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.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
From the wiki-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.
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.Tess wrote:
From the wiki-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.
I disagree.
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.
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).
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'm pretty sure any actual high accuracy player would notice very little difference with anything below OD9.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.
Also it will depends on the difficulty of the map, which is the first thing that prevents from SSing rather than the OD itself.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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..Tess wrote:
Also, I like how the FL topic got completely forgotten and replaced by "OD7=OD9" talk.
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.
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.
I sense Tess-challange v2 here ^^Tess wrote:
And no, not anyone can FC a typical map with FL in a week.
^I totally agree !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 believe Woobowiz is suggesting that the game incorporate accuracy into the score calculator before submitting scores to the server.XGeneral2000 wrote:
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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)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).
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).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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.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.
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.
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.jesus1412 wrote:
Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.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.
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:
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.jesus1412 wrote:
Show me a "hard" FL score that doesn't reward enough and I'll believe you.
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.
Why is this so hard to agree with or implement? In my opinion, it would be much better if the score bonuses were: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.
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
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.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
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.
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.
Topic Starter
Knowing the underlying data and having dealt with balancing the system I can tell you that this kind of solution would work terribly. The bonuses would be for one part far too low for people to feel satisfied and for the other part horribly unbalanced on some maps, since they are just flat bonuses ignoring how the map is like.Tess wrote:
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
I assume you are talking about the flashlight bonus alone in your above statement. It's worth thinking about changing the bonus from being scaling flat with aim pp to making it scale even more with map length. I'd ditch the base bonus in that case completely, though. Makes it easier to balance and makes more sense to me.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.
In general, please keep in mind that pp aims to satisfy as many people as possible, so I will keep tuning it towards what I feel is the prominent opinion of the community.
Skills required to play FL well are not measured by pp, and i doubt they ever will, so i don't think FL should be buffed much, if at all. Maybe if you incorporate reading difficulty into the system(maybe memorization score as a way to compare FL plays against each other), but that seems pretty unlikely, really.
I suppose this is true, though I do think that this-GN wrote:
Skills required to play FL well are not measured by pp, and i doubt they ever will, so i don't think FL should be buffed much, if at all. Maybe if you incorporate reading difficulty into the system(maybe memorization score as a way to compare FL plays against each other), but that seems pretty unlikely, really.
is a better alternative to what we have now.Tom94 wrote:
I assume you are talking about the flashlight bonus alone in your above statement. It's worth thinking about changing the bonus from being scaling flat with aim pp to making it scale even more with map length. I'd ditch the base bonus in that case completely, though. Makes it easier to balance and makes more sense to me.
FGSky wrote:
with this system FL is just a lose-time mod
even if FL gave dt amounts of pp people would still look at FL players as randoms
Pretty much this. People ignore FL for a reason. When you look at things like this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/155929?m=0 the last thing you care about is the fact that someone FL'd it (although that rank 1 is fairly impressive, no one cares about it).Riince wrote:
even if FL gave dt amounts of pp people would still look at FL players as randoms