Jesus Christ what is wrong with you.
It's good you edited your post to try to make me seem like the aggressor here. Gotta play that victim card when it's viable and just take a dump on the entire community with a feature otherwise.Dexus wrote:
Can you kindly fuck off.
Well, when you phrase it like this, it sounds like a great idea! I mean, this way players of low skill are IMMEDIATELY put in their place, and know that they're nothing compared to you. Too long have we had people measuring their own progress, they need to pay more attention to the size of YOUR e-peen! Yours specifically.Dexus wrote:
I'm going to be blunt; sea_food you aren't a skilled player and still have a long way to go. 55pp is something that players 40,000 ranks above you could crush. This is why I want this to be implemented to let players understand the gravity of things.
Dexus wrote:
This would help players to stop focusing on extremely low and irrelevant pp values. irrelevant to you =/= irrelevant to everyone
Player's total pp amounts would be relative to the #1 player, so in example: Sayo has 8,260pp right now and I have 4,155pp. I would be represented as follows:
(I can't get it to do a half star) [This could be used in the player panels and multiplayer lobbies for a cleaner look.] "look at me look at me hey guys look at me!"
Then with the player's top performances they could be shown as stars relative to the player with the highest pp scored. Rrtyui (from what I can see) has the highest pp scored of 531pp, my top performance currently is 226pp. So in the top scores list it would be shown as:
"are you looking yet?"
weighting would then depreciate the stars to show how relative it is to the player's own top performance. of course.
Next within the scoreboard the player with the number one performance in pp (This works with http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/220119) would get 5 stars, anything relative to that would be depreciated. Your performance would be in relative to their performance. This would help players gauge how well they did comparatively to the top performance on a map. 90% of people arent even going to be competing and are going to be looking at nearly the same damned star comparison. but i guess they're nothing but dust mites to you and need to understand how much they blow so this system works out.
With all of these the actual values wouldn't really change; simply the face value would for better understanding. This would also give some players an easier goal to deal with i.e: reach 4 star performance or 5 star performance. Stars could then be rated by medal color, 5 stars is platinum, 4 stars is gold, 3 stars is silver, 2 stars is bronze, 1 star is ... a grey dim lit star (?) I can't think of anything for it. Easier goal? In what sense is this an easier goal? Absolutely none. It's harder and less rewarding in every conceivable sense.
This could also work in conjunction with the other request I have of integrating the recommended difficulty into the client as well http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3216863/
Says the person who thinks a perfectly reasonable, well-defined system needs to made more abstract purely to enforce a competitive mindset, presumably because they feel like their #rank isn't as important to others as it should be.Dexus wrote:
All I'm seeing is you guys getting really upset and distraught over nothing.
You're conveying less information, in a way that's only useful in relating everything to the top player. Also, it'll make comparing PP between songs a total bitch. Or are you saying PP will still be implicitly visible and this whole thing is a useless farce that doesn't solve any of the problems you claimed it would?Dexus wrote:
ALL VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME IT'S COSMETICS
i dont know, theyre pretty under average imo. i think until you get top 200 you should stay under 1 star because those players need to realize how under cookiezi they are. Hell, why stop there, let's just replace rank with a large static image of a turd for anyone under top 10. Top 10 is pretty above average/okay in my opinion so they dont need the constant reminders of how bad they are.Dexus wrote:
I just guessed based on my experience dealing with players #2,000 to #1,000 seem pretty average.
Yeah my post was literally solely saying that 3star would not be rank #2000...Dexus wrote:
I knew it was wrong but I had no idea you would focus solely on that instead of looking at the bigger picture.
Yeah. This would motivate everyone to play osu untill they are in the top 10. I promise that if this idea was implented that atleast 10 000 players would reach top 10 within a month.Bassist Vinyl wrote:
i dont know, theyre pretty under average imo. i think until you get top 200 you should stay under 1 star because those players need to realize how under cookiezi they are. Hell, why stop there, let's just replace rank with a large static image of a turd for anyone under top 10. Top 10 is pretty above average/okay in my opinion so they dont need the constant reminders of how bad they are.Dexus wrote:
I just guessed based on my experience dealing with players #2,000 to #1,000 seem pretty average.