x
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).silmarilen wrote:
this wont work because it cant see where you missed. if you got 700 combo on a map, hitting the hardest part but getting a random miss at such a point that you did not get the smallest possible combo that you had 100% fc'd the hardest part (lets say the hardest part is at 720 combo into the map, and going on for 20 notes, meaning to get the most out of it you would have to have about 750 combo) you would not get the full difficulty bonus, even tho you hit the hardest part, only because your combo was 50 short.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing is not how it should work.
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.Full Tablet wrote:
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).silmarilen wrote:
this wont work because it cant see where you missed. if you got 700 combo on a map, hitting the hardest part but getting a random miss at such a point that you did not get the smallest possible combo that you had 100% fc'd the hardest part (lets say the hardest part is at 720 combo into the map, and going on for 20 notes, meaning to get the most out of it you would have to have about 750 combo) you would not get the full difficulty bonus, even tho you hit the hardest part, only because your combo was 50 short.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing is not how it should work.
Well, fixing the issue you mention would require knowing where the misses are (or taking even more assumptions, for example: making a model that estimates the probability the misses were in random easy parts instead of the hardest parts of the map, which would increase the complexity of the calculation and could potentially give overrated pp values).silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
I posted the graphs the old tp system uses. This already happens.Riince wrote:
but how does the system know where in the combo the hard parts are?
i dont think it does.
Rewarding SOME people for hitting the hardest part is better than rewarding none, plus the second person genuinely had a better play because they full combod the hard part and even some extra parts compared to the other player. It's also safe to assume if someone can do the hardest part of the map without missing then they can full combo the rest (this is the case the majority of the time).silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.Full Tablet wrote:
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
Well, comparing the proposed combo factor with the current one, maps that have the hardest part at the very end or very beginning relatively would get smaller combo factor for non-FC; but I don't think it is a bad thing.Drezi wrote:
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpmDrezi wrote:
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum
Something like the algorithm here in tom94's ask.fm could be used http://pastebin.com/cFGUJdGaDrezi wrote:
That's a shame, when it comes to rythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
But in osu you DO have a metronome - the music itself (also if you start speeding up, you start getting 100s), and it doesn't even matter, cause the point is that relatively a constant beat is still easier to pull off more or less accurately than harder patterns.Apink Chorong wrote:
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpm
you'd be surprised at how many people would have the tendency to speed up drastically if they didnt have some sort of metronome to follow
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Not necessarily, there're usually some people who gains pp while others lose pp for every calculation change. It's just that those who's gained pp after a change usually keeps quiet and grin, while those who's lost pp will go make threads/comments everywhere blaming the system being "stupid" =.=Woobowiz wrote:
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Tom94 wrote:
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
2: Calculate new difficulty for all ranked maps (takes a few hours)
3: Calculate new pp for a select amount of players for testing (takes from minutes to hours, depending on how many players)
4: Repeat at 1 if not satisfied with result (usually needs quite a few repetitions to fix / prevent undesired side effects of the changes)
5: Apply the new difficulty algorithm to _all_ maps (takes ~1 day)
6: Push the new difficulty algorithm into the osu! client so that ingame star rating aligns for online star rating (makes everyone recalculate star difficulty in song select, takes some minutes to hours depending on how many maps there are. Might make song select stutter a bit while in progress)
7: Re-calculate pp for every player and hope for as little as possible "I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Jesse top 100 the dream incoming.Tom94 wrote:
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
From my tests with alternative weighting of scores I still find that the current weight performs best, so there likely won't be a change in that regard.
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
I've been occupied with other things than osu! in the last few weeks and I don't know when I will find the time to further tune pp again, but I am still regularily reading the posts in the feedback threads.
Christmas came early this year.Tom94 wrote:
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
The time between your top plays and their accuracies are hella suspicious yoakinator127 wrote:
Problem Details: I SSed a map with NC and in my top ranks it says 202pp, however I gained absolutely no pp at all. Why is this?
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
What, who said that? I think they told him to post in in Gameplay & Rankings, but he posted it in this instead of the general G&Rsilmarilen wrote:
it was, and there they said to post it here
Well they chose the wrong place to redirect to, also not a Mod so he's even less crediblesilmarilen wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3404843
links directly to this thread
4.3% is MASSIVE, I'd say that should be the right amount of pp.Drezi wrote:
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.