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)
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
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)
Do not under-estimate the effort to educate people after an "Armageddon" like that...
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)
You could make this happen with no problem. I believe in you my friend
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".
EDIT:
I forgot to add this last time, but - about the max combo scaling; wouldn't it be possible to use the performance chart for that as well? It tells you about the HP bar's drain during the play, right? Which means that a section with a lower drain had less performance on. If you have a way of knowing where the most difficult sections in the map are, then it shouldn't be very hard to use the performance chart to determine how well the player did in said section. Maybe this is just a dumb idea because I'm missing something - but hitting more 100s results in a more empty hp bar, right? So it would be lower in that section. I know that this all heavily depends on the drain rate of the map, but there should always be some form of a difference between an SS and non-SS performance in the drain chart. If you combined that with max combo scaling, it might give you an even more accurate idea of the player's individual performance on a map.
Figured I'd throw that out there. Also, it might be nice to hear what kind of feedback there is on the doubles issue (unless that was already given and I missed it)
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
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
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
I'm kidding of course. The only solution is to wait for the pp to come, also that post should really be submitted in Tech Support
it was, and there they said to post it here
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
p/3404843
links directly to this thread
links directly to this thread
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.
yeah you lost 4.5% accuracy it's really underrated zzz
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.
Different OD, that's the point -.-' Sure you can tell me that it's ok, but you can't just compare the %, the actual timing of hits is what matters. As someone said earlier you can't get pp for the acc you don't have and that's true, but you shouldn't get less accpp either, just because a higher OD means more 100s for the same hits.
but why should you get more accpp for the same hits at od10 that you would have made at od8 for that acc
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
What was the UR for each play if you can check? If you had similar accuracy for each and the difference of 4% acc was caused by the OD change, I feel it is undervalued. The smaller circles + use of hidden should give a benefit.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.
Like I wrote above, the use of hidden and extra aim should give a bonus. It's a similar play but there should still be quite a difference.GoldenWolf wrote:
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
Well he already got the aim bonus from the mods, but given the map... the bonuses are pretty small because the map itself is fairly easy to begin with, and since HD gives a percentage bonus... Yeah.
I think the issue here is that people arguing against Drezi aren't realizing that his point is that accuracy isn't the only thing that should be looked at with HDHR at Insane level or higher. It's not just the OD that increases - the circles decrease in size, the AR becomes disproportionate and HD on top of that increases the AR further and makes it way harder to time your notes correctly, as well as aim them properly - not to mention that weird sliders become incredibly hard with HR due to the decreased circle size, so you'd have to trace them much more precisely. In short - a 95% HDHR FC requires a lot more skill than a 99% nomods SS. I'm a HR player and I've yet to find a map where this isn't the case. HR is undervalued, both by the pp system and the players. I think the new update will do the mod some justice.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
well tess thats why i specifically said acc pp
Well, that's exactly what I said, we agree here. I said it shouldn't give less either, it should be the same.Riince wrote:
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
That's a great example, and so true. Easy to see, almost EVERYONE has that Darren Korb song in their top performances around my rank, and generally DT plays only, hardly anyone has any HR plays, you're crazy if you think that Shotgun Senorita play is of the same difficulty.Tess wrote:
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
My top plays are filled with DT too, even though I've been playing HR mainly for quite some time now, and still I only have one play that's worth anything with it. DT started to fill my top ranks, as soon as I got into it.
Do you guys really believe that the majority of players has a special gift for DT and sucks at HR magically? Maybe it has something to do with HR being underappreciated.
Anyway I did not intend to start a debate here, Tom already said he'll address some issues here, I just posted this example that I felt was off, as requested.
setting sail is just overrated because it has a lot of notes at od8 but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc while still giving a lot of acc pp
Oh, that's right, this is true and Tom hasn't addressed this rhythm complexity issue, while it's obviously something to consider. Full Tablet posted an approach that looked good.silmarilen wrote:
but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
This is why i mentioned the doubles earlier, doubles and other complex rhythms really deserve special attention, and it shouldn't be hard to recognize them (definitely easier than recognizing visual patterns) so there has to be a way to incorporate them. This way maps like this https://osu.ppy.sh/s/115011 and this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/171678&m=1 might actually get the value they deserve.Drezi wrote:
Oh, that's right, this is true and Tom hasn't addressed this rhythm complexity issue, while it's obviously something to consider. Full Tablet posted an approach that looked good.silmarilen wrote:
but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc
Bolt; did you overwrite an old FC with a new FC? Or any older scores with new ones? I have a 98.10% A that's above a 98.16% S with HDDT on Golden Sky, which probably cost me around ~10pp. If I made that mistake 6 times, I'd have the same issue you do.
Topic Starter
t/246378bolt997 wrote:
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
Tom94 wrote:
t/246378bolt997 wrote:
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
So can we take back our PP?
does pp = global rank? I just gained PP and got zero ranks even though my rank is awful.
it is not = to global rank, but you are ranked globally by your pp compared to everyone elses.
pp = global rank, but pp =/= global rank. If that were the case, we wouldn't need two separate values. Anyway - sometimes it takes a while for ranks to update, and sometimes you just happen to achieve a pp value that doesn't gain you ranks. I can sometimes gain 50 pp without barely gaining any ranks, and then I gain 5 more pp and shoot up 100 ranks. It all depends, really. Just focus on gaining more pp and you will see your rank go up naturally.
ok that explains it since it was like a 0.8 pp gain
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
You still have to add other factors like OD, number of circles, object count and aim value though. The star rating can't really do that just yet, we'll have to wait.Tess wrote:
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
Your first map has approx. half the circles, half the objects and 1 less OD (9 vs 10). That's more than enough difference to give a significantly different pp value for the same acc.
The top map is 0.01 star lower than the bottom one, but still manages to give 41 more pp because it's 1 OD above and has 100 more circles.
If 2 maps have the same OD, same star rating and same length, they usually give similar pp.
E.g.
I am well aware, I guess my point is that things like these should be included in the star rating. Star rating is there as an indicator of difficulty. If it doesn't properly indicate the difficulty of a map, what's the point of having it? Sure, it's better than the old system, but if it's inaccurate it's still pointless.
I'm pretty sure Tom is looking to incorporate map length, od and ar into star difficulty which it currently isn't. It's never been claimed that star difficulty is a perfect indicator of how much pp a map will give, it's only a guide. It sounds as if you think that star difficulty is meant to show pp output perfectly, which may be the intention and may happen in the future but it's well known that at the moment that it doesn't reflect on a maps pp perfectly.Tess wrote:
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
It's also not meaningless just because it doesn't tell you the exact amount of pp a map will give. It's pretty close as it stands in most cases and just by looking at od and map length you can figure it out pretty accurately yourself. I can guarantee most users would prefer having it then having it removed, it definitely has value.
It's also arguable whether the maps difficulty actually increases as the od and the map length do. It may be harder to get good acc on and to fc, but is the map any harder to play?
...Have you ever played HR? Everything you said was really reasonable up to that last sentence.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
OD shouldn't be included in star difficulty because it's handled differently than aim and speed. If you have 2 maps with different ODs that give the same pp for SS, the map with lower OD will give more pp for any accuracy less than 100% and it makes sense that that should be the case. Giving those maps the same star rating would be more misleading and less useful than the current system. Right now, the star rating system is meant to give the difficulty in FCing a map. Incorporating OD into star rating (especially without somehow accounting for the fact that some rhythms are harder to acc than others) makes it harder to extract that information and is redundant, since OD and number of circles already tells you how difficult the pp system thinks that map is to acc.
You're pathetic. I thought you were a smart person until this post which is just a blatant attack with absolutely no reasoning behind it. YOU PLAY TV SIZE DT THEREFORE YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPINION XDDDD. I also only have 3 tv size dt scores in my top 20. Please...Tess wrote:
...Have you ever played HR? Everything you said was really reasonable up to that last sentence.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
Anyways... I don't see how OD makes a map HARDER to play. It's the exact same map but it's harder to get accuracy on, which is what I said. A map being longer just means there's more to play through and will therefore be harder to fc. The map isn't any harder to play at any given point. This is how I see it.
I even put a question mark on the end of what I said to imply it was up for discussion, which it seems you missed.