Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings

Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,750
show more
silmarilen
5,579 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen
the thing is, you're agreeing that there is a problem with DT compared to nomod, which is the same problem as nomod compared to HT.
but you want to completely remove HT from scores compared to only giving DT a buff in score.

removing HT from score is the same as removing nomod from score if you look at the DT vs nomod comparison.

there is certainly a problem with HT pushing nomod out of top50, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to remove HT from scores, then you need to remove nomod from scores for the same reason.

removing HT from scores is just a bad idea exactly because of that.
Last edited by silmarilen , edited 1 time in total.
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko
The problem is bigger because it affects a larger percentage of maps where the mod is relevant, so requires a bigger fix
DT requires a smaller fix because the problem isnt affecting as large of a percentage of the maps the mod is relevant

thats all im saying
Drezi
217 posts
Joined January 2014
Drezi
it's not fixing the problem, it's sweeping half of it under the rug, just because it's not as prelevant since hardly anyone plays HT and there aren't many ranked maps that people can't FC nomod at least.
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko

silmarilen wrote:

if you cant even beat a score worth 0.3x the nomod score then you suck and arent competing at the top anyway.
if you take out the HT scores and said score is on the top 50 for a map where most likely all the best players are competing on because its a hard ranked map, then yeah, they by definition are competing, whether some guy somes over and beats his score by fcing a map where streams go from being doable properly by a few dozen people, to being doable by thousands and thousands of people, then that's ruining the competition.
Drezi
217 posts
Joined January 2014
Drezi
same can be said for nomod on EVERY map, that can be passed on DT, but people can't FC with it.

except those nomod scores come with 1.0 against 1.12, unlike 0.3 of HT vs 1.0.......
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko

Drezi wrote:

same can be said for nomod on EVERY map, that can be passed on DT, but people can't FC with it.
yeah, and those maps where people are getting good DT scores that arent getting on the scoreboard when they should be are grounds for a change to DT, yet its the minority of maps where the mod is applicable, so changing the mod massively and completely like what should happen to HT is less justified.

not sure exactly what should happen to DT, but i know what should happen to HT
Drezi
217 posts
Joined January 2014
Drezi

Drezi wrote:

same can be said for nomod on EVERY map, that can be passed on DT, but people can't FC with it.

except those nomod scores come with 1.0 against 1.12, unlike 0.3 of HT vs 1.0.......
read it again, EVERY MAP you know what that means? YEAH IT'S A LOT OF MAPS THAT CAN BE PASSED BUT NOT FC-D WITH DT.

and the bolded part too I edited that in but it's on the last page.
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko
There's more maps that can be FC'd with DT than can't be FC'd with DT. But let's assume that those maps dont exist, koigokoro and Baby Sweet Berry Love TV Size and every single map between 1-5 stars no longer exist, the mod DT is only applicable on maps where it can be passed but not FC'd. Now, DT is in a similar position to HT, but in reverse, but nomod cant be unranked because its not a mod. Well, buff DT to hell and back to the point where no modless score can ever hope to come close to a DT score. IF this were the case, there would have to be a change that massive.

But it's not the case, however it is great anecdote for how problematic HT is in all cases where it is relevant. I suppose making HT worth as little as DT would have to be worth but in reverse would do just as well as making the mod unranked.

0.03x, anyone?
Drezi
217 posts
Joined January 2014
Drezi
There are a lot more songs that can't be FC-d with DT, than ones that can't be FC-d with nomod OBVIOUSLY.

And also this doesn't only effect maps that can't be FC-d with DT by anyone, the problem is present for every map, it simply doesn't affect global scoreboards when we have 50 DT FCs, only country/friend scoreboards.

Score is just bad as it is, that's why we use PP, that's why t/220119 this makes perfect sense, and needs to happen. Wait you were against that too? Oh well..
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

Riince wrote:

Because it's all relative
This whole argument happened because people can't understand this.
Tom94
osu!dev
750 posts
Joined August 2012
Topic Starter
Tom94

Tess wrote:

Riince wrote:

Because it's all relative
This whole argument happened because people can't understand this.
Often the absolute values matter more than the relative ones.

That being said the only people negatively affected by the halftime thing are the ones who can't FC nomod. So please if you talk about relative numbers also include the literally millions of players who can't FC insanes with nomod and thus get beaten by halftime players. This is not a 5 out of 5 situation but a thousands out of thousands situation. It's not only absolutely larger than the DT vs nomod debate but also relatively larger. (Considering players who can't pass nomod as irrelevant to the nomod vs DT debate. Of course since they consequently also can't pass DT they might apply for that category as well in another interpretation of the problem, flipping the results again.)

The only reason you don't actually see the people being affected by this is that scoreboards only show the top50.

TL;DR: Riince is right in the fact that more people are affected by the halftime VS nomod story because they simply aren't as good players. I personally don't agree that halftime should be unranked though. The scoring system is at fault and itself should change rather than having to adapt other parts of the game to it.
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa
Eh I agree with that last sentence, but how would you adapt the scoring system in a way that wouldn't piss more than half the game off, or that would still keep things somewhat similar to how they used to be? We all know that most players are hardly informed and can't handle an unexpected change like that.

Also aside from HT I wonder what others think of the scoring I proposed. I thought it was a pretty solid way of weighing one mod against the other.
Rinzee
39 posts
Joined March 2014
Rinzee

Tess wrote:

Also aside from HT I wonder what others think of the scoring I proposed. I thought it was a pretty solid way of weighing one mod against the other.

Riince wrote:

Spun-out should be 1.0x because no real advantage to using it anyway. On easy maps you're penalized enough by the spin being abysmally slow, on harder maps no competent players have an issue with notes coming after spinners.

Tess wrote:

SO should be 1.0x because what Riince said.
As a player that is forced to use Spun-Out due to a physical disability in the arm/hand i'm holding my tablet pen in preventing me from being able to even get 200 RPM on spinners as a rank 20k, i would love if Spun-Out didn't give me -5% pp on every score i ever get. It really hurts my top performances by alot. Not only that, using Spun-Out, i will never be able to get into top 50s on maps even if my Acc % happened to be better, as Spun-Out also gives -10% score reduction.

I know why spinners exist and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, but they don't have a rhythmical aspect to them and for me personally, it just feels wrong i am being punished for not being able to do them in a rhythm game. :| If nothing else, it would at least be nice to see the penalty slightly reduced.
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko
There should be no pp/score penalty, spinners act as a break in the song, participation should be optional, but imo should stay optimal, i.e spun-out should still spin slow compared to players like it already does. People who want to min-max their score should have the option, people who dont want the arrhythmic spinners that dont impact difficulty one way or the other should also have the option.

The downsides of spun-out that have already been mentioned are enough of a penalty already, not to mention since you aren't spinning, there's no way to make some sick 470 rpm drain-stalling spin at the end of shotgun senorita for example that saves a play.
Torrid_old
1 post
Joined September 2014
Torrid_old
,
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
Dunno if that's been suggested already, but Iam not gonna read through 100+ pages.

Can we give FL some sort of lenght scaling?
I was kinda suprised that the FL score by rrtyui on https://osu.ppy.sh/b/541990?m=0 only gave 235pp, which is pretty much nothing.
I know that FL gives a big bonus on aim and that the map apparently isnt all that aim-y, but it is long and there is a shitload of things to remember, which makes it extremely difficult.

In general, more objects are obviously more difficult to remember. Easy/Normal would probably still give the usual FL pp, Hard a bit more, Insane and Extra would receive a bonus. Doesnt sound too bad to me.
xGx
173 posts
Joined December 2013
xGx
　
Last edited by xGx , edited 2 times in total.
Bauxe
1,624 posts
Joined August 2012
Bauxe

Yauxo wrote:

Dunno if that's been suggested already, but Iam not gonna read through 100+ pages.

Can we give FL some sort of lenght scaling?
I was kinda suprised that the FL score by rrtyui on https://osu.ppy.sh/b/541990?m=0 only gave 235pp, which is pretty much nothing.
I know that FL gives a big bonus on aim and that the map apparently isnt all that aim-y, but it is long and there is a shitload of things to remember, which makes it extremely difficult.

In general, more objects are obviously more difficult to remember. Easy/Normal would probably still give the usual FL pp, Hard a bit more, Insane and Extra would receive a bonus. Doesnt sound too bad to me.
The sliders are what makes that map difficult. I guess changing the way FL is calculated on sliders due to visibility would make sense, but even so, flashlight is mostly memorization, not physical skill. Don't take that the wrong way, all I am saying is that with enough time, any map that can be full-comboed can be done with flashlight. The buff it gives can't be too big imo.
hehe
1,959 posts
Joined November 2012
hehe


do slider 100s really play that much of an impact such that they have a higher penalty than circle 100s even on higher-end accuracy? even though its a really small difference i found it a little weird :/

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/442221?m=0
Akari-
211 posts
Joined May 2010
Akari-

handsome wrote:



do slider 100s really play that much of an impact such that they have a higher penalty than circle 100s even on higher-end accuracy? even though its a really small difference i found it a little weird :/

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/442221?m=0
ppdiff = 393.16 - 392.63 = 0.53

combo ratio = 467 / 468 = 0.9979

if combo linearly gave pp from 0 to max then this would give 393.16 * 0.9979 = 392.33

393.16 - 392.33 = 0.83

but ppdiff is only 0.53 meaning that (assuming linear combo scaling) it scales at 0.53 / 0.83 = 64% which is within the range of 45-65% combo scaling displayed in this thread: (http://www.reddit.com/r/osugame/comment ... combo_and/)

pretty sure nothing changes just because it's a slider 100 and that everything is working as intended
Nyxa
848 posts
Joined October 2013
Nyxa

Bauxe wrote:

Yauxo wrote:

Dunno if that's been suggested already, but Iam not gonna read through 100+ pages.

Can we give FL some sort of lenght scaling?
I was kinda suprised that the FL score by rrtyui on https://osu.ppy.sh/b/541990?m=0 only gave 235pp, which is pretty much nothing.
I know that FL gives a big bonus on aim and that the map apparently isnt all that aim-y, but it is long and there is a shitload of things to remember, which makes it extremely difficult.

In general, more objects are obviously more difficult to remember. Easy/Normal would probably still give the usual FL pp, Hard a bit more, Insane and Extra would receive a bonus. Doesnt sound too bad to me.
The sliders are what makes that map difficult. I guess changing the way FL is calculated on sliders due to visibility would make sense, but even so, flashlight is mostly memorization, not physical skill. Don't take that the wrong way, all I am saying is that with enough time, any map that can be full-comboed can be done with flashlight. The buff it gives can't be too big imo.
The fact that memorizing a map with FL makes it FCable doesn't mean FL should be rewarded less, especially considering that, with the amount of retries put into FL, it wouldn't be so hard to get a high acc HR FC on a map you previously couldn't pass either. What Yauxo said is legit; the longer a map is, the harder it is to FC with FL, regardless of memorization or not. Even if you have the map memorized, you gotta keep in account that you have to aim at nothing, and the longer you have to do that the higher your chances of missing are.

There's a lot more to FL than just memorization, but sadly most players don't seem to agree.
Woobowiz
412 posts
Joined March 2014
Woobowiz
I had an idea regarding more info porn. Is it viable to split pp rankings into 3 sub categories using the 3 weighted metrics (Aim, Speed, and Acc) for calculating pp? I know it'll put a little more load on the servers if we did this...

Let's say Player X is an HDHR player with 10209 pp and their sub categories consist of 1900 Aim, 1200 Speed, and 2200 Accuracy

And then there's Player Y that is an HDDT player with 10209 pp as well and their sub categories consist of 1900 Aim, 2200 Speed, and 1200 Accuracy

From this we can see that even tho Players X and Y are equal in pp, they have their own noticeable strengths and weaknesses.
jasian
105 posts
Joined January 2013
jasian

Woobowiz wrote:

I had an idea regarding more info porn. Is it viable to split pp rankings into 3 sub categories using the 3 weighted metrics (Aim, Speed, and Acc) for calculating pp? I know it'll put a little more load on the servers if we did this...
Pretty much what osutp.net did before it changed, though things would have to be adjusted for ppv2 of course ;)

http://web.archive.org/web/201311051214 ... et/players
jesse1412
1,457 posts
Joined January 2010
jesse1412

Woobowiz wrote:

I had an idea regarding more info porn. Is it viable to split pp rankings into 3 sub categories using the 3 weighted metrics (Aim, Speed, and Acc) for calculating pp? I know it'll put a little more load on the servers if we did this...

Let's say Player X is an HDHR player with 10209 pp and their sub categories consist of 1900 Aim, 1200 Speed, and 2200 Accuracy

And then there's Player Y that is an HDDT player with 10209 pp as well and their sub categories consist of 1900 Aim, 2200 Speed, and 1200 Accuracy

From this we can see that even tho Players X and Y are equal in pp, they have their own noticeable strengths and weaknesses.
This would triple the load on the servers (ty based tom) and hence it's not viable to implement as of now.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I don't understand why Tom is so up in arms against how much PP World's End gives. It goes for over 6 minutes, has large jumps through the whole map, has high OD and spaced streams as well. It seems pretty logical that it gives the amount of PP that it does; it's not because long songs give too much PP, easy to read songs give too much PP. If it was a hard to read, it probably wouldn't give enough for the difficulty. Song length does not need a nerf, and neither do the common HR maps.
Also Tom mentioned that he want to make PP less combo based. IMO this is a radical change, I think it's fine as it is. Thoughts?
GoldenWolf
2,983 posts
Joined May 2012
GoldenWolf
World's End is overrated, it gives way too much pp for how hard it actually is.
Rewben2
996 posts
Joined November 2012
Rewben2

GoldenWolf wrote:

World's End is overrated, it gives way too much pp for how hard it actually is.
Seems to be the case, everyone who has HDHR'd it has it as their top play or close to it.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
yeah that's pretty obvious, but my point is that song length shouldn't be nerfed just because of World's End.
jesse1412
1,457 posts
Joined January 2010
jesse1412

B1rd wrote:

yeah that's pretty obvious, but my point is that song length shouldn't be nerfed just because of World's End.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/136862
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/133693
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/293193?m=0
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/447179?m=0
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/184308?m=0

Medium length songs are being grossly overrated too.

Summer time music gives up to 400pp and it's easier than a lot of 300pp maps.
Infevo
463 posts
Joined October 2014
Infevo
I can understand that a higher combo gets rewarded with higher pp values since it is a matter of focus and consistency but why is it that 2 misses at the very end of the beginning right after/before a huge combo don't really matter while 1 miss at around 50% of the map denies you almost all pp?

Imho the system should still reward a high number of hit circles with high accuracy partially disregarding the max combo during a map. Maybe don't give as high rewards but at least like 70-80% of the pp. Currently a high combo with a worse acc (95%) is rewarded much higher than a low combo with high accuracy.
manjumochi
162 posts
Joined April 2013
manjumochi

Infevo wrote:

I can understand that a higher combo gets rewarded with higher pp values since it is a matter of focus and consistency but why is it that 2 misses at the very end of the beginning right after/before a huge combo don't really matter while 1 miss at around 50% of the map denies you almost all pp?

Imho the system should still reward a high number of hit circles with high accuracy partially disregarding the max combo during a map. Maybe don't give as high rewards but at least like 70-80% of the pp. Currently a high combo with a worse acc (95%) is rewarded much higher than a low combo with high accuracy.
This is mostly a flaw of scoring system instead of pp system... And keeping a large combo is way harder than getting 2 medium combos, especially saying from psychological way.
Infevo
463 posts
Joined October 2014
Infevo

manjumochi wrote:

Infevo wrote:

I can understand that a higher combo gets rewarded with higher pp values since it is a matter of focus and consistency but why is it that 2 misses at the very end of the beginning right after/before a huge combo don't really matter while 1 miss at around 50% of the map denies you almost all pp?

Imho the system should still reward a high number of hit circles with high accuracy partially disregarding the max combo during a map. Maybe don't give as high rewards but at least like 70-80% of the pp. Currently a high combo with a worse acc (95%) is rewarded much higher than a low combo with high accuracy.
This is mostly a flaw of scoring system instead of pp system... And keeping a large combo is way harder than getting 2 medium combos, especially saying from psychological way.
It definitely is a flaw since people also lose rank.

Keep also in mind this is supposed to be a rhythm game. The current system counters the rhythm aspect by rewarding a higher score a lot more than a more accurate and overall more consistent play. This might be just my personal opinion but I like to compare this with a musican who play a rather large and complex piece of composition. Now is he less of a musician if he fails _once_ during the middle of the piece instead of failing several times at the very end and the beginning? Cause this is how the current pp system works.

Also your argument is kinda invalid since tv sizes almost give the same amount of pp currently as a lot longer maps. But I understand what you mean.
manjumochi
162 posts
Joined April 2013
manjumochi

Infevo wrote:

It definitely is a flaw since people also lose rank.

Keep also in mind this is supposed to be a rhythm game. The current system counters the rhythm aspect by rewarding a higher score a lot more than a more accurate and overall more consistent play. This might be just my personal opinion but I like to compare this with a musican who play a rather large and complex piece of composition. Now is he less of a musician if he fails _once_ during the middle of the piece instead of failing several times at the very end and the beginning? Cause this is how the current pp system works.

Also your argument is kinda invalid since tv sizes almost give the same amount of pp currently as a lot longer maps. But I understand what you mean.
Mostly tv sizes with same star rating with longer maps are harder, but longer maps are in general harder to make full combo. It's very hard to balance this (the same with mods). We have to remember that there are a lots of flaws in both score and pp system (and mostly they are connected), pp system is newer than score, so most current flaws in general comes from scoring.
Ritzeh
Former osu! Champion: 2016
283 posts
Joined August 2011
Ritzeh
i think acc is overvalued
Kamikaze
2,898 posts
Joined November 2012
Kamikaze
pp: [Tom94] Don't count tag beatmaps in pp calculations of standard mode.
what
sayonara_sekai
376 posts
Joined November 2010
sayonara_sekai
probably because people apparently abused the hell out of touchscreens on them (I saw someone whos #2 play was like 60pp with his #1 being a tag map with 400+pp)
AkariSei
3 posts
Joined February 2014
AkariSei
lol
Yuudachi-kun
5,432 posts
Joined August 2014
Yuudachi-kun
I wouldn't really call that "abuse"
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
I would.
blahpy
297 posts
Joined November 2013
blahpy
I lost pp due to the update and I still agree with the change because those maps were broken in terms of pp

Sucks for GN and Kuvster but this is probably how it should have been to begin with, it was bound to happen eventually.

I am somewhat surprised that Renai Circulation also got pp taken away from it but I would suppose that's more for completeness (so that people can't claim it's arbitrary) rather than because it's broken
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1901 / 2,750