simple and easy.

the gap between "easy" and "hard" five-stars are too wide. i'd like to see it become a ten-star map system for this reason

ideas?

edit: i juz recently moved over from four-star to some five-stars so i'm abit of a rookie, but finding five stars at my level is hard.
i often find 6-10 star maps which is way too hard for me to play (or atleast as i'd like to rate them in difficulty)

It would be nice if peppy finally took Tom's difficulty calculator and used that for osu's Star system. It's not entirely perfect but it's lightyears more accurate than the current system and it's definitely accurate enough to rely on. Freedom Dive rates like 14stars on it? just set a cap at 10 and use stars from 0 to 10 (rounded into 0.5 increments).

cincen wrote:

simple and easy.

the gap between "easy" and "hard" five-stars are too wide. i'd like to see it become a ten-star map system for this reason

ideas?

edit: i juz recently moved over from four-star to some five-stars so i'm abit of a rookie, but finding five stars at my level is hard.
i often find 6-10 star maps which is way too hard for me to play (or atleast as i'd like to rate them in difficulty)

Hmm this is a nice idea, I also saw someone wanting AR to be shown on the map... And then it hit me.
What about getting rid of the stars and using a (dont quote me on the name if im wrong) "star perceptual graph"

Often used on games to show attributes but I think that could work for maps

Example

RBRat3 wrote:

cincen wrote:

simple and easy.

the gap between "easy" and "hard" five-stars are too wide. i'd like to see it become a ten-star map system for this reason

ideas?

edit: i juz recently moved over from four-star to some five-stars so i'm abit of a rookie, but finding five stars at my level is hard.
i often find 6-10 star maps which is way too hard for me to play (or atleast as i'd like to rate them in difficulty)

Hmm this is a nice idea, I also saw someone wanting AR to be shown on the map... And then it hit me.
What about getting rid of the stars and using a (dont quote me on the name if im wrong) "star perceptual graph"

Often used on games to show attributes but I think that could work for maps

Example

I like that idea, but I don't think there's enough space on the ingame song select screen
Or do you have ideas where to put it?

Zarerion wrote:

I like that idea, but I don't think there's enough space on the ingame song select screen
Or do you have ideas where to put it?

Honestly I dont have a clue but a half-ass way of doing it is changing the font sizes of the rankings and or shortening the displayed ranks while having it placed underneath. Also you could just have the ranks pop out when the mouse touches the edge :S

What gangnam style hard looks like XD

DDR Style?

Sakura wrote:

DDR Style?

Huh how bout that, I wouldn't know since I havent touched a "Real" DDR game since I was 13 XD.... But Sure

Air could be Jumps, Voltage, idk, Stream well that should be obvious, Chaos probably the ammount of flow break/reverse, and Freeze maybe breaks? or sliders?

This is visually confusing and way too complex imo. Does it really matter to people when they're picking a map how many breaks or spinners it has in it? Players would usually just want to know how streamy or jumpy a map is when they're looking for what to play. You can just display two numbers for that. (Tom's calculator already does this nicely)
(..and then add sorting for this. Sort by jump-difficulty,, etc)

Sakura wrote:

Air could be Jumps, Voltage, idk, Stream well that should be obvious, Chaos probably the ammount of flow break/reverse, and Freeze maybe breaks? or sliders?

Yea adding "legs" for things like spinners, jumps, hitcircle counts, slider counts along with the HP Drain, Overall Difficulty, Approach rate, Circle size... Would make it perfect. (not too sure if spinner counts would be notable enough to graph tho)

Aqo wrote:

This is visually confusing and way too complex imo. Players would usually just want to know how streamy or jumpy a map is when they're looking for what to play. You can just display two numbers for that. (Tom's calculator already does this nicely)

Its really not that complicated it gives you the ability to judge difficulty at a glance graphically, many games use this so I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned it before but then again I did just think about it XD

RBRat3 wrote:

Its really not that complicated it gives you the ability to judge difficulty at a glance graphically, many games use this so I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned it before but then again I did just think about it XD

It's just that, imagine you're opening osu right now and you want to play... would you really look at all of this data? You'll probably just want to be able to sort your maps by difficulty to easily find and play stuff fitting for the difficulty level you're interested in; everything else would not really interest you much would it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aqo wrote:

It's just that, imagine you're opening osu right now and you want to play... would you really look at all of this data? You'll probably just want to be able to sort your maps by difficulty to easily find and play stuff fitting for the difficulty level you're interested in; everything else would not really interest you much would it?

I dont have to look at all of it, All I have to do is look at the legs that I'm proficient with and those I suck with whether its big or small... You know shit that matters to me but if I do need to know something more specific the data is all right there for me to scrutinize.

This isn't set in stone so all of what was mentioned above isn't the case of what would actually be used for legs so I would hope for something more elegantly laid out.

If this gets implemented with RBRat3's idea we could add sorting options for each of the legs, also we should probably rename Overall Difficulty to Accuracy, and call the difficulty calculated from all the legs the actual Overall Difficulty and sort by that too.

I have to apologize to the OP since I sorta somewhat hijacked this it probably should have been a separate request, Sorry ^_^

Would this really be much more useful? It's usually pretty easy to gauge a map's difficulty by reading the difficulty name and listening to the song. For the high end, maybe look at the scoreboard too.

It's an alright thing to ask for but I don't think it'd really be worth the effort in the end.

RBRat3 wrote:

cincen wrote:

simple and easy.

the gap between "easy" and "hard" five-stars are too wide. i'd like to see it become a ten-star map system for this reason

ideas?

edit: i juz recently moved over from four-star to some five-stars so i'm abit of a rookie, but finding five stars at my level is hard.
i often find 6-10 star maps which is way too hard for me to play (or atleast as i'd like to rate them in difficulty)

Hmm this is a nice idea, I also saw someone wanting AR to be shown on the map... And then it hit me.
What about getting rid of the stars and using a (dont quote me on the name if im wrong) "star perceptual graph"

Often used on games to show attributes but I think that could work for maps

Example

I don't really care about a 10 star map rating system, but I like where THIS is going

Soaprman wrote:

Would this really be much more useful? It's usually pretty easy to gauge a map's difficulty by reading the difficulty name and listening to the song. For the high end, maybe look at the scoreboard too.

i agree with this. plus if maps are too hard, then practice on them. it'll help a lot

deadbeat wrote:

i agree with this. plus if maps are too hard, then practice on them. it'll help a lot

The main usage for this would be for sorting, to find maps that are suitable for the level you're interested in playing on. Especially when your folder has 10000+ maps.

i have around 6000 and i don't have a problem finding maps at my level. also if there is all ready a decent calculator idea for the star rating as mention before, why not just use that instead. also whose to say that using 10 starts will work better than 5 stars. there is every chance you'll just run straight back into the same problem.

I thought we had already 10 stars



No im not kidding, i remember someone mentioning to me that the website is using the old system or something that calculates star rating over 6 or 10 or something like that.

oh hey, it does go to 10 xD

i got afew hundred maps only and my point is still the same:

i have trouble finding 5star maps at my own level since i'm only lv 31 on osu and therefore being a newer player than all of you veterans.

i juz started playing some 5star maps, and therefore we are all playing "five star maps". still u guys are 10 times better than me, which makes the majority of the five star maps too difficult for me since they're adapted to you and not me.

please try to see it from my point :/

i want a 10-star system (or something similar!) so that i can move properly from 4-star maps to 5-star maps while you guys play those 7-10 star maps.

Really it isn't hard, all peppy has to do is add this t/92485 and limit the star rating to 15.

I still don't understand why this isn't used and I also don't understand why map difficulty isn't taken into account for pp.

I don't really think the number of stars needs increasing so much as we just need a better way of calculating a more accurate star rating, like tom's calculator for example.

jesus1412 wrote:

Really it isn't hard, all peppy has to do is add this t/92485 and limit the star rating to 15.

I still don't understand why this isn't used and I also don't understand why map difficulty isn't taken into account for pp.

peppy wrote:

Such thoughts could potentially be used to make a new star rating system, but are redundant in pp calculations. I am not using any map heuristics in pp calculations because they always have limitations, and can be manipulated by mappers.

Keep in mind that you could actually start implementing this via AiMod using the osu!sdk, which would allow for easy integration in future difficulty star calculations. I'm still looking for a good replacement for the currently flawed system, and while there is already a conditional-based difficulty calculation in place (see AiMod difficulty tab), it isn't as advanced as it could be. I'll see if I can open source the code behind the current AiMod difficulty stuff soon.

Moved to general development to hopefully avoid thread derailing.

as you can see, peppy has all ready seen this calculator and has considered it for future use. but i don't see peppy dropping everything to do this right this instant. just be patient.

Queez wrote:

i got afew hundred maps only and my point is still the same:

i have trouble finding 5star maps at my own level since i'm only lv 31 on osu and therefore being a newer player than all of you veterans.

i juz started playing some 5star maps, and therefore we are all playing "five star maps". still u guys are 10 times better than me, which makes the majority of the five star maps too difficult for me since they're adapted to you and not me.

please try to see it from my point :/

i want a 10-star system (or something similar!) so that i can move properly from 4-star maps to 5-star maps while you guys play those 7-10 star maps.

Firstly, I apologize for the necro, and the rambling... it's late, and I'm tired, but if I don't post now I'll forget! xD

I just started playing Osu! around a week ago (wish I'd found it sooner!) and I'm running into the same problem as I move on to the 4.5 & 5 star maps. It becomes even more difficult when you add in that each beatmap may feel harder/easier than the given star rank because there isn't a set in stone way to determine the star rating. I've found maps that are 4.5 stars that feel more like a 3.5 star map, and I've found 3 star maps that feel like a 4.5... There are so many 5 star maps out there that it's impossible to tell at a glance, or even by listening to a song clip, just how difficult it is going to be.

I have trouble determining if a 5 star map is going to be way out of my current grasp, or if it may be just barely within my reach. The only way to check for sure is to play multiplayer with a friend (or turn on easy/no fail, but doesn't this screw with your accuracy percentage?), so that if I die instantly, I can keep playing it and gauge how much practice I still need before I can try it for real.

More star options, a star graph, whatever... An improved system to help the newer players find appropriate maps would be fantastic.

I still think that it'd be beneficial to at least up it to six stars, which would account for [Expert] diffs. You know, an actual [Expert] band. Personally, I'd be all for Tom's system if he wasn't regarded as such a risky source of code. I'm sure that other people would be able to devise a good system to be implemented as well, so it would be worth contacting peppy with any useful contributions.

D33d wrote:

I still think that it'd be beneficial to at least up it to six stars, which would account for [Expert] diffs. You know, an actual [Expert] band. Personally, I'd be all for Tom's system if he wasn't regarded as such a risky source of code. I'm sure that other people would be able to devise a good system to be implemented as well, so it would be worth contacting peppy with any useful contributions.

It would be best if there was no cap on difficulty at all, why use a scale with a cap?

jesus1412 wrote:

It would be best if there was no cap on difficulty at all, why use a scale with a cap?

^this.

The best thing, I guess, would be something like the Difficulty Numbering in Stepmania...so we wouldn't have any stars, just numbers (which could use way more factors of difficulty) that have no real cap.

Example:

Imagine this with osu! (just another numbers in another range for 'declaring' a difficulty level), you easily could see a map that is hard (higher number) or a easier one (lower number). With a proper difficulty calculation and (maybe) no cap in this system it would be way better than the current star system.

In light of the in-flux star rating overhaul, I find it necessary to bump this thread. It's about time that more "official" bands were added, so that difficulty can be distinguished more easily at a glance.

Ideally, I'd like to see a 6- or 7-star default, which would scale nicely from [Easy] through to [Expert]--at the moment, the recalculation is shoving [E/N/H/I] to less than three stars, which I worry is going to become set in stone. This would make for horrible differentiation. I fully believe that keeping a "classic" spread of 1-5 would cover a tightly focused E-I spread pretty much as-is, while any maps in excess of five stars would be labelled as [Expert] or [Extra]--one well-defined band above [Insane]. For any maps which go even further, then could either cap at 6 stars as an indicator of how ridiculous they are, or they could creep towards 7 as a way of defining them even further. Such a difficulty could have a [!] icon to reinforce this.

While ten stars would allow for plenty of scalability, there is surely a limit to what mappers can do in relation to a piece of music. The last thing that this game needs is a doubling of stars, because having this amount of breathing space would invariably make lots of people create something for the sole purpose of attaining 10 stars, instead of concentrating on fitting the music. I can't forsee a compelling argument against this logic, because my observations tell me that this would almost be guaranteed to happen.

The ultimate goal of this sort of change would be to preserve the current 1-2-3-4-5 spread for clarity, then allow a bit of space to go beyond that as a reflection of current playing standards. The actual star rating would ideally be accurate enough that 1-5 becomes a fair reflection of [E-I], so nothing would be broken in this ideal world.

DEEDIT: After a bit more thought, allowing for even more stars could probably work if the calculator really does give a fair reflection of difficulty jumps. My observations are basically this: maps like 'Airman' and 'Big Black' seem to be maybe a step or two above a higher-tier [Expert], similarly to how the lower diffs are separated. Feel free to prove otherwise--this is just how I break down the difference in my mind.

jesus1412 wrote:

It would be best if there was no cap on difficulty at all, why use a scale with a cap?

Well the thing is, having a cap lets newer players or players in general get a general idea of how hard the map is relatively. So if there were no cap, then lets say for example, that a new player finds like a map with a difficulty of 4. He would have no idea how hard the map is until he plays it.

10 stars doesn't sound like a problem if the calculation gets scaled a bit to make it more suiting - it's not like everything that was rated as 5 was anywhere the same level of difficulty currently, so those maps would probably already sproud out to 8 or 9 stars even considering what's been coming lately.

But yeah, more stars (and an altered calculation process) could do for more natural distinguishing between difficulty levels, specifically considering what "Insane" or "Extra" can mean these days, aswell as broken calculations (which I actually got a fair.. "collection" of).

Well again, I envision those other maps as maybe extending to seven stars in relation to the normal spread, but I'm thinking rather conservatively. As long as we see every step slotting neatly into obvious number groups, then I'd be extremely happy.

DEEDIT: I suppose that the obvious compromise would be more or less doubling up the numbers, so that it could go something like 0-1, 2-3, 3-4, 4-6 and then several numbers for the rest.

DDEEDDIITT: I've only just realised that, after Garven thought there was already a ten-star system, the recalculations are halving ten-star ratings to fit five stars. I guess that I got into a flap over nothing after all.

Why does there need to be a star system? Just give each map a numeric difficulty value (a la TP) and the traditional difficulty classes will become obvious.

i'd like to mention that Tom will be working on a new star system at some point, might even be working on it now, so i think it's best to wait for that,. once that's done, then we can look back at this thread. cause his new system might make this thread obsolete

NarrillNezzurh wrote:

Why does there need to be a star system? Just give each map a numeric difficulty value (a la TP) and the traditional difficulty classes will become obvious.

The idea would be consolidating every map into a more narrow range, but I guess that the end result's gonna be the same anyway.

Amazing that we actually got this today! ;D <3

is added

there isn't a graph or anything, but the 10 star rating is there, which is the important part \:D/