i already said, big black is not the hardest thing there is, i would look at it as an easier version of this map if it wasnt for the sliders
remote control has some fullscreen jumps (which are bigger than the ones on big black aswell) and adding DT makes it 247.5 bpm (thats a whole 67.5 more than big black, since we already agreed on that it's just 180 bpm). it also has a lot of triples and 1/2 notes at the start with difficult movement without much time for breathing. so yes, remote control is harder than big black
You have to understand that Big Black is effectively mapped like a 180 BPM map, not a 360 BPM map. The streams and sliderjumps are mapped 1/2 beats instead of 1/4 beats, which is usually the case. This is way easier to play than the Fullscreen circle jumps on Remote Control, which is 248 BPM with DT.
Just compare the replays and ask yourself which looks more impressive
Just compare the replays and ask yourself which looks more impressive
The Big Black is slower than Remote Control DT and has less aim strain than Remote Control DT. The Big Black doesn't play like a 360 bpm, it plays more like a 180 bpm. Score has nothing to do with how much pp you get also. The amount of contenders a map has (total map plays) has nothing to do with the amount of pp it gives either. Those are old methods to find how much pp a map gives. Remote Control DT is also 10.3 which gives a small bonus because it is over ar10, I don't know what the value for the bonus is. Remote Control DT is also OD10.3 which requires you to be more accurate than typical hardrock (od10). All of these things make Remote Control DT give more pp than The Big Black.MPGHThunder wrote:
I obviously DON'T have a grasp of what I'm talking about, but that was apparent from the first post. So instead of giving me half-baked answers, how about you stop for a second and actually give me a concise answer instead of acting like I'm an idiot. OK? Thanks.silmarilen wrote:
please, if you dont know what you're talking about, dont talk about it. just the fact that you think double time doubles the bpm already shows you dont, not to mention all the other flaws in your argument.
And Remote control DT has a much higher OD than big black.
And big black has lots of sliders compared to remote control.
And sliders are not used to calculate accuracy.
And big black has lots of sliders compared to remote control.
And sliders are not used to calculate accuracy.
Thanks, that's all I needed to know.silmarilen wrote:
ok then very well.
first of all, big black may be mapped at 360 bpm, but it plays like a 180 bpm map, so for all intents and purposes it is considered 180 bpm.
second of all, DT multiplies the bpm by 1.5x, not by 2x, so remote control DT would be 247.5.
ok now that that's out of the way lets move on to the next point
the score rrtyui got compared to someone else doesnt matter, all that matters is how difficult the map is according to the difficulty algorithm and rrtyui's combo/accuracy/amount of misses. so even if #2 had only 5 combo it still wouldnt make a difference to the amount of pp rrtyui would get. even if rrtyui was rank 4.000.000/4.000.000 it still wouldnt influence his pp at all
and then lets get on to the difficulty of the maps. as i already said, big black is not the hardest thing there is, i would look at it as an easier version of this map if it wasnt for the sliders
remote control has some fullscreen jumps (which are bigger than the ones on big black aswell) and adding DT makes it 247.5 bpm (thats a whole 67.5 more than big black, since we already agreed on that it's just 180 bpm). it also has a lot of triples and 1/2 notes at the start with difficult movement without much time for breathing. so yes, remote control is harder than big black
Hello, are sliderbreaks counted when calculating pp? Because i got a -1 run (with 2? sliderbreaks) on this map http://osu.ppy.sh/b/285549 with 98.5%, and I expected that play to be worth more than nothing..
Is the length bonus factor, when calculating the accuracy pp of a play, independent from the accuracy percentage?
For SS, the expected probability of hitting each hit correctly tends to 100% (perfection) when increasing the amount of circles
[expected in the sense that the (probability of hitting each circle correctly) makes it so the (probability of getting a rate of correctly hit circles equal or higher than the rate of correctly hit circles in the score calculated) is equal to a predetermined probability],
while for 95% rate of 300s, the probability tends to be only 95% (and the value comes closer to 95% more quickly than in the SS case).
Because of that, accuracy-wise, there isn't much difference between getting 96%acc in 200 circles and 300 circles, while the difference is more notable between a SS in 200 circles and 300 circles.
As a way to quantify the difference, here is a set of graphs comparing how much the Expected Unstable Rate changes when changing the amount of circles (with a formula based on the expected unstable rate formula I showed months ago, but this time accounting for the probability of getting 50's and MISSES; this new formula shows similar values with high accuracy, but more accurate values with low accuracy,the downside is that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to calculate: calculating only 140 points for the graphs took about 1 hour Made a new algorithm to calculate it's value much faster). Here is a sample of the 2 formulas in a graph varying accuracy with the other variables constant: http://i.imgur.com/6LdrKIg.png (The one with the lower values on low accuracy is the new formula).
All the graphs are calculated with OD10 (changing the OD doesn't make much difference in the graphs with high accuracy, since with high accuracy the prevalent hit window is the one for 300s, so changing from OD7 to OD10 just roughly halves the expected unstable rate).
In the X axis is the amount of circles, and in the Y axis is (Expected UR with 100 circles) / (Expected UR with X circles) (that way the influence of accuracy alone and OD is discarded from the graph). That way, a Y value of "2" means half the expected unstable rate compared to 100 circles.
The 2 sets have the following difference:
The first set sets the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) to 50% (that way, the accuracy corresponds to the median accuracy with only 1 try).
The second set tries to model the amount of expected retries a map would get based on the amount of circles: A map with 100 circles would be retried 108 times, with 200 circles half that amount, etc... (this assumes the player has the patience to play each map only a set amount of time, and that the amount of circles is directly proportional to the time each retry takes) This way maps that are more likely to get "fluke" accuracies caused by a lot of retries would give less (for example, a player who only has the skill needed to get 90% chance of hitting a 300 would eventually get a SS in a map with 30 circles if he retries a lot of times, but that would be practically impossible if the map has over 100 circles). If a map is replayed 50 times all with the same Unstable Rate, then the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) is equal to 1/(1+50) (this corresponds to the formula of the expected value of the lowest value obtained in a perfect die with infinite sides with values that range from 0 to 1). I know this is not the best way to model the amount of retries, but it is something.
First Set:
http://i.imgur.com/SaWoo9P.png
http://i.imgur.com/jPIsZa6.png
Second Set:
http://i.imgur.com/hgVcl5O.png
http://i.imgur.com/OrmhWu2.png
Blue: Graph for SS.
Purple: Graph for 99%acc
Brown: Graph for 95%acc
Green: Graph for 85%acc (95% and 85% graph lines overlap each other since they have very similar values)
As you can see, in the SS case, the amount of circles has a bigger impact compared to the other cases with lower accuracy. Also, the point where increasing the amount of circles doesn't change significantly the expected unstable rate anymore is set farther to the right of the X axis when the accuracy increases. For any accuracy inferior to 100%, there is an horizontal asymptote of the graphs, but for 100%accuracy, the Y value goes to infinity (since, with an infinite amount of circles, the expected UR to get 100%accuracy is 0).
For high accuracy on circles (Acc > 0.7, so the hit window of the 300 judgment is predominant), the value of the asymptote for the expected unstable rate is approximately:
(The asymptote is the same both for the cases with only 1 retry and several expected retries).
For SS, the expected probability of hitting each hit correctly tends to 100% (perfection) when increasing the amount of circles
[expected in the sense that the (probability of hitting each circle correctly) makes it so the (probability of getting a rate of correctly hit circles equal or higher than the rate of correctly hit circles in the score calculated) is equal to a predetermined probability],
while for 95% rate of 300s, the probability tends to be only 95% (and the value comes closer to 95% more quickly than in the SS case).
Because of that, accuracy-wise, there isn't much difference between getting 96%acc in 200 circles and 300 circles, while the difference is more notable between a SS in 200 circles and 300 circles.
As a way to quantify the difference, here is a set of graphs comparing how much the Expected Unstable Rate changes when changing the amount of circles (with a formula based on the expected unstable rate formula I showed months ago, but this time accounting for the probability of getting 50's and MISSES; this new formula shows similar values with high accuracy, but more accurate values with low accuracy,
All the graphs are calculated with OD10 (changing the OD doesn't make much difference in the graphs with high accuracy, since with high accuracy the prevalent hit window is the one for 300s, so changing from OD7 to OD10 just roughly halves the expected unstable rate).
In the X axis is the amount of circles, and in the Y axis is (Expected UR with 100 circles) / (Expected UR with X circles) (that way the influence of accuracy alone and OD is discarded from the graph). That way, a Y value of "2" means half the expected unstable rate compared to 100 circles.
The 2 sets have the following difference:
The first set sets the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) to 50% (that way, the accuracy corresponds to the median accuracy with only 1 try).
The second set tries to model the amount of expected retries a map would get based on the amount of circles: A map with 100 circles would be retried 108 times, with 200 circles half that amount, etc... (this assumes the player has the patience to play each map only a set amount of time, and that the amount of circles is directly proportional to the time each retry takes) This way maps that are more likely to get "fluke" accuracies caused by a lot of retries would give less (for example, a player who only has the skill needed to get 90% chance of hitting a 300 would eventually get a SS in a map with 30 circles if he retries a lot of times, but that would be practically impossible if the map has over 100 circles). If a map is replayed 50 times all with the same Unstable Rate, then the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) is equal to 1/(1+50) (this corresponds to the formula of the expected value of the lowest value obtained in a perfect die with infinite sides with values that range from 0 to 1). I know this is not the best way to model the amount of retries, but it is something.
First Set:
http://i.imgur.com/SaWoo9P.png
http://i.imgur.com/jPIsZa6.png
Second Set:
http://i.imgur.com/hgVcl5O.png
http://i.imgur.com/OrmhWu2.png
Blue: Graph for SS.
Purple: Graph for 99%acc
Brown: Graph for 95%acc
Green: Graph for 85%acc (95% and 85% graph lines overlap each other since they have very similar values)
As you can see, in the SS case, the amount of circles has a bigger impact compared to the other cases with lower accuracy. Also, the point where increasing the amount of circles doesn't change significantly the expected unstable rate anymore is set farther to the right of the X axis when the accuracy increases. For any accuracy inferior to 100%, there is an horizontal asymptote of the graphs, but for 100%accuracy, the Y value goes to infinity (since, with an infinite amount of circles, the expected UR to get 100%accuracy is 0).
For high accuracy on circles (Acc > 0.7, so the hit window of the 300 judgment is predominant), the value of the asymptote for the expected unstable rate is approximately:
[SilknoHearto]
dat information tho.Full Tablet wrote:
Is the length bonus factor, when calculating the accuracy pp of a play, independent from the accuracy percentage?
For SS, the expected probability of hitting each hit correctly tends to 100% (perfection) when increasing the amount of circles
[expected in the sense that the (probability of hitting each circle correctly) makes it so the (probability of getting a rate of correctly hit circles equal or higher than the rate of correctly hit circles in the score calculated) is equal to a predetermined probability],
while for 95% rate of 300s, the probability tends to be only 95% (and the value comes closer to 95% more quickly than in the SS case).
Because of that, accuracy-wise, there isn't much difference between getting 96%acc in 200 circles and 300 circles, while the difference is more notable between a SS in 200 circles and 300 circles.
As a way to quantify the difference, here is a set of graphs comparing how much the Expected Unstable Rate changes when changing the amount of circles (with a formula based on the expected unstable rate formula I showed months ago, but this time accounting for the probability of getting 50's and MISSES; this new formula shows similar values with high accuracy, but more accurate values with low accuracy, the downside is that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to calculate: calculating only 140 points for the graphs took about 1 hour). Here is a sample of the 2 formulas in a graph varying accuracy with the other variables constant: http://i.imgur.com/6LdrKIg.png (The one with the lower values on low accuracy is the new formula).
All the graphs are calculated with OD10 (changing the OD doesn't make much difference in the graphs with high accuracy, since with high accuracy the prevalent hit window is the one for 300s, so changing from OD7 to OD10 just roughly halves the expected unstable rate).
In the X axis is the amount of circles, and in the Y axis is (Expected UR with 100 circles) / (Expected UR with X circles) (that way the influence of accuracy alone and OD is discarded from the graph). That way, a Y value of "2" means half the expected unstable rate compared to 100 circles.
The 2 sets have the following difference:
The first set sets the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) to 50% (that way, the accuracy corresponds to the median accuracy with only 1 try).
The second set tries to model the amount of expected retries a map would get based on the amount of circles: A map with 100 circles would be retried 108 times, with 200 circles half that amount, etc... (this assumes the player has the patience to play each map only a set amount of time, and that the amount of circles is directly proportional to the time each retry takes) This way maps that are more likely to get "fluke" accuracies caused by a lot of retries would give less (for example, a player who only has the skill needed to get 90% chance of hitting a 300 would eventually get a SS in a map with 30 circles if he retries a lot of times, but that would be practically impossible if the map has over 100 circles). If a map is replayed 50 times all with the same Unstable Rate, then the (probability of getting the accuracy inputted in the formula, or more) with the (expected UR calculated) is equal to 1/(1+50) (this corresponds to the formula of the expected value of the lowest value obtained in a perfect die with infinite sides with values that range from 0 to 1). I know this is not the best way to model the amount of retries, but it is something.
First Set:
http://i.imgur.com/SaWoo9P.png
http://i.imgur.com/jPIsZa6.png
Second Set:
http://i.imgur.com/hgVcl5O.png
http://i.imgur.com/OrmhWu2.png
Blue: Graph for SS.
Purple: Graph for 99%acc
Brown: Graph for 95%acc
Green: Graph for 85%acc (95% and 85% graph lines overlap each other since they have very similar values)
As you can see, in the SS case, the amount of circles has a bigger impact compared to the other cases with lower accuracy. Also, the point where increasing the amount of circles doesn't change significantly the expected unstable rate anymore is set farther to the right of the X axis when the accuracy increases. For any accuracy inferior to 100%, there is an horizontal asymptote of the graphs, but for 100%accuracy, the Y value goes to infinity (since, with an infinite amount of circles, the expected UR to get 100%accuracy is 0).
For high accuracy on circles (Acc > 0.7, so the hit window of the 300 judgment is predominant), the value of the asymptote for the expected unstable rate is approximately:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/161787?m=0
I just want to ask to see whether or not this map gives a bit too much pp; CS4 AR9 OD7 with circle streams and triples, but is relatively short.
IMO it's giving a bit more than what is deserved, given that the circular streams only require a couple tries to get correct if you are already capable of doing 180BPM streams.
EDIT: I just want to add that I got 157pp with one missing combo (slider 100) and 96.34% acc. I would have thought that the extensively longer jump maps that have the same CS, OD, AR which I landed 99%+ acc on would be scored higher.
I just want to ask to see whether or not this map gives a bit too much pp; CS4 AR9 OD7 with circle streams and triples, but is relatively short.
IMO it's giving a bit more than what is deserved, given that the circular streams only require a couple tries to get correct if you are already capable of doing 180BPM streams.
EDIT: I just want to add that I got 157pp with one missing combo (slider 100) and 96.34% acc. I would have thought that the extensively longer jump maps that have the same CS, OD, AR which I landed 99%+ acc on would be scored higher.
I always felt like this map gave a little bit too much pp, I guess it's because of the long-ish spaced streams?
That's probably the reason, but I feel that it's still too short and too easy to get used to for the amount that it gives.
map length should not be an indicator for how much pp a map gives, perfect example being this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/20328
i personally think the map is you linked pretty hard to fc and worth the pp it gives.
i personally think the map is you linked pretty hard to fc and worth the pp it gives.
Soarezi
THIS gives a bit too much PPGoldenWolf wrote:
I always felt like this map gave a little bit too much pp, I guess it's because of the long-ish spaced streams?
I guess you're right, that was probably a poor thing to add on my part.silmarilen wrote:
map length should not be an indicator for how much pp a map gives, perfect example being this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/20328
i personally think the map is you linked pretty hard to fc and worth the pp it gives.
Yeah, I've noticed spaced stream maps are worth a ton of pp. Two more maps I've noticed along with that one are:GoldenWolf wrote:
I always felt like this map gave a little bit too much pp, I guess it's because of the long-ish spaced streams?
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/46218
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/28751
Look at the star ratings, they are definitely worth more than they should.
Gimme nightcore seems a little bit overrated yeah, but there are no spaced stream in rog-unlimitation though, the star rating there is fine because it has two 64 circles streams at 220bpm...
am I the only one who finds both of those maps incredibly hard compared to other maps worth more points simply because of jumps which are super easy?
Probably because you're 2gud at jumpsAqo wrote:
am I the only one who finds both of those maps incredibly hard compared to other maps worth more points simply because of jumps which are super easy?
I have seen rog-unlimitation in a lot of Top Performances, so it probably is overrated. Except for the 220bpm mashing there's no skill involved in fc'ing it anyway.
I know it's hard, but it has a star rating on par with like kokou no sousei and other maps that I think are more difficult without a doubt.GoldenWolf wrote:
Gimme nightcore seems a little bit overrated yeah, but there are no spaced stream in rog-unlimitation though, the star rating there is fine because it has two 64 circles streams at 220bpm...
They're not the same, kokou no sousei has fullscreen squares at 240bpm, rog-unlimitation deathstreams at 220.. not the same kind of difficulty at allRewben2 wrote:
I know it's hard, but it has a star rating on par with like kokou no sousei and other maps that I think are more difficult without a doubt.
I see what you mean, they are difficult in their own ways, do you really think unlimitation is nearly as hard as sousei? Sousei has no fc's (apart from you know who) and unlimitation has multiple HDHR scores, lol. I think there are very little players that would actually find unlimitation harder despite having a higher star rating.GoldenWolf wrote:
They're not the same, kokou no sousei has fullscreen squares at 240bpm, rog-unlimitation deathstreams at 220.. not the same kind of difficulty at allRewben2 wrote:
I know it's hard, but it has a star rating on par with like kokou no sousei and other maps that I think are more difficult without a doubt.
who?
I guess it's because it's easy to mash rog-unlimitation, and since people care more about speed than 240BPM AR9 fullscreen squares, teehee
I guess it's because it's easy to mash rog-unlimitation, and since people care more about speed than 240BPM AR9 fullscreen squares, teehee
On the topic of map length: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/339058 <- This map with DT is 22 seconds long, and gives 134 pp at 100% accuracy, which is way too farmable. Sure it has some decent-ish jumps, but you get used to them in a few retries. Is the pp gained from a map affected by the amount of hit objects logarithmically?
134pp is nothing, the map is star rating 2.23, i know maps with similar star rating that give close to 200pp *cough* https://osu.ppy.sh/b/112645 *cough*
Damn ponies and their pp. It seems as though shorter maps have way too much emphasis on accuracy, considering how easy it is to retry them until you get a better percentage.silmarilen wrote:
134pp is nothing, the map is star rating 2.23, i know maps with similar star rating that give close to 200pp *cough* https://osu.ppy.sh/b/112645 *cough*
I suggest you to read the pp wiki about accuracymcdoomfrag wrote:
Damn ponies and their pp. It seems as though shorter maps have way too much emphasis on accuracy, considering how easy it is to retry them until you get a better percentage.
Mind elaborating? I feel as though I'm missing something.GoldenWolf wrote:
I suggest you to read the pp wiki about accuracymcdoomfrag wrote:
Damn ponies and their pp. It seems as though shorter maps have way too much emphasis on accuracy, considering how easy it is to retry them until you get a better percentage.
accuracy points is calculated on the number of circles of a map and how high the OD is, it has nothing to do with the actual length of the map
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/227061
This map and similar ones are extremely underrated by the current system because what's the main challenge of the map is reading. I mean, the top 50 isn't even all FC (granted that's because of the 1/6 at the end but still).
Is there any chance of this getting improved at some point?
This map and similar ones are extremely underrated by the current system because what's the main challenge of the map is reading. I mean, the top 50 isn't even all FC (granted that's because of the 1/6 at the end but still).
Is there any chance of this getting improved at some point?
almost half of the pp from the map i linked comes from accuracy, purely because it's od8+dt, there are other sub 300combo maps that give similar acc score, boosting them up by tons when they arent actually hard mapsGoldenWolf wrote:
accuracy points is calculated on the number of circles of a map and how high the OD is, it has nothing to do with the actual length of the map
Other examples of this are https://osu.ppy.sh/b/27737&m=0 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/155691m, a lot of the difficulty is reading which the current system doesn't recognize at the moment. Tom said that he's still working on creating a satisfying algorithm for maps like these.Zare wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/227061
This map and similar ones are extremely underrated by the current system because what's the main challenge of the map is reading. I mean, the top 50 isn't even all FC (granted that's because of the 1/6 at the end but still).
Is there any chance of this getting improved at some point?
peppy's defense for making FL not give as much pp (at start of ppv2, granted, dunno how it's going to work now Tom behind the reigns) is because FL has to do more with memorization, which he thinks defeats the purpose of a rhythm game.
But current pp version IS v2TMoI wrote:
peppy's defense for making FL not give as much pp (during ppv2, granted, dunno how it's going to work now Tom behind the reigns) is because FL has to do more with memorization, which he thinks defeats the purpose of a rhythm game.
oopsGoldenWolf wrote:
But current pp version IS v2TMoI wrote:
peppy's defense for making FL not give as much pp (during ppv2, granted, dunno how it's going to work now Tom behind the reigns) is because FL has to do more with memorization, which he thinks defeats the purpose of a rhythm game.
I kinda meant prior to Tom's getting on board, that's just misinfo on my part ;-; will word properly
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/256819
this is fucking brutal to get good Acc on.
Frostmourne's 99% score on the map only gives him 117 pp. Acc difficulty isn't only determined by OD and amount of circles. When a song is this slow and still has so many friggin circles as opposed to sliders, it should get a huge bonus on acc pp imo.
this is fucking brutal to get good Acc on.
Frostmourne's 99% score on the map only gives him 117 pp. Acc difficulty isn't only determined by OD and amount of circles. When a song is this slow and still has so many friggin circles as opposed to sliders, it should get a huge bonus on acc pp imo.
Silynn's score on that song is the best
I know this may be kinda selfish to ask, but can someone put this on the wiki? I'm not 100% sure of where to put it. I was thinking about this and the only way to find it was to go back quite a bit of pages. This piece of info can be interesting to some players.Tom94 wrote:
I forgot to mention this on the wiki-page:
Every score gives a small base pp amount of 0.25, decreasing by a bit with every new highscore that you make. With 1000 highscores you get around 200pp and with 5000 around 400pp. The cap is 416.666pp at the moment, assuming infinitely many highscores are possible.
(pp gain = 0.25 * sum 0.9994^i, i=0 to amount of highscores)
This gets less and less relevant the higher your pp goes and is meant to both encourage playing more maps for the lower-level players and prevent big rank losses after making a new score at the lower ranks.
In the mid-high ranks it is pretty much irrelevant, since 99% of the people have enough highscores to be less than 50pp away from the cap.
And also, that small base pp can amount to way too many ranks. In my case, I need to click 18 times to show all my scores on my page and you have 50 scores showing when you first open it + 50 more from each click. That means I have 900-950 scores. If i just played easy/normal maps until I got closer to the cap I would jump from rank 2757 to 2050 or lower as of right now (something between 235 and 242 pp). I feel like this kind of jump is too huge, maybe you could put a hard cap on a lower amount of scores.
I'll just quickly do the math for you to show you just how inefficient that kind of "farming" would be:tfg50 wrote:
And also, that small base pp can amount to way too many ranks. In my case, I need to click 18 times to show all my scores on my page and you have 50 scores showing when you first open it + 50 more from each click. That means I have 900-950 scores. If i just played easy/normal maps until I got closer to the cap I would jump from rank 2757 to 2050 or lower as of right now (something between 235 and 242 pp). I feel like this kind of jump is too huge, maybe you could put a hard cap on a lower amount of scores.
Bonus pp at 950 scores (you): 0.25*(1-0.9994^950)/(1-0.9994) = 181 (rounded of course)
Bonus pp at 2000 scores (please imagine how long farming 1050 easy/normal scores would take): 0.25*(1-0.9994^2000)/(1-0.9994) = 291 (again, rounded)
So for ~1050 additional plays you would only get 110pp. Doesn't sound worth it to me. In fact, in the time it takes for you to farm that many scores, others will get actual good scores and surpass you again.
why do these 0108 songs give so little PP like only 160 more or less if only a few people can fc with 1 mod..? i think they should give like 250 or something lol
the accuracy is over 98% in case
the accuracy is over 98% in case
I believe It´s because:
1) They Were FC´d with 93% accuracy which lowers the amount of pp gain by alot, meaning that if it would have been a 99% acc score then the pp would probably be around 220 something.
2) probably most accurate guess... that wasn´t a full combo just an S with a decent accuracy. Probably got slider break at half song with 95% acc is my best guess.
I believe any questions on pp will be cleared further when the wiki is updated, until then we can just speculate(?
1) They Were FC´d with 93% accuracy which lowers the amount of pp gain by alot, meaning that if it would have been a 99% acc score then the pp would probably be around 220 something.
2) probably most accurate guess... that wasn´t a full combo just an S with a decent accuracy. Probably got slider break at half song with 95% acc is my best guess.
I believe any questions on pp will be cleared further when the wiki is updated, until then we can just speculate(?
Merged topic in case there is any confusion