x
As it should do???Genki1000 wrote:
I'm actually more concerned about maps like this
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/85675&m=0
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/66359&m=0
where people deliberately take off HR to gain more spinner bonus.
PP scoreboards will completely reset the rankings those kind of maps
So do DT players and HR players and HD pla-... wait a second...Makan1 wrote:
FL players work extremely hard only to get 1st on a map and it seems unfair.
That's the thing, FL in itself does not make you better at the game generally (you could argue it helps with snapping and stuff, but I really don't see it helping much about it) unlike other mods (DT, HR, HD and even EZ), so I don't think FL should be rewarded even more than it actually is (50% bonus flat on aim is already huge enough...)Makan1 wrote:
Yeah but it's different methods of working hard. When your skill is already high like snowwhite, he can FC hddt a map in 1-3 tries. FL is actually working hard for a map just for #1 or a high rank.
Again, you can put a weeks worth of effort into a map and a year of standard practice and take rank 1 while it would take 4 years of standard practice to do the same with DT. DT requires more effort in the long run and hence SHOULD be worth more than FL.Makan1 wrote:
Yeah but it's different methods of working hard. When your skill is already high like snowwhite, he can FC hddt a map in 1-3 tries. FL is actually working hard for a map just for #1 or a high rank. You never use FL so you don't know but when you put a retarded amount of time to do FL on a 1000+ combo map then you might understand how deserving the first place actually is.
Look at Heiwana's play on yoiyami hanabi and you can't deny that it's a billion times more impressive than the hdhr score.
If you have issues with hdfl beating hddt then be like cookiezi and SS like on fake me science XD
Yes please, your best scores should be closer to 100%, and more than 20-25 being weighted higher than 1% just rewards you a bit for setting lots of scores at your average level.Dexus wrote:
I personally would like to see the weighting system shifted to where the top five or so scores have a higher weighting. The taper effect seems to sudden and then draws out too long. Past the top 25 it should be where it hits that 1% weight. The list view should be shorter as well since I and others don't bother to look very far down in the list. With this hitting your top five would be more rewarding and players would have a better idea of placing scores around their top ten instead of continually replacing their very top performance. It seem useless to score anything less than your best to move anywhere. More consistent players would be rewarded as well since they would have several good scores placed instead of a handful of odd weighted scores. No mod is kind of crippled because of this fact; there's not enough high rating maps no mod that are relative to where I'm ranked. Big black SS 300pp and Lewa can't FC it yet there are scores worth way more that are manageable in comparison.
I think part of the reason that nomod plays aren't worth as much at higher levels is cause you can't gain significant acc PP with OD7 and 8, compared to OD10 HR and DT plays + the issue with pattern difficulty.Dexus wrote:
there's not enough high rating maps no mod that are relative to where I'm ranked. Big black SS 300pp and Lewa can't FC it yet there are scores worth way more that are manageable in comparison.
I see this being very good alternative to the current weighting system. Kind of anti-farm as well in a sense.Drezi wrote:
Actually I ran some numbers, and made a weighting that yielded roughly the same amount of PP for the typical player, tested with actual PP numbers.
I used =(COS(X/12,5)+1)/2 with this weighting the top25 performances would be weighted higher than they are now, below the top25 they would be weighted lower, and reach 0 around the top40th performance. I might have made mistakes when it comes to the actual numbers, but you get the idea.
This would mean that having lots of average performances wouldn't be as valuable, as having good ones in the top spots, and having an outstanding Top1 performance wouldn't be as important as it is now.
Blue line shows the current weighting, Red line is the one suggested.
>arsilmarilen wrote:
>od
Spaced streams are pretty difficult but a bit overrated, that i'll agree with. but that map isnt exactly free pp i havent been able to get higher than a 240 combo B.Zare wrote:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The main idea was to reward your top2 to 5-10 performances higher as Dexus suggested, and not have the weighting draw out for so long. If it was feasible I would have made it hit 0 at around the 25-30th performamce, as I don't believe that any more performances are needed to evaluate a player, setting around that many good scores already proves that you're capable of playing at that level. But doing so would have resulted in large PP drops in everyone's PP totals, which is something I thought couldn't work due to people freaking out, even if cutting everyone's pp in half does nothing in reality.silmarilen wrote:
i dont like the part where it hits 0
I kinda agree with this, but I also see how a score with decent values in all aspects should be worth something. Maybe the tp system could be used with the players pp composed of aim, speed, acc AND combined pp as a forth value.GhostFrog wrote:
All of the above posts are pretty much correct, but to add to that, pp would be more accurate on a per-score basis if it worked like tp imo with regards to how aim speed and acc are treated. Your pp from a score isn't too much different from the sum of its aim speed and acc values (a power mean is used to weight the highest value a bit more), which means that most scores that don't give a decent amount of each are almost worthless. In tp, your overall aim/speed/acc values were calculated by putting all of your aim/speed/acc values in order and applying the same decreasing weighting method as is now employed for your total pp. That allowed scores like a low-acc DT FC on mendes (or impressive FCs on low OD nomod maps) to be properly rewarded, whereas the current system makes them seem relatively insignificant. In exchange, the current system allows you to get more pp from your stronger aspect(s) and that probably balances out total pp, but tp's system was certainly better about rewarding you for individual good scores.
yeah but look at the pp amountGoldenWolf wrote:
It's not?
the EZ score has 20 misses more and 4% worse accuracy, that's pretty huge, especially the 20 misses
To compare the score they need to be near indentical
not "yeah", you haven't read anything of what I said...FGSky wrote:
yeah but look at the pp amount
uuh i thought the combo is more important than misses sorry :-)silmarilen wrote:
look at the amount of misses
is there any other map you know of where you can get over 200pp with 40+ misses?
no i don't know how to readGoldenWolf wrote:
not "yeah", you haven't read anything of what I said...
Loves wrote:
Merge the average player accuracy (and their rank) into the map difficulty. It is very hard to tell how hard a map is purely by using an un-self-aware algorithm that renders half the hard maps less desirable to play because they're so f----ing hard in the first place with little to no reward.
Algorithm (50%) + average player rank (10% does not include HT/NF)+ average map score/accuracy/combo (40%).
Simply too many maps that are really difficult are underrated by the ppv2 system and vice versa. A bunch of 4.5-5 star maps that belong in the 5.5+ range is not my definition of fair ranking and skill level.
I had a similar idea in mind but didn't know how to put it to practice or come up with a solid explanation of how it would work, so I never posted about it. Glad someone did, this is a really neat idea.Dexus wrote:
a bunch of stuff i entirely agree with
I think that if you're using 1%, you might as well use 0%. If I set 100 100pp scores that are all weighted 1%, that's 100pp extra that i don't even deserve. As Drezi said, players should aim to improve their best performances, not set a bunch of average performances that are easier than opening a can of soda to set. I can consistently set OD7 TV Size SS ranks given that they're not too hard, and I don't become a better player from doing so. It's not a real achievement, thus I don't deserve to be rewarded for it at all.Dexus wrote:
At first I was against putting 0% worth, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense to not even count so many scores. 1% of a score shouldn't really be what a player is focusing on in my opinion, but constantly replacing your top score to get anywhere will just cause such anxiety. I'm honestly interested in seeing where all players would be sitting if such a weighting method was put in place.
So you agree that Scarlet Rose should stay 5.19 stars? This is just one out of hundreds of examples as to why the algorithm cannot weight a map correctly if it's mapped in a way which flies under the radar on the "difficulty" rating. And I don't get how popularity would affect a maps difficulty if it excluded NF/HT scores. PLease explain.Mathsma wrote:
Loves wrote:
Merge the average player accuracy (and their rank) into the map difficulty. It is very hard to tell how hard a map is purely by using an un-self-aware algorithm that renders half the hard maps less desirable to play because they're so f----ing hard in the first place with little to no reward.
Algorithm (50%) + average player rank (10% does not include HT/NF)+ average map score/accuracy/combo (40%).
Simply too many maps that are really difficult are underrated by the ppv2 system and vice versa. A bunch of 4.5-5 star maps that belong in the 5.5+ range is not my definition of fair ranking and skill level.
No. Tom made ppv2 not reliant on anything outside of the map itself so that popularity and other issues would not cause problems with weighting.