Riince wrote:

this is still not a play-style that should be promoted. it isn't fun or interesting, and because it doesn't make the song harder in any technical aspect it provides a negligible pp bonus like hidden and that's how it should be. there's a difference between a maps difficulty and how hard it is to achieve the score, the second one isn't used in pp calculations.

This is a really stupid thing to say, though. First of all, whether it's fun or interesting or not depends largely on the player. A lot of things that I find fun other players find unnecessarily hard or tedious, and vice versa. That doesn't change the fact that those maps deserve to be rewarded. Also, it does make the map harder because it makes it harder to read. That a map isn't faster or the map's settings don't change doesn't mean that it's not harder when you make 90% of it fucking invisible. Lastly, this line is particularly dumb

Riince wrote:

there's a difference between a maps difficulty and how hard it is to achieve the score

I think you're confusing subjective difficulty with objective difficulty. Yes, if you happen to have trouble with squares, nailing a square jump in an easy map won't give you any pp, despite that score being difficult to achieve for you. But FL is difficult for everyone. Just like DT/HR aren't mods that just anyone can perform well with. So the difficulty in FL should give a significant pp bonus, especially since most players can't even play with it. People only hate FL because they suck at it, because it is hard.

Riince wrote:

and you're underestimating the significance of 350+ PP. that's probably one of the easiest score Rucker has achieved on his top 10 yet it gives more pp than almost all of them.

This doesn't nullify my statement, though. I said you're underestimating how hard the map is and you say you're not, but don't really give any reasonable explanation as to why. "It's the easiest score Rucker achieved on his top 10" - but what makes it easier? What about this map is easier than the others he played that gave him equal or less pp? Unless you actually answer that you're not really saying anything at all.

I think the main point is that FL shouldn't be made necessary by rewarding it too much, just because it's hard. By that logic you could make a mod where there's no sound at all, and only a black screen, so FC-ing a map like that would be insanely hard, but should that style of play be promoted by giving it insanely high rewards?

You see getting good FL scores requires specific practice on the given map, while learning the other mods gives you the ability to play them on any map, so it would be bad for everyone if getting high ranks would require you to practice individual maps with FL, instead of focusing on improving your general skillset.

Drezi wrote:

You see getting good FL scores requires specific practice on the given map, while learning the other mods gives you the ability to play them on any map, so it would be bad for everyone if getting high ranks would require you to practice individual maps with FL, instead of focusing on improving your general skillset.

more or less what i meant by "not a play-style that should be promoted", thank you for saying this

I understand your points, but it remains a fact that FL is a mod within the game and FL is difficult. The ability to memorize a map and FC it with FL (with decent accuracy) is just as much skill as any other osu skill (reading, accuracy, consistency, stamina, etc.). Since it is in the game, and it is difficult, it should be rewarded. If you think it shouldn't be in the game you should consult peppy, rather than not rewarding players for their skill and effort. Keep in mind - pp is short for performance points. This means that your rank is based on your performances and not your skill.

Let's take a hypothetical situation where a lower ranked player (30-50K), by pure luck, SSes Freedom Dive. Now, obviously this is not possible, but let's say that there is a 1 in 100 quadrillion chance that somebody SSes Four Dimensions by pure luck, rather than skill. They would still receive the same pp that a skilled player would for that play, because they're judged by their performance and NOT by their skill. So, regardless of how often you need to practice a map, if you achieve a score that others can't achieve easily, you should be rewarded for that performance, just like with any other mod.

Discouraging repeated practice on the same map is like discouraging osu. rrtyui played Big Black around 3000 times before SS-ing it. Does that make his SS any less impressive? And does the fact that he played it that often (because it's a difficult map) mean that his score shouldn't be rewarded?


The answer is no

Well sure, but you have to admit that there's still a difference between having to retry a lot to be able to play a map with FL, vs retying a lot until you make a better play on a map you can already do. In the first case you probably don't have technical difficulties with the map, but still you have to retry a lot to memorize it no matter what, while in the second case you're just retrying to set a score that's slightly above the usual, average level of your play, and you could set the same score later after improving some, without having to retry as much.

FlashLight currently gives a whopping 50% pp bonus on aim pp. That means on an aim-heavy map you can expect around 25% more total pp compared to a non-FL play with the same outcome. I wouldn't call that low or underrated.

The main problem with FL scores is that they usually are way sub-par compared to the same player's other best performances.

You should buff FL more so I get more pp from doing nothing.

Playing FL does make you better at playing FL, though. You basically get better at reading follow points and predicting/guessing right, and aiming at nothing (which btw, is harder than aiming at something). It still requires a bunch of retries though.

Oh yeah and accuracy tends to be harder because your mind is focused on recalling parts of the map rather than paying attention to when to click.

.

I feel like the difference between OD7, OD8, and OD9 for accuracy pp is too large. There's basically no difference between OD7 and OD8, and OD9 isn't that much harder. I don't think high OD's should be worth any more, but I think the lower OD's shouldn't be worth so much less.

-Soba- wrote:

I feel like the difference between OD7, OD8, and OD9 for accuracy pp is too large. There's basically no difference between OD7 and OD8, and OD9 isn't that much harder. I don't think high OD's should be worth any more, but I think the lower OD's shouldn't be worth so much less.

From the wiki


I disagree.

Tess wrote:

-Soba- wrote:

I feel like the difference between OD7, OD8, and OD9 for accuracy pp is too large. There's basically no difference between OD7 and OD8, and OD9 isn't that much harder. I don't think high OD's should be worth any more, but I think the lower OD's shouldn't be worth so much less.

From the wiki


I disagree.

even if the windows for getting 300 is smaller, most people are already clicking well within the OD8 window in OD7 anyway is the point I was making. I don't think OD8 maps should give so much more pp for free just because they're OD8.

personally i get around 99-100% on od7 and around 96-97 on od8 because im no accuracy player so im unsure what 'most people' are, unless its just people much better than me [like you] and obviously there are less of those than the other way around so i dont see why people who are more accurate shouldnt be rewarded for their accuracy.

In the absence of per-hitobject data, the pp calculation system can't distinguish between someone who SSed an OD7 map by using the entire 300 window and someone who would have SSed the map even if it was OD9 - pp calculations can't assume you're hitting "well within the OD8 window in OD7". If you're capable of SSing OD8 maps, then doing so will get you the extra pp that the lenient timing window of OD7 cheated you out of.

There are definitely people out there who have noticeably worse accuracy on OD8 than on OD7 (Edit: Hi Riince!). They feel the same to you because you find both of them so easy.

I can get >99% with OD9.8 maps and around 97-98% with OD10 and I still notice a difference between OD7/8/9/10. If you don't notice a difference you're just not paying attention. Even if you're a high accuracy player, if you try SSing 10 OD7 maps and then 10 OD8 maps subsequently, I can guarantee you that the 10 OD8 maps will take longer. Try it and prove me wrong.

Maybe I was assuming too much to say most players, sorry. And sure I'll prove you wrong later Tess if you really want me to.

Make sure to record it and post it here. If you can't record just make a nice collection of images, one showing an in-game timestamp from when you start playing, and then each subsequent SS, and you have to do one OD at a time. So, either 10 OD7 SS first, or 10 OD8. I'd like to see this.

or...just go on and spectate him? Why make him go though all that trouble recording stuff or posting screenshots on here?

I didn't really put much thought into this suggestion, but;

has it been previously suggested that top plays should be determined by more than just score and include accuracy in the equation?

A very crude example would be to multiply the score of the play with the accuracy.

Here's an example.


After the change, the higher accuracy score would have been the top play (as it should be in my opinion).

Tess wrote:

I can get >99% with OD9.8 maps and around 97-98% with OD10 and I still notice a difference between OD7/8/9/10. If you don't notice a difference you're just not paying attention. Even if you're a high accuracy player, if you try SSing 10 OD7 maps and then 10 OD8 maps subsequently, I can guarantee you that the 10 OD8 maps will take longer. Try it and prove me wrong.

I'm pretty sure any actual high accuracy player would notice very little difference with anything below OD9.
Also it will depends on the difficulty of the map, which is the first thing that prevents from SSing rather than the OD itself.

Woobowiz wrote:

I didn't really put much thought into this suggestion, but;

has it been previously suggested that top plays should be determined by more than just score and include accuracy in the equation?

A very crude example would be to multiply the score of the play with the accuracy.

pp is calculated only for your highest score because it's the only one the pp calculator actually has access to. Checking for lower-score, higher-pp plays would require storing all of your scores server-side, not just your highest one, which as you can imagine would dramatically increase server load. Tom's mentioned before that using the highest pp play (regardless of score) would be the best way, but is currently impossible for technical reasons.

GoldenWolf wrote:

I'm pretty sure any actual high accuracy player would notice very little difference with anything below OD9.
Also it will depends on the difficulty of the map, which is the first thing that prevents from SSing rather than the OD itself.

I am aware of this, my point is that the difference is noticeable and it is evident that OD8 is harder than OD7 and OD9 harder than OD8 etc. Unless you can consistently get >99% on almost any OD10 map you should be able to notice the increase in OD. And even if you can't, that doesn't mean it's not there.

I personally adjust how I play depending on the OD. At OD7 I can afford to be "lazier" so I don't have to focus as much to get 300s as I would with OD10. It results in slightly more 100s than at full focus, but it's nice for relaxed, laid back playing which still doesn't cost too much effort for an SS. At OD8 this laziness has to see a significant drop for me to be able to SS anything. Of course it depends on the map you're playing, but it can definitely be noticed regardless.

Also, I like how the FL topic got completely forgotten and replaced by "OD7=OD9" talk.

Tess wrote:

Also, I like how the FL topic got completely forgotten and replaced by "OD7=OD9" talk.

I'll sum it up in 1 post. Anyone can learn to FL FC a typical map in a week, throw them freedom dive however and it can take years (most likely forever). Effort shouldn't be rewarded because it's not raw skill, why would something half the population of osu! could do within a week be rewarded more than something less than 1% of the population could do in years..

I'm not saying that easy FL plays should be rewarded more, I'm saying that hard ones should. Long maps with large combos should give a significant amount of pp with FL because comboing is the very thing that FL makes hard for you to do. When you play with HR, you get rewarded for the higher CS and OD. When you play with DT, you get rewarded for the higher speed and occasionally AR. When you play with HD, you get rewarded for the slight increase in aim difficulty. Why don't you get rewarded for combos with FL?

The aim boost should stay and be accompanied by a combo boost, because those are the two things that are difficult to do with FL.

And no, not anyone can FC a typical map with FL in a week.

Tess wrote:

And no, not anyone can FC a typical map with FL in a week.

I sense Tess-challange v2 here ^^

Tess wrote:

When you play with HR, you get rewarded for the higher CS and OD. When you play with DT, you get rewarded for the higher speed and occasionally AR. When you play with HD, you get rewarded for the slight increase in aim difficulty. Why don't you get rewarded for combos with FL?

^I totally agree !

XGeneral2000 wrote:

Woobowiz wrote:

I didn't really put much thought into this suggestion, but;

has it been previously suggested that top plays should be determined by more than just score and include accuracy in the equation?

A very crude example would be to multiply the score of the play with the accuracy.

pp is calculated only for your highest score because it's the only one the pp calculator actually has access to. Checking for lower-score, higher-pp plays would require storing all of your scores server-side, not just your highest one, which as you can imagine would dramatically increase server load. Tom's mentioned before that using the highest pp play (regardless of score) would be the best way, but is currently impossible for technical reasons.

I believe Woobowiz is suggesting that the game incorporate accuracy into the score calculator before submitting scores to the server.
Basically it's an attempt at getting the client to submit what's likely a higher pp worth due to accuracy instead of relying only on combo for score submission.

In the example he gives, his lower acc full combo score is higher than his higher acc full combo score (probably due to a spinner). But if you'd multiply the end score by accuracy, then it'd be the other way around.

I have no idea if it'd actually work in all situations.

Ethelon wrote:

I believe Woobowiz is suggesting that the game incorporate accuracy into the score calculator before submitting scores to the server.
Basically it's an attempt at getting the client to submit what's likely a higher pp worth due to accuracy instead of relying only on combo for score submission.

In the example he gives, his lower acc full combo score is higher than his higher acc full combo score (probably due to a spinner). But if you'd multiply the end score by accuracy, then it'd be the other way around.

I have no idea if it'd actually work in all situations.

Having score directly scale with accuracy would be very reasonable (and most other rhythm games do this in some manner), but it's far too late to change the scoring system now - almost all of the song rankings would be significantly affected and there would be much angry mobbing. I think peppy's said before that if he could go back in time and make it differently, he would, but unfortunately we've got to deal with what we've got.

Even if the scoring system was left unchanged and the client calculated a "highest-pp" score to send, it'd still double the effective server load since there'd still be 2 scores per map per player (one for "highest score" and one for "highest pp"), so unfortunately, I don't think a fix to this issue will come in the near future.

Woobowiz wrote:

I didn't really put much thought into this suggestion, but;

has it been previously suggested that top plays should be determined by more than just score and include accuracy in the equation?

A very crude example would be to multiply the score of the play with the accuracy.

Here's an example.


After the change, the higher accuracy score would have been the top play (as it should be in my opinion).

I agree, but for that we need a change in scoring system (which I'd like to happen, but it's very improbably). BTW, did the stars system change modify the scoring system? (sorry for my bad english)

Ethelon wrote:

I believe Woobowiz is suggesting that the game incorporate accuracy into the score calculator before submitting scores to the server.
Basically it's an attempt at getting the client to submit what's likely a higher pp worth due to accuracy instead of relying only on combo for score submission.

In the example he gives, his lower acc full combo score is higher than his higher acc full combo score (probably due to a spinner). But if you'd multiply the end score by accuracy, then it'd be the other way around.

I have no idea if it'd actually work in all situations.

Spinner is one of probabilities, but I have lots of cases that a 100 in a combo made a lot of difference only just because of the timing (position on combo) of the 100/50 score (and cases of better max combo and accuracy with lower score).

Tess wrote:

I can get >99% with OD9.8 maps and around 97-98% with OD10 and I still notice a difference between OD7/8/9/10. If you don't notice a difference you're just not paying attention. Even if you're a high accuracy player, if you try SSing 10 OD7 maps and then 10 OD8 maps subsequently, I can guarantee you that the 10 OD8 maps will take longer. Try it and prove me wrong.

The fact that you say you can get >99% on OD9.8 and only 97-98% on OD10 tells me something...the difference between that is pretty negligable. And as an accuracy player, I assure you pretty much the only way I'll get a 100 on OD7 or OD8 is by misreading the map or the map itself being hard. Once your accuracy gets good enough, they're both just free 300s.

pooptartsonas wrote:

The fact that you say you can get >99% on OD9.8 and only 97-98% on OD10 tells me something...the difference between that is pretty negligable. And as an accuracy player, I assure you pretty much the only way I'll get a 100 on OD7 or OD8 is by misreading the map or the map itself being hard. Once your accuracy gets good enough, they're both just free 300s.

I can play OD10 just as fine as OD9.8, difference is that OD10 maps are OD8+ maps with HR for me, and those maps are almost always harder than OD7 maps. It's less to do with the OD than with the map itself. If I can handle the map, the OD is rarely a problem, but if it's too fast/difficult it does become one.

Also, about the higher score - lower pp problem, can't a raw pp calculator be implemented in-game just like the star system, and recalculate all scores locally, bringing the maps with the highest raw pp value to the top of the list? And then maybe have the option to choose between looking at pp and score rankings for old maps, so you could see the top 50 in terms of pp if you wanted to, and eliminating score rankings for new maps entirely. Or simply replace the score rankings with pp rankings entirely and forget about score rankings since people aren't ranked based on their score anyway. I'm not a programmer, I don't know how hard that'd be, but since you already have something that calculates raw pp it doesn't sound impossible to me. Saying "otherwise people will complain" doesn't sound like an excuse peppy would make, since he's made plenty of "deal with it" updates before. People would just adapt and learn to live with it. I think if the scores were recalculated locally and old scores simply replaced with new ones there shouldn't be any more load on the servers than there is now.

x

Tess wrote:

I'm not saying that easy FL plays should be rewarded more, I'm saying that hard ones should. Long maps with large combos should give a significant amount of pp with FL because comboing is the very thing that FL makes hard for you to do. When you play with HR, you get rewarded for the higher CS and OD. When you play with DT, you get rewarded for the higher speed and occasionally AR. When you play with HD, you get rewarded for the slight increase in aim difficulty. Why don't you get rewarded for combos with FL?

The aim boost should stay and be accompanied by a combo boost, because those are the two things that are difficult to do with FL.

And no, not anyone can FC a typical map with FL in a week.

Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.

I find the difference in pp between these scores way too high. HDHR > FL in terms of difficulty (when it comes to >99% scores, anyway) but I don't think that there should be nearly a 100pp difference between HDHR and FL with similar accuracies on the same map. If you think the pp rewarded here is fair, that's fine, but you should really consider whether you're underrating FL or not.

I know that I might be overrating it, but I think that people are pushing it to the side a little too much.

jesus1412 wrote:

Tess wrote:

I'm not saying that easy FL plays should be rewarded more, I'm saying that hard ones should. Long maps with large combos should give a significant amount of pp with FL because comboing is the very thing that FL makes hard for you to do. When you play with HR, you get rewarded for the higher CS and OD. When you play with DT, you get rewarded for the higher speed and occasionally AR. When you play with HD, you get rewarded for the slight increase in aim difficulty. Why don't you get rewarded for combos with FL?

The aim boost should stay and be accompanied by a combo boost, because those are the two things that are difficult to do with FL.

And no, not anyone can FC a typical map with FL in a week.

Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.

That would be about any long map/marathon, but nobody borthers playing those with because it involves a significant amount of effort, high difficulty (I dare you to FC something really long when you can see barely 3cm to the sides), and low reward in comparision to the effort.

People complain about FL as too rewarding because it still gives a high score bonus for short maps where FL is actually easy but anything much longer than 200 combo gets really hard and thats where the long maps (1500+ combo, even 1000+ is impressive) get undervalued.

In my oponion it would be a idea to slightly lower the base scorebonus and have a scaling bonus for combos past 200.

Granger wrote:

jesus1412 wrote:

Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.

That would be about any long map/marathon, but nobody borthers playing those with because it involves a significant amount of effort, high difficulty (I dare you to FC something really long when you can see barely 3cm to the sides), and low reward in comparision to the effort.

People complain about FL as too rewarding because it still gives a high score bonus for short maps where FL is actually easy but anything much longer than 200 combo gets really hard and thats where the long maps (1500+ combo, even 1000+ is impressive) get undervalued.

In my oponion it would be a idea to slightly lower the base scorebonus and have a scaling bonus for combos past 200.

Show him a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and he'll believe you.

Granger wrote:

In my opinion it would be a idea to slightly lower the base score bonus and have a scaling bonus for combos past 200.

Why is this so hard to agree with or implement? In my opinion, it would be much better if the score bonuses were:

HD: 1.06x
HR: 1.08x
FL: 1.10x
DT: 1.12x

It's a mod in the game and you can't tell me that HR is harder than FL. FL should be worth it on longer maps. That requires a hell of a lot of skill and not just anyone can memorize an entire 2000-combo map and get high accuracy on it. You can call any FL score easy - that doesn't make it so. That reminds me of the guy who played a map I recommended to him as a hard map, and he went "LOL this is easy LOLOL" but when I asked him to FC it he couldn't do it, and said it wasn't worth it because it would take too many tries.

Alright here's the deal. You can pick a map of your choice and FL it and I'll try to beat your score with FL. I'll then pick a map of my choice with DT and you have to try and beat my score with DT and we'll see which one requires to most effort. If you can beat my score before I beat yours, I'll admit FL is underrated.

how about you do it this way
you pick a map that's worth 200pp with fl
and then you pick a map that's worth 200pp with dt
and you look which one takes longer to fc

both options are stupid and you know it

silmarilen wrote:

how about you do it this way
you pick a map that's worth 200pp with fl
and then you pick a map that's worth 200pp with dt
and you look which one takes longer to fc

both options are stupid and you know it

True, because effort isn't skill and effort shouldn't be rewarded. FL is literally just an effort mod that's all, if you sit there and FL a map for 2 months straight you WILL FC it but the same isn't true for DT. There are scores that, no matter how long someone sits there, they will never be able to do with DT, contrarily I doubt there is a single FL score where the same can be said. Maybe the amount of effort needed for FL grows almost exponentially with difficulty, but that doesn't make effort deserve any extra reward than results.

That's a silly thing to say, since FL does require several skills (memory, patience, the ability to aim at nothing and a shitload of focus) as opposed to DT which requires speed and accuracy, which, depending on the map, are also a requirement for playing with FL. Also, you put effort into developing your skill. You don't only retry maps for FL. There are people who simply can't FC with FL, and there are people who simply can't FC with DT. It's a separate skill and the fact that memory/retries are a requirement doesn't make it any less of one.

That said, I don't want FL to get a buff in general. I just want it to get a buff on longer maps. I agree that 500 combo FL maps are /way/ easier to FC than 2K+ combo FL maps. But 2K+ combo FL maps require a huge amount of skill (unless the map is easy, in which case it wouldn't give much pp anyway) to properly FC, and are not rewarded fairly right now. You're talking as if I want FL to reward as much as DT, but that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I want a combo pp boost added to FL on top of the aim pp boost. I don't see how that is such an unreasonable request.

Lastly, your rank is so much higher than mine that challenging me to something like that is an unfair challenge and you know that. It wouldn't make a point for you at all if you succeeded and I didn't, nor would it really make a point for me, since I'm not trying to compare FL and DT here. It would be better if you picked an FL player from X rank and a non-FL player from a similar rank and asked both of them to FL the same map, and see how long it takes each one to FC it, maybe above a certain percentage. I'm quite sure that the FL player would take less time to do it without a doubt because they've had practice with the mod (just as people who've never played with HD will usually suck at it once they try it out, and a lot of players who've never played with DT/HR will also suck at those mods once they try them out). Sucking at mods you lack practice in is normal, and the more practice you get, the better you become with those mods. The only difference with FL is that it is impossible to sightread FC with it. But no one's top scores are sightreads anyway, so using that as an argument is kind of pointless. I retry a lot for every mod if I want to get a good score, and FL is the only one that gives way too low a reward.