Are you planning on posting anything constructive?
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.