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..
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,749
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
Because the only hard part about them is the length.iderekmc wrote:
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
I am curious if there is any plans to give a spin bonus at all. There are several maps where spinning fast is more important than accuracy and these performances should be awarded something. The faster you spin the harder it is to find you cursor when you come out of the spin. There is also the cases where there are notes very closely after the spinner which would make getting bonuses more risky.
Would anyone disagree that spinning fast is a skill and should be rewarded as such?
Would anyone disagree that spinning fast is a skill and should be rewarded as such?
I don't know any maps where you actually have to spin very fast to complete them with the exception of a Demetori song and that AugoEidEs song (dumb super long spinners). Also, losing your cursor during a spinner really only affects mouse users because of cursor drift, tablet users can use their muscle memory to hit the note with no issue. I may be wrong on this part, but isn't it against the mapping rules to put a note too soon after the spinner?TheVileOne wrote:
I am curious if there is any plans to give a spin bonus at all. There are several maps where spinning fast is more important than accuracy and these performances should be awarded something. The faster you spin the harder it is to find you cursor when you come out of the spin. There is also the cases where there are notes very closely after the spinner which would make getting bonuses more risky.
Would anyone disagree that spinning fast is a skill and should be rewarded as such?
I do think spinning fast is a skill, I know I don't have that skill because I can't spin faster than 400 even at my best, but I don't agree that it should be rewarded. Going past completion is a bonus in score, that should be enough. Going past completion should not award more pp just like being more accurate than OD10 requires will not award more pp.
It would be a minor bonus. I don't think it would hardly affect the map's overall rating in comparison with other maps. Consider scores where the only difference between them is the spinner bonus points. I think people that can spin faster should be given more points. They got a higher score with same accuracy/ mods. Their play should be considered more highly performed. It would also counteract small changes in accuracy due to the player getting a better score from a spinner bonus. For the sake of accuracy it must be counted.
all that matters for spinners is being able to get a 300, you already get punished with a 100 (and thus lower pp) if you cant spin fast enough.
being able to get more spinner bonus is like being able to get 60 unstable rate on an od6 map. it's cool and all but pointless and it shouldnt give you more pp.
being able to get more spinner bonus is like being able to get 60 unstable rate on an od6 map. it's cool and all but pointless and it shouldnt give you more pp.
What about unstable rates? I've seen people get SS's on maps with 120 unstable rates, and others SS with 70. Should the player with the 70 unstable rate be awarded more pp? They both did what was required of the map and achieved the SS, but one player did better and was not rewarded for it.TheVileOne wrote:
It would be a minor bonus. I don't think it would hardly affect the map's overall rating in comparison with other maps. Consider scores where the only difference between them is the spinner bonus points. I think people that can spin faster should be given more points. They got a higher score with same accuracy/ mods. Their play should be considered more highly performed. It would also counteract small changes in accuracy due to the player getting a better score from a spinner bonus. For the sake of accuracy it must be counted.
In a perfect world I would agree that would be considered as well. But in reality pp must be consider for the OD of a map. Also unstable rate doesn't affect score. Obviously peppy felt spinners deserved to have bonuses. Taiko doesn't allow you to get a bonus off the spinners. CTB should certainly deserve a small bonus as well.
There are many maps with tied mod combinations that only differ due to spinner bonus. We should be differentiating each tied play, because some people can get bonuses many thousands more than other players, especially on longer spinners where endurance is concerned. Why should a deserved number 1 play on a map not be considered the best performance compared to the several dozen other people who got less points?
There are many maps with tied mod combinations that only differ due to spinner bonus. We should be differentiating each tied play, because some people can get bonuses many thousands more than other players, especially on longer spinners where endurance is concerned. Why should a deserved number 1 play on a map not be considered the best performance compared to the several dozen other people who got less points?
Just because peppy felt that spinners should have score bonus doesn't mean they should be given pp also. Unless unstable rates are accounted for I cannot agree that spinners should be given a bonus. In my opinion, a lower unstable rate play is much better than a higher scoring song because of a spinner bonus.TheVileOne wrote:
In a perfect world I would agree that would be considered as well. But in reality pp must be consider for the OD of a map. Also unstable rate doesn't affect score. Obviously peppy felt spinners deserved to have bonuses. Taiko doesn't allow you to get a bonus off the spinners. CTB should certainly deserve a small bonus as well.
There are many maps with tied mod combinations that only differ due to spinner bonus. We should be differentiating each tied play, because some people can get bonuses many thousands more than other players, especially on longer spinners where endurance is concerned. Why should a deserved number 1 play on a map not be considered the best performance compared to the several dozen other people who got less points?
It should be given pp because of several reasons.
1. It's a skill, and an integrated part of playing. There is no argument that can be made that will make me believe otherwise that someone spinning at 470 SPM is performing equally well to someone spinning at 300 SPM.
2. It affects score. A player with a higher score due to something that requires skill should be awarded something even if that something is very marginal. I don't see this value being very high, at least for sane spinning SPMs. If someone averages near what osu! can get for a max spin, then a point given per spinner is reasonable. Given that 1 mod added gives more than that, it would work out. (Obviously the value would change based on length of spinner).
3. At the rate most players spin the bonus would probably be less than 1 pp per spinner and close to nothing near the SPM considered easy to obtain given the OD.
4. Makes beating a score with a better spin rewarding.
5. Gives more points to Incognito, one of the best spinners in osu! Check this map. Adding HardRock isn't enough to take the number one spot. There are people in top 50 who get more points than four mod plays. Spinning ability is certainly more impressive in this map than playing it with all mods.
6. Removes point ceiling on maps. An SS can be worth more points with a better spin.
1. It's a skill, and an integrated part of playing. There is no argument that can be made that will make me believe otherwise that someone spinning at 470 SPM is performing equally well to someone spinning at 300 SPM.
2. It affects score. A player with a higher score due to something that requires skill should be awarded something even if that something is very marginal. I don't see this value being very high, at least for sane spinning SPMs. If someone averages near what osu! can get for a max spin, then a point given per spinner is reasonable. Given that 1 mod added gives more than that, it would work out. (Obviously the value would change based on length of spinner).
3. At the rate most players spin the bonus would probably be less than 1 pp per spinner and close to nothing near the SPM considered easy to obtain given the OD.
4. Makes beating a score with a better spin rewarding.
5. Gives more points to Incognito, one of the best spinners in osu! Check this map. Adding HardRock isn't enough to take the number one spot. There are people in top 50 who get more points than four mod plays. Spinning ability is certainly more impressive in this map than playing it with all mods.
6. Removes point ceiling on maps. An SS can be worth more points with a better spin.
mmmmm thats what i was thinkingjesus1412 wrote:
Because the only hard part about them is the length.iderekmc wrote:
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
Separate points gained from hitobjects and average the remaining points based on total points possible off the spinners. It wouldn't be as accurate as per spinner data, but those who spin large spin large on all the spinners and would still get some form of a bonus. It would be unfortunate if you could not separate score associated with spinner bonus from score associated with regular hitobjects.
That is impossible. The system can only read how many 300/100/50/miss you got, but not at which part of the map those actually happened - so there is no way to calculate hit object score. A 1x100 score that had its 100 right at the beginning will beat a 1x100 score where you messed up at the end even if the latter score had way superior spinning.
peppy is all about future proofing his game. This sure was an oversight.
Anyways even if it only affects newer plays it would be good. ._.
Anyways even if it only affects newer plays it would be good. ._.
I have one question. How can I get bigger rank after I've improved my old record? I mean yes if the map is easy I shouldn't get anything but how can I get worse by improving my plays?
That means that people passed your rank and when you beat one of your personal bests your rank updates. If you spend 30 seconds looking on the other threads about ranking you can find that answer. You don't even need to use the seach thingy.Honza wrote:
I have one question. How can I get bigger rank after I've improved my old record? I mean yes if the map is easy I shouldn't get anything but how can I get worse by improving my plays?
Also, keep in mind that sometimes when you get a higher combo (which is the same as more score) but end up messing on the acc, that play might be worth less pp depending on the acc/map. Higher OD = Acc means more.
No one cares about spinning. It's really a shitty skill and it shouldn't be rewarded much, any random crap player can outspin a lot of top players if they try.TheVileOne wrote:
It should be given pp because of several reasons.
1. It's a skill, and an integrated part of playing. There is no argument that can be made that will make me believe otherwise that someone spinning at 470 SPM is performing equally well to someone spinning at 300 SPM.
2. It affects score. A player with a higher score due to something that requires skill should be awarded something even if that something is very marginal. I don't see this value being very high, at least for sane spinning SPMs. If someone averages near what osu! can get for a max spin, then a point given per spinner is reasonable. Given that 1 mod added gives more than that, it would work out. (Obviously the value would change based on length of spinner).
3. At the rate most players spin the bonus would probably be less than 1 pp per spinner and close to nothing near the SPM considered easy to obtain given the OD.
4. Makes beating a score with a better spin rewarding.
5. Gives more points to Incognito, one of the best spinners in osu! Check this map. Adding HardRock isn't enough to take the number one spot. There are people in top 50 who get more points than four mod plays. Spinning ability is certainly more impressive in this map than playing it with all mods.
6. Removes point ceiling on maps. An SS can be worth more points with a better spin.
I think being higher in scoreboard + ability to pass some high drain maps is enough of an award.
If you need a certain level of spinning to pass a map that map isn't worth playing. Noone should play maps with high drain because they are good at spinning. That will be a reward not taken by pretty much any player.
Is drain even considered at all?
Is drain even considered at all?
afaik, ppv2 rates how hard it is to FC a map, not to pass it, so I don't think HP drain is consideredTheVileOne wrote:
Is drain even considered at all?
Plz, #8 disagrees.TheVileOne wrote:
If you need a certain level of spinning to pass a map that map isn't worth playing. Noone should play maps with high drain because they are good at spinning. That will be a reward not taken by pretty much any player.
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/24611
^Nice find. Although unless he plans to be much more accurate, then that performance isn't worth nearly as much as the Hidden players. It's not worth the effort, especially since they have the same score modifier. He could play with hidden and perform better with less effort. Spinners are worth less in Hard Rock as well making it even less of an incentive to use Hard Rock versus hidden as a spinner).
I think the reason why pro players aren't great spinners is because they conserve their stamina for the streams and other sections of the maps. If there was a pro that was a great spinner and a great streamer and could apply both to a map, then that would be a much more impressive performance than one who did the same thing but barely exerted any effort to complete the spin.
If we had more pro players capable of challenging rrty or cookiezi scores, then I think spinning would become much more important to the pro community, because it actually matters. Why should pros care about spinning if the score they get is determined by the number of 100s in the song rather than how fast they spin? I think a lot of pros treat spinners like break time and a map will instantly become more demanding if they were required to actually exert effort during these periods.
The real question here is how much more energy does a vigorous spin take compare to a non-vigorous spin. How much further can a pro stream by not vigorously spinning? Some pros I question whether they even know of to spin to begin with. I've seen them spin so slow that they get a 100 on the spinner. Is it some sort of contest to see how slow one can spin among the pro community?
I think the reason why pro players aren't great spinners is because they conserve their stamina for the streams and other sections of the maps. If there was a pro that was a great spinner and a great streamer and could apply both to a map, then that would be a much more impressive performance than one who did the same thing but barely exerted any effort to complete the spin.
If we had more pro players capable of challenging rrty or cookiezi scores, then I think spinning would become much more important to the pro community, because it actually matters. Why should pros care about spinning if the score they get is determined by the number of 100s in the song rather than how fast they spin? I think a lot of pros treat spinners like break time and a map will instantly become more demanding if they were required to actually exert effort during these periods.
The real question here is how much more energy does a vigorous spin take compare to a non-vigorous spin. How much further can a pro stream by not vigorously spinning? Some pros I question whether they even know of to spin to begin with. I've seen them spin so slow that they get a 100 on the spinner. Is it some sort of contest to see how slow one can spin among the pro community?
Spinners shouldn't give pp because they don't require rhythm or aim at all, they're pretty much a break time in the map and no cares about them
The purpose of spinners is mainly to untie SS scores, which isn't relevant when players just add more mods to get more impressive scores with high speed, aim and reading demanding skills rather than grabbing a few thousands points from an element that has barely a place in a rhythm game
The purpose of spinners is mainly to untie SS scores, which isn't relevant when players just add more mods to get more impressive scores with high speed, aim and reading demanding skills rather than grabbing a few thousands points from an element that has barely a place in a rhythm game
Stop saying no one. That's like saying no one cares about number 1 once someone SS ranks it with all mods. Most people who care about spinning don't care about streaming. I guess the same is also true, because of your attitude.
Anyways I am hardly arguing for it's inclusion anymore. I've already stated why it is a skill. Skill doesn't necessarily require rhythm. It would hardly affect the ranks, especially for songs that pros play. I don't understand this bias towards how people get pp in songs that pros don't even play. I want my pp system to be affected based on anything that affects gameplay.
If it affects gameplay, then it affects the difficulty. If it does not affect gameplay then it cannot affect the difficulty. All things that affect the difficulty should be considered in a pp related system.
Anyways I am hardly arguing for it's inclusion anymore. I've already stated why it is a skill. Skill doesn't necessarily require rhythm. It would hardly affect the ranks, especially for songs that pros play. I don't understand this bias towards how people get pp in songs that pros don't even play. I want my pp system to be affected based on anything that affects gameplay.
If it affects gameplay, then it affects the difficulty. If it does not affect gameplay then it cannot affect the difficulty. All things that affect the difficulty should be considered in a pp related system.
But spinning is a skill that isn't relevant in a rhythm game
I don't see why it should be considered in the pp calculation, I want pp to rate how good I am at this circle clicking rhythm game, not how good I am at drawing circles as fast as possible without caring about the rhythm aspect
I don't see why it should be considered in the pp calculation, I want pp to rate how good I am at this circle clicking rhythm game, not how good I am at drawing circles as fast as possible without caring about the rhythm aspect
It obviously wouldn't affect you. I mean who is purposefully trying to grind out every last pp a song is worth? I have tried to state that the amount it would award would be small (probably less than 1 pp) unless you are spinning near the bonus that auto is getting for a spin. Add weight to this and the amount added would be barely anything at a pro level rank. When you get down to the casual level rank, fractions of a pp are worth more.
I mean the pp system is already adding pp for each new map completion regardless of performance. Do you think that this aspect of pp is not boosting your rank by an unknown amount based on your playcount? How do you know where you actually stand in terms of people with different play counts. pp is already inaccurate and this would make it slightly more accurate, favoring people who have number 1s and not necessarily in maps that pros care about.
It's going to require per object hit data anyways. If Tom ever implements per object pp calculations then I expect this to be added as well. This may not be for awhile. This would require everyone to have to replay their scores to get the correct amount of pp. This would severely affect some pros.
I mean the pp system is already adding pp for each new map completion regardless of performance. Do you think that this aspect of pp is not boosting your rank by an unknown amount based on your playcount? How do you know where you actually stand in terms of people with different play counts. pp is already inaccurate and this would make it slightly more accurate, favoring people who have number 1s and not necessarily in maps that pros care about.
It's going to require per object hit data anyways. If Tom ever implements per object pp calculations then I expect this to be added as well. This may not be for awhile. This would require everyone to have to replay their scores to get the correct amount of pp. This would severely affect some pros.
It's not boosting anyone's rank since we all have this (very) small bonus
And I don't think/see how this would make the system any more accurate, having a 1st isn't the most accurate representative way of someone's skill when ranked score is already flawed (hello HD FL over HD HR / HD DT)
And I don't think/see how this would make the system any more accurate, having a 1st isn't the most accurate representative way of someone's skill when ranked score is already flawed (hello HD FL over HD HR / HD DT)
Shouldn't HD FL be valued the same as HD DT?
I agree that Hard rock is very underrated in some maps score-wise. I believe that tied scores that are worth more pp should be submitted. It's debatable whether other cases where there is a conflict between how much a play is worth and how much points it has should be considered. I don't think this falls into the same boat as spinning harder requires more effort which reduces ones ability to play the map in general.
Eh... the difference would just be a representation of the extra effort taken to achieve a better score. Spinners were not intended to be treated as break time.
It would be more accurate in that it would consider something that affects gameplay and difficulty. It is not accurate to treat the level of effort required to clear a spinner as static. A person who spins very hard will be more likely to combo break than someone who doesn't. It takes more stamina to take a number 1 rank than it does to just SS in a map where there is an SS all mods. The difference needs to be considered, because just the fact that mods were played is not enough to correctly calculate performance.
I agree that Hard rock is very underrated in some maps score-wise. I believe that tied scores that are worth more pp should be submitted. It's debatable whether other cases where there is a conflict between how much a play is worth and how much points it has should be considered. I don't think this falls into the same boat as spinning harder requires more effort which reduces ones ability to play the map in general.
Eh... the difference would just be a representation of the extra effort taken to achieve a better score. Spinners were not intended to be treated as break time.
It would be more accurate in that it would consider something that affects gameplay and difficulty. It is not accurate to treat the level of effort required to clear a spinner as static. A person who spins very hard will be more likely to combo break than someone who doesn't. It takes more stamina to take a number 1 rank than it does to just SS in a map where there is an SS all mods. The difference needs to be considered, because just the fact that mods were played is not enough to correctly calculate performance.
TheVileOne wrote:
Shouldn't HD FL be valued the same as HD DT?
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/43003
It's easier to FL that map than it is to DT it, that is what he meant.
No I'm pretty sure he means that hd and hd combined give less combo multiplier than fl hd, which I think is true (someone correct me?)Mathsma wrote:
TheVileOne wrote:
Shouldn't HD FL be valued the same as HD DT?
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/43003
It's easier to FL that map than it is to DT it, that is what he meant.
hd and hd? If you meant HD DT then no, the multiplier is the same.jesus1412 wrote:
No I'm pretty sure he means that hd and hd combined give less combo multiplier than fl hd, which I think is true (someone correct me?)
A person who spins very hard will be more likely to combo break than someone who doesn't. It takes more stamina to take a number 1 rank than it does to just SS in a map where there is an SS all mods. The difference needs to be considered, because just the fact that mods were played is not enough to correctly calculate performance.This is pure rubbish right there. Why should it be considered? Because you tried hard spinners and got a bit more sweaty? People still do it even when #1 doesn't matter in PP. As I said, they are #1 (or just the best with given mods) and it's enough of a reward. I'd even say it's exactly what people do want when they engage in a spinner war. It's for sure not a way of saying "I'm better".
Seriously, spinners are not important and everyone, who has some knowledge about the competitive-like side of this game, knows it. Yes, everyone.
Hi. I'm a person who spins 450+. I doubt it takes much more energy than a lazy spin.TheVileOne wrote:
I think the reason why pro players aren't great spinners is because they conserve their stamina for the streams and other sections of the maps. If there was a pro that was a great spinner and a great streamer and could apply both to a map, then that would be a much more impressive performance than one who did the same thing but barely exerted any effort to complete the spin.
If we had more pro players capable of challenging rrty or cookiezi scores, then I think spinning would become much more important to the pro community, because it actually matters. Why should pros care about spinning if the score they get is determined by the number of 100s in the song rather than how fast they spin? I think a lot of pros treat spinners like break time and a map will instantly become more demanding if they were required to actually exert effort during these periods.
The real question here is how much more energy does a vigorous spin take compare to a non-vigorous spin. How much further can a pro stream by not vigorously spinning? Some pros I question whether they even know of to spin to begin with. I've seen them spin so slow that they get a 100 on the spinner. Is it some sort of contest to see how slow one can spin among the pro community?
Even if it does, your aiming hand is not your streaming hand. How much energy you use spinning has zero effect on your streaming stamina.
Spinners are not important. The only situation you should ever care about spinners in is if you want #1s on [easy] difficulties or want to pass this map on HR
Meh. It's true that it wont affect streaming speed, but it does affect aim, especially in high retry maps. Unless you are consistent enough to FC something within a small amount of tries or split your attempts over a longer period of time, there is only so many times you can spin a long spinner in one sitting before you become unable to perform complex movements. This assumes the spinner is not at the end of the map.
There's only so many times I can play https://osu.ppy.sh/s/25 before I need to rest and I'm not even spinning nearly as fast as some spinners. Spinning harder does affect my aim afterwards, because I am a mouse user and my hand gets tense after a fast spin. I could spin more slowly and my hand would not tense up. Stamina certainly becomes an issue on really long spinners.
Also notes close after the spinner make it more risky to spin faster. It's much easier to spin like an average spinner than to go into a tight circle around the center like tablet players do or flying around the corners like mouse players do.
I've told you how I feel pp should be calculated. If Tom agrees that it isn't worth the trouble, then I will not cry fowl. I have a different idea about what it should value and nothing can be said that will change my opinions. I am not going to rally people in support for my ideas. Feel free to critique it as you will. I know what adds difficulty for me and no one is going to tell me that it doesn't add difficulty or affects difficulty positively or negatively. That is simply a wrong statement.
There's only so many times I can play https://osu.ppy.sh/s/25 before I need to rest and I'm not even spinning nearly as fast as some spinners. Spinning harder does affect my aim afterwards, because I am a mouse user and my hand gets tense after a fast spin. I could spin more slowly and my hand would not tense up. Stamina certainly becomes an issue on really long spinners.
Also notes close after the spinner make it more risky to spin faster. It's much easier to spin like an average spinner than to go into a tight circle around the center like tablet players do or flying around the corners like mouse players do.
I've told you how I feel pp should be calculated. If Tom agrees that it isn't worth the trouble, then I will not cry fowl. I have a different idea about what it should value and nothing can be said that will change my opinions. I am not going to rally people in support for my ideas. Feel free to critique it as you will. I know what adds difficulty for me and no one is going to tell me that it doesn't add difficulty or affects difficulty positively or negatively. That is simply a wrong statement.
Topic Starter
It is impossible to find out how good someone has spun without per-hitobject data. If it ever happens there will be a small bonus for spinning well, but it is certain that it will never happen to old scores retroactively. It's simply impossible to recover that data for scores without replays and even the ones with replays would have subtle bugs.
To summarize: A spinner bonus can't possibly happen right now in a fair way, therefore it won't. Sorry.
To summarize: A spinner bonus can't possibly happen right now in a fair way, therefore it won't. Sorry.
i think some maps are harder but the star diff for that is lower, why
Some maps, such as the 0108 maps, rely on reading and difficult patterns. The current system can't rate how difficult patterns are or how hard a map is to read due to some limitations, so the end result is that those maps are undervalued. There are also some other issues with the system, but that is probably the one that is causing the lower star rating for most maps. Tom would like to add that into the rating system but he can't at the moment, whenever he can he will.- D a s z x - wrote:
i think some maps are harder but the star diff for that is lower, why
If it's much easier to do it that way... why not just do it then? You're clearly either making things harder for yourself, or just don't spin enough. Seriously, even if it's something completely useless, you will improve if you practice. People just don't work on spinners as much, so most stay within the 350-450 range because that's enough to pass OD10 spinners. If you're missing the note afterwards, just remember where the note is and start moving there a bit earlier. It's really not as hard as you make it sound.TheVileOne wrote:
There's only so many times I can play https://osu.ppy.sh/s/25 before I need to rest and I'm not even spinning nearly as fast as some spinners. Spinning harder does affect my aim afterwards, because I am a mouse user and my hand gets tense after a fast spin. I could spin more slowly and my hand would not tense up. Stamina certainly becomes an issue on really long spinners.
Also notes close after the spinner make it more risky to spin faster. It's much easier to spin like an average spinner than to go into a tight circle around the center like tablet players do or flying around the corners like mouse players do.
Don't reply with something like "if you're gonna go for 1000 more points". Those 1000 points aren't relevant in high-end maps, and if you have trouble spinning on low-end maps that's just your problem because clearly all the other [Easy] [Normal] players can do it with ease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's what Mathsma said, and there are also maps that are a bit overrated (Koigokoro), but nothing can be perfect. The system is usually pretty darn accurate.- D a s z x - wrote:
i think some maps are harder but the star diff for that is lower, why
It could also be that you find one of streams/jumps easier than the other, so a map filled with the one you find harder would seem more difficult.
koigokoro is overrated as much as any other map is overrated with DT
hd hr on that map kpielak wrote:
you guys obviously haven't seen this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/42234
So what about this map? It's just a troll for those who somehow can't spin. But bear in mind that 90% of players can spin incredibly fast (enough to past augoeides or desire dream) and nobody apart from newbs finds it really impressive.
In overall, those kinds of maps are more like DRAIN hard, not SPINNER hard. We're talking about situation where player x has better score than player y because of the spinner. And according to Vile player x should gain more PP for that. I don't need to comment on this idea, I guess.
In overall, those kinds of maps are more like DRAIN hard, not SPINNER hard. We're talking about situation where player x has better score than player y because of the spinner. And according to Vile player x should gain more PP for that. I don't need to comment on this idea, I guess.
Drain is a dumb reason to fail a map under any circumstance. I was only saying that anything that affects difficulty negatively or positively should affect pp. If you say it makes it easier then maps should be worth less pp. I just don't feel like they should be considered like they are break time there when they clearly are more than that.
Also when I made the suggestion I thought that you could figure out the bonus that one could get from the map. The cons slightly outweigh the pros now that it absolutely must require new information to submitted instead of existing plays.
Also when I made the suggestion I thought that you could figure out the bonus that one could get from the map. The cons slightly outweigh the pros now that it absolutely must require new information to submitted instead of existing plays.
I don't like how I can lose pp by using a mod and getting higher score but lower accuracy. I wouldn't mind just not getting pp but I don't wanna use mods if I'll lose pp unless I work back up to the same accuracy as before.
This has already been discussed multiple times. There is currently no way around this issue.Jean-Christophe wrote:
I don't like how I can lose pp by using a mod and getting higher score but lower accuracy. I wouldn't mind just not getting pp but I don't wanna use mods if I'll lose pp unless I work back up to the same accuracy as before.
Make mod usage worth more. Easy fix.mcdoomfrag wrote:
This has already been discussed multiple times. There is currently no way around this issue.Jean-Christophe wrote:
I don't like how I can lose pp by using a mod and getting higher score but lower accuracy. I wouldn't mind just not getting pp but I don't wanna use mods if I'll lose pp unless I work back up to the same accuracy as before.
I would say that there's a limit to how much accuracy one should lose though. If you're getting double digit 100s then obviously this will affect your pp count greatly. There is no preventing a terrible performance with an added mod overwriting a good performance.
You know damn well that finding a good balance between not making mods useless without giving them too much reward is a rather complex and subjective solution. Even so, what I meant in that post was aimed more-so towards the notion of being able to disregard your score so that you don't lose PP, or something along those lines. The servers can only store your top score because of the way the system works and has always worked, so Tom94 can only work with that saved score.TheVileOne wrote:
Make mod usage worth more. Easy fix.
Topic Starter
Mod for at least HardRock and DoubleTime will likely never be adjusted manually. That is, because they are literally treated equally to nomod scores, just with the mods' effects applied.TheVileOne wrote:
Make mod usage worth more. Easy fix.
I would say that there's a limit to how much accuracy one should lose though. If you're getting double digit 100s then obviously this will affect your pp count greatly. There is no preventing a terrible performance with an added mod overwriting a good performance.
If anything is at fault, then the algorithm for scaling the wrong way.
Compare previous score's pp with new score's pp and use the higher value???mcdoomfrag wrote:
This has already been discussed multiple times. There is currently no way around this issue.Jean-Christophe wrote:
I don't like how I can lose pp by using a mod and getting higher score but lower accuracy. I wouldn't mind just not getting pp but I don't wanna use mods if I'll lose pp unless I work back up to the same accuracy as before.
If this is supposed to be an indication of skill then there's no reason to assume a player got worse for having his/her score overwritten with one of lower pp value...
If new pp value is smaller than current pp value for some map, don't change the pp. That's one line of code. Seems like common sense to me to make it work that way.
Only data you need is pp obtained and pp for the same map for the same player which looks like it's stored on server.
Maybe there can be a disconnect between pp given for a map and top score saved but that doesn't really matter.
I agree, i feel somewhat dissapointed at being unable to play HR, Hidden, DT or any combination of them, previously a 92% HR HD fc was worth way more than a 98% nomod FC - now it's not only worth less, but it will overwrite the score and take away PP in a way that prevents you from ever getting it back. Everyone that i know who plays the game at a decent level feels somewhat cheated by this - nobody likes to get 150pp and then overwrite it with a 130pp score and be unable to get their 150pp back - at the VERY least, if there is no possible workaround, let us delete the score and re-play to score again!
I think this is a pretty basic and important flaw in one of the key features of the game we all love, so i'm sad to see it unfixed for months
osu plz <3
I think this is a pretty basic and important flaw in one of the key features of the game we all love, so i'm sad to see it unfixed for months
osu plz <3
Topic Starter
No. Please don't just assume things without reading the discussion.Jean-Christophe wrote:
Compare previous score's pp with new score's pp and use the higher value???
If this is supposed to be an indication of skill then there's no reason to assume a player got worse for having his/her score overwritten with one of lower pp value...
If new pp value is smaller than current pp value for some map, don't change the pp. That's one line of code. Seems like common sense to me to make it work that way.
Only data you need is pp obtained and pp for the same map for the same player which looks like it's stored on server.
Maybe there can be a disconnect between pp given for a map and top score saved but that doesn't really matter.
The simple argument against your proposal is, that whenever the algorithm is changed all the scores' pp values need to be recomputed - which is impossible without actually storing all the most giving scores. Before you propose just storing the most-giving pp score per map, please read the discussion about it containing the arguments against it.
The most optimal solution would be storing mod-specific highscores. Until that happens there won't be a feasible fix.
Just gonna drop some feelings out here real quick: I think deathstreams are incredibly overrated. So many maps contain relatively easy long streams and provide insane amounts of pp from them. It'd be nice to see faster streams rewarded more and longer ones rewarded less (hopefully this will balance out for long fast streams). At the moment fast stream provide barely any amount of pp compated to longer streams(say a few 270bpm 12 note streams vs a 40 note 220bpm stream).
To add to this, I find large jumps to be rewarded too greatly while very fast short jumps are underrated. Half screen 300bpm jumps should be valued as much as full screen 230bpm jumps imo, especially when in rapid succession for relatively large periods of time.
It also seems that the difficulty increase/decrease from the size of hit circles is overrated. Large hit circles seem to help more than the current system thinks while smaller hit circles make the map a fair deal harder.
My final point is the scaling of pp with map length. The system currently seems to scale penalties for combo based on how far from a full combo you are and amount of misses in total, this is kinda frustrating because it means that full-combos on a 1200 combo map are worth as much as a slightly easier 500 combo map. There should be a large reward for comboing longer maps and less of a penalty for missing on them (it seems strange to me that a 900 combo on a map with 1200 max combo awards LESS pp than a map of equal difficulty and 500 max combo with an fc).
To add to this, I find large jumps to be rewarded too greatly while very fast short jumps are underrated. Half screen 300bpm jumps should be valued as much as full screen 230bpm jumps imo, especially when in rapid succession for relatively large periods of time.
It also seems that the difficulty increase/decrease from the size of hit circles is overrated. Large hit circles seem to help more than the current system thinks while smaller hit circles make the map a fair deal harder.
My final point is the scaling of pp with map length. The system currently seems to scale penalties for combo based on how far from a full combo you are and amount of misses in total, this is kinda frustrating because it means that full-combos on a 1200 combo map are worth as much as a slightly easier 500 combo map. There should be a large reward for comboing longer maps and less of a penalty for missing on them (it seems strange to me that a 900 combo on a map with 1200 max combo awards LESS pp than a map of equal difficulty and 500 max combo with an fc).
I don't know as much about the long streams vs. fast streams since I'm not much of a speed player, but I definitely think smaller hitcircles and longer maps need to be rewarded much more.
I understand how the pp system currently accounts for smaller hitcircles, and that increasing your area is just like playing larger hitcircles, etc. But I can say in practice, it definitely isn't working like that. With how large the screen is, you can only make your area so big, and playing smaller circles requires more steady hands and better aim than the system makes it out to need due to how players snap. The difficulty gap is much more evident in CS6/CS7 maps + HR where aim is super hard but the aim tp is not very high, but I still think CS5+HR needs to be rewarded much more too. As a HDHR player, I've grown to dismiss CS5 maps as pp maps whenever I see them because they're always so much harder than CS4 maps that give the same amount of pp. I'm not sure exactly how to go about it so that the algorithm for it "makes sense", but I definitely think the scaling for points should be higher than the scaling for the circles themselves.
And as for longer maps, I've found that they generally do give lower pp than they deserve because of how much longer it takes to full combo them if you have some given percentage chance to miss at any point in the map. I mean, if you have a 1/10 chance at FCing a 500 combo map, you would ideally have a 1/100 chance at FCing a 1000 combo map, which means it would take on average 10 times as long. Obviously, if the map is really easy to FC, then it will take on average less than twice as long, but those maps won't give much pp anyway. Nerves are also a much bigger factor on longer maps. I don't think the map length scaling needs to be massive, but I think it should be at least noticeable.
I understand how the pp system currently accounts for smaller hitcircles, and that increasing your area is just like playing larger hitcircles, etc. But I can say in practice, it definitely isn't working like that. With how large the screen is, you can only make your area so big, and playing smaller circles requires more steady hands and better aim than the system makes it out to need due to how players snap. The difficulty gap is much more evident in CS6/CS7 maps + HR where aim is super hard but the aim tp is not very high, but I still think CS5+HR needs to be rewarded much more too. As a HDHR player, I've grown to dismiss CS5 maps as pp maps whenever I see them because they're always so much harder than CS4 maps that give the same amount of pp. I'm not sure exactly how to go about it so that the algorithm for it "makes sense", but I definitely think the scaling for points should be higher than the scaling for the circles themselves.
And as for longer maps, I've found that they generally do give lower pp than they deserve because of how much longer it takes to full combo them if you have some given percentage chance to miss at any point in the map. I mean, if you have a 1/10 chance at FCing a 500 combo map, you would ideally have a 1/100 chance at FCing a 1000 combo map, which means it would take on average 10 times as long. Obviously, if the map is really easy to FC, then it will take on average less than twice as long, but those maps won't give much pp anyway. Nerves are also a much bigger factor on longer maps. I don't think the map length scaling needs to be massive, but I think it should be at least noticeable.
i dont think high cs is that underrated.
this map is worth 80+ aim tp with hd dt only because of the cs, the map itself is a piece of cake
this map is worth 80+ aim tp with hd dt only because of the cs, the map itself is a piece of cake
I agreejesus1412 wrote:
At the very least low cs is overrated.
One thing for sure: DT is clearly overated.
I mean, completely messed up.
I mean, completely messed up.
People who say this are very careless. In some environments it's overrated but in others it's severely underrated. Large jump maps can rewards up to 500pp while far faster maps can barely top 300pp. It really depends on the map, jumps formed from dt tend to be easier to follow which is why people would call dt an overrated mod while short fast streams and smaller faster jumps are rarely ever mentioned because they don't fit the "overrated" trend. It seems the problem is that balanced maps are underrated rather than extreme maps overrated, a map which is extremely fast and mildly jumpy seems to be penalized far too much for not having long streams or immense jumps despite maintaining huge difficulty throughout (I'm looking at maps DT'ed by dragonhuman and co.).Yales wrote:
One thing for sure: DT is clearly overated.
I mean, completely messed up.