forum

osu!mania ScoreV2 live!

posted
Total Posts
483
show more
Topic Starter
smoogipoo
I don't necessarily find it bad that HD and FI are harder for some players than others. The same rule stands for all other game modes - some players find playing with HD much easier in osu!standard than without it. However if you want to be a perfectionist then you better get practicing reading differently.
FrenzyLi
So:
  1. do not give visual mod multiplier
  2. enable fixed HD lane cover (or as separate mod which gives no visual mod bonus)
  3. stepmania-like rate system (not just 150% and 75% but also 140% 130% 120%... and respective multiplier) and pp
  4. wonky score (? _ ?)
Vygatron
visual mod multipliers aren't fair in mania what are you doing
Topic Starter
smoogipoo

rezbit wrote:

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.

Also guys, we're not just patching things up. We're aware that HR needs a rework, and we're brainstorming changes right now, do NOT be afraid to suggest us breaking changes - we will consider them.
Reiko
http://www.strawpoll.me/10482380
Just leaving this one here o/ :D
Also if you want to add the DT and HR modifier pls increase it since 0.06 isn't beneficial for any kind of player especially on harder map.
I personally also don't like the scoring system how it is right now, since Mania shouldn't be judged by combo.
Wh1teh

smoogipooo wrote:

I don't necessarily find it bad that HD and FI are harder for some players than others. The same rule stands for all other game modes - some players find playing with HD much easier in osu!standard than without it. However if you want to be a perfectionist then you better get practicing reading differently.
Should I get bonus points for reading slabs, arrows or orbs? Should I get bonus points for playing with background enabled? no. That would be stupid, because that's just a preference, like hd,fi,fl are.

E: also the "we have always done it like this" argument is just toxic, referring to your "other game modes" argument.
FrenzyLi
hey wh1teh i can play standard with different skins too, where HD etc have multipliers :)
so how should we break this logic? like how is mania different in terms of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)
Kernaus

smoogipooo wrote:

rezbit wrote:

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.

Also guys, we're not just patching things up. We're aware that HR needs a rework, and we're brainstorming changes right now, do NOT be afraid to suggest us breaking changes - we will consider them.

If you're gonna give a bonus to DT, you might as well implement SM rates, DT itself is already a rate so it shouldn't be that hard to implement.

S rank is not a valuable target compared to other VSRGs, it should be around 97% with at least a minimum score required in order to ACTUALLY make the MAX ratio count.


the combo scoring as you proposed it here is way too important. 99% scores with really good ratio : 700k score... really?


EDIT :

FrenzyLi wrote:

like how is mania different in terms of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)
you dont read on mania like you do in standard, HD in mania forces you to read much faster and allows you to have less objects to process on screen, this is not the case in STD, HD in STD makes you forced to heavily read the circles that appear rather than reading the approach circles to time your hits and it very often makes the circles blend together making it harder to read.
Halogen-

Wh1teh wrote:

Should I get bonus points for reading slabs, arrows or orbs? Should I get bonus points for playing with background enabled? no. That would be stupid, because that's just a preference, like hd,fi,fl are.
you're reaching a bit here and you know it.

as far as suggestions for HR: the timing windows are simply too tight as it stands right now to make use of the score multiplier. Either the window needs to be adjusted (less preferable) or the bonus needs to be increased (more preferable).
Wh1teh

FrenzyLi wrote:

hey wh1teh i can play standard with different skins too, where HD etc have multipliers :)
so how should we break this logic? like how is mania different in terms of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)
There are few reasons why I quit std. Unbalanced mods and combo scoring, now they are coming back to haunt me. fml
FrenzyLi

Reikokaz wrote:

http://www.strawpoll.me/10482380
Just leaving this one here o/ :D
Also if you want to add the DT and HR modifier pls increase it since 0.06 isn't beneficial for any kind of player especially on harder map.
I personally also don't like the scoring system how it is right now, since Mania shouldn't be judged by combo.
100% accuracy score, 0% combo score?
lpddemon
good news for me :)
Vygatron

lpddemon wrote:

good news for me :)
stupud
Halogen-
also, i'll be narcissistic for a moment and bring this into play: i'm arguably one of the strongest players with regards to accuracy on 4K, and i'm not fully opposed to a system that has a bit more of a combo-emphasis. I'm not advocating a situation where someone with a 92% FC beats a 99% with a miss, but I do feel like there are certain situations where combo should hold a bit more relevance and it simply doesn't in the current score system.

With then new changes, those who have good LN abilities also get rewarded, which I think is great. AiAe is a good example of where I think Score V2 should make a positive impact -- there are numerous players who have substantial combos and AiAe [SHD] is not exactly something that anyone will be renowned for their fantastic accuracy on (unless they're cheating, of course). Players who manage to break into four digits of combo on that should be rewarded a bit more than players like myself, who struggle just to get far into the three digits on a good run.

Oboro is also probably another ranked map that could see a good shake-up with the new LN mechanics.

I do think that the formula is a bit on the extreme side at the moment and I know that a few people have ideas on how to make it a -bit- better while still having that combo orientation.
Loctav
The current way multipliers are balanced around are to make them work for the upcoming MWC. We are aware that giving multipliers to visual mods is a risky touch, especially due to lacking alternatives to compete against visually obstructing modiers in terms of map ranking. If we (ever) make this scoring to replace the current one, we will put efforts to rebalance multipliers around to make them work with other competing modifiers, of whichs difficulty increase is not based on altering the visual perception of the beatmap.

For now, it is working fine for the structure I am planning for the MWC and we will test this out and then make adjustments based on it.

Fwiw, I would ask everyone to mostly test the 20/80 ratio balance. We won't negate the meaning of combo entirely, but I am aware that basing the score solely on accuracy also is not serving the purpose as it should. I feel like right now, it pans out pretty solid, but if you are encountering situations, where the scores are not resulting the supposed rank placement, because the combo weights too much, too less, etcetc., just let us know and try to bring up a viable idea of how it actually should be, so we can adjust around that.
Reiko

FrenzyLi wrote:

100% accuracy score, 0% combo score?
Nah not like that, just keep the old system and modify it a bit
FrenzyLi
Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?
Vygatron

FrenzyLi wrote:

Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?
It's not fair. It shouldn't give you more score just because you can't read nomod. Very stupud.
rezbit

smoogipooo wrote:

rezbit wrote:

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
Topic Starter
smoogipoo

rezbit wrote:

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never have more score than the guy with 98% acc. I think it's actually logical that missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread through the map. As maps progress anxiety builds up and you become tired, both of those are indications of how good of a player you are, or otherwise, how consistent of a player you are.

Like... OOPS I missed a note and it takes me until the next beat to get back on rhythm, but I play the map flawlessly from there on, whilst the other guy made wrong movements in several parts of the map. Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.
Kernaus

rezbit wrote:

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?


As smoogi said, this is heavily exagerated, that's the kind of thing that would only happen in standard.


thescenario that can happen however is, take any map, two players, one gets a shitmiss at the beginning, the other gets a shitmiss near the end what will happen? wont it be the one that missed at the beginning who will win? if that's the case, i dont think this is fair.



Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania
rezbit

smoogipooo wrote:

rezbit wrote:

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never have more score than the guy with 98% acc. I think it's actually logical that missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread through the map. As maps progress anxiety builds up and you become tired, both of those are indications of how good of a player you are, or otherwise, how consistent of a player you are.

Like... OOPS I missed a note and it takes me until the next beat to get back on rhythm, but I play the map flawlessly from there on, whilst the other guy made wrong movements in several parts of the map. Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.
Whether I'm exaggerating or not, combo scoring still undermines accuracy as we've already seen iJinjin get a 501k and an S all because of the new scoring system. I was just illustrating the effect more clearly.

Chokes happen with or without combo scoring, this isn't good reasoning. It's better to favor overall consistency rather than combo consistency, and this new system clearly favors the latter.

Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.
You mean the guy with 70% acc?
Halogen-

Kernaus wrote:

Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania
It only counts for the purpose of a AAAA, but nothing else. You can AAA with 100% perfects and 0% marvs and receive 100% of the DP% -- meaning it actually does not count for the final grade.
Kernaus

Halogen- wrote:

Kernaus wrote:

Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania
It only counts for the purpose of a AAAA, but nothing else. You can AAA with 100% perfects and 0% marvs and receive 100% of the DP% -- meaning it actually does not count for the final grade.

oh, well thanks for the correction, i always thought that the MA actually counted in the DP%
tkk

Vygatron wrote:

lpddemon wrote:

good news for me :)
stupud
hey
Shoegazer
Alright, really long post incoming.

Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.

I do have reservations with the scoring component however.

This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:

How does it work currently?

  1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
  2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
Combo
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into account the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.

In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.

I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.

Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.

This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.

I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.

So that's for combo.

Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.

For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.

The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.

So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).


A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.

Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.

That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I admittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.
Asthmatic Magic

Kernaus wrote:

thescenario that can happen however is, take any map, two players, one gets a shitmiss at the beginning, the other gets a shitmiss near the end what will happen? wont it be the one that missed at the beginning who will win? if that's the case, i dont think this is fair.
Literally this.
There is something to be said for consistency, yes, but basing it off combo is just fundamentally flawed because of that one reason. The better player will be more consistent regardless.

Also visual mods having an impact on score is silly as it was already explained in the thread.
Full Tablet
[*] Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.[/list]
HD/FI/FL shouldn't give score multipliers because of reasons already mentioned in other posts.

Playing a map with DT/HT is basically playing another map. The ideal solution would be having different leaderboards for those mods. Applying score multipliers to those mods is a sub-optimal solution, that doesn't solve some issues (for example, a player might lose pp from mashing through a map when they had a HT score, or it might be hard for a player to beat his no-mod score with DT).

EZ/HR should be balanced in a way so the expected score doesn't vary from using them (a score with certain timing errors should be expected to have the same score regardless of timing window mods or OD) . A way to do this is described later in this post.

NF shouldn't have a score multiplier in my opinion. If a certain play was done in a way there wasn't any fail, the score should be the same regardless of NF or not; if the play was poor enough to have a fail, the score should reflect how poor the play was (without needing the mod multiplier).

  1. Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
    1. We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
I think that combo shouldn't be a factor in score (beyond the notion that high combos are correlated with high scores).

Combo is not a robust or reliable way to measure consistency. For example, if a player is expected to miss one note in a beatmap with near constant difficulty through it, the place the miss is has a considerable effect on score even though it is random. The same player in several plays is expected to have the same score (as long as he doesn't improve each play), but the variance of the results is quite high because of the combo system.

Also, a combo system gives more importance to the middle parts of the beatmaps (since there is the greatest loss with a single miss), though, usually, that is not the most interesting part of a map.

To give more importance to consistency, just giving more weight to the amount of misses is a better idea (amount of misses is more robust than combo). There are infinitely many ways to do this, something as simple as giving a multiplier based on the rate of misses could be done. For example, using a score multiplier of (1-miss_ratio)^5, so if the ratio of misses is 1%, there is a ~4.9% score penalty, with 5% misses there is a 22.6% score penalty, etc...



About the accuracy portion of the score, I think a system that uses the distribution of the judgments (considering their timing windows) is better than just assigning static values to the judgments regardless of OD and timing window mods (HR/EZ). Given the distribution of the judgments and their timing windows, you can calculate the Normal Distribution (with error centered a 0) that fits the distribution the best (misses are considered as hitting the note outside the 50 timing window)

The less standard deviation the curve has, the more accurate the score is, and more "accuracy score" the score should have.

The fact that EZ and HR change the timing window of the hardest judgment makes things a bit more complex. The difficulty of achieving the maximum score is different based on those mods (and perfection in No-mod/EZ/HR are all fitted with a curve with standard deviation->0), because of that, the amount of notes also has to be considered to account for the probability of getting a fluke result (in a form that is analogous as when measuring how loaded a coin is throwing it 5 times, instead of saying it is 100% loaded with 5 heads, it is ~87% loaded since at that percentage there is a chance of 50% of getting 5 heads or more throwing it 5 times). The result could be scaled so perfection on No-mod has a score of 1 million (so HR can get higher than that, and EZ can get lower).

As for the timing windows of LNs, they should be calibrated so the difficulty of accurately playing each of their judgments is similar to the difficulty of accurately playing regular notes. Giving 50% more leniency to LN ends, and considering their judgments the same way as the other judgments, might work well in this case.
Yuudachi-kun
I like using nf for not overwriting ht scores
Kernaus

Shoegazer wrote:

GODLIKE
Alright, really long post incoming.

Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.

I do have reservations with the scoring component however.

This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:

How does it work currently?

  1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
  2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
Combo
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into account the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.

In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.

I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.

Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.

This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.

I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.

So that's for combo.

Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.

For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.

The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.

So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).


A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.

Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.

That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I admittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.

/endthread
NotDeadYet
Here's what I think after playing around in multiplayer for a bit
  1. I like the LN changes, they feel good, and now they don't inflate combo like crazy
  2. 1 miss in the middle of a song feels way too punishing. With good accuracy one miss mean 150k less score, which feels like way too much for a small mistake. Mania and taiko are the only modes where one miss doesn't completely destroy your score, lets keep it that way.
  3. Getting 95% but only half the possible score feels really bad.
  4. I don't think HD and FL should give a score bonus. Some players, myself included, find it easier to read with these mods, I don't see why they should get a score bonus for playing the way they find easier.

Shoegazer wrote:

Long Post
Alright, really long post incoming.

Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.

I do have reservations with the scoring component however.

This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:

How does it work currently?

  1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
  2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
Combo
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into account the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.

In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.

I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.

Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.

This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.

I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.

So that's for combo.

Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.

For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.

The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.

So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).


A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.

Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.

That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I admittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.
Completely agree with this
Yuudachi-kun
Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.
Kernaus

Khelly wrote:

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure
Asthmatic Magic

score v2 VS score v1
If this doesnt scream "HEY GUYS MAYBE THIS ISNT SUCH A GREAT IDEA AFTER ALL" then I dont know what does.
Yuudachi-kun

Kernaus wrote:

Khelly wrote:

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure

You haven't met me
Halogen-

Kernaus wrote:

Khelly wrote:

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure
Players can easily go to HD/FL from no-mod after a few hours of exposure, but those who rely on HD/FL as a reading tool can't go from their norm to no-mod - therefore, it's unfair regardless of what direction you look at it.

qba108 wrote:


score v2 VS score v1
If this doesnt scream "HEY GUYS MAYBE THIS ISNT SUCH A GREAT IDEA AFTER ALL" then I dont know what does.

woooooo hyperbole let's cry rather than offer solutions, yay~
-Kirisan-
HD/FI/FL multipliers are just plain stupid D:
Vygatron
remove this outrageous combo meme or i will end mys elf
Jinjin
LN changes are great
I'm not really complaining about score v2 because it's still in its early stages of development, but what eze suggested seems like a good step forward.

As for bonus on HD / FL... i strongly disagree with it.
In mania, there are people who have trouble without HD and FL, and using these mods actually facilitates their play (players like vygatron, [MY]idiot, october scream, bobbias, and a lot of others)
While HD and FL does significantly affect gameplay in other modes, in mania they're more of a visual mod (and sometimes even a visual aid) rather than a difficulty increase mod.

(although Loctav did suggest that 1.06x multiplier is basically negligible, and I somewhat agree; current v2 scoring mechanics overshadow the 1.06x multiplier)

In addition, DT/NC multiplier should probably be a lot higher.
yetii
As many of the people above stated, HD/FL multipliers are just plain stupid. If im getting forced to play Nomod as an HD player im basicly pure trash and probably have to switch out if it were MWC to sombody who isn't an HD player.

Also while these things are getting changed, it might be a good idea to revamp the way HD works. Instead of making it larger wiht combo I think it might be better to give players the choice to select a prefixed heigth or to keep it the way it currently is (which I believe not many players will choose), since its not supposed to be a difficulty multyplier but more of a reading tool for players who mainly use HD.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply