That'd be awful. I hope this will never happen.
As far as I know, this is a rhythm game, not a speed tester.I think so too
Dislike request
forum
Add pp as a scoring system in standard mode
posted
Total Posts
318
Dislike request
What you describe is assuming misses for the rest of the map which I mentioned as an alternative in my post. I don't see how you would have anywhere near enough information to correct me on the last point.Bassist Vinyl wrote:
actually counting the parts of the map played as neither misses nor 300's would still work just fine without lagging since it doesnt have to recalculate the map every hit object. just once. for example, take a 800 combo map, if you have 400 combo currently + 98% acc it shows the pp you'd have in game as though you cleared it with 400 combo +98 acc... and goes up/down from there. PP has to be calculated live yeah but not the difficulty of the map.
that said, its still pointless
Assuming only 300s maps like tag4 things would first display thousands of pp and then drop to next to nothing at the hard parts. Vice versa assuming misses the pp would only begin raising far into the map. Re-computing the beatmap difficulty up to the current hitobject would ensure a stable amount of pp to play quality ratio.
I want to mention another possibility, that can potentially be good, too. Namely extrapolating the current ratio of misses, 50s, 100s and 300s to the rest of the map and then showing that pp value. This would still have artifacts on maps which have highly varying difficulty (tag4 for instance), but far less than assuming pure 300s or pure misses.
Extrapolation could be nice, one other thing I thought of is that we take the "assume 300s for the rest of the map" approach, but the displayed PP would be simply proportional to your current progress on the drain time of the map, so that there's a sense of progression as you play through the song.
What I mean is that if you SS a song, displayed PP would go from 0% to 100% linearly with drain time, instead of staying the same throughout the whole song, and if you make more and more mistakes, than the overall real PP you can potentially achieve would constantly go down (since we start out assuming 300s for the rest), but this would be offset by the fact that the display of this decreasing value would be weighted from 0% to 100% in proportion to draintime as you play, so overall you could still see an increase in pp over time, reaching your final and real PP at the end of the drain time.
I hope it makes sense and I managed to describe what I was thinking.
Edit: Or it could be in proportion to your progress on the combo total of the map (regardless of breaking combos), instead of drain time, so that the increase is directly linked to the density of objects aswell. Actually this would make more sense, even if PP display updates were linked to hitobjects with the drain time method too.
What I mean is that if you SS a song, displayed PP would go from 0% to 100% linearly with drain time, instead of staying the same throughout the whole song, and if you make more and more mistakes, than the overall real PP you can potentially achieve would constantly go down (since we start out assuming 300s for the rest), but this would be offset by the fact that the display of this decreasing value would be weighted from 0% to 100% in proportion to draintime as you play, so overall you could still see an increase in pp over time, reaching your final and real PP at the end of the drain time.
I hope it makes sense and I managed to describe what I was thinking.
Edit: Or it could be in proportion to your progress on the combo total of the map (regardless of breaking combos), instead of drain time, so that the increase is directly linked to the density of objects aswell. Actually this would make more sense, even if PP display updates were linked to hitobjects with the drain time method too.
Given the current pp algorithm what you suggest wouldn't ensure monotonically increasing pp values.Drezi wrote:
Extrapolation could be nice, one other thing I thought of is that we take the "assume 300s for the rest of the map" approach, but the displayed PP would be simply proportional to your current progress on the drain time of the map, so that there's a sense of progression as you play through the song.
What I mean is that if you SS a song, displayed PP would go from 0% to 100% linearly with drain time, instead of staying the same throughout the whole song, and if you make more and more mistakes, than the overall real PP you can potentially achieve would constantly go down (since we start out assuming 300s for the rest), but this would be offset by the fact that the display of this decreasing value would be weighted from 0% to 100% in proportion to draintime as you play, so overall you could still see an increase in pp over time, reaching your final and real PP at the end of the drain time.
I hope it makes sense and I managed to describe what I was thinking.
Edit: Or it could be in proportion to your progress on the combo total of the map (regardless of breaking combos), instead of drain time, so that the increase is directly linked to the density of objects aswell. Actually this would make more sense, even if PP display updates were linked to hitobjects with the drain time method too.
I almost think it would be better to revamp the scoring system to be in line with pp increase while keeping it simple enough to work as an intuitive scoring system instead of using something as complex as pp. osu!mania or osu!stream's scoring systems are reasonable examples.
Yeah, I just thought that it would feel okey if the drops in PP were not as huge in absolute value compared to the final result, and when you're not making mistakes the displayed pp would be increasing instead of staying level.Tom94 wrote:
Given the current pp algorithm what you suggest wouldn't ensure monotonically increasing pp values.
my assumption was it went off your current progress. for example, if you are currently at halfway into the map and have 100% and a half combo of the full map, your pp displayed would be equivalent to if you had a half combo and 100% and 0 misses play of the entire map. And from there it progresses forward.Tom94 wrote:
What you describe is assuming misses for the rest of the map which I mentioned as an alternative in my post. I don't see how you would have anywhere near enough information to correct me on the last point.Bassist Vinyl wrote:
actually counting the parts of the map played as neither misses nor 300's would still work just fine without lagging since it doesnt have to recalculate the map every hit object. just once. for example, take a 800 combo map, if you have 400 combo currently + 98% acc it shows the pp you'd have in game as though you cleared it with 400 combo +98 acc... and goes up/down from there. PP has to be calculated live yeah but not the difficulty of the map.
that said, its still pointless
Assuming only 300s maps like tag4 things would first display thousands of pp and then drop to next to nothing at the hard parts. Vice versa assuming misses the pp would only begin raising far into the map. Re-computing the beatmap difficulty up to the current hitobject would ensure a stable amount of pp to play quality ratio.
I want to mention another possibility, that can potentially be good, too. Namely extrapolating the current ratio of misses, 50s, 100s and 300s to the rest of the map and then showing that pp value. This would still have artifacts on maps which have highly varying difficulty (tag4 for instance), but far less than assuming pure 300s or pure misses.
yes you pretty much have nowhere to go but down when you mess up and i agree this is one of the many reasons this shouldnt be implemented.
thousands of pp? so lets say a tag4 map with a max combo of 1300 and you're 1% into the map with a combo of 10 or whatever. are you telling me had you finished the map with a 10x combo out of 1300 you're looking at thousands of pp? or even a 100x combo? Just because no misses are weighted? That seems odd.
I think if it's going to show pp scoreboards during the song (which I think is entirely optional, honestly; the scoreboards could be exclusively in song select) that it should show you your potential PP with an SS and selected mods from the very beginning of the song. THEN it could penalize you as you go. I know it doesn't exactly seem accurate to play a tag4 map and see 1200 pp to begin with, but nobody should expect to full combo a tag4 map. PP might be difficult to calculate in realtime but I think however it is calculated shouldn't HAVE to show your progress on a map and should be implemented in the most efficient way possible. If it's not accurate to begin with it's not the end of the world. Plus I'm sure with some testing, any sort of realtime calculations to your potential PP could be cleaned up and made more accurate over time
Would that mean raw pps would be shown instead of the score ? That would be damn cool actually. +5 votes
Kookiezi_old_1
yes plz
hd with 104/106 300's is somehow alot lower pp then ss w/o mods
you basicaly get punished for playing the game
hd with 104/106 300's is somehow alot lower pp then ss w/o mods
you basicaly get punished for playing the game
Seems this thread isn't getting many replies anymore, shame.
I've read the entire thread, and there were quite obviously two very strongly opposing sides - one for, and one against pp as a scoring system. Now, I'm probably biased because I'm for it, but the only person I've seen give reasonable arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) against pp as a scoring system so far was Tom94. The arguments I've seen against pp seemed to be, in short:
- It's not the same
- A lot of people will get mad
- It might be tricky to implement
- Score will be worthless
- FL will be dead
- DT will be placed on a pedestal, and it is overrated
- HD will be useless
- Low/mid tier players won't receive any praise for their achievements, while high tier players will
- The entire game's atmosphere would change
The arguments supporting it were:
- Score is an extremely inaccurate measuring system, and pp is considered more accurate
- A lot of good scores are buried beneath average ones
- Ranks are measured by pp, thus so should the leaderboards
- Good players are supposed to be on top
- Skill should be rewarded, not effort
- pp and score could be set side by side
- Score could be changed to reflect pp
- DT should be rewarded handsomely because there is no harder single mod on any map
Please let me know if I missed out on anything. I've seen both good and bad points from both sides, and I think that the best option for now would be to both have a score and pp scoreboard, and keep working with the current scoring to see how people feel about a pp scoreboard instead of a score scoreboard. This means waiting a bit with making scores that are of higher pp but lower scores gain priority, and instead looking at how people feel about pp scoreboards of themselves, while devising a working method to implement pp scoring in the game. Then maybe set it as an options menu toggle ( "Show pp score instead of classic score during play" ) so that people have the option to play with either, and then those who play with pp scores would have scores that are of higher pp value gain priority over those of lower pp value despite the score, while those who don't would have scores upload the way they do now.
This would ensure that the load on the servers wouldn't increase, or at least not by much, and that people who dislike pp scoring don't have to live with it. I might be overlooking something, but this seems like an option that all of us could live with. There would be two remaining issues - the web leaderboards and implementation. This may all sound nice on paper but I understand that implementing this (realtime pp scoring in particular) might be a bit tricky. Still, I doubt it's impossible, and I think that a lot of people would be content with the option to play with classic or pp scoreboards. The last issue would be multiplayer - but this could be solved with a per-room toggle. Meaning that the "score" option would be removed from the win conditions drop down menu and be replaced with "classic" and "pp", and default to classic.
I hope this helps move the discussion forward any, I'd really like to see in-game pp implemented in some form and I hope this idea doesn't just get buried under the others. Have all my 16 stars.
Also, here is a perfect example of why pp scoring would be a lot less headache-inducing with our current system:
I've read the entire thread, and there were quite obviously two very strongly opposing sides - one for, and one against pp as a scoring system. Now, I'm probably biased because I'm for it, but the only person I've seen give reasonable arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) against pp as a scoring system so far was Tom94. The arguments I've seen against pp seemed to be, in short:
- It's not the same
- A lot of people will get mad
- It might be tricky to implement
- Score will be worthless
- FL will be dead
- DT will be placed on a pedestal, and it is overrated
- HD will be useless
- Low/mid tier players won't receive any praise for their achievements, while high tier players will
- The entire game's atmosphere would change
The arguments supporting it were:
- Score is an extremely inaccurate measuring system, and pp is considered more accurate
- A lot of good scores are buried beneath average ones
- Ranks are measured by pp, thus so should the leaderboards
- Good players are supposed to be on top
- Skill should be rewarded, not effort
- pp and score could be set side by side
- Score could be changed to reflect pp
- DT should be rewarded handsomely because there is no harder single mod on any map
Please let me know if I missed out on anything. I've seen both good and bad points from both sides, and I think that the best option for now would be to both have a score and pp scoreboard, and keep working with the current scoring to see how people feel about a pp scoreboard instead of a score scoreboard. This means waiting a bit with making scores that are of higher pp but lower scores gain priority, and instead looking at how people feel about pp scoreboards of themselves, while devising a working method to implement pp scoring in the game. Then maybe set it as an options menu toggle ( "Show pp score instead of classic score during play" ) so that people have the option to play with either, and then those who play with pp scores would have scores that are of higher pp value gain priority over those of lower pp value despite the score, while those who don't would have scores upload the way they do now.
This would ensure that the load on the servers wouldn't increase, or at least not by much, and that people who dislike pp scoring don't have to live with it. I might be overlooking something, but this seems like an option that all of us could live with. There would be two remaining issues - the web leaderboards and implementation. This may all sound nice on paper but I understand that implementing this (realtime pp scoring in particular) might be a bit tricky. Still, I doubt it's impossible, and I think that a lot of people would be content with the option to play with classic or pp scoreboards. The last issue would be multiplayer - but this could be solved with a per-room toggle. Meaning that the "score" option would be removed from the win conditions drop down menu and be replaced with "classic" and "pp", and default to classic.
I hope this helps move the discussion forward any, I'd really like to see in-game pp implemented in some form and I hope this idea doesn't just get buried under the others. Have all my 16 stars.
Also, here is a perfect example of why pp scoring would be a lot less headache-inducing with our current system:
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Tess wrote:
- DT will be placed on a pedestal, and it is overrated
Those were the arguments I've seen against it, pointing them out doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. DT isn't buttonmashing, I know plenty of players who are very fast streamers and can't play DT at all. Whoever says that is just being ignorant. But I have seen that argument mentioned in this thread, hence why I posted it.
We need more posts like these in large topics, this is a perfect post trying to remove as much bias as possible and stating facts. More summaries like this would be great. The solution provided also seems fair, a good trial to see which scoreboard ends up being more used and hence which should be the default scoreboard.Tess wrote:
SI hope this helps move the discussion forward any, I'd really like to see in-game pp implemented in some form and I hope this idea doesn't just get buried under the others. Have all my 16 stars.
So what about some of the achivements? Pp score would make some impossible
It would be nice if you could actually list the achievements you're referring to, but since you like being vague, I'll list all of them instead:
Hush Hush Achievements: Any hush hush that relates to score could be adapted to fit pp score. If not, then you can just achieve it by playing for score instead of pp. I have a few of those, and I don't see how any of the ones I've achieved couldn't have been achieved with pp score. Of the ones I do not have, only one of those seems to vaguely hint at being related to score - and the way I interpret it, pp-based scoring wouldn't get in the way of it at all.
Dedication Achievements: These aren't relevant to score at all.
Combo Achievements: ^
Beatmap Pack Achievements: ^
I'm sorry, but I don't think your argument is based upon anything you've even looked into. Also, I think that even if it was the case that pp scoring would get in the way of a single achievement, I would be surprised if you could find 10 people who seriously think that that is, on it's own, a valid enough reason to not implement pp scoring. That idea is absurd and you know it.
Hush Hush Achievements: Any hush hush that relates to score could be adapted to fit pp score. If not, then you can just achieve it by playing for score instead of pp. I have a few of those, and I don't see how any of the ones I've achieved couldn't have been achieved with pp score. Of the ones I do not have, only one of those seems to vaguely hint at being related to score - and the way I interpret it, pp-based scoring wouldn't get in the way of it at all.
Dedication Achievements: These aren't relevant to score at all.
Combo Achievements: ^
Beatmap Pack Achievements: ^
I'm sorry, but I don't think your argument is based upon anything you've even looked into. Also, I think that even if it was the case that pp scoring would get in the way of a single achievement, I would be surprised if you could find 10 people who seriously think that that is, on it's own, a valid enough reason to not implement pp scoring. That idea is absurd and you know it.
The reason i dont list them is because im not allowed to. And I really dont see how some of the other achies in addition to the obvious one could be achieved.Tess wrote:
It would be nice if you could actually list the achievements you're referring to, but since you like being vague, I'll list all of them instead:
Also no I dont think that that is the only reason why the suggestion is bad.
Then why don't you give your other reasons? Also, I was able to explain why it's not a problem without giving away anything, it's not impossible. I completely understand that you might have legitimate reasons as to why this shouldn't be implemented, but so far, I don't really see you providing any, or at least not any of substance. Nobody's stopping you from speaking your mind, and it's a forum, so it's not like there's any pressure. You can take all the time you need to word things correctly, and even if you mess up you can edit your post.
So, if you could provide your reasons as to why the suggestion is bad rather than saying "it's bad because it's bad and stuff" or something similar, that might actually help move the discussion forward rather than stagnate it.
So, if you could provide your reasons as to why the suggestion is bad rather than saying "it's bad because it's bad and stuff" or something similar, that might actually help move the discussion forward rather than stagnate it.
The reason you don't list them is because there's only 1. News flash: no one cares about achievements that's just a dead weight argument against this because you haven't got anything else to say anymore. Of course the achievements would still work, score would still be 100% visible it'd be the main metric, the only thing that'd change is what appears in the scoreboards. This is a none existent argument don't even try and push it and even if it was no one cares about achievements anyway.Sea_Food wrote:
The reason i dont list them is because im not allowed to. And I really dont see how some of the other achies in addition to the obvious one could be achieved.Tess wrote:
It would be nice if you could actually list the achievements you're referring to, but since you like being vague, I'll list all of them instead:
Also no I dont think that that is the only reason why the suggestion is bad.
I'm not sure if you know but this is a discussion. You can't just say there are reasons you're right and we're wrong and not state them, lest you be stuck with no argument at all. Argumentation is healthy to support your side of the agenda and if you have nothing to argue your side is pretty weak.
Do pp actually suitable for precise scoring on single and just single play? i mean you don't see any other numeral data then pp
That depends on how it would be implemented, so far the two main ideas are either creating a score formula that relates directly to pp (pp x 100 or whatever) or show a lot of decimals behind your pp value as score, but only show your rounded up value on your profile (200pp = 200.345.122). So, to answer your question, yes, pp is suitable for precise scoring, and even if it isn't, it can be.
Its sounds strange to me that people want ranking system to be implemented as a score system, ranking system that was made to score multple performences insted of jurgeing single play, and it even more suppriced me that people wall of text talks about pros and cons of it without knowing how this suppose to work, all based on saying that pp is superior system to jurge skill, ot knowing much about it. Yes, ofcore everything can be implemented, but without thinking how suppose to work we dont know if it batter or worse, if it even possible to use current system or need to be remade.
I read info page about pp, it mantions that there suppose to be wiki page done with details how that system works, is that was done? If yes then link plz? ; p
Either way i think what you requesting here is not pp replceing scoreing system, but to create new scoreing system based on way pp system works, if it even able to properly jurge single play with enouth scale to do ranking of such scores.
I read info page about pp, it mantions that there suppose to be wiki page done with details how that system works, is that was done? If yes then link plz? ; p
Either way i think what you requesting here is not pp replceing scoreing system, but to create new scoreing system based on way pp system works, if it even able to properly jurge single play with enouth scale to do ranking of such scores.
A system which compares multiple performances across different maps obviously has to be able to judge a single play, and compare plays on the same map aswell, how can you fail to see that. How could it could it compare different plays between different maps if it can't even compare plays on the same map?... Please.Shadowriver wrote:
Its sounds strange to me that people want ranking system to be implemented as a score system, ranking system that was made to score multple performences insted of jurgeing single play
How do you know if the way it jurge produce score with enouth scale so it can create suitable ranking for are single song? In your case you more skilled then i am, so pp produce three digit numbers which even reapets on multiple songs and now look on my pp from my noobish normal plays.... numbers between 1-3, so how this suppose to jurge rank single play of noobs like me, how its gonna work good as scoring system if can produce same numbers for single scores? Something that produce numbers does not mean it a good scoring system, because this system was made to jurge skill based on multiple plays, so it does not case if it produce 3 digit numbers or between 1-3 to accumulate. And besides what basis you guys have for discussion if all you see is pp numbers, or else that mantioned wiki page details exists.Drezi wrote:
A system which compares multiple performances across different maps obviously has to be able to judge a single play, and compare plays on the same map aswell, how can you fail to see that. How could it could it compare different plays between different maps if it can't even compare plays on the same map?... Please.Shadowriver wrote:
Its sounds strange to me that people want ranking system to be implemented as a score system, ranking system that was made to score multple performences insted of jurgeing single play
What basis do YOU have to form a valid opinion when you don't even know if a wiki page exists about pp? You've barely played this game at all, I suggest you get a bit more familiar with the system before you come here to argue on one side or the other.Shadowriver wrote:
what basis you guys have for discussion if all you see is pp numbers, or else that mantioned wiki page details exists.
PP has decimals, but it is not shown for the sake of simplicity. Yeah Easy diffs might still have plenty of tied scores, but what does it matter? If you made the same play, there's no need to differentiate.. There are tons of tied scores currently aswell on easier spinnerless maps.
The other reasons I have gave earlier in this thread\given by other people and i have nothing to add to them. You can read the 17pages of this thread if you are interested. I really see no reason to write same things again that have been discussed before.Tess wrote:
Then why don't you give your other reasons? Also, I was able to explain why it's not a problem without giving away anything, it's not impossible. I completely understand that you might have legitimate reasons as to why this shouldn't be implemented, but so far, I don't really see you providing any, or at least not any of substance. Nobody's stopping you from speaking your mind, and it's a forum, so it's not like there's any pressure. You can take all the time you need to word things correctly, and even if you mess up you can edit your post.
@jesus1412
Score will be 100% visible and the main metric? Only thing will change is scoreboard? I just love how you are picking your own and rare opinion on how this shit would work and complain that my argument would be invalid if things were done that way. Especially since i wasnt even talking to you. Fucking 50% of this thread is discussing how pp would be calculated live while playing, as in not "this will only change scoreboard" and somehow you missed that. You also say nobody carea about achies. Keep acting that everyone thinks same way jesus1412 does
Also the last paragraf of your post pure cacer.
Changing the whole scoring system would be optimal, but that's a lot more work, and not a necessity for PP scoreboards to be implemented. PP scoreboards could still replace the current ones without having to make any changes to the current scoring system. Also the most popular consensus right now is that PP scoreboards could be implemented IN ADDITION to the current score-based scoreboards.Sea_Food wrote:
Score will be 100% visible and the main metric? Only thing will change is scoreboard? I just love how you are picking your own and rare opinion on how this shit would work and complain that my argument would be invalid if things were done that way. Especially since i wasnt even talking to you. Fucking 50% of this thread is discussing how pp would be calculated live while playing, as in not "this will only change scoreboard" and somehow you missed that.
Ok sorry retried searching and i find that wiki page, insted of suggeting me to get fimillier you could help direct me to the link so i can get fimiliar, thats all i wanted to see ; p. But either way pp in current form is imo not suitable, it needs to be scaled diffrently and looking on wiki it can be done in some way or another, so i still belive what you guys wanting is new scoring system based on similar mechanic, pp is made to just accumulate. Also it all about numbers, so it really does not matter how long i playDrezi wrote:
What basis do YOU have to form a valid opinion when you don't even know if a wiki page exists about pp? You've barely played this game at all, I suggest you get a bit more familiar with the system before you come here to argue on one side or the other.Shadowriver wrote:
what basis you guys have for discussion if all you see is pp numbers, or else that mantioned wiki page details exists.
PP has decimals, but it is not shown for the sake of simplicity. Yeah Easy diffs might still have plenty of tied scores, but what does it matter? If you made the same play, there's no need to differentiate.. There are tons of tied scores currently aswell on easier spinnerless maps.
It does because you have no clue about the differences between the two, and this is not the place for us to be guiding you, why are you even posting here omg.
Yes, if pp is able to judge individual plays and assign a value to each play, a higher value meaning a better play, where each map has an absolute cap (HDDTHRFL SS) then we can use that system not only to compare players' different skill levels, but also to compare plays of different performance levels. Since osu is not a game that judges you by your skill, but by all of your performances combined. It takes each individual performance you've had, assigns numbers to each of them, and then compiles them into a total, then compares your total to the total of other players, the player with the highest total being #1. This should be self-evident. I'm only mentioning it because I want you to see this logic:
- Everyone's plays are judged individually
- The total judgment of each player is compared against all the others, and placed into a ladder based on your performance total vs. everyone else's
- This means that we are capable of comparing single players, based on the cumulative total of their individual plays
How can we judge these things and compare them to each other, but not compare individual plays on the same map to each other? That's like saying that you can compare two different cars but not two different car parts. I agree with Drezi, this really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
- Everyone's plays are judged individually
- The total judgment of each player is compared against all the others, and placed into a ladder based on your performance total vs. everyone else's
- This means that we are capable of comparing single players, based on the cumulative total of their individual plays
How can we judge these things and compare them to each other, but not compare individual plays on the same map to each other? That's like saying that you can compare two different cars but not two different car parts. I agree with Drezi, this really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
You should probably just stop posting. Let my dissect your post really quickly and show you how you're an idiot and have just admitted that my idea works fine and your argument against it is "the working idea doesn't make my opinion work so I'm going to ignore it".Sea_Food wrote:
The other reasons I have gave earlier in this thread\given by other people and i have nothing to add to them. You can read the 17pages of this thread if you are interested. I really see no reason to write same things again that have been discussed before.
@jesus1412
Score will be 100% visible and the main metric? Only thing will change is scoreboard? I just love how you are picking your own and rare opinion on how this shit would work and complain that my argument would be invalid if things were done that way. Especially since i wasnt even talking to you. Fucking 50% of this thread is discussing how pp would be calculated live while playing, as in not "this will only change scoreboard" and somehow you missed that. You also say nobody carea about achies. Keep acting that everyone thinks same way jesus1412 does
Also the last paragraf of your post pure cacer.
I just love how you are picking your own and rare opinion on how this shit would work and complain that my argument would be invalid if things were done that way.Yes it would work, what's the problem? No where in the OP does it talk about making this system a "generated live" kind of thing. This would be displayed just like score at the end of the map right next to it. It won't hurt you at all, people like you are the reasons we can't have nice things. "One or the other, we can't have both even though having both doesn't effect me in any way" is the mentality that ruins a lot of fun in the world, you are an anit-fun person. No one wants you to exist if you simply want to take enjoyment away from people.
Especially since i wasnt even talking to you.Get off of the forum. You don't have a clue what a forum is evidently. I am pretty convinced you're actually a troll poster at this point.
Fucking 50% of this thread is discussing how pp would be calculated live while playing, as in not "this will only change scoreboard" and somehow you missed that.Trying to enhance the idea is great and all but this is just an extension of the idea which would allow it to COMPLETELY overrule standard scoring. As it stands, this isn't currently possible hence we need to look at other ideas. Obviously those other ideas are viable and go against your ideas so you simply deny them and call my opinion a minority even though more people would want what I'm saying than what you're saying. I can't conclusively say that more people want change, but from what I can see more people DO want change; regardless of how perfect that change is they DO want change. If 33% of people didn't want change, 33% of people wanted this to be the main metric for scoreboards and 33% wanted pp to be the new scoring mechanic completely, are you trying to argue it's evenly split between what people want? 66% OF PEOPLE WANT THE CHANGE IN THIS SCENARIO, NOT 33%; DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CHANGE ARE ALL CHANGE DON'T DIVIDE THEM.
You also say nobody carea about achies. Keep acting that everyone thinks same way jesus1412 doesMost people don't and I already explained that this would only effect ONE acheivment even if it was implemented as a completely new score system and the old one was removed. Here, unlike you I provide evidence to back me up because I'm not a shit poster. Here's the link because the image is too large for the forums: http://jesse1412.s-ul.eu/m0c8ZTuU . Also note that the people who didn't reply are still replying and all of them have said they don't care about acheives (zapy, elysion and shadowsoul so far replied.)
Also the last paragraf of your post pure cacer.You obviously didn't read it otherwise you wouldn't have continued posting. This is a forum but you don't understand that. Spend time constructing your posts. You should have no spelling mistakes on a forum if you're actually trying, it TELLS YOU which words are spelled wrong and then TELLS YOU how to spell them.
Don't need to be aggressive, its not like i come here deny your ideas, just criticly chalange it as any feature request should. I admit i searched wrong and didn't find wiki page, but consideing you guys pushing this idea and trying to convice people to support it, including me even if i played for few days (but i got some longer expirence with SMO, so it not like i know nothing about rythm games), so you could pass me link to help me out.Drezi wrote:
It does because you have no clue about the differences between the two, and this is not the place for us to be guiding you, why are you even posting here omg.
I post here because i played multiplayer a little and noticed how pp workes giving me those 1-3 points sometimes and i can see how it is suitable for ranking system. Then i discovred how osu have frequent updates and i guess there need to be some change log which lead me here, and as someone interested in programing, i really like seeing development of software and it's proggression and discussion about it. And so i see this thread and i become intrigued how this 1-3 points giving system for lower rank player like me, suppose to be superior scoring system, how it suppose rank single session in this state? I didn't have enouth info, but no i got this wiki page, and i link it so everybofy passing here can check it out:
https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Performance_Points
...and i can see i could lead to something, but still i belive this system need to be tuned to be good for single session scoring, i mean now it gives me 1-3, it need to give something more precice, also is all aspect of current system is good for something like this? or something could be removed or added? Also how to make this system more streamable so you can see score live? but as long you tuning this system it slowly stoping to become this old pp system and becomes something new, thats why i'm hinting what you guys want is new scoring system based on pp aspects, not pp thrown as replacement. pp in current form was made for ranking of multiple plays, not as a scoring system replacement.
If you ask me, i do aggree that current scoring system is flaw and i might see it diffrently then others, but what i think is a flaw is combo multiplier in game which combo is common thing and you usally break it only few times, which means langth of a combo is a huge factor. Problem is you can miss at any moment for random reason and when that moment happens got a huge factor on final score, so not number of misses counts, but where you did them, which i think is a flaw.
Sea_Food wrote:
The other reasons I have gave earlier in this thread\given by other people and i have nothing to add to them. You can read the 17pages of this thread if you are interested. I really see no reason to write same things again that have been discussed before.
?Tess wrote:
I've read the entire thread, and there were quite obviously two very strongly opposing sides - one for, and one against pp as a scoring system.
This thread wasn't made by jesus and countless other people share the exact same opinion, including myself. There's nothing rare about it.Sea_Food wrote:
@jesus1412
Score will be 100% visible and the main metric? Only thing will change is scoreboard? I just love how you are picking your own and rare opinion on how this shit would work and complain that my argument would be invalid if things were done that way.
???Sea_Food wrote:
Especially since i wasnt even talking to you.
I don't get the first half of your statement, but resorting to personal attacks once your arguments are challenged is just low. As for the second statement - a lot of people do agree with what jesus said, at least in some form, as I've stated before. I also challenged you to find me 10 reasonable people who seriously consider a single achievement more important than the scoring/ranking system, and can give a decent argument for why they think that way. Actually, no, find me two.Sea_Food wrote:
Fucking 50% of this thread is discussing how pp would be calculated live while playing, as in not "this will only change scoreboard" and somehow you missed that. You also say nobody carea about achies. Keep acting that everyone thinks same way jesus1412 does
Fact of the matter is that you aren't able to formulate decent arguments to defend your standpoint and thus resort to fallacies and personal attacks instead. Nobody has been personally attacking you, it's just getting annoying to watch you say "I don't want this because I don't" and then act as if you're giving valid reasons or arguments for your case. You aren't, you act as though we aren't aware of any possible downsides, even though Kyou-kun and myself already listed most of the con arguments earlier in the thread.
I'll be more than willing to see your point if you actually have any.
Sea_Food wrote:
Also the last paragraf of your post pure cacer.
jesus1412 wrote:
I am pretty convinced you're actually a troll poster at this point.
Here. Here is the only thing I wanted to say for this moment in this thread. Either of you two could have simply said:Sea_Food wrote:
So what about some of the achivements? Pp score would make some impossible
This idea does not necessarily mean that current scoring system would be abolished. Also achies are not that important for many people.and we would have had a completed discussion about the issue. Compleated discussions on a subject is a good thing.
Yes informative post are better, but meaningless yabbering does not make your post better just because they make them longer. Turned a really simple issue into a war of "proof" and a quest of "lets teach Sea_Food how to make quality post on the forums." Just because:
1. I couldnt explain which achies would/could get affected. Sorry but there are rules on this game and I dont want go darker on the grey area to tell you which achievementS are them, because again it dosnt even matter and is meaningless yabbering.
2. I wouldnt point out which of the previously discussed subjects (that you know about) are the other things that are heavy enough arguments that I would not want this suggestion to go trough. Because I really think that mentioning them once again would be meaningless yabbering. If what your been trying to do is not to make me think this way, sorry you have failed on your quest.
Since we kinda switched the topic into good forum behavior, here is a tip for you guys. Dont try so hard to "win" arguments.
You're just going in circles, so I'll just skip reading your posts from now on.
To put things back on track, Shadowriver, I think that you and everyone else would have a much easier time discussing this if you did a good amount of research and proper thinking about the subject before posting. A lot of the people discussing here have been monitoring the pp discussion thread from the start, whereas you've only been here for a few days and thus it's highly unlikely that you're as informed as them, unless you've read the entire thread (all ~1400 posts) which I doubt you did in such a short time. I'm not trying to be offensive, just saying that discussing this with you is pretty hard, at least for me, especially because I spend more time trying to decipher what you mean than actually replying to your post, which makes it kind of a chore.
To reply to your points, though;
Drezi wasn't being aggressive as much as fed up with your lack of logic/information, mostly things that should be there but aren't. I don't think it was a personal attack against you as much as disliking your approach to this discussion.
About your other point - we've already discussed the application of pp scoring earlier on in the thread. You really should read the entire thing, though I've already made an attempt at summarizing it a few pages back.
Lastly, the way combo works in scoring with osu will change if pp is adopted as a scoring system - nevertheless, the difference between half combo and max combo will still be huge. Combo is a very important part of osu, it's not comboing that's a flaw but the current score system in itself, at least related to pp.
I couldn't make out any other points, so, if I missed any, I apologize. Hope that clears things up for you, but, for next time - try figuring out as much as you can on your own before posting, it's very frustrating to have to answer the same question over and over again for other users. Also, try working on your English, this is an English forum and you ultimately want to be understood, that's how you move discussion forward. Please don't take this as an insult, it's just something that would benefit you and those around you.
To put things back on track, Shadowriver, I think that you and everyone else would have a much easier time discussing this if you did a good amount of research and proper thinking about the subject before posting. A lot of the people discussing here have been monitoring the pp discussion thread from the start, whereas you've only been here for a few days and thus it's highly unlikely that you're as informed as them, unless you've read the entire thread (all ~1400 posts) which I doubt you did in such a short time. I'm not trying to be offensive, just saying that discussing this with you is pretty hard, at least for me, especially because I spend more time trying to decipher what you mean than actually replying to your post, which makes it kind of a chore.
To reply to your points, though;
Drezi wasn't being aggressive as much as fed up with your lack of logic/information, mostly things that should be there but aren't. I don't think it was a personal attack against you as much as disliking your approach to this discussion.
About your other point - we've already discussed the application of pp scoring earlier on in the thread. You really should read the entire thing, though I've already made an attempt at summarizing it a few pages back.
Lastly, the way combo works in scoring with osu will change if pp is adopted as a scoring system - nevertheless, the difference between half combo and max combo will still be huge. Combo is a very important part of osu, it's not comboing that's a flaw but the current score system in itself, at least related to pp.
I couldn't make out any other points, so, if I missed any, I apologize. Hope that clears things up for you, but, for next time - try figuring out as much as you can on your own before posting, it's very frustrating to have to answer the same question over and over again for other users. Also, try working on your English, this is an English forum and you ultimately want to be understood, that's how you move discussion forward. Please don't take this as an insult, it's just something that would benefit you and those around you.
Someone understands me, you're a good person ;_;Tess wrote:
Drezi wasn't being aggressive as much as fed up with your lack of logic/information, mostly things that should be there but aren't.
This 1000x too. Some people keep making the same nonsense arguments.. best one is "I don't like this because I don't, I hope this doesn't happen."Tess wrote:
Try figuring out as much as you can on your own before posting, it's very frustrating to have to answer the same question over and over again for other users.
i suggest completely ignoring every post by sea_food from now on. it's not like he has ever had a decent forum post anyway, not just in this thread.
Topic Starter
For everyone talking about adjusting things awkwardly to fit the new pp system, and how it wouldn't work well, please note the title is "Add pp as a scoring system in standard mode", not "Add pp to replace score in standard mode".
I'll say it for you, it would effect jackpot. That's all. It's not illegal to say it if you have a good point of discussion but it's a shitty achievement anyway good luck getting it. We listed all the issues and you haven't specified which ones we haven't found a remedy for with this implementation which is why we want you to list them (there are none).Sea_Food wrote:
Here. Here is the only thing I wanted to say for this moment in this thread. Either of you two could have simply said:Sea_Food wrote:
So what about some of the achivements? Pp score would make some impossibleThis idea does not necessarily mean that current scoring system would be abolished. Also achies are not that important for many people.and we would have had a completed discussion about the issue. Compleated discussions on a subject is a good thing.
Yes informative post are better, but meaningless yabbering does not make your post better just because they make them longer. Turned a really simple issue into a war of "proof" and a quest of "lets teach Sea_Food how to make quality post on the forums." Just because:
1. I couldnt explain which achies would/could get affected. Sorry but there are rules on this game and I dont want go darker on the grey area to tell you which achievementS are them, because again it dosnt even matter and is meaningless yabbering.
2. I wouldnt point out which of the previously discussed subjects (that you know about) are the other things that are heavy enough arguments that I would not want this suggestion to go trough. Because I really think that mentioning them once again would be meaningless yabbering. If what your been trying to do is not to make me think this way, sorry you have failed on your quest.
Since we kinda switched the topic into good forum behavior, here is a tip for you guys. Dont try so hard to "win" arguments.
This is feature requests where we share our opinions on implementing features. This is one of the few places where winning an argument actually matters outside of actual politics and betting with friends. Of course we want to "win" arguments, we want good new things to be included in the game.
And there; the OP even said there's no awkward "pp as you play" system needed for this request. It'd be nice but it's probably something for another day.Kyou-kun wrote:
For everyone talking about adjusting things awkwardly to fit the new pp system, and how it wouldn't work well, please note the title is "Add pp as a scoring system in standard mode", not "Add pp to replace score in standard mode".
silmarilen wrote:
i suggest completely ignoring every post by sea_food from now on. it's not like he has ever had a decent forum post anyway, not just in this thread.
Also, it has already been suggested several times to have both pp and classic scoring as optional leaderboards, with classic scoring remaining the default. Nothing gets removed, something only gets added for those who like it (and i'm sure there will be a lot of people who will like it)
The PP system is extremely fickle, and it will lead to the global scoreboards being just as fickle which is not what we want them to be. People should lose their spots on scoreboards when someone else passes them, not when tom decides to pump up the aim or dumb down the value of accuracy or whatever he's going to do in the future in his endeavors to make a more effective and accurate ranking system. This might even discourage him from making changes to this relatively young system that still has a lot of work to go. Peppy hates touching scoreboards. This will involve not only completely re-ordering them but making them incredibly volatile.
This is why it is not going to happen. No way. Not until the system is entirely 100% unquestionably done with no room for improvement... which will probably be never...
instead of investing all this time and post energy into an idea that can't possibly be implemented for a very very long time if at all...
I recommend we try to get jesse senpai's much more practical/reasonable idea implemented.
This is why it is not going to happen. No way. Not until the system is entirely 100% unquestionably done with no room for improvement... which will probably be never...
instead of investing all this time and post energy into an idea that can't possibly be implemented for a very very long time if at all...
I recommend we try to get jesse senpai's much more practical/reasonable idea implemented.
please keep one suggestion per threadsilmarilen wrote:
i suggest completely ignoring every post by sea_food from now on. it's not like he has ever had a decent forum post anyway, not just in this thread.
Topic Starter
Tom already confirmed that it is happening several times. Your arguments are obviously invalid if you read the last post I made on this thread (or just read the title).Riince wrote:
The PP system is extremely fickle, and it will lead to the global scoreboards being just as fickle which is not what we want them to be. People should lose their spots on scoreboards when someone else passes them, not when tom decides to pump up the aim or dumb down the value of accuracy or whatever he's going to do in the future in his endeavors to make a more effective and accurate ranking system. This might even discourage him from making changes to this relatively young system that still has a lot of work to go. Peppy hates touching scoreboards. This will involve not only completely re-ordering them but making them incredibly volatile.
This is why it is not going to happen. No way. Not until the system is entirely 100% unquestionably done with no room for improvement... which will probably be never...
instead of investing all this time and post energy into an idea that can't possibly be implemented for a very very long time if at all...
I recommend we try to get jesse senpai's much more practical/reasonable idea implemented.
If you're going to use that as an argument, Tom might just as well not make adjustments to the pp system at all because people's rankings might change. "Oh no, someone might go back in ranking if I fix this, better leave it broken so we don't have to change."Riince wrote:
People should lose their spots on scoreboards when someone else passes them, not when tom decides to pump up the aim or dumb down the value of accuracy or whatever he's going to do in the future in his endeavors to make a more effective and accurate ranking system.
You're acting like player rankings are irrelevant and only score rankings matter, but the two are very closely related. Why can we rank players by their pp, but not the scores? Where is the logic in that? Most of the arguments against this idea so far were vaguely informed opinions at best, save for one or two reasonable ones. Most of you aren't giving any reason other than "I don't like this because change" and it's really doing nothing for the discussion. If players are ranked by pp, score should be ranked by pp. If doing so causes for a mess - make a separate leaderboard. We've been over this, going in circles won't change it at all.
It'd also be nice if people could stop talking about what peppy loves or hates. I recall seeing someone say that peppy hated tp, and now the ppv2 developer is the same guy who developed tp. Speak for yourselves and let others speak for themselves, saying "peppy hates x" is just stupid. Unless you can pull a direct quote, in which case you still shouldn't speak for him and should post a link to the post you're quoting instead.
Please think about it first.Tess wrote:
If you're going to use that as an argument, Tom might just as well not make adjustments to the pp system at all because people's rankings might change. "Oh no, someone might go back in ranking if I fix this, better leave it broken so we don't have to change."
spots on song scoreboards should not be fickle and subject to constant change. Player A: "oh Player B you think you're hot stuff because your 99.5% DT put you in first over my 99.1% HD DT? just wait until tom buffs hidden nerd and that spot is mine!" see the inherent issues with that? Player A should have to work for his #1 there not feel like he can wait for the system to conform to where he thinks his play should be, and player B shouldn't have to worry about his score being passed because of such a change.
changes to ppv2's effect on global rankings boil down to virtually non-existent in the top 50, completely ineffectual in the top 10. i mention these because they're the only things that matter when you're comparing global to scoreboards even though they're nothing alike in the first place.
Let me expand on this. I don't see lewa mulling around waiting for accuracy to be buffed over aim and speed so he can take #1, because it's not going to happen, but the first scenario i mentioned is quite plausible since everyone is basically ranked on how they did on a single song, of which in most cases all top 50 performances on which are going to be similar enough to change drastically with even small changes to the difficulty algorithm, hence why this shouldn't be subject to constant change. In the top 50 global rankings, people aren't all within 1-2 pp of eachother like they will be on scoreboards. I wonder why?
Yeah, it's so much better to have HDHR scores as 1# when someone actually DT-d the map... and generally just flawed map rankings, due to lower acc scores being able to beat higher acc scores if 100s happened earlier etc.Riince wrote:
Player A: "oh Player B you think you're hot stuff because your 99.5% DT put you in first over my 99.1% HD DT? just wait until tom buffs hidden nerd and that spot is mine!" see the inherent issues with that? Player A should have to work for his #1 there not feel like he can wait for the system to conform to where he thinks his play should be, and player B shouldn't have to worry about his score being passed because of such a change.Tess wrote:
If you're going to use that as an argument, Tom might just as well not make adjustments to the pp system at all because people's rankings might change. "Oh no, someone might go back in ranking if I fix this, better leave it broken so we don't have to change."
Logic.
explain how that relates to what i said. i was drawing a comparison between hd dt and dt, didnt mention hd hr anywhere. obviously hd hr is going to take a nosedive when the system is first implemented but im talking about very similar and very closely related in pp scores changing places with eachother afterwards.Drezi wrote:
Yeah, it's so much better to have HDHR scores as 1# when someone actually DT-d the map... and generally just flawed map rankings, due to lower acc scores being able to beat higher acc scores if 100s happened earlier etc.
Logic.
Constantly
No explaining will help you, if you don't get it by yourself.
no, it's you who didn't understand what you quoted. i wasn't talking about the initial transition.Drezi wrote:
No explaining will help you, if you don't get it by yourself.
anyway if it's going to be implemented it's going to be implemented. It's not a terrible thing that ruins scoreboards or anything, I was just pointing out some conceptual flaws with it that we'll probably see happening in the future with it.
Ok, I'll try.
You're counterarguing against this change with the fact that similar scores might switch places with changes to the algorythm (Oh no! If Tom makes the algorythm better, a play that is deemed more worthy will take 1#, how terrible).
...
Right now the real 1# plays might not even be in the top50 and plays that are clearly inferior can overtake better plays, so please tell me how this is better than the possibility of rankings changing around a bit FOR THE BETTER, should Tom make a change.
That downside you're arguing with is negilible compared to the downsides of the current system, which makes your point completely irrelevant if we look at the picture as a whole.
You're counterarguing against this change with the fact that similar scores might switch places with changes to the algorythm (Oh no! If Tom makes the algorythm better, a play that is deemed more worthy will take 1#, how terrible).
...
Right now the real 1# plays might not even be in the top50 and plays that are clearly inferior can overtake better plays, so please tell me how this is better than the possibility of rankings changing around a bit FOR THE BETTER, should Tom make a change.
That downside you're arguing with is negilible compared to the downsides of the current system, which makes your point completely irrelevant if we look at the picture as a whole.
i think that when someone gets #1 on a scoreboard after the change, there should be no question that their #1 is going to suddenly become #2 because of tom, unless it's because tom took #1 on the map himself, of course. there should be some permanence, it shouldn't be written in water, but carved in stone until someone else picks up the hammer and chisel and puts their name in above it..
it's definitely not as big of a downside as the current score system where hd hr gives way too much, but it does fundamentally change the way scoreboards function, they become less historical in a sense. less ceremonious, even. all things should be taken into account when any change is implemented and this is just one i felt wasn't brought up yet.
it's definitely not as big of a downside as the current score system where hd hr gives way too much, but it does fundamentally change the way scoreboards function, they become less historical in a sense. less ceremonious, even. all things should be taken into account when any change is implemented and this is just one i felt wasn't brought up yet.
Stop editing your posts constantly, it's annoying that by the time I send my reply, half of the content is different/new.
whoops okDrezi wrote:
Stop editing your posts constantly, it's annoying that by the time I send my reply, half of the content is different/new.
i should just draft properly im not used to having such rapid replies i usually have time to post this way.
As I've said before, the main argument against this idea is "Oh no, stuff might change!". Things change in life, how can you reject improvement purely because you refuse to step out of something lesser? That's like saying "I appreciate your offer to give me that Ferrari but this half-broken Suzuki Swift has driven me around town all my life, so I'm good."
There is no logic in this, how the hell can't you realize that?
There is no logic in this, how the hell can't you realize that?
Topic Starter
So this alternate scoreboard which doesn't effect the current ones might change periodically to better reflect what is a good play. I don't see the problem here at all. Could you please explain why that's a bad thing?
Apparently not.
I don't want to see this thread die, though. This isn't just a random idea and no yes/no has been given yet, I don't see why it should randomly stop at this point. I'll pull up my summary post again if anyone needs that, but it bothers me that this thread doesn't have much attention paid to it, even though it would be a /huge/ progression in rankings and how they work. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this idea, and I'm sure many others would agree.
So, you know, let's try to get discussion going again, if possible.
I don't want to see this thread die, though. This isn't just a random idea and no yes/no has been given yet, I don't see why it should randomly stop at this point. I'll pull up my summary post again if anyone needs that, but it bothers me that this thread doesn't have much attention paid to it, even though it would be a /huge/ progression in rankings and how they work. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this idea, and I'm sure many others would agree.
So, you know, let's try to get discussion going again, if possible.
i think this is a good idea and it should be added asap
Come on 19pages of discussion and your complaining why people dont keep going. I am sure that everyone important knows about this thread so no reason to keep it bumbed just so people would keep talking about the points in your summary post when everything that can be said about this has already been said.Tess wrote:
Apparently not.
I don't want to see this thread die, though. This isn't just a random idea and no yes/no has been given yet, I don't see why it should randomly stop at this point. I'll pull up my summary post again if anyone needs that, but it bothers me that this thread doesn't have much attention paid to it, even though it would be a /huge/ progression in rankings and how they work. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this idea, and I'm sure many others would agree.
So, you know, let's try to get discussion going again, if possible.
Also i dont know if you ment that there isnt a post by bluename confirming or denying this request but AFAIK its a bad thing to ever give statements like that before the developer is atleast working on implenting the feature yet.
Everything that you wanted to say about this has already been said*Sea_Food wrote:
everything that can be said about this has already been said
Why? He could've at least mentioned whether he thinks it's a good idea or not. I've already seen Tom say a few things, but I feel like the involvement is way too low. Also, we both know that you don't want this feature, so it's only natural that you wouldn't mind the thread dying off.Sea_Food wrote:
Also i dont know if you ment that there isnt a post by bluename confirming or denying this request but AFAIK its a bad thing to ever give statements like that before the developer is atleast working on implenting the feature yet.
this thread doesn't HAVE to be on the first page to get attention. we see all. just remember that
Also its in the ninth place of the pirioty sortings, really no need to bump.
Topic Starter
but really men why isn't this in the game yet
Just dropping this in here.
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
Topic Starter
no! i don't want thatDT-sama wrote:
Just dropping this in here.
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
This happening would be quite interesting.DT-sama wrote:
Just dropping this in here.
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
Wow so mods would actually give a bonus fitting to their difficulty?
Praise jesse this is actually happening
Praise jesse this is actually happening
yes this definitely needs a better scoring system.
also, as someone who doesn't have over 1k beatmaps downloaded, i wish the system better took into account people that repeatedly plays the same maps over someone with 10k beapmaps that just clears every one of them one by one with mediocre performance just for the ranking points.
also, as someone who doesn't have over 1k beatmaps downloaded, i wish the system better took into account people that repeatedly plays the same maps over someone with 10k beapmaps that just clears every one of them one by one with mediocre performance just for the ranking points.
Weighting percentages already does this to a degree but not enough imo.Railander wrote:
yes this definitely needs a better scoring system.
also, as someone who doesn't have over 1k beatmaps downloaded, i wish the system better took into account people that repeatedly plays the same maps over someone with 10k beapmaps that just clears every one of them one by one with mediocre performance just for the ranking points.
Topic Starter
I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
one thing i have no idea how could be made properly is weighting difficulty categories against each other.Kyou-kun wrote:
I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
for instance, when does X speed become harder (worth more) than Y aim/acc?
What.. They'd be weighted separately and summed after that. Currently they are summed per map, and weighted afterwards, so a performance that excels in only one category is pushed down by ones where the sum is higher.
sure, but that's not what i'm asking.Drezi wrote:
What.. They'd be weighted separately and summed after that. Currently they are summed per map, and weighted afterwards, so a performance that excels in only one category is pushed down by ones where the sum is higher.
they are fundamentally different from one another, like apples and oranges.
at what point do you say "hey this apple tastes better than this orange"?
how do you decide where the line is that says the difficulty in each category can be quantifiably equal?
oh, that's a good point, if I had to guess it's based on statistics with some subjective touch to it.
Topic Starter
but oranges do taste better, especially the juice that comes from them
I can confirm thisKyou-kun wrote:
but oranges do taste better, especially the juice that comes from them
Once we figure that out there's still the major issue with comparing FL to pretty much anything elseRailander wrote:
one thing i have no idea how could be made properly is weighting difficulty categories against each other.Kyou-kun wrote:
I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
for instance, when does X speed become harder (worth more) than Y aim/acc?
When it comes to aim/speed/accuracy though, using your oranges to apples analogy, you just need to find some common ground between the fruits to compare them to each other. For example; The orange may not be tastier than the apple, but its color is most certainly more intense - that's objective, so if you're looking for the fruit with the "warmest" color, the orange wins. If you're looking for the least acidic fruit, the apple wins. We can apply the same to the three basic skills required to play this game. The common ground between aim, accuracy and speed is strain.
So, what you'd like to know is the amount of strain each category gives you within each map. A 150BPM OD10 map with lots of streams but no jumps obviously gives more strain in terms of staying accurate than in terms of aim or speed (it's easy to fc the map, but harder to ss it). If it's high BPM but pretty much only 1/2 and highly spaced at OD7 CS5, then aim is clearly the leading factor. Lastly, high BPM and note density with low spacing and OD makes speed the most straining attribute of that map.
Now, not all maps are this straightforward, but this does give us some guidelines to look for - accuracy is basically OD + amount of hit circles. The higher those two values are, the higher your accuracy pp value should be. Aim is BPM, spacing, and circle size, as well as awkward angles but pp doesn't really take that into account yet. And speed is BPM + note density. So, a map such as Freedom Dive [FOUR DIMENSIONS] will give lots of pp, even if you don't ss it, because there are high values in all three attributes - there's a shitton of notes, it's OD8, there's lots of streams at a high bpm and the streams are spaced, as well as matched by some tricky jumps - in short, the strain this map puts on a player is very high. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% with HR on that map would give over 700pp.
In short, all we need to do to compare skills is by finding some common ground between them. Which is why it's so hard to give a proper value to FL because it has no common ground with anything. There's no physical strain for FL, it is purely mental strain, and the other skills simply don't take mental strain into account yet. Giving it a value will probably be more possible once pattern complexity and reading difficulty are taken into account for pp. By that point we'd have 2 types of strain, physical and mental, which can be compared to each other as wholes because they're both "strain", but the individual aspects that makes up each of those 2 types (aim, speed and accuracy for physical, and pattern complexity, approach rate and reading mods for mental) can not really, since you can't weigh the strain of aiming a map against reading it, since the two go hand in hand.
It's a bit of a tricky issue but we'll find an answer at some point.
Topic Starter
Ohrami wrote:
but really men why isn't this in the game yet
tired of not being able to get pp because i have a better no mod "score".. or losing pp because i beat the score but have terrible acc with mods.Ohrami wrote:
Ohrami wrote:
but really men why isn't this in the game yet
Separate score submissions for mods is planned and wip in case you don't read osu dev twitter/blogs.
pp has long been integrated in standard mode? or is there a different matter now
Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
This thread is about the score with the highest pp being #1 on a map, not submitting your highest pp giving score.baraatje123 wrote:
Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
Topic Starter
it's really about bothjesus1412 wrote:
This thread is about the score with the highest pp being #1 on a map, not submitting your highest pp giving score.baraatje123 wrote:
Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
+1 for this idea.
Unfortunately cannot say this better because:
When you try to say "S uppo rting this idea!"
Unfortunately cannot say this better because:
When you try to say "S uppo rting this idea!"
Isn't this basically added now, now that mod-specific score are all saved?
Imagine a simple beatmap with 2 FC's, all 100's get on the very first few notes:Bara- wrote:
Isn't this basically added now, now that mod-specific score are all saved?
HDHR 95% acc (1.12 multiplier)
DT 94% acc (1.12 multiplier)
The HDHR play gives the most score on beatmaps, however
DT is worth more pp, and for most maps, (few exclusions in very old maps), DT requires more skill than HDHR.
The PP calculation sytem knows this: DT FC on a map should be awarded more than a HDHR FC, and so it awards the DT play more pp, however, the scoring system works differently, very skillful plays don't come in the top50, especially chokes.
Example: Score multiplier changes won't fix this as: Kneesocks+DT choke 500pp < Kneesocks(nomod) FC 250pp scoringwise. (The DT play on kneesocks takes huge amount of skill, yet the nomod play gives way more scoring)
I myself think that Scoring system and PP system, even though they work very differently, can live fine along each other. All the top50 old scores that have been set with so much effort would be lost and would break many people's hearts. That's too big of a loss in my opinion.
You do know that the DT play now gives pp right? Or at least it works that way in Mania (or am I misunderstanding something?)
Bara- wrote:
You do know that the DT play now gives pp right? Or at least it works that way in Mania (or am I misunderstanding something?)
Barry, it's about the scoring system, the top50 scores, to behave like the pp system calculates pp.
http://puu.sh/tt3FZ/7b52e4dd2b.jpg see this? Even though HDDT is a choke, it requires way more skill than the HD play. PP-wise, it would end up allright, the DT score will be submitted and would give more pp than the HD score,
But if you go for a global top50, the HD has more score, even though it's much harder to set that HDDT choke play. Scoring doesn't take skill in account, so the most skillful plays, might not be in the top50. That's the problem asserted in this post, and the solution would be to make the score calculation ~the same as the pp calculation.
WAIT
I have literally been misinterpreting this request for years O.o
Never mind, you are right, my bad... Sorry
I have literally been misinterpreting this request for years O.o
Never mind, you are right, my bad... Sorry
So its basically leader-board scores, sorting by the pp worth not the score total?
I kinda like that, since then the good plays of DT 6* fc's will show instead of those HD fc's that no one really pays attention to due to being so common
I kinda like that, since then the good plays of DT 6* fc's will show instead of those HD fc's that no one really pays attention to due to being so common
I literally have spent the last hour going through some awesome feature requests like this one, and NONE of them has been implemented, and most of them are 3/5 years old. This kinda works the same as reporting, I once reported a guy (very obvious account sharing), but months later I found out that the player was never punished and even kept sharing his account. I don't know how osu staff work, but they seem pretty lazy, no big changes since I started playing osu 7 months ago, and that's a lot of time compared to any other games.
Not sure about lazy, but the developers have not been working on implementing these feature request because they have been putting all of their efforts into osu!lazer, which is a complete client and website rework. This new client will include some of the more popular feature request, not sure about this one thoughJuan_98 wrote:
I literally have spent the last hour going through some awesome feature requests like this one, and NONE of them has been implemented, and most of them are 3/5 years old. This kinda works the same as reporting, I once reported a guy (very obvious account sharing), but months later I found out that the player was never punished and even kept sharing his account. I don't know how osu staff work, but they seem pretty lazy, no big changes since I started playing osu 7 months ago, and that's a lot of time compared to any other games.