Seems to be cool. ppypls
Evaluating proposed formula. Check your parenthesis.Arrcival wrote:
TP = (1000+sqrt( Team score 2 (winning team) - Team score 2 (losing team))/100
Oh le type, il t'a pas respecté thoabraker wrote:
Evaluating proposed formula. Check your parenthesis.Arrcival wrote:
TP = (1000+sqrt( Team score 2 (winning team) - Team score 2 (losing team))/100
The design is similar, yes... Don't know future design of osu!next so...Ppus wrote:
I Agree too but you do not think you have something similar?
And it is also almost the same as the Multiplayer.
And yet.
I dunno if Peppy add something as like another thing he already has.
So, It can be something just for supporters or something like this.
Team level = (Average stars of the 100 best performance of player 1, added to player2, 3, n)/nTotally ok, u rekt me ;w;
This formula has 2 issues
You are taking the top 100 best performances of some player. If you look at players' top performance section, you will notice that performance quickly degrades as you go down. The 100th performance would be anywhere between 7/8 to 1/2 of the top 1 performance. Moreover, what if a player has several 200pp performances and the rest 100pp performances and lower? Should that player drag the team lvl down because of it even if that player can do much higher difficulty than what you formula says? I suggest taking the top 20 or top 10 performances to provide better results of what the player is capable of.
You are going by the stars, which is map difficulty for the top performances. Suppose a player has a top of 20pp D ranks on 5* maps. So the formula will justify that player can do 5* maps? You might as well get rekt.
TP = ( 1000+sqrt( Team score 2 [winning team] - Team score 2 [losing team]) )/100Yes it's farmable :< But when I wrote this i didn't think it will be teams with guys breaking their combos
This formula really is this:
TP = 10 + sqrt(avg(winning team) - avg(losing team])/100
This has several problems:
This is SOOOO farmable. The loosing team can just be losing combo on purpose, giving any team they get matched with points. And they wouldn't even get penalized for it. Brilliant!
There is unfairness if the teams are imbalanced. Suppose it's 1 vs 4. The one player get 3M and the four players get 1M each. According to your formula, the team of four wins. Where is the fairness in that? The team of four players have an advantage in quantity. It's more impressive that the one player manages to get a score much higher than any of the team of four individually.
You take the average of Lvl(diff, ratio) for the top10 or 20 scores to get player's average level. Then you take all of the players' level averages to get the team's level average.Arrcival wrote:
Team level is average of LVL(x) so?
Looks interesting. In this case, the winning team will receive the minimum points possible when the score ratio is 1.259. That minimum score can vary due to map difficulty as well as average accuracy achieved among players' plays. The team winning an SS on a 4 star map guarantees the team will get at least 32 team points, and a linear increase to a minimum 72 team points on a 6 star map. This might solve a minor problem where the points are insignificantly small in some cases. This might work.Arrcival wrote:
So I propose :
Final TP = big gap + small gap ?
Sure, send me a pm if you want. I'll try my best to answer it.Arrcival wrote:
I have other questions or problems about, don't want to write something false (bcz i'm french xd) so u can send me a pm website/ingame
well whatever it is, it's a good idea(not that i read it all xD) so +4abraker wrote:
Dont confuse this request with that one. That request only applies making clans, while this request applies to multiplayer, independent of whether clans are a thing or not
Yeah yeah, i didn't make the formulas but i know xDMinsoo wrote:
I hope you know
e^ln2 is the same thing as multiplying by 2.
Can you just put in diff * (2e^ratio - 1).
I listen youMinsoo wrote:
Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.
Can you explain the key points of what makes this bad? I provided 2 versions of the formula in the earlier posts and OP decided to mend them together. What kind of behavior are you expecting due to the results of a team match?Minsoo wrote:
Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.
abraker wrote:
Can you explain the key points of what makes this bad? I provided 2 versions of the formula in the earlier posts and OP decided to mend them together. What kind of behavior are you expecting due to the results of a team match?Minsoo wrote:
Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.
The reasoning behind the formulas can be found in the earlier post: p/4921364
I should have put subscripts to those ratios. The ratio in the formula for s and the formula for Play Level are different. I simplified the formula for s which is actually based on these. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to get the OP to update it with the actual variables replacing "ratio" when I get the chance.Minsoo wrote:
First of all, how is ratio ever going to be > 1 if the ratio is calculated by achieved score/max possible score?
A quick fix would be to clip it to the -258.2 points minimum. I would only hope that wouldn't cause too much inflation within the sum of all Team Points (I'm basing that typical >1 team score ratios would be generally be no more than 100:1, raising the sum all Team Points by about 1 point for such plays). In an event of 1000:1 ratio plays, I expect the total sum to rise by about a bit less than 200, which might be a good or bad thing depending on the rate at which player accounts having greater than 200 team points become inactive.Minsoo wrote:
2. I can break this formula so easily. I just put on nofail and get a score of 0. What happens to your formula then?
ln(-.01)^-1 = a complex number. How are you going to calculate imaginary numbers? Is the score going to have an imaginary component and a real component?
Let's take ln(-.01)^-1 for example. Wolfram is telling me the answer is -1.48185 - 1.0109i.
This implies we need to calculate 1.794e^(i*34.3degrees + pi/2)
Have fun with that.
teamA = starDifficulty * Math.log1p(Math.e + 100*acc) * Math.log1p(Math.e + avgA)
The clipping is supposed to fix the -infinity by not allowing the ratio to be less than or equal to 0.01. I am not sure what you mean when yousay it doesn't work for all situations.Minsoo wrote:
The problem with "clipping" things -- or in general making it so that if the formula hits a specific barrier it does something instead... is that then the formula doesn't work for all situations. Also again, if a team decides to all put on no fail and get 0s, ln(0) = -infinity
That was my solution to what the OP wanted. OP wanted both, so I made it to have both. While I like the big gap formula better, I think the unpredictability factor in the small gap formula is not bad either.Minsoo wrote:
You can't have a "if there is a big gap, use this formula, else use this formula".
This puts processing power to waste and also just mathematically does not look good.
I don't use accuracy because it is the score part that is supposed to be equivalent to the measurement of the cumulative performance up to a point in time on a map. Also score is already influenced by accuracy, albeit much less than combo.Minsoo wrote:
You're also scaling it a bit weirdly, instead why not scale things with accuracy as well? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "diff" (difficulty? -> because difficulty * accuracy doesn't make much sense...) and then you scale their points based off of teamA / total, and whatnot.
It is because of how it behaves I am using it. The reciprocal of a value (the ratio) would result in the negative equivalent result. Using this, it is possible to reward the winning team N number of points and the loosing team -N number of points logarithmically.Minsoo wrote:
Either way, log(ratio) of whatever wouldn't be very good to use as a scaling factor because it varies easily and dramatically. Especially when it behaves near log(1).
Yeah, both isn't a good idea?abraker wrote:
That was my solution to what the OP wanted. OP wanted both, so I made it to have both. While I like the big gap formula better, I think the unpredictability factor in the small gap formula is not bad either.
Score v2 can be an idea, but idk if it's good for the formulas ^^'abraker wrote:
I don't use accuracy because it is the score part that is supposed to be equivalent to the measurement of the cumulative performance up to a point in time on a map. Also score is already influenced by accuracy, albeit much less than combo.Minsoo wrote:
You're also scaling it a bit weirdly, instead why not scale things with accuracy as well? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "diff" (difficulty? -> because difficulty * accuracy doesn't make much sense...) and then you scale their points based off of teamA / total, and whatnot.
I'm waiting tooEnDy_S wrote:
Still waiting for this one Any news?
Thanks :pFrozen_Rhythm wrote:
Obviously everyone loves it.
This feature needs a lot of work.
We will wait for your kind response peppy!