>od
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
>arsilmarilen wrote:
>od
The only issue with DT is it gives people an AR they're more comfortable with imo. It'd be fixed up a bit if AR was rewarded/punished accordingly but it's such a subjective topic it's not really balanceable.
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)_/¯
also i thought it was already established pony maps are all free pp because even slow players can get fcs on them with dt and collect their ~5 star fcs because they all have low bpm compared to a lot of 3-.3.5 star maps which can sometimes get into the 280-290 bpm range.
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.
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 think pretty much everyone can effortlessly set any number of scores that are as good as their 40-50th ones, so why should those even be considered/rewarded? The faster you progress, or less scores you set, the more it's holding you back, or alternatively it can be filled up with your 2-3 try FC level of play performances, which again doesn't really prove anything.
It's mostly just phychological reasons that you feel it's bad if it hits 0 in my opinion, but even then it could always be adjusted so that around 25-35 it turns into the current weighting formula and it never reaches 0.
spit-balled some numbers to give a better idea
Current Weighting
Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 95% 181.45
190pp 90% 171
190pp 86% 163.4
190pp 81% 153.9
total: 919.75
Player B
210pp 100% 210
203pp 95% 192.85
200pp 90% 180
200pp 86% 172
198pp 81% 160.38
total: 915.23
After Weighting Shift
Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 98% 187.18
190pp 97% 184.3
190pp 95% 180.5
190pp 93% 176.7
978.68pp
Player B
210pp 100% 210pp
203pp 98% 198.94pp
200pp 97% 194pp
200pp 95% 190pp
200pp 93% 186pp
978.94pp
As you can see if a player places a random or fluke score they can easily usurp a player who is clearly playing at a more consistent level. With the change it would shift these players closer in ranking without giving fluke scores such power and make placing similar scores within your top 10 more feasible. The player sporting a high pp scores IS deserving of a pronounced rank, but it really shouldn't overthrow players who are more deserving to be at that rank. This wouldn't allow farming neither because it would taper off still. 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.
Current Weighting
Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 95% 181.45
190pp 90% 171
190pp 86% 163.4
190pp 81% 153.9
total: 919.75
Player B
210pp 100% 210
203pp 95% 192.85
200pp 90% 180
200pp 86% 172
198pp 81% 160.38
total: 915.23
After Weighting Shift
Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 98% 187.18
190pp 97% 184.3
190pp 95% 180.5
190pp 93% 176.7
978.68pp
Player B
210pp 100% 210pp
203pp 98% 198.94pp
200pp 97% 194pp
200pp 95% 190pp
200pp 93% 186pp
978.94pp
As you can see if a player places a random or fluke score they can easily usurp a player who is clearly playing at a more consistent level. With the change it would shift these players closer in ranking without giving fluke scores such power and make placing similar scores within your top 10 more feasible. The player sporting a high pp scores IS deserving of a pronounced rank, but it really shouldn't overthrow players who are more deserving to be at that rank. This wouldn't allow farming neither because it would taper off still. 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.
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.
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
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
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
look at the amount of misses
is there any other map you know of where you can get over 200pp with 40+ misses?
is there any other map you know of where you can get over 200pp with 40+ misses?
not "yeah", you haven't read anything of what I said...FGSky wrote:
yeah but look at the pp amount
nvm
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...
yeah the pp amount increases exponentially as your misscount approaches zero. i think the map is easier with HT than on EZ myself, but getting into the 800s on any of them is really fucking hard and i've only done it with HT once... i hope to hit 840 or more with it still though.
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.
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.
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.
That is a lot of bold. We can read, you don't need to make your post more readable than others because it's not any more special or correct than any other.
So, yes, I agree with Drezi. Only the top ~40 or so (I'd personally say the top 25 but whatever) should actually be rewarded, and rewarded more handsomely than it is now. And Dexus' application of it seems like a much more fair alternative than what we have now. I recall a player telling me that I shouldn't be trying to get top 5 performances all the time, and rather gain pp in slow increments instead - and I completely disagree with that, there's nothing impressive about average scores in my opinion.
So, yeah. Fully support this idea.
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, yes, I agree with Drezi. Only the top ~40 or so (I'd personally say the top 25 but whatever) should actually be rewarded, and rewarded more handsomely than it is now. And Dexus' application of it seems like a much more fair alternative than what we have now. I recall a player telling me that I shouldn't be trying to get top 5 performances all the time, and rather gain pp in slow increments instead - and I completely disagree with that, there's nothing impressive about average scores in my opinion.
So, yeah. Fully support this idea.
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.
really? there's maps that could have 50 hd/hr or DT 98%+ on the scoreboard but since they have like 2-5k scores theres a lot of HD and sometimes even nomods on the board.Loves wrote:
I don't get how popularity would affect a maps difficulty if it excluded NF/HT scores. PLease explain.
The issue with Scarlet Rose is that the system cannot recognize pattern difficulties at the moment. Tom wants to create one that can recognize pattern difficulty and I don't think he would use player averages to do that simply because of the popularity issue. How could a song be affected due to popularity even if it excluded score reducing mods? Simple, low HP value. If it is low enough then anyone could pass the map thereby skewing the average.Loves wrote:
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.
Hes already said its not possible to recognize awkward map patterns just yet. And with the hp thing, tom could just implement a balanced scale of hp and acc so that itd be more accurate.Mathsma wrote:
The issue with Scarlet Rose is that the system cannot recognize pattern difficulties at the moment. Tom wants to create one that can recognize pattern difficulty and I don't think he would use player averages to do that simply because of the popularity issue. How could a song be affected due to popularity even if it excluded score reducing mods? Simple, low HP value. If it is low enough then anyone could pass the map thereby skewing the average.Loves wrote:
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.
You're looking at things that aren't issues and ignoring the things that are.
Hp drain would be irrelevant to acc. If you actually played to a high enough level you would know that drain seems almost non existent.
I was just saying a suggestion in regards to your HP drain thing. Dexus is right, HP drain is pretty much non existent for good players. I don't see how using a census of actual information is detrimental to ppv2 since that actual information is probably just as accurate as the algorithm on higher level maps (5+).Tess wrote:
You're looking at things that aren't issues and ignoring the things that are.
ppv1 was based mostly on comparing to other players' scores and that resulted in a ton of problems. ppv2 is generally more accurate because it judges plays on their own merits - whether or not map A is more difficult to FC than map B doesn't change when another player FCs it.
Anyone who's been following ppv2, whether they started following it with this thread or with the tp system it was based on, is well-aware of its obvious issues and reading/pattern difficulty may very well be the biggest/most obvious. Finding a decent solution for that has proven quite difficult for tom, who's also busy working out the pp systems for 3 other game modes (all of which are still relatively young and all of which have more problems than osu!standard) in addition to having a life outside osu!. I think he's done a really good job with map difficulty overall and I'd rather wait and see if he can come up with some magic to fix the outliers than revert back to a system that ppv1 showed wasn't accurate.
Anyone who's been following ppv2, whether they started following it with this thread or with the tp system it was based on, is well-aware of its obvious issues and reading/pattern difficulty may very well be the biggest/most obvious. Finding a decent solution for that has proven quite difficult for tom, who's also busy working out the pp systems for 3 other game modes (all of which are still relatively young and all of which have more problems than osu!standard) in addition to having a life outside osu!. I think he's done a really good job with map difficulty overall and I'd rather wait and see if he can come up with some magic to fix the outliers than revert back to a system that ppv1 showed wasn't accurate.
The bold part of quote is true, pp in Std is way more accurate than other modes (You can easily farm "pp" in other modes, but is kind of hard to farm pp in Std if you don't have the skill).GhostFrog wrote:
ppv1 was based mostly on comparing to other players' scores and that resulted in a ton of problems. ppv2 is generally more accurate because it judges plays on their own merits - whether or not map A is more difficult to FC than map B doesn't change when another player FCs it.
Anyone who's been following ppv2, whether they started following it with this thread or with the tp system it was based on, is well-aware of its obvious issues and reading/pattern difficulty may very well be the biggest/most obvious. Finding a decent solution for that has proven quite difficult for tom, who's also busy working out the pp systems for 3 other game modes (all of which are still relatively young and all of which have more problems than osu!standard) in addition to having a life outside osu!. I think he's done a really good job with map difficulty overall and I'd rather wait and see if he can come up with some magic to fix the outliers than revert back to a system that ppv1 showed wasn't accurate.
Wherever did I mention HP drain? You were the one who brought it up, I believe. Also, the correct argument isn't that HP is practically nonexistant for good players, it's that it doesn't alter the difficulty of the map for any player. HP only becomes a problem if you're not skilled enough to pass the map - and since pp is about how difficult a map is to SS, and not how difficult it is to pass a map, it shouldn't be counted towards difficulty calculations. Point being - a map being HP0 or HP10 shouldn't give any more or less pp.Loves wrote:
I was just saying a suggestion in regards to your HP drain thing. Dexus is right, HP drain is pretty much non existent for good players. I don't see how using a census of actual information is detrimental to ppv2 since that actual information is probably just as accurate as the algorithm on higher level maps (5+).Tess wrote:
You're looking at things that aren't issues and ignoring the things that are.
Once again, this is besides the point, I really think we should be looking at Dexus', Drezi's and GhostFrog's suggestions regarding rebalancing the pp system.
As much as I agree with raising the 0.95, I'm pretty sure there are a ton of people that think with those unbalanced top heavy lists are better players or just look at how much their top 5 scores are worth or so make a judgement based on that without looking at how quickly they drop off with the rest of their scores. I think it's pretty crazy that some players have a range 2-3x others the same rank as them when looking as far down the top ranks list as possible.Dexus wrote:
...
something about agreeing with 0.98 being a better multiplier than 0.95 because that would buff consistent players where their 50th score is still relatively close to their 1st score.
meaning someone having a #1 worth 380 pp and their last visible score being 300 should be rated better than someone with their #1 being 400 and their last one being around 250.
meaning someone having a #1 worth 380 pp and their last visible score being 300 should be rated better than someone with their #1 being 400 and their last one being around 250.
Wouldn't they already be ranked better in the current system?silmarilen wrote:
something about agreeing with 0.98 being a better multiplier than 0.95 because that would buff consistent players where their 50th score is still relatively close to their 1st score.
meaning someone having a #1 worth 380 pp and their last visible score being 300 should be rated better than someone with their #1 being 400 and their last one being around 250.
What you suggested is the green line (blue is the current weighting). That would lead to terrible farming, and top players having 17k pp. Also how does it matter if someones 100th score is 250 only? If their top40 or so is filled with 350+ plays that already proves they are capable of playing at that level I think, they just havent grinded out every last bit.silmarilen wrote:
something about agreeing with 0.98 being a better multiplier than 0.95 because that would buff consistent players where their 50th score is still relatively close to their 1st score.
meaning someone having a #1 worth 380 pp and their last visible score being 300 should be rated better than someone with their #1 being 400 and their last one being around 250.
Sorry, I'm still kinda unfamiliar with the PP systems. But does my profile page not tell me exactly how many PP i get from a song?
For example, it says it awards me 100pp (weighted 70%). Am i not suppose to get 70pp?
For example, it says it awards me 100pp (weighted 70%). Am i not suppose to get 70pp?
The top players would stay top players if the 0.95 value was increased by whatever amount as long as it's below 1. 0.98 was just taken randomly from Dexus' post. I don't have excel but I at least know that when you're repeatedly multiplying a value by itself, especially a value between 0 and 1, 0.03 does make a large difference when you start getting to numbers like x^400. I don't think that players having 17k pp is a legitimate deterrent for going through with an update if it happens to actually improve the system. It's a relative system. Anyway, don't throw something like a 'players top 40 scores all being worth at least 350pp' into a post because that applies to a handful of people. What I'm talking about, are people that are ranked way higher than they should be because they have a a few scores which are extremely high (often times from those few maps which aren't entirely weighted accurately) then you see a fast drop to where their scores weights start decreasing at a reasonable rate. For a lot of them, playing at that level consistently (AKA 'grinding it out' as you put it) just isn't something they're capable of. It's essentially a buff to the entire system, just those players in particular not so much.Drezi wrote:
What you suggested is the green line (blue is the current weighting). That would lead to terrible farming, and top players having 17k pp. Also how does it matter if someones 100th score is 250 only? If their top40 or so is filled with 350+ plays that already proves they are capable of playing at that level I think, they just havent grinded out every last bit.
I know that actual PP values changing don't matter objectively.Drezi wrote:
..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.
Obviously I can't speak for top50 level, but we're not talking about a few high scores, but 20-30 instead, and 350 was just an example. Can 20-30 performances be set which are a lot better than what you actually deserve? By grinding it out I referred to setting a lot more than ~40 of the same level of performances.
Also what Dexus suggested (which I agree with) is that your best performances should weighted closer to 100%, so that an outstanding top1 play doesn't make that much of a difference, and that the weighting shouldn't draw out for so long.
Making the weighting simply use 0,98 instead of 0,95 would solve the first issue, but the weighting would draw out even longer, as can be seen on the graph. That's why I suggested the Red line, which could hit 0 earlier or later too, if actual PP values changing drastically is acceptable.
What do you mean we're not. It was my post and I was definitely talking about only a few. If you have 20-30 scores which display the consistency of a player, I doubt there would be a situation where you see a sudden drop and then that same consistency picking right back up. It's completely unnatural, you'd need to play the game from the beginning with the intent of not getting scores within a very specific range which I don't see happening. I don't think a player can set THAT many scores which are 'undeserved' because after a certain number of scores like that, it becomes part of your consistent play with you naturally filling in the gaps with time and once that happens, is when I think that player has honestly improved, it's no longer something they got a lucky run on one day which suddenly shot them up the rankings even though they didn't necessarily improve that day. The other side are those that played a map which is worth a bit more than it should be like the recent World's End map which should be down with what is already considered their consistent area (as an example, for me it'd be somewhere in the high 200s even though it would probably give me 320~ or so). I like to think that the system would be more accurate if you shifted the 0.95 value up ever so slightly just so the focus of it shifts a little more towards consistency.Drezi wrote:
Obviously I can't speak for top50 level, but we're not talking about a few high scores, but 20-30 instead, and 350 was just an example. Can 20-30 performances be set which are a lot better than what you actually deserve?
I said we're not talking about only a few, because if we agree here that 20-30 is enough, and representative, than basically you also think that the suggested red weighting would be alright, and the excessive amount of scores taken into account by the green weighting is not needed.
With the red weighting, it would be exactly like you prefer: Your top25 performances would be weighted more than they are now, so if you have more good ones in your top plays, you'd be in a better spot relatively than someone with only a single or few outstanding performances, made on overvalued maps. At the same time making 30-40 good performances would cap you out, and you couldn't gain an edge by making like 50 more plays of the same level.
With the red weighting, it would be exactly like you prefer: Your top25 performances would be weighted more than they are now, so if you have more good ones in your top plays, you'd be in a better spot relatively than someone with only a single or few outstanding performances, made on overvalued maps. At the same time making 30-40 good performances would cap you out, and you couldn't gain an edge by making like 50 more plays of the same level.
I think Drezi's logic is really solid here, I'd really like to see this happen. There's no point in rewarding players for scores that don't ever cost them any effort. This is a game of improvement, not grinding. You grind to improve, you don't just grind.
Bubble_old_1
If you'dve read at least 10-20 pages of this thread you'dve known that ppv2 currently has no way of recognizing patterns. It knows the minimum distance between each note, and it already takes object density into account, as well as the map's settings.