Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?
forum
osu!mania ScoreV2 live!
posted
Total Posts
483
It's not fair. It shouldn't give you more score just because you can't read nomod. Very stupud.FrenzyLi wrote:
Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.smoogipooo wrote:
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.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.
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
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.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?
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.
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
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.smoogipooo wrote:
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.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?
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.
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?
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 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
Halogen- wrote:
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 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
oh, well thanks for the correction, i always thought that the MA actually counted in the DP%
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:
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.
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:
ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
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.
Literally this.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.
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.
[*] 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).
I think that combo shouldn't be a factor in score (beyond the notion that high combos are correlated with high scores).
- Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
- We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
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.
I like using nf for not overwriting ht scores
Shoegazer wrote:
GODLIKEAlright, 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:ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
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
Here's what I think after playing around in multiplayer for a bit
- I like the LN changes, they feel good, and now they don't inflate combo like crazy
- 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.
- Getting 95% but only half the possible score feels really bad.
- 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.
Completely agree with thisShoegazer wrote:
Long PostAlright, 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:ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.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
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~
remove this outrageous combo meme or i will end mys elf
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guys, can we not break my favorite game? please?
Thanks
Score multipliers = No pls
1M is the gap, and its fair enough
110%/120%/130%/140% mods would be the best change ever btw
But PLEASE NO SCORE MULTIPLIERS!
Thanks!
Thanks
Score multipliers = No pls
1M is the gap, and its fair enough
110%/120%/130%/140% mods would be the best change ever btw
But PLEASE NO SCORE MULTIPLIERS!
Thanks!
Don't forget 90% 80% all the way to 50%FelipeLink wrote:
Guys, can we not break my favorite game? please?
Thanks
Score multipliers = No pls
1M is the gap, and its fair enough
110%/120%/130%/140% mods would be the best change ever btw
But PLEASE NO SCORE MULTIPLIERS!
Thanks!
While not being a mania-player I'd like to casually throw in that a high combo will naturally assure the play a minimum degree of accuracy until the combo is broken. As such it will be rewarded in both components of scoring and not only the combo-component. This takes away the biggest part of a potential advantage another player could get from having a better accuracy while having less combo. This results in combo (while "only" holding 20% weightage) getting a scoreimpact that will be experienced as stronger than that in a practical environment.
Same thing from a different perspective:
When you miss a note you will lose your combo and therefore lose combopoints but you will also lose accuracypoints. It's always punishing you in both areas. If combo is supposed to be the thing that awards points on consistency in not missing then a miss should not reduce the accuracy. From a practical standpoint it doesn't make any sense to say that a combobreak should not reduce your accuracy but it would be the only meaningful solution if you want to have the combo- and the accuracy-component contribute score separate from each other without automatically favoring combo.
tl;dr
Any scoringsystem that gives combo an own value will automatically favor combo over accuracy as a lack of combo always includes a loss in accuracy. The higher the advantage of a fullcombo vs halfcombo is, the less impact accuracy can have.
Same thing from a different perspective:
When you miss a note you will lose your combo and therefore lose combopoints but you will also lose accuracypoints. It's always punishing you in both areas. If combo is supposed to be the thing that awards points on consistency in not missing then a miss should not reduce the accuracy. From a practical standpoint it doesn't make any sense to say that a combobreak should not reduce your accuracy but it would be the only meaningful solution if you want to have the combo- and the accuracy-component contribute score separate from each other without automatically favoring combo.
tl;dr
Any scoringsystem that gives combo an own value will automatically favor combo over accuracy as a lack of combo always includes a loss in accuracy. The higher the advantage of a fullcombo vs halfcombo is, the less impact accuracy can have.
I have an idea, let's give 2x 3x and 4x multipliers at 20 30 and 40 combo and then double the multipliers by adding "Brain Power" notes, where if you hit the entire string of brain power notes you add adrenaline to your overdrive meter! So 2x 3x and 4x would be 4x 6x and 8x!
Oh wait wrong game.
Oh wait wrong game.
Vygatron wrote:
JUST FUCK MY ASS WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS COMBO SHIT
waddupHalogen- wrote:
Vygatron wrote:
JUST FUCK MY ASS WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS COMBO SHIT
or maybe every after 30 notes there should be additional scores! and a gauge as well! and also pills for every 100s/50s that will turn into 300g 300s!Gekido- wrote:
I have an idea, let's give 2x 3x and 4x multipliers at 20 30 and 40 combo and then double the multipliers by adding "Brain Power" notes, where if you hit the entire string of brain power notes you add adrenaline to your overdrive meter! So 2x 3x and 4x would be 4x 6x and 8x!
Oh wait wrong game.
hmmm I think wrong game as well.
Score and LN stuffs seems fien but
"Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers."
>.> OH SHIT WADDUP
#RankHardMaps2016
#MakeGameHard2016
"Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers."
>.> OH SHIT WADDUP
#RankHardMaps2016
#MakeGameHard2016
Hi I don't usually post on the forums but I need to spew some bubbles.
Combo is a good idea, but the current weightings are just too absurd for anyone to adjust to them right now. Suggestion is to change the weightings so combo doesn't impact to a significant degree and the community might be able to adapt.
Rate mods or bust!!!
Rate mods or bust!!!
Rate mods or bust!!!
Fishy out.
Combo is a good idea, but the current weightings are just too absurd for anyone to adjust to them right now. Suggestion is to change the weightings so combo doesn't impact to a significant degree and the community might be able to adapt.
Rate mods or bust!!!
Rate mods or bust!!!
Rate mods or bust!!!
Fishy out.
this.Knit wrote:
there are people who want combo based scoring in a vsrg?
I love the LN changes!
From the perspective of a mediocre player like me, the idea that combo can drastically alter your score as much as it looks like it does really worries me. It could make things a lot less fun and a lot more stressful for those of us trying to learn the game mode.
Also, as a hidden main, I agree that adding multipliers for HD/FI/FL isn't a good idea. I need the mod in order to read effectively, so I don't feel like I should be rewarded for using a mod that's acting as a crutch.
From the perspective of a mediocre player like me, the idea that combo can drastically alter your score as much as it looks like it does really worries me. It could make things a lot less fun and a lot more stressful for those of us trying to learn the game mode.
Also, as a hidden main, I agree that adding multipliers for HD/FI/FL isn't a good idea. I need the mod in order to read effectively, so I don't feel like I should be rewarded for using a mod that's acting as a crutch.
Combo scoring LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
WE 2004 FFR BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WE 2004 FFR BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I love the LN changes <3
Please no combo scoring...
Please no combo scoring...
HT should be a 0.35x score multipler, HD/Fi/FL shouldn't give any score multiplier because it's more of a preference/visual aid for people that has trouble playing nomod (as former FL/HD only player here) and HR should be increase to maybe 1.10x score multipler.smoogipooo wrote:
- Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
I agree with Frenzy on this ideaFrenzyLi wrote:
How about if for any x0.1 speedup of the music/beatmap, you get extra x0.05 multiplier? That way DT/NC are x1.25 by current standards.
If the engine allows x1.2 speedup that means i can submit scores on x1.10 multiplier and get new pp calculation if the score exceeds previous submitted scores.
wow rip osssssss i thought it was ebola before but this...
SpaceGorilla_old
thanks for making osu!mania even worse than it already was.
now that i think about it I think I lost a bet from early 2015 that om couldnt get worse.
shit
shit
If you guys think 7k players dominated the leaderboards, well fear no more! Now they can play with mods and be more ahead than ever!!!!!!11111
lets take NS18 for an example in combo scoring.
for those who dont know the chart; its a jumpstream chart that repeats its patterns and slowly increases from 230 to 250 bpm with 2 short breaks. the end is the hardest part.
in scoreV2, lets say 2 players play this map.
player 1 misses 1 time on accidentally in the very middle, but thats his only miss.
player 2 isnt as good as player 1, and cant keep up with the 250 bpm at the end, and misses 5-8 times, but he combo'd the rest of the song.
assuming they had similar 200/100/50 counts, player 2s score would be *miles* ahead of player 1, despite playing much worse on the map.
also HD/SD/FL giving modifiers LMAO. people play with these to make the game EASIER TO READ FOR THEM. WHY WOULD THEY GIVE BONUS LMAO
I'm genuinely wondering if the devs behind scoreV2 have played a rhythm game before.
for those who dont know the chart; its a jumpstream chart that repeats its patterns and slowly increases from 230 to 250 bpm with 2 short breaks. the end is the hardest part.
in scoreV2, lets say 2 players play this map.
player 1 misses 1 time on accidentally in the very middle, but thats his only miss.
player 2 isnt as good as player 1, and cant keep up with the 250 bpm at the end, and misses 5-8 times, but he combo'd the rest of the song.
assuming they had similar 200/100/50 counts, player 2s score would be *miles* ahead of player 1, despite playing much worse on the map.
also HD/SD/FL giving modifiers LMAO. people play with these to make the game EASIER TO READ FOR THEM. WHY WOULD THEY GIVE BONUS LMAO
I'm genuinely wondering if the devs behind scoreV2 have played a rhythm game before.
lol why would they let somebody who actually plays the game and knows what theyre talking about develop the scoring
/threadWaltrusizer wrote:
lol why would they let somebody who actually plays the game and knows what theyre talking about develop the scoring
omg nosmoogipooo wrote:
* Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
It's pretty pathetic that the StepMania-mains are just shitting on the idea and not even trying to offer any sort of legitimate criticism (exception: PIXL, you at least tried to voice a concern):
With how the accuracy v2 formula works, 5-8 misses would cause a MASSIVE drop in score, especially if there's not a huge amount of notes. Even with 2000 notes, 5 to 8 misses would cause a reasonable dent on the accuracy side and would likely suffer a reasonable amount against the amount of points that the other player would have lost chopping the song right down the middle. Everyone is making it seem like a combo right in the middle is going to completely invalidate your score and make it so that it's impossible to come back -- the fact of the matter is, a miss right in the middle of the chart is still going to net you half of the combo scoring attribute, assuming that the chart has a constant pace -- for anyone who doesn't realize it, hasn't read yet, or refuses to read due to being completely blinded by a new score system, combo is only going to accommodate for 20% of the score. If a player simply misses and then recovers, their score will suffer, but not as much as you're making it out to be.
The inevitable solution for having a combo-based scoring system is going to require a curve that emphasizes building combo more than it does sustaining it - that is, putting a larger weight of the score for the combo bonus in the first x% of a song's max combo, and then resolving that curve over the remaining portion of the combo.
It's very clear that the weighting is harsh if you find some of the screenshots going around -- it does need to be addressed, as it is certainly not infallible. I don't agree with the modifier bonuses for HD/FL/FI, but I do feel like a slight orientation towards combo allows one of the more key elements of the game to be emphasized, and that's long notes. With the way the timing window has been shifted for V2, the mechanic is a lot more important to be proficient at - and it penalizes the fuck out of you if you can't do it (as it should).
in scoreV2, lets say 2 players play this map.I wanted to address you in the Discord regarding this (at least, I think it was you) but had to go off to lunch so I'm gonna do it here I guess:
player 1 misses 1 time on accidentally in the very middle, but thats his only miss.
player 2 isnt as good as player 1, and cant keep up with the 250 bpm at the end, and misses 5-8 times, but he combo'd the rest of the song.
assuming they had similar 200/100/50 counts, player 2s score would be *miles* ahead of player 1, despite playing much worse on the map.
With how the accuracy v2 formula works, 5-8 misses would cause a MASSIVE drop in score, especially if there's not a huge amount of notes. Even with 2000 notes, 5 to 8 misses would cause a reasonable dent on the accuracy side and would likely suffer a reasonable amount against the amount of points that the other player would have lost chopping the song right down the middle. Everyone is making it seem like a combo right in the middle is going to completely invalidate your score and make it so that it's impossible to come back -- the fact of the matter is, a miss right in the middle of the chart is still going to net you half of the combo scoring attribute, assuming that the chart has a constant pace -- for anyone who doesn't realize it, hasn't read yet, or refuses to read due to being completely blinded by a new score system, combo is only going to accommodate for 20% of the score. If a player simply misses and then recovers, their score will suffer, but not as much as you're making it out to be.
The inevitable solution for having a combo-based scoring system is going to require a curve that emphasizes building combo more than it does sustaining it - that is, putting a larger weight of the score for the combo bonus in the first x% of a song's max combo, and then resolving that curve over the remaining portion of the combo.
It's very clear that the weighting is harsh if you find some of the screenshots going around -- it does need to be addressed, as it is certainly not infallible. I don't agree with the modifier bonuses for HD/FL/FI, but I do feel like a slight orientation towards combo allows one of the more key elements of the game to be emphasized, and that's long notes. With the way the timing window has been shifted for V2, the mechanic is a lot more important to be proficient at - and it penalizes the fuck out of you if you can't do it (as it should).
Guys, why we dont change the score system? pretty simple right, i dont see any reply on this saying that we should change the score system we have. you know, see all this commotion about the change... can we HEAR the players? if a massive amount of player saying that its NOT good its WORSE, we should not change right? or because of the minority we will change!?!? i dont think thats correct, just saying.
As a example, did someone complained about the Rate mods? (Not saying the Score multiplier, the mod itself)
See, when we LIKE we dont Complain.
So why changing the score system?
Like, changing the score system to a WORSE score system?
.
As a example, did someone complained about the Rate mods? (Not saying the Score multiplier, the mod itself)
See, when we LIKE we dont Complain.
So why changing the score system?
Like, changing the score system to a WORSE score system?
.
20% is still massive for something that is as arbitrary as combo scoring. in a system where the difficulty structure of a chart is not taken into account, where you miss should be irrelevant. to put things in perspective, 20% is 200k. the difference between a 600k barely-passed-the-chart play and an 800k "I-can-get-97%-or-higher" play. (of course its near impossible to actually get 0 points from the combo factor but that's besides the point)Halogen- wrote:
With how the accuracy v2 formula works, 5-8 misses would cause a MASSIVE drop in score, especially if there's not a huge amount of notes. Even with 2000 notes, 5 to 8 misses would cause a reasonable dent on the accuracy side and would likely suffer a reasonable amount against the amount of points that the other player would have lost chopping the song right down the middle. Everyone is making it seem like a combo right in the middle is going to completely invalidate your score and make it so that it's impossible to come back -- the fact of the matter is, a miss right in the middle of the chart is still going to net you half of the combo scoring attribute, assuming that the chart has a constant pace -- for anyone who doesn't realize it, hasn't read yet, or refuses to read due to being completely blinded by a new score system, combo is only going to accommodate for 20% of the score. If a player simply misses and then recovers, their score will suffer, but not as much as you're making it out to be.
The inevitable solution for having a combo-based scoring system is going to require a curve that emphasizes building combo more than it does sustaining it - that is, putting a larger weight of the score for the combo bonus in the first x% of a song's max combo, and then resolving that curve over the remaining portion of the combo.
It's very clear that the weighting is harsh if you find some of the screenshots going around -- it does need to be addressed, as it is certainly not infallible. I don't agree with the modifier bonuses for HD/FL/FI, but I do feel like a slight orientation towards combo allows one of the more key elements of the game to be emphasized, and that's long notes. With the way the timing window has been shifted for V2, the mechanic is a lot more important to be proficient at - and it penalizes the fuck out of you if you can't do it (as it should).
In many cases for vsrg charts the end is the hardest part of the file (due to both climax theory and stamina), yet in a system where combo is taken into account, the end is the place where, if you have to miss, it is most optimal to miss at. this system literally rewards doing bad on the hardest part
considering how most peoples top plays are either 1) low 90s on overrated maps, or 2) SDCB plays.
these types of scores are going to be EXTREMELY affected by this system. the low 90s type of scores will turn into fluke/mashed scores that got unnaturally high combo, and those SDCB scores will no longer be about improving accuracy on runs and now about keeping your combo as long as you can at any cost
please remove score multiplier from HD/FL those mods literally make charts easier lol
I play nomod 90% of the time and still score higher with HD than without. giving vision mods a score bonus is kind of ridiculous.
for HR/DT it's fine imo, due to the 1mil fixed score style. it means you only gain anything from those after you already 940K+ score on the chart, which is a good point to already scrap nomod and go for DT
please remove HT/EZ scores completely. simply because those mods are lame. we don't need people getting PP from HT maniera that's zzz...
I play nomod 90% of the time and still score higher with HD than without. giving vision mods a score bonus is kind of ridiculous.
for HR/DT it's fine imo, due to the 1mil fixed score style. it means you only gain anything from those after you already 940K+ score on the chart, which is a good point to already scrap nomod and go for DT
please remove HT/EZ scores completely. simply because those mods are lame. we don't need people getting PP from HT maniera that's zzz...
Excuse me, but what happens to the old scores?
Do they get automatically updated or what?
Do they get automatically updated or what?
People are wondering about what would happen to old scores when this is officially implemented. Would there be a score wipe or a way to convert old scores into the ScoreV2 system?
rip best pp System NotLikeThis
Edit: I'm drunk nvm.
Edit: I'm drunk nvm.
This is score system, not pp systemAnkanogradiel wrote:
rip best pp System NotLikeThis
Ayaya wrote:
This is score system, not pp systemAnkanogradiel wrote:
rip best pp System NotLikeThis
yah misread sorry.
i don't think the old scores will be wiped tbh
more likely to be left as they are now. because it has happened before in osu standard if I remember well
just gonna chill here and wait for v3 score system next drama.
So about the ''COMBO'' score, and the Score multipliers.
First of all, COMBO is not the entire thing on mania, we dont want to suffer so much because we just missed 1 TIME in the freaking map.
Score V1 VS Score V2:
Score V2 99,41 2xmiss in ONE spot, the middle of the map: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5390253 855,415 (Ratio 6:1 of 300g)
Score V1 96,11 16xmiss in various spot: http://puu.sh/psLAa/1c0ec14641.jpg 875,531 (Ratio 1:1 of 300g)
... good right? of course not
And for the love of God, 1.06x multiplier is PRETTY big, you know i PASSED 1MILLION with 1:1 RATIO because of COMBO SCORE
~ https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5390366
Missed in the FINALS note, and STILL BREAKED THE 1MILLION
(Max combo: 1,507)
Please, consider that combo score is pretty ridiculous
First of all, COMBO is not the entire thing on mania, we dont want to suffer so much because we just missed 1 TIME in the freaking map.
Score V1 VS Score V2:
Score V2 99,41 2xmiss in ONE spot, the middle of the map: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5390253 855,415 (Ratio 6:1 of 300g)
Score V1 96,11 16xmiss in various spot: http://puu.sh/psLAa/1c0ec14641.jpg 875,531 (Ratio 1:1 of 300g)
... good right? of course not
And for the love of God, 1.06x multiplier is PRETTY big, you know i PASSED 1MILLION with 1:1 RATIO because of COMBO SCORE
~ https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5390366
Missed in the FINALS note, and STILL BREAKED THE 1MILLION
(Max combo: 1,507)
Please, consider that combo score is pretty ridiculous
I do agree on the LN changes and some mod multipliers, but I don't agree on adding rewards on HD/FI/FL since it's just a visual mod which helps the players who don't do well with No Mod.
[*]The biggest thing I disagree on is the combo scoring. Combo should be given less or no reward at all since you can technically have worse accuracy and high combo and beat your previous score. Let's say you get a 95.2% S rank and then you have a score that's around a low 94% with less MAX and more 200s and 100s and misses near the end of the map, but you had a higher combo and that would have a higher score than the S rank which doesn't seem fair at all. I've also noticed in the testing that people intentionally missed in middle of combos but still had extremely high accuracy with 99%, but those with 96% and had very high combos completely demolished those scores. In my opinion, a Small reward should be given for having higher combo or FC such as having a 5% part of the score instead of the ludicrous 20%.
[*]HR should be reworked to and I'm fine with the 1.06x multiplier and if it were higher it would be better
[*]DT should have a higher Score multiplier rewarding the player more such as STD's 1.12x.
[*]Those rates would be nice to have, 100/110/120%... but would need DT to have a 1.25x multiplier to have each 10% be worth .05x multiplier.
e.g 1.1x rate/110% would give 1.05x and 1.4x rate/140% would give 1.2x
[*]HT rate should be given less reward as STD does. STD gives .30x , but Mania gives .5x which I hope gets lowered to .30x like in STD to give players less reward for playing Half Time.
In recap, good changes on the LNs, bad on adding multiplier to HD/FI/FL. Really bad on the combo scoring , HR could be better but is good so far, DT give more reward and should have rates and HT give less reward I am very glad a change is happening, but I hope it won't be a disaster. Fix these problems please! 
[*]The biggest thing I disagree on is the combo scoring. Combo should be given less or no reward at all since you can technically have worse accuracy and high combo and beat your previous score. Let's say you get a 95.2% S rank and then you have a score that's around a low 94% with less MAX and more 200s and 100s and misses near the end of the map, but you had a higher combo and that would have a higher score than the S rank which doesn't seem fair at all. I've also noticed in the testing that people intentionally missed in middle of combos but still had extremely high accuracy with 99%, but those with 96% and had very high combos completely demolished those scores. In my opinion, a Small reward should be given for having higher combo or FC such as having a 5% part of the score instead of the ludicrous 20%.
[*]HR should be reworked to and I'm fine with the 1.06x multiplier and if it were higher it would be better
[*]DT should have a higher Score multiplier rewarding the player more such as STD's 1.12x.
[*]Those rates would be nice to have, 100/110/120%... but would need DT to have a 1.25x multiplier to have each 10% be worth .05x multiplier.
e.g 1.1x rate/110% would give 1.05x and 1.4x rate/140% would give 1.2x
[*]HT rate should be given less reward as STD does. STD gives .30x , but Mania gives .5x which I hope gets lowered to .30x like in STD to give players less reward for playing Half Time.
I am very glad a change is happening, but I hope it won't be a disaster. Fix these problems please! I'll voice that the combo portion should be lowered to 10 or 5%, or stay as it is with the current system.
20% is definitely too much and would make tournament matches less exciting than they already are, as it would create much larger score gaps than before (that's what I'm thinking at least). I have experienced losses of over 100k Score because of 1 miss in the wrong place.
Another option I see is setting a limit to the "combo bonus", similar to Taiko: You get more Score for a higher combo, but this is limited to something like 200-300 combo (or 10% of the total notes). That way, you can measure consistency without relying on a flawless play too much.
If this was to be implemented as the regular score mechanic, it would make Mania needlessly grindy. I think most people prefer the score system as it is.
LN changes are really good!
The mods aspect has been stressed out enough here.
20% is definitely too much and would make tournament matches less exciting than they already are, as it would create much larger score gaps than before (that's what I'm thinking at least). I have experienced losses of over 100k Score because of 1 miss in the wrong place.
Another option I see is setting a limit to the "combo bonus", similar to Taiko: You get more Score for a higher combo, but this is limited to something like 200-300 combo (or 10% of the total notes). That way, you can measure consistency without relying on a flawless play too much.
If this was to be implemented as the regular score mechanic, it would make Mania needlessly grindy. I think most people prefer the score system as it is.
LN changes are really good!
The mods aspect has been stressed out enough here.
yes this seems kind of unfair. combo percentage should be a bit lower but not zero. The ideal for me would be a score system based on 90% accuracy 5% number of misses and 5% combo but that would require big changes.
There is nothing else left to say really.Vygatron wrote:
JUST FUCK MY ASS WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS COMBO SHIT
The fact that this is being considered means something is already very wrong.
want to point out that this is the post that I liked the most and I share the same opinion on most of the aspectsrohen04 wrote:
I'll voice that the combo portion should be lowered to 10 or 5%, or stay as it is with the current system.
20% is definitely too much and would make tournament matches less exciting than they already are, as it would create much larger score gaps than before (that's what I'm thinking at least). I have experienced losses of over 100k Score because of 1 miss in the wrong place.
Another option I see is setting a limit to the "combo bonus", similar to Taiko: You get more Score for a higher combo, but this is limited to something like 200-300 combo (or 10% of the total notes). That way, you can measure consistency without relying on a flawless play too much.
If this was to be implemented as the regular score mechanic, it would make Mania needlessly grindy. I think most people prefer the score system as it is.
LN changes are really good!
The mods aspect has been stressed out enough here.
Logarythm where combo bonus is getting smaller when combo is higher should be a good balance. Because you dont lose that much when you miss in middle of song.rohen04 wrote:
I'll voice that the combo portion should be lowered to 10 or 5%, or stay as it is with the current system.
20% is definitely too much and would make tournament matches less exciting than they already are, as it would create much larger score gaps than before (that's what I'm thinking at least). I have experienced losses of over 100k Score because of 1 miss in the wrong place.
Another option I see is setting a limit to the "combo bonus", similar to Taiko: You get more Score for a higher combo, but this is limited to something like 200-300 combo (or 10% of the total notes). That way, you can measure consistency without relying on a flawless play too much.
If this was to be implemented as the regular score mechanic, it would make Mania needlessly grindy. I think most people prefer the score system as it is.
LN changes are really good!
The mods aspect has been stressed out enough here.
About visual mods I think its fine to leave it as 1.06x. We cant deny that playing HD / FL (despite being just personal preference) is something that should be rewarded because it does change the difficulty of reading at least.
Which I dont agree tho is that HR and DT are BY FAR harder than any visual mod. HR being 1,06x and with the 300g window is pmuch imposible to beat nomod scores and if you do, you wont do it for too much. I think HR should give 1,25x to make a difference.
By not leaving the multiplier for visual mods well, HD players can still play hidden but a nomod wont ever think about going HD / FL. If you keep the multiplier you might actualy give the chance to some teams to take some risks in order to pull out a good FL / HD performance to try and outclass a team that is slighty better in accuracy.
Just my 2 cents. I will test this as much as I can to give feedback but not too sure how strong I am at maths to give stuff.
And also, for all those people that disagree with the change is 100% fine that you do! But please, dont disturb the post. Just posting a "I dont like the score system" is fine, even if it lacks of feedback at least we can know if the changes suits or not for a % of the people. Saying that tho its really good if you can give suggestions (it doesnt have to be like a huge text wall like Shoegazer if you dont really want lol) but even giving a bit of suggestions is always good.
And yeah, I am talking to you, Stepmania player. You can always keep playing Stepmania if you dont want to help with this but please dont post here just to disturb.
Which I dont agree tho is that HR and DT are BY FAR harder than any visual mod. HR being 1,06x and with the 300g window is pmuch imposible to beat nomod scores and if you do, you wont do it for too much. I think HR should give 1,25x to make a difference.
By not leaving the multiplier for visual mods well, HD players can still play hidden but a nomod wont ever think about going HD / FL. If you keep the multiplier you might actualy give the chance to some teams to take some risks in order to pull out a good FL / HD performance to try and outclass a team that is slighty better in accuracy.
Just my 2 cents. I will test this as much as I can to give feedback but not too sure how strong I am at maths to give stuff.
And also, for all those people that disagree with the change is 100% fine that you do! But please, dont disturb the post. Just posting a "I dont like the score system" is fine, even if it lacks of feedback at least we can know if the changes suits or not for a % of the people. Saying that tho its really good if you can give suggestions (it doesnt have to be like a huge text wall like Shoegazer if you dont really want lol) but even giving a bit of suggestions is always good.
And yeah, I am talking to you, Stepmania player. You can always keep playing Stepmania if you dont want to help with this but please dont post here just to disturb.
ln changes seem cool, would like to test them out but i don't have a supp tag l0l
visual mods should help you read, not boost your score
dt and hr boosts should be a bit higher imo
combo is valued a bit too much in the score, combo scoring should be tweaked a bit or just diminished
people are reacting too explosively here (like usual)
i think that's everything
good to see things moving for once
just make sure to take what the majority of the community suggests seriously now, even if some of them are reacting in the way they are in the moment
visual mods should help you read, not boost your score
dt and hr boosts should be a bit higher imo
combo is valued a bit too much in the score, combo scoring should be tweaked a bit or just diminished
people are reacting too explosively here (like usual)
i think that's everything
good to see things moving for once
just make sure to take what the majority of the community suggests seriously now, even if some of them are reacting in the way they are in the moment
Thank you for this Juan, many people don't understand that you guys are trying to get as much feedback as possible to Improve this and just saying " i don't like it" doesn't help them not make it bad for you guys. These people have several months to fix this, so you don't have to overreact because something is very wrong on the very first day. Just give them feedback on what you like and or don't like and they'll look into it.juankristal wrote:
And also, for all those people that disagree with the change is 100% fine that you do! But please, dont disturb the post. Just posting a "I dont like the score system" is fine, even if it lacks of feedback at least we can know if the changes suits or not for a % of the people. Saying that tho its really good if you can give suggestions (it doesnt have to be like a huge text wall like Shoegazer if you dont really want lol) but even giving a bit of suggestions is always good.
And yeah, I am talking to you, Stepmania player. You can always keep playing Stepmania if you dont want to help with this but please dont post here just to disturb.
Those are nice changes for mania players who have great aim.
Mania is really chill cause Combo doesnt matter too much and I think 10% > 20% if you do decide to change thigs for the sake of change only
As a permanent FL player I disagree with giving vision mods a bonus. Vision mods in mania games are more a playstyle than something to increase difficulty and should be considered this way. I do think it's cool that a bonus would possibly add to the tactics in mwc, but I don't think that outweighs the effect it has on players like myself. Giving players like myself a 6% bonus on score is unfair given that playing flashlight for me is equivalent to playing nomod for most players.
Not sure if HR+DT should give 1.12x but if thats supposed to be true then there is a bug over there!
Quoting this because this sums up my main concerns about scorev2, it's not fair to nomod players if folks who have incorporated visual mods into their playstyle get a free boost in score just for having a mod they can't play without active.Bobbias wrote:
As a permanent FL player I disagree with giving vision mods a bonus. Vision mods in mania games are more a playstyle than something to increase difficulty and should be considered this way. I do think it's cool that a bonus would possibly add to the tactics in mwc, but I don't think that outweighs the effect it has on players like myself. Giving players like myself a 6% bonus on score is unfair given that playing flashlight for me is equivalent to playing nomod for most players.
When's fixed HD cover tho : ?
As a side note, I am not too sure if this is related to multi rooms itself or just scoreV2 but you can check this by yourself:
It applies DT mod to a single player randomly like that and well, you can draw your own conclusions.
It applies DT mod to a single player randomly like that and well, you can draw your own conclusions.
Pretty much every player that i know who mains a visual mod, says that you should never learn to use visual mods because it's too hard to get used to nomod again. I'm also weird and play on a high scroll speed which makes it really awkward for me to try visual mods. If i play hidden, i can't really get used to the lack of reading space compared to nomod as i focus on a fairly low point on the playfield but it really messes with how well i can keep up if some of that is obscured. Flashlight is something which seems to help players who have issues with reading denser patterns within short amounts of time. I have the opposite problem, i have trouble with reading anything below speed 32 at this point for 4k (i currently play 35).
Although i could try and learn to use visual mods and try and adjust to reading with them, based on what other players have always told me about them, they're not worth learning to use. I don't know many players who can just casually switch between nomod and usually visual mods. There's a lot of players who sometimes use Hidden on maps which they find too hard for them. People have told me that they do that in order to have less on the screen to focus on (I remember Cryolien once telling me that he couldn't pass some of the mappool of a tournament without playing hidden despite not being a hidden player).
The idea of giving a score increase to players who use visual mods just seems like it's giving players a free handicap which they don't actually need. Also, the hidden and fade-in mods in general have their own problems. There're so many players who use things such as lane covers or a kind of static hidden element within their skins instead of using the mods. I believe that a lot more people would use hidden and fade-in if they had some form of customisation. Fade-in is not really even a legitimate option, at least whilst it has the combo scaling. Having fade-in set to a certain point or being able to customise it would make it much more of a playable option. There's an extremely big difference between reading from the top of the playfield and having to adjust your timing to compensate, and having to read every note right before it touches the judgement line. This basically forces you to drop combo to avoid getting constant 200s or lower.
Well that's me going too in depth over small things as usual. Hope the opinions help in some way.
Good luck with finding a balance.
Although i could try and learn to use visual mods and try and adjust to reading with them, based on what other players have always told me about them, they're not worth learning to use. I don't know many players who can just casually switch between nomod and usually visual mods. There's a lot of players who sometimes use Hidden on maps which they find too hard for them. People have told me that they do that in order to have less on the screen to focus on (I remember Cryolien once telling me that he couldn't pass some of the mappool of a tournament without playing hidden despite not being a hidden player).
The idea of giving a score increase to players who use visual mods just seems like it's giving players a free handicap which they don't actually need. Also, the hidden and fade-in mods in general have their own problems. There're so many players who use things such as lane covers or a kind of static hidden element within their skins instead of using the mods. I believe that a lot more people would use hidden and fade-in if they had some form of customisation. Fade-in is not really even a legitimate option, at least whilst it has the combo scaling. Having fade-in set to a certain point or being able to customise it would make it much more of a playable option. There's an extremely big difference between reading from the top of the playfield and having to adjust your timing to compensate, and having to read every note right before it touches the judgement line. This basically forces you to drop combo to avoid getting constant 200s or lower.
Well that's me going too in depth over small things as usual. Hope the opinions help in some way.
Good luck with finding a balance.
Welp if this is the logic we going with, please CTB score based on accuracy next please.
No but for real:
In what world do Combo add more too consistency than ACC???
No but for real:
Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.What in the actual FUCK?!?
We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
In what world do Combo add more too consistency than ACC???
idk if you are aware, but the people who use those visual mods do it to make reading EASIER. theres a reason why LR2 players use their own custom lane covers, and their own sudden/hidden settings. people dont use those mods to make the game harder. its literally there for their own ability to read. giving those a bonus multiplier would be like giving certain HitPositions a multiplier, or certain scroll speeds a multiplierjuankristal wrote:
About visual mods I think its fine to leave it as 1.06x. We cant deny that playing HD / FL (despite being just personal preference) is something that should be rewarded because it does change the difficulty of reading at least.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
Don't give FL/HD multipliers!
HR is debatable, but but like what most people say, FL/HD is more of a play style.
Don't give FL/HD multipliers!
HR is debatable, but but like what most people say, FL/HD is more of a play style.
oh yeah... demm...projectc1 wrote:
just gonna chill here and wait for v3 score system next drama.
It's not drama. They want feedback and people are giving their feedback. Some people have been way too immature about how they've tried to make their position known but at least they are making people aware of their opinion as a whole. People should not join in with what those people have done but it still shows that people dislike the ideas.
If you don't give any feedback, nothing will change. If you don't give detailed feedback, no *specific* changes will be made. Just make sure to voice your opinions and ideas without filling the thread (or any other thread), with what is basically spam with a small point to make.
If you don't give any feedback, nothing will change. If you don't give detailed feedback, no *specific* changes will be made. Just make sure to voice your opinions and ideas without filling the thread (or any other thread), with what is basically spam with a small point to make.
I don't really want to put the effort in right now, but I'm going to cast my vote in for not letting visual mods affect score for obvious reasons.
yeah i know, i'm not agree with this too except the LN.-Konner- wrote:
It's not drama. They want feedback and people are giving their feedback. Some people have been way too immature about how they've tried to make their position known but at least they are making people aware of their opinion as a whole. People should not join in with what those people have done but it still shows that people dislike the ideas.
If you don't give any feedback, nothing will change. If you don't give detailed feedback, no *specific* changes will be made. Just make sure to voice your opinions and ideas without filling the thread (or any other thread), with what is basically spam with a small point to make.
Visual Mod got multiplier score???
Oh man.. srsly visual mod just make player more confortable not make it hard
I said this coz I'm FL player and also HD player
f
Oh man.. srsly visual mod just make player more confortable not make it hard
I said this coz I'm FL player and also HD player
f
alright, I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, and I'm not THAT good at mania but here goes
Honestly visual mods for mania don't need their own score modifier, that's absurd they do nothing to increase the difficulty of the song and many people will use those mods to aid with reading so to unfairly add score just because of the way they read is ridiculous, though not nearly as much as this next point.
As for the combo addition to mania... that's absolutely asinine. I don't know where you got this idea for combo affecting score so greatly in the thing to presumably become the new default scoring system but you need to stop. Combo should not be a factor in score at all, let alone 20% the very idea of that is just ridiculous. It punishes missing spread out more than missing all at once, let's say you miss 4 times with everything else being Max 300, you have 5 short combos or 2 with one being long and the other being short. The 2 combos will be favored over the shorter one which is stupid because they both have the same accuracy which is the truest measure of skill of a player. If you believe that accuracy isn't the best measure of skill for a player, then just remove any semblance of "accuracy" from the game, and just make notes "hit" or "miss" without any variation and make the scoring purely combos.
I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but you're being incredibly stubborn on this issue when it's very very apparent that many people in the community don't like it and so I'm trying to make you see the flaws with it. I hope you reconsider this issue (mostly the 20% of score being combo) because if not and this becomes the new "norm" for scoring you're going to see a mass exodus of mania players to a game that isn't basing 20% of your score on combo alone. It's up to you what happens after this. No pressure.
Honestly visual mods for mania don't need their own score modifier, that's absurd they do nothing to increase the difficulty of the song and many people will use those mods to aid with reading so to unfairly add score just because of the way they read is ridiculous, though not nearly as much as this next point.
As for the combo addition to mania... that's absolutely asinine. I don't know where you got this idea for combo affecting score so greatly in the thing to presumably become the new default scoring system but you need to stop. Combo should not be a factor in score at all, let alone 20% the very idea of that is just ridiculous. It punishes missing spread out more than missing all at once, let's say you miss 4 times with everything else being Max 300, you have 5 short combos or 2 with one being long and the other being short. The 2 combos will be favored over the shorter one which is stupid because they both have the same accuracy which is the truest measure of skill of a player. If you believe that accuracy isn't the best measure of skill for a player, then just remove any semblance of "accuracy" from the game, and just make notes "hit" or "miss" without any variation and make the scoring purely combos.
I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but you're being incredibly stubborn on this issue when it's very very apparent that many people in the community don't like it and so I'm trying to make you see the flaws with it. I hope you reconsider this issue (mostly the 20% of score being combo) because if not and this becomes the new "norm" for scoring you're going to see a mass exodus of mania players to a game that isn't basing 20% of your score on combo alone. It's up to you what happens after this. No pressure.
First of all sorry for my bad English :3 Here are some of my opinions:
Thanks for reading!
- LN: OMG YESS
- NF/EZ/HT: 0.5x is fine
- HR: 1.1-1.2x
- DT: "Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that)" -> Hell Yeah!!!
- HD,FL,FI: Like ALMOST people say, a big NO!Long text + Bad grammarPeople use these mods not to make the map harder, but easier to read. I used to play HD at some point and be like "Never gonna turn this sh*t off", but then a wild SV-heavy map appears and I be like "WTF is going on behind that covered space?" and switch back to nomod *the end*. These mods has it's advantages and disadvantages, the same applied to nomod so it's up to players preference to pick what they like best. If Standard has mouse/tablet/touchscreen players, then we Mania has HD,FL,FI,nomod players.
- Combo: I really hope that combo-based score nerver make it way to Mania *sigh*Long text + Bad grammar
Thanks for reading!
Time for my contribution to this.
Main sections organized by increasing order of importance. Read bolded sentences for tldr.
Vision Mods
These are HD, FI, and FL.
As someone who play with a HD skin (not using the hidden mod), and is completely unable to play nomod otherwise, I think if the HD mod still stays the same (it shouldn't), then the 1.06x multiplier should be fine. This is due to the fact that playing with a lane cover which effectively moves up and down is not particularly easy to play, and results in those intentional misses in order to sometimes bring the cover down. On the other hand, if the HD mod gets fixed to become static, then I believe there should be no multiplier. This is due to the fact that (with the exception of slowjams (not something to discount)), most high level players don't even look below a certain point on the screen when playing. This is why people play with a cover, in order to hide the visual clutter that lies below a certain point where people pay attention. While there may be some merit to giving a score multiplier simply for the ability to deal with slowjams, this is such a rare occurrence overall, that I don't think it really should warrant any bonus.
Misc.
The remaining mods are not really worth commenting about yet, as the score mutlipliers they provide is more relevant when talking about the pp system, which is not the main topic of concern at the moment. As a side note though, playing a song with DT is close to playing an entirely different song, which no amount of score buff could fix as a problem (it would be too little or too much). In addition, with HR, the timing window for a 300g is reduced, which impacts the score by a large amount. Therefore, that mod would probably also require a significant buff. Of course, for tournament play, none of the non-vision mods actually matter that much, so lets just ignore this for now.
LN End Window
After playing around with this a bit, I believe that this timing window is currently a little bit too small. Considering how it's inherently harder to time releases over holds anyways, I think this should be increased to something around a 2.0x multiplier instead. (Obviously, this would require much testing. A more statistical approach to do this would be to analyze replays that we already have, and the spread of the LN release timings compared to LN holds, given easier maps (since LN heavy maps would give somewhat inaccurate results)).
HP
An unintended side effect of this LN change is the fact that people can now lose HP for failing to release a note on time, something which did not happen before. In addition, there are now double the chances for people to miss an lose HP, which would result in maps getting harder this way. There probably needs to be a look into the side effects of this, especially for higher level maps, but this is also probably not as relevant for tournament play, except for possibly the final few rounds.
I won't be doing as much number crunching for this part as some other have, mostly since I don't have the energy for it.
Combo
As Shoegazer has already pointed out in his post, mania is not really a gamemode where people single-mindedly focus on FCs, and thus, having this quadratic (it's quadratic guys) scoring system will not work in this game mode, unlike std and ctb. Instead, we tend to focus on aiming for higher accuracy instead, with overall scores being decent.
Players in this mode will (unless they are attempting to FC) not care about a random miss somewhere in the middle of the song, especially in a slow part. It's just a single miss, and won't significantly contribute to the final accuracy of the play. Instead, we only really care when we either miss a large number of notes in a burst (in which case we just flailed the burst), or when we are constantly missing throughout some section (lets say a stream of some sort). In order to fix this, there should be diminishing returns on each note at some point, rather than an quadratic increase in returns instead. This could take the form of a logarithmic curve, or there could be a system similar to taiko instead, where the bonus increases up until a certain cap, where it no longer grows.
On a side note, one of the things I like about the old "combo" scoring mechanism was the fact that you still lost combo for not hitting a 300. This continue to penalize people who are mashing through some section of the song, but can retain combo nonetheless (for example, jumptrilling rolls or jumpstreams a la PLANET//SHIPPER). I'm not sure if this should stay or not, but it is worth keeping in mind to some extent.
Accuracy
I like the direction that this is taking, where scores are really calculated exponentially off of accuracy instead of linearly. The exponent is a bit too extreme right now however, as the score dropoff is quite extreme for even taking a small hit in accuracy. People have already ran numbers on this, and this would also obviously need testing with combo as well in order to determine what a good balance point is.
Which leads me to my final point.
Combo and Accuracy Balance
See this screenshot?
This is the extreme example of someone who has terrible accuracy, and yet can somehow FC the map. Where would we put him in the grand scheme of "how good is this score?" This is where the balance between combo and accuracy must be considered, and only after finalizing the individual scoring metrics within each section. As of right now, I think the balance of the 2 sections is extremely off, especially with the current combo scoring system in play. However, since that is subject to change, I will refrain for saying much more for now.
Main sections organized by increasing order of importance. Read bolded sentences for tldr.
Mods
Vision Mods
These are HD, FI, and FL.
As someone who play with a HD skin (not using the hidden mod), and is completely unable to play nomod otherwise, I think if the HD mod still stays the same (it shouldn't), then the 1.06x multiplier should be fine. This is due to the fact that playing with a lane cover which effectively moves up and down is not particularly easy to play, and results in those intentional misses in order to sometimes bring the cover down. On the other hand, if the HD mod gets fixed to become static, then I believe there should be no multiplier. This is due to the fact that (with the exception of slowjams (not something to discount)), most high level players don't even look below a certain point on the screen when playing. This is why people play with a cover, in order to hide the visual clutter that lies below a certain point where people pay attention. While there may be some merit to giving a score multiplier simply for the ability to deal with slowjams, this is such a rare occurrence overall, that I don't think it really should warrant any bonus.
Misc.
The remaining mods are not really worth commenting about yet, as the score mutlipliers they provide is more relevant when talking about the pp system, which is not the main topic of concern at the moment. As a side note though, playing a song with DT is close to playing an entirely different song, which no amount of score buff could fix as a problem (it would be too little or too much). In addition, with HR, the timing window for a 300g is reduced, which impacts the score by a large amount. Therefore, that mod would probably also require a significant buff. Of course, for tournament play, none of the non-vision mods actually matter that much, so lets just ignore this for now.
Long Notes
LN End Window
After playing around with this a bit, I believe that this timing window is currently a little bit too small. Considering how it's inherently harder to time releases over holds anyways, I think this should be increased to something around a 2.0x multiplier instead. (Obviously, this would require much testing. A more statistical approach to do this would be to analyze replays that we already have, and the spread of the LN release timings compared to LN holds, given easier maps (since LN heavy maps would give somewhat inaccurate results)).
HP
An unintended side effect of this LN change is the fact that people can now lose HP for failing to release a note on time, something which did not happen before. In addition, there are now double the chances for people to miss an lose HP, which would result in maps getting harder this way. There probably needs to be a look into the side effects of this, especially for higher level maps, but this is also probably not as relevant for tournament play, except for possibly the final few rounds.
Score
I won't be doing as much number crunching for this part as some other have, mostly since I don't have the energy for it.
Combo
As Shoegazer has already pointed out in his post, mania is not really a gamemode where people single-mindedly focus on FCs, and thus, having this quadratic (it's quadratic guys) scoring system will not work in this game mode, unlike std and ctb. Instead, we tend to focus on aiming for higher accuracy instead, with overall scores being decent.
Players in this mode will (unless they are attempting to FC) not care about a random miss somewhere in the middle of the song, especially in a slow part. It's just a single miss, and won't significantly contribute to the final accuracy of the play. Instead, we only really care when we either miss a large number of notes in a burst (in which case we just flailed the burst), or when we are constantly missing throughout some section (lets say a stream of some sort). In order to fix this, there should be diminishing returns on each note at some point, rather than an quadratic increase in returns instead. This could take the form of a logarithmic curve, or there could be a system similar to taiko instead, where the bonus increases up until a certain cap, where it no longer grows.
On a side note, one of the things I like about the old "combo" scoring mechanism was the fact that you still lost combo for not hitting a 300. This continue to penalize people who are mashing through some section of the song, but can retain combo nonetheless (for example, jumptrilling rolls or jumpstreams a la PLANET//SHIPPER). I'm not sure if this should stay or not, but it is worth keeping in mind to some extent.
Accuracy
I like the direction that this is taking, where scores are really calculated exponentially off of accuracy instead of linearly. The exponent is a bit too extreme right now however, as the score dropoff is quite extreme for even taking a small hit in accuracy. People have already ran numbers on this, and this would also obviously need testing with combo as well in order to determine what a good balance point is.
Which leads me to my final point.
Combo and Accuracy Balance
See this screenshot?
This is the extreme example of someone who has terrible accuracy, and yet can somehow FC the map. Where would we put him in the grand scheme of "how good is this score?" This is where the balance between combo and accuracy must be considered, and only after finalizing the individual scoring metrics within each section. As of right now, I think the balance of the 2 sections is extremely off, especially with the current combo scoring system in play. However, since that is subject to change, I will refrain for saying much more for now.
people must really like combos.
this is just my opinion i'm not very professional to things like this ><
the LN changes are great !
mania rate changes will be interesting too
but combo game and score multiply for visual mods ?
no please
some people play better with nomod, some people play better with hd, some people play better with fl
preference
As a nomod player myself it's unfair to think that mods like these would give score bonus
from my experiences it messed with my reading and destroyed accuracy, more 200s, almost 1:1 300 ratios
sure it is possible to adapt to it but it will be pain in the ass to !
Don't change the timing window of HR too please! it is really good to practice with the smaller timing window for people who want better accuracy
i agree on making the bonus much higher if ever, if you aim to value accuracy player
About combo game;
It seems to be too punishing as i saw it, scores such as 700k S, 570k S were seen, and even 100k-300k B score
i considered mania as chill game since combo doesn't as much, but with accuracy playing a bit more makes it better
for example someone plays a marathon map with 99% accuracy but shitmiss in different section of the map, it would end up not being a very good score i believe because he did not make good combo, i find it discouraging because he played very well accuracy but end up with score like 700-800k only
it has much to work on
this is just my opinion i'm not very professional to things like this ><
the LN changes are great !
mania rate changes will be interesting too
but combo game and score multiply for visual mods ?
no please
some people play better with nomod, some people play better with hd, some people play better with fl
preference
As a nomod player myself it's unfair to think that mods like these would give score bonus
from my experiences it messed with my reading and destroyed accuracy, more 200s, almost 1:1 300 ratios
sure it is possible to adapt to it but it will be pain in the ass to !
Don't change the timing window of HR too please! it is really good to practice with the smaller timing window for people who want better accuracy
i agree on making the bonus much higher if ever, if you aim to value accuracy player
About combo game;
It seems to be too punishing as i saw it, scores such as 700k S, 570k S were seen, and even 100k-300k B score
i considered mania as chill game since combo doesn't as much, but with accuracy playing a bit more makes it better
for example someone plays a marathon map with 99% accuracy but shitmiss in different section of the map, it would end up not being a very good score i believe because he did not make good combo, i find it discouraging because he played very well accuracy but end up with score like 700-800k only
it has much to work on
Score multipliers? Please no! Imo HD, FI and FL players dont want it! I am using HD only because I like it and its my preference. There is not actual reason to force it on other players.
Instead of adding multipliers you should rework Hidden. Static one, like that in Stepmania is way better and more comfortable to play. If someone wants to have bigger hidden - just give him option to make it bigger, but not smaller because it will be quite overpowered.
LN changes seems great, cool stuff for accuracy based players.
Instead of adding multipliers you should rework Hidden. Static one, like that in Stepmania is way better and more comfortable to play. If someone wants to have bigger hidden - just give him option to make it bigger, but not smaller because it will be quite overpowered.
LN changes seems great, cool stuff for accuracy based players.
vision mods
hd fl don't need a score multiplier i and many others have skins that have 50% lane cover the whole time which in turn helps us read better then without hd mod, some people are fl only players and read better this way, you would just be forcing your community to play with fl only if they want to compete.
Hold notes
Personally i am against more leniency, hold note patterns are just another technique players can choose to learn and play, there are people who start from stepmania and hate hold notes simply because their game didn't start with them and so they have to specifically improve in hold notes to reach a point where they can play ln as well as they can play fast patterns. Whilst people learning to acc hold notes may not be too much of an issue, hold note patterns have the potential to use more technique then single note patterns, i however lack the experience to say how much hold notes should be weighted compared to single notes in terms of a pp system as this would require judging how much technique is required for hold notes in any given map via a formula
1.1x rate at 0.05 value
Personally i would prefer a song to be rated based on how difficult the pp calculation judges a song at x speed however, there are certain patterns that can be inflated too much in value via rates, we have songs that do this already and for now this system is fine. My opinion is once, if we get a more accurate pp calculation formula in place then it would be a good time to have songs judged individually
Current issues in the pp formula
1. There are patterns at least in 4k that are used in several songs which are really simple for a player, essentially too little technique for the difficulty they are being judged at, the best example of this would be jumptrills being overrated, I don't like this type of pattern in the first place because they create hit and miss scenarios where players can often fluke scores and earn free pp.
2. index songs are underrated, index songs are streams of single note patterns, since they don't use 2 note patterns, they are seen as less dense by the formula and there for a lot easier then they deserve to be rated as. The best example in ranked 4k you can see of this is the empress scream off sc difficulty, there may be other difficulties from that map that are just as underrated however this is the main one i have experience with
3. Many people yell at mappers who get their maps ranked with this issue however, it is an issue with the pp system itself and not the mapper. There are several songs in 4k which will have 1 or 2 bursts in the song that inflate the difficulty and as long as someone can manage on that section, they can easily get a s rank and earn free pp. 2 recent examples of this are: triumph and regret, C18H27NO3 but there are many other songs that do the same thing and something needs to be done to the formula to at least reduce the effect a few bursts in a song can have.
tldr whilst it is good to see mania rewarding players who are more consistent, there are issues that are more significant within the current formula, i have only stated some issues that have been mentioned several times with 4k and i am sure there are plenty of examples with overrated and underrated patterns in other keymodes
hd fl don't need a score multiplier i and many others have skins that have 50% lane cover the whole time which in turn helps us read better then without hd mod, some people are fl only players and read better this way, you would just be forcing your community to play with fl only if they want to compete.
Hold notes
Personally i am against more leniency, hold note patterns are just another technique players can choose to learn and play, there are people who start from stepmania and hate hold notes simply because their game didn't start with them and so they have to specifically improve in hold notes to reach a point where they can play ln as well as they can play fast patterns. Whilst people learning to acc hold notes may not be too much of an issue, hold note patterns have the potential to use more technique then single note patterns, i however lack the experience to say how much hold notes should be weighted compared to single notes in terms of a pp system as this would require judging how much technique is required for hold notes in any given map via a formula
1.1x rate at 0.05 value
Personally i would prefer a song to be rated based on how difficult the pp calculation judges a song at x speed however, there are certain patterns that can be inflated too much in value via rates, we have songs that do this already and for now this system is fine. My opinion is once, if we get a more accurate pp calculation formula in place then it would be a good time to have songs judged individually
Current issues in the pp formula
1. There are patterns at least in 4k that are used in several songs which are really simple for a player, essentially too little technique for the difficulty they are being judged at, the best example of this would be jumptrills being overrated, I don't like this type of pattern in the first place because they create hit and miss scenarios where players can often fluke scores and earn free pp.
2. index songs are underrated, index songs are streams of single note patterns, since they don't use 2 note patterns, they are seen as less dense by the formula and there for a lot easier then they deserve to be rated as. The best example in ranked 4k you can see of this is the empress scream off sc difficulty, there may be other difficulties from that map that are just as underrated however this is the main one i have experience with
3. Many people yell at mappers who get their maps ranked with this issue however, it is an issue with the pp system itself and not the mapper. There are several songs in 4k which will have 1 or 2 bursts in the song that inflate the difficulty and as long as someone can manage on that section, they can easily get a s rank and earn free pp. 2 recent examples of this are: triumph and regret, C18H27NO3 but there are many other songs that do the same thing and something needs to be done to the formula to at least reduce the effect a few bursts in a song can have.
tldr whilst it is good to see mania rewarding players who are more consistent, there are issues that are more significant within the current formula, i have only stated some issues that have been mentioned several times with 4k and i am sure there are plenty of examples with overrated and underrated patterns in other keymodes
I can assure you that hold notes have become more difficult than before (especially in LN heavy charts). The new LN mechanic punishes players for not releasing the note at the end, and will cause a miss no matter what. Currently, if you hold down your key even when the long note ends, you get 200/100, but doing so with the new LN mechanic will cause a full miss. For example, I was getting close to 93% on sisters noise with the current LN mechanics, but I get less than 90% with the new LN changes. I think the 1.5x leniency is a good idea.aphixia wrote:
Hold notes
Personally i am against more leniency, hold note patterns are just another technique players can choose to learn and play, there are people who start from stepmania and hate hold notes simply because their game didn't start with them and so they have to specifically improve in hold notes to reach a point where they can play ln as well as they can play fast patterns. Whilst people learning to acc hold notes may not be too much of an issue, hold note patterns have the potential to use more technique then single note patterns, i however lack the experience to say how much hold notes should be weighted compared to single notes in terms of a pp system as this would require judging how much technique is required for hold notes in any given map via a formula
Guess I'll post some formulas and some examples here - original post on my thoughts here. Ideas in this post take precedence - since I didn't really work with figures in the post before. The post is there just to give reasoning as to why the scoring system is not really ideal. Extremely long post ahead.
Ciel's post is also another post worth reading, and talks about the general ideas of visual mods and LNs as well.
Link to spreadsheet for reference of what the formulas I'm bringing up, and a more visual view: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Feel free to make a copy of it if you want to fiddle around with it, too.
Accuracy
Use the score v2 (Accuracy) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4). The 3 columns on the right are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is Accuracy^5.
The main reservations I've had is that the exponential magnitude is too steep and that lower accuracy scores might be punished far too severely. The steps to remedy this, is to use a lower exponent, and to gradually lower the exponent as the accuracy gets lower and lower.
So why essentially Accuracy^5, since at very high accuracies the exponent adds up to 5?
This is meant to replicate benchmarks in score v1 (this is also why there is a 1mil score equivalent for reference). This isn't necessarily a 1 to 1 comparison, only 98% scores are about the same - the rest are slightly lower. I've checked around with multiple people and they seem pretty content with the numbers came out for the combo scoring aspect. I don't think there should be that much of a drastic change for things like this for scorev2 - I'd say the only reservation that I had with scorev1 is that there's too little differentiation between a 99% and 100%, but there's too much differentiation with a 98% and 99%. This mitigates that.
So why Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4), then? Or particularly, why the (1 + Accuracy * 4)?
The general idea is that the higher the exponential, the steeper the curve. By lowering the exponential with a lower accuracy, it makes lower accuracy scores noticeably less of a dead-weight. You can technically do something like Accuracy^(Accuracy * 5) for what it's worth, it initially slipped my mind when I did this. The main problem with this however, is that the differentiation in exponent between accuracy might be too insignificant. I'm not sure how you can mitigate this, but there's most likely a way to do it. However, this isn't top priority, this is more of a plus, more than anything else.
The reason why I initially suggested (6 - Accuracy) at first was because I'm retarded and I didn't know how exponentials work at first, so please ignore what I said in that area.
So what are the drawbacks of this?
The main drawback that I can think of is that I'm using scorev1 figures to calculate accuracy. While this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea on paper, I'm not sure how the new LN mechanics will affect accuracy, especially for LN-heavy charts. This is something that needs experimenting, but I think the easy solution for this would be to ask feedback from the general community as to how much lenience does a LN release have. Many people have said that it's considerably harder to release LNs, which makes sense, but considering that it goes hand in hand with accuracy - it's very much something that needs to be under scrutiny. If you want players to be more stringent with their LN releases, you can lighten up the exponential a tiny bit. If you want the accuracy exponent to stay as it is, make LN releases more lenient.
Minor drawbacks include the fact that there's also the fact that the situational exponent might be too insignificant (which is mentioned earlier), and that I only looked at accuracies all the way down to 93.20%, which is generally about what the worst players in tournament semi-finals/finals would be getting on average in the first place. I assume that it wouldn't be very harsh with accuracy lower anyway, but you can always modify the situational exponent if that's not the case. The base exponential (which is 5 at 100%) is most likely fine.
Combo
Use the score v2 (Combo) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is HitValue * min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap)). The 3 columns on the left are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is HitValue * logx (combo).
This is a lot longer to explain (and probably a lot more complicated), but I'll try to explain it to the best of my ability. The reason why a non-FC hurts so much is because of the fact that the combo score as combo is higher is quadratic (thanks Ciel for the clarification). The most intuitive way of solving this would be to use a logarithmic scaling down for combo. I know there's probably going to create a decent amount of difficulties programming-wise (particularly trying to find the perfect score so you can scale scores down appropriately), as the combo mechanic is designed to produce exact figures - but do read on.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
The scenario I've tried to emulate is a hypothetical situation when there are 2000 notes in a chart. I made 3 scenarios: wa person with 1,000 max combo (1 miss), 500 max combo (3 misses), 250 max combo (7 misses). These are hypothetical situations that emulate the most extreme cases in terms of miss location. Under these scenarios, given that you've hit full 300gs aside from misses, you would lose 10.47%, 20.91% and 31.30% of your potential combo score - about 21K, 42K and 62K respectively. Given, this is not entirely correct, since my calculations assume that the combos are exactly the same, but this is incorrect in reality since the miss also counts as a note and as a result it reduces the combo by 1. (e.g. 1000-999, rather than 1000-1000) This is however, insignificant, considering that the difference is >0.06%.
There's a couple of problems with this, the main problem being the magnitude of penalty. The fact that a person could lose (up to) 20K over a single miss is most likely overkill, considering that 20K can potentially be a game breaker, and almost certainly will be a game breaker if you're in very early stages. It still encourages a no room for error attitude, which just hasn't been adopted in osu!mania just yet.
Since you can't change the logarithm for this, you have to implement something else - a combo cap (which is done through something like min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap))). This means that at a certain point, the log(combo) component cannot go any higher, as log(combo cap) will be lower than log(combo), and the lower value will be taken. I used a combo cap of 400, which reduces the maximum losses to 3.42%, 10.26%, 21.70% (the format is 1 miss, 3 misses and 7 misses). Very noticeable drop for the 1 miss, and is arguably about right. Multiple misses are penalised quite appropriately as well, though it might arguably be too lenient, as this only highlights the extreme cases. You can increase the maximum penalty by increasing the combo cap - for example a combo cap of 500 increases the penalties to 4.16%, 12.47%, 23.97%. This is something that requires experimenting, and is probably one of the more important parts of the scoring formula to tinker around with.
You can also use a relative combo cap (and is probably better), rather than an absolute - I used 20% in my case, but 25% is probably fine as well. The relative combo cap can be truncated or rounded up, but the difference will be borderline negligible.
What are the drawbacks?
The figures used to show total losses are based on extreme cases - as a result, my suggestion for the combo cap might be a bit off. I don't know how the combo cap of 400 will be executed in practicality, but I don't expect the variance in performance to be that significant. Regardless of this, even if the variance does make the results look a bit unfavourable intersubjectively, this can be changed. This is something that requires community inquiry, more than anything else (perhaps it would be better to show combo score as if it's a 1mil equivalent?). You have to experiment around to see how the combo cap should be, but that's about it.
Location of misses still matter a decent amount, probably far more than what the community wants. This doesn't negate the problem entirely, but it does to some extent. Basically, the lower the combo cap, the less the location of misses matter, unless you're missing a lot in a concentrated area.
Another problem might be the fact that 300gs might not be weighted very heavily, since only the combo component of scorev2 looks at 300gs. The only two solutions that come to mind would to either increase the proportion of combo to emphasise more on 300gs, or to embed 300gs into accuracy (since as they are, they are weighted the same as normal 300s). The latter requires a lot more tinkering and probably creates more of a community uproar, so I think the former would be a better approach. Again, another thing that requires community response.
Lastly, there's the rounding problem, which I'm not sure how to do because I don't do programming aside from Python wankery. I assume that an extremely small logarithm should solve the problem - since it would eliminate the problem of rounding.
That should be all. Again, I'm not going to talk about visual mods and LNs, since Ciel (and many others) are more well-versed in those than I am. Hope this is a more tangible way of reshaping the scorev2 system - because I think it has massive potential to be a good scoring system that players widely agree on. If there's any questions/clarifications on what I mean or what each part of the spreadsheet does, I can respond to them.
For anyone who scrolled all the way down to read this, the main takeaways are that LN releases might be a touch too strict so it would be good for players to experiment and find out whether or not it's too stringent and to focus more on the formulas rather than blaming it on the name of the component (e.g. combo) and give constructive feedback as to how the scorev2 system can be improved.
Ciel's post is also another post worth reading, and talks about the general ideas of visual mods and LNs as well.
Link to spreadsheet for reference of what the formulas I'm bringing up, and a more visual view: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Feel free to make a copy of it if you want to fiddle around with it, too.
Accuracy
Use the score v2 (Accuracy) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4). The 3 columns on the right are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is Accuracy^5.
The main reservations I've had is that the exponential magnitude is too steep and that lower accuracy scores might be punished far too severely. The steps to remedy this, is to use a lower exponent, and to gradually lower the exponent as the accuracy gets lower and lower.
So why essentially Accuracy^5, since at very high accuracies the exponent adds up to 5?
This is meant to replicate benchmarks in score v1 (this is also why there is a 1mil score equivalent for reference). This isn't necessarily a 1 to 1 comparison, only 98% scores are about the same - the rest are slightly lower. I've checked around with multiple people and they seem pretty content with the numbers came out for the combo scoring aspect. I don't think there should be that much of a drastic change for things like this for scorev2 - I'd say the only reservation that I had with scorev1 is that there's too little differentiation between a 99% and 100%, but there's too much differentiation with a 98% and 99%. This mitigates that.
So why Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4), then? Or particularly, why the (1 + Accuracy * 4)?
The general idea is that the higher the exponential, the steeper the curve. By lowering the exponential with a lower accuracy, it makes lower accuracy scores noticeably less of a dead-weight. You can technically do something like Accuracy^(Accuracy * 5) for what it's worth, it initially slipped my mind when I did this. The main problem with this however, is that the differentiation in exponent between accuracy might be too insignificant. I'm not sure how you can mitigate this, but there's most likely a way to do it. However, this isn't top priority, this is more of a plus, more than anything else.
The reason why I initially suggested (6 - Accuracy) at first was because I'm retarded and I didn't know how exponentials work at first, so please ignore what I said in that area.
So what are the drawbacks of this?
The main drawback that I can think of is that I'm using scorev1 figures to calculate accuracy. While this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea on paper, I'm not sure how the new LN mechanics will affect accuracy, especially for LN-heavy charts. This is something that needs experimenting, but I think the easy solution for this would be to ask feedback from the general community as to how much lenience does a LN release have. Many people have said that it's considerably harder to release LNs, which makes sense, but considering that it goes hand in hand with accuracy - it's very much something that needs to be under scrutiny. If you want players to be more stringent with their LN releases, you can lighten up the exponential a tiny bit. If you want the accuracy exponent to stay as it is, make LN releases more lenient.
Minor drawbacks include the fact that there's also the fact that the situational exponent might be too insignificant (which is mentioned earlier), and that I only looked at accuracies all the way down to 93.20%, which is generally about what the worst players in tournament semi-finals/finals would be getting on average in the first place. I assume that it wouldn't be very harsh with accuracy lower anyway, but you can always modify the situational exponent if that's not the case. The base exponential (which is 5 at 100%) is most likely fine.
Combo
Use the score v2 (Combo) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is HitValue * min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap)). The 3 columns on the left are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is HitValue * logx (combo).
This is a lot longer to explain (and probably a lot more complicated), but I'll try to explain it to the best of my ability. The reason why a non-FC hurts so much is because of the fact that the combo score as combo is higher is quadratic (thanks Ciel for the clarification). The most intuitive way of solving this would be to use a logarithmic scaling down for combo. I know there's probably going to create a decent amount of difficulties programming-wise (particularly trying to find the perfect score so you can scale scores down appropriately), as the combo mechanic is designed to produce exact figures - but do read on.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
The scenario I've tried to emulate is a hypothetical situation when there are 2000 notes in a chart. I made 3 scenarios: wa person with 1,000 max combo (1 miss), 500 max combo (3 misses), 250 max combo (7 misses). These are hypothetical situations that emulate the most extreme cases in terms of miss location. Under these scenarios, given that you've hit full 300gs aside from misses, you would lose 10.47%, 20.91% and 31.30% of your potential combo score - about 21K, 42K and 62K respectively. Given, this is not entirely correct, since my calculations assume that the combos are exactly the same, but this is incorrect in reality since the miss also counts as a note and as a result it reduces the combo by 1. (e.g. 1000-999, rather than 1000-1000) This is however, insignificant, considering that the difference is >0.06%.
There's a couple of problems with this, the main problem being the magnitude of penalty. The fact that a person could lose (up to) 20K over a single miss is most likely overkill, considering that 20K can potentially be a game breaker, and almost certainly will be a game breaker if you're in very early stages. It still encourages a no room for error attitude, which just hasn't been adopted in osu!mania just yet.
Since you can't change the logarithm for this, you have to implement something else - a combo cap (which is done through something like min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap))). This means that at a certain point, the log(combo) component cannot go any higher, as log(combo cap) will be lower than log(combo), and the lower value will be taken. I used a combo cap of 400, which reduces the maximum losses to 3.42%, 10.26%, 21.70% (the format is 1 miss, 3 misses and 7 misses). Very noticeable drop for the 1 miss, and is arguably about right. Multiple misses are penalised quite appropriately as well, though it might arguably be too lenient, as this only highlights the extreme cases. You can increase the maximum penalty by increasing the combo cap - for example a combo cap of 500 increases the penalties to 4.16%, 12.47%, 23.97%. This is something that requires experimenting, and is probably one of the more important parts of the scoring formula to tinker around with.
You can also use a relative combo cap (and is probably better), rather than an absolute - I used 20% in my case, but 25% is probably fine as well. The relative combo cap can be truncated or rounded up, but the difference will be borderline negligible.
What are the drawbacks?
The figures used to show total losses are based on extreme cases - as a result, my suggestion for the combo cap might be a bit off. I don't know how the combo cap of 400 will be executed in practicality, but I don't expect the variance in performance to be that significant. Regardless of this, even if the variance does make the results look a bit unfavourable intersubjectively, this can be changed. This is something that requires community inquiry, more than anything else (perhaps it would be better to show combo score as if it's a 1mil equivalent?). You have to experiment around to see how the combo cap should be, but that's about it.
Location of misses still matter a decent amount, probably far more than what the community wants. This doesn't negate the problem entirely, but it does to some extent. Basically, the lower the combo cap, the less the location of misses matter, unless you're missing a lot in a concentrated area.
Another problem might be the fact that 300gs might not be weighted very heavily, since only the combo component of scorev2 looks at 300gs. The only two solutions that come to mind would to either increase the proportion of combo to emphasise more on 300gs, or to embed 300gs into accuracy (since as they are, they are weighted the same as normal 300s). The latter requires a lot more tinkering and probably creates more of a community uproar, so I think the former would be a better approach. Again, another thing that requires community response.
Lastly, there's the rounding problem, which I'm not sure how to do because I don't do programming aside from Python wankery. I assume that an extremely small logarithm should solve the problem - since it would eliminate the problem of rounding.
That should be all. Again, I'm not going to talk about visual mods and LNs, since Ciel (and many others) are more well-versed in those than I am. Hope this is a more tangible way of reshaping the scorev2 system - because I think it has massive potential to be a good scoring system that players widely agree on. If there's any questions/clarifications on what I mean or what each part of the spreadsheet does, I can respond to them.
For anyone who scrolled all the way down to read this, the main takeaways are that LN releases might be a touch too strict so it would be good for players to experiment and find out whether or not it's too stringent and to focus more on the formulas rather than blaming it on the name of the component (e.g. combo) and give constructive feedback as to how the scorev2 system can be improved.
i messed up and there were several factors i didn't consider especially when i was focused on ppv3 not scorev2 >.<
The one thing in terms of hidden,fl that i failed to consider was svs. I personally wouldn't give a 1.06 for this, my thoughts are that an experienced player with their vision mod will be able to manage svs and the drop will be much smaller then the bonus provides, from my experience i would be placing a heavy sv song at 1.02 or 1.03 at the most. One case this may differ is teleport notes in which there may be instances where they are too difficult for fl players to manage.
As for the other factors, i am not the best person to judge this, its just going to take a lot of playing around with to find a good balance, good luck ^^
The one thing in terms of hidden,fl that i failed to consider was svs. I personally wouldn't give a 1.06 for this, my thoughts are that an experienced player with their vision mod will be able to manage svs and the drop will be much smaller then the bonus provides, from my experience i would be placing a heavy sv song at 1.02 or 1.03 at the most. One case this may differ is teleport notes in which there may be instances where they are too difficult for fl players to manage.
As for the other factors, i am not the best person to judge this, its just going to take a lot of playing around with to find a good balance, good luck ^^
I completely suppport this and I feel like mania needed a scoring system like this for a LONG time.
>Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
The fully accuracy-based scoring was a huge problem with maps that had diff spikes, so this should fix the problem. On fully accuracy based scoring you could get free pp off maps that had a short difficulty spike even if you couldn't play the hard part at all.
>LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
>LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
>If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.
>Works similar to the current system depending on when you release the hold, but is lenient enough to feel rewarding even for newer players (consider that ScoreV2 will be used as the normal ranking in the future).
Awww yes LNs were my major problem with mania coming from stepmania. LN releases were way too strict, to the point that it wasn't even fun. And it's not even about being accurate, since lots of maps don't even map LN releases to beats.
>Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
I think DT should at least give a higher multiplier than the other mods, but other than that it's all good!
>Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
The fully accuracy-based scoring was a huge problem with maps that had diff spikes, so this should fix the problem. On fully accuracy based scoring you could get free pp off maps that had a short difficulty spike even if you couldn't play the hard part at all.
>LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
>LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
>If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.
>Works similar to the current system depending on when you release the hold, but is lenient enough to feel rewarding even for newer players (consider that ScoreV2 will be used as the normal ranking in the future).
Awww yes LNs were my major problem with mania coming from stepmania. LN releases were way too strict, to the point that it wasn't even fun. And it's not even about being accurate, since lots of maps don't even map LN releases to beats.
>Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
I think DT should at least give a higher multiplier than the other mods, but other than that it's all good!
So far, considering many suggestions on the score system (mere complaints do not count here guys...) Shoegazer's approach seems most attractive to me - I like the variation of accuracy^5 thing and log scaling for combos.
And more math ahead (Please skip this if you're not so math tolerant):
And more math ahead (Please skip this if you're not so math tolerant):
Comments to Shoegazer's system
I found out that picking 1 as the minimum power on accuracy was actually a lucky choice, since too low minimum power actually makes the function slightly decreasing around accuracy = 0.2!
Accuracy ^ (1 + 4 * Accuracy)
Accuracy ^ (0.5 + 4.5 * Accuracy)
This happens when the minimum power falls below 0.596 = 5 / (e^2+1).
Maybe not too much of concern since playing any map with 20% accuracy will most likely result in a fail
Accuracy ^ (1 + 4 * Accuracy)
Accuracy ^ (0.5 + 4.5 * Accuracy)
This happens when the minimum power falls below 0.596 = 5 / (e^2+1).
Maybe not too much of concern since playing any map with 20% accuracy will most likely result in a fail
This is because log(a)x = log(a)b * log(b)x, in other words, picking a different base is equivalent to scaling all values by a constant. And when the maximum total value must be scaled into some constant (in this case, 200k), constant scaling obviously has no effect.Shoegazer wrote:
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
((
Bottom-paged, so reposting this again.Shoegazer wrote:
Guess I'll post some formulas and some examples here - original post on my thoughts here. Ideas in this post take precedence - since I didn't really work with figures in the post before. The post is there just to give reasoning as to why the scoring system is not really ideal. Extremely long post ahead.
Ciel's post is also another post worth reading, and talks about the general ideas of visual mods and LNs as well.
Link to spreadsheet for reference of what the formulas I'm bringing up, and a more visual view: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Feel free to make a copy of it if you want to fiddle around with it, too.
AccuracySPOILERUse the score v2 (Accuracy) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4). The 3 columns on the right are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is Accuracy^5.
The main reservations I've had is that the exponential magnitude is too steep and that lower accuracy scores might be punished far too severely. The steps to remedy this, is to use a lower exponent, and to gradually lower the exponent as the accuracy gets lower and lower.
So why essentially Accuracy^5, since at very high accuracies the exponent adds up to 5?
This is meant to replicate benchmarks in score v1 (this is also why there is a 1mil score equivalent for reference). This isn't necessarily a 1 to 1 comparison, only 98% scores are about the same - the rest are slightly lower. I've checked around with multiple people and they seem pretty content with the numbers came out for the combo scoring aspect. I don't think there should be that much of a drastic change for things like this for scorev2 - I'd say the only reservation that I had with scorev1 is that there's too little differentiation between a 99% and 100%, but there's too much differentiation with a 98% and 99%. This mitigates that.
So why Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4), then? Or particularly, why the (1 + Accuracy * 4)?
The general idea is that the higher the exponential, the steeper the curve. By lowering the exponential with a lower accuracy, it makes lower accuracy scores noticeably less of a dead-weight. You can technically do something like Accuracy^(Accuracy * 5) for what it's worth, it initially slipped my mind when I did this. The main problem with this however, is that the differentiation in exponent between accuracy might be too insignificant. I'm not sure how you can mitigate this, but there's most likely a way to do it. However, this isn't top priority, this is more of a plus, more than anything else.
The reason why I initially suggested (6 - Accuracy) at first was because I'm retarded and I didn't know how exponentials work at first, so please ignore what I said in that area.
So what are the drawbacks of this?
The main drawback that I can think of is that I'm using scorev1 figures to calculate accuracy. While this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea on paper, I'm not sure how the new LN mechanics will affect accuracy, especially for LN-heavy charts. This is something that needs experimenting, but I think the easy solution for this would be to ask feedback from the general community as to how much lenience does a LN release have. Many people have said that it's considerably harder to release LNs, which makes sense, but considering that it goes hand in hand with accuracy - it's very much something that needs to be under scrutiny. If you want players to be more stringent with their LN releases, you can lighten up the exponential a tiny bit. If you want the accuracy exponent to stay as it is, make LN releases more lenient.
Minor drawbacks include the fact that there's also the fact that the situational exponent might be too insignificant (which is mentioned earlier), and that I only looked at accuracies all the way down to 93.20%, which is generally about what the worst players in tournament semi-finals/finals would be getting on average in the first place. I assume that it wouldn't be very harsh with accuracy lower anyway, but you can always modify the situational exponent if that's not the case. The base exponential (which is 5 at 100%) is most likely fine.
ComboSPOILERUse the score v2 (Combo) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is HitValue * min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap)). The 3 columns on the left are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is HitValue * logx (combo).
This is a lot longer to explain (and probably a lot more complicated), but I'll try to explain it to the best of my ability. The reason why a non-FC hurts so much is because of the fact that the combo score as combo is higher is quadratic (thanks Ciel for the clarification). The most intuitive way of solving this would be to use a logarithmic scaling down for combo. I know there's probably going to create a decent amount of difficulties programming-wise (particularly trying to find the perfect score so you can scale scores down appropriately), as the combo mechanic is designed to produce exact figures - but do read on.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
The scenario I've tried to emulate is a hypothetical situation when there are 2000 notes in a chart. I made 3 scenarios: wa person with 1,000 max combo (1 miss), 500 max combo (3 misses), 250 max combo (7 misses). These are hypothetical situations that emulate the most extreme cases in terms of miss location. Under these scenarios, given that you've hit full 300gs aside from misses, you would lose 10.47%, 20.91% and 31.30% of your potential combo score - about 21K, 42K and 62K respectively. Given, this is not entirely correct, since my calculations assume that the combos are exactly the same, but this is incorrect in reality since the miss also counts as a note and as a result it reduces the combo by 1. (e.g. 1000-999, rather than 1000-1000) This is however, insignificant, considering that the difference is >0.06%.
There's a couple of problems with this, the main problem being the magnitude of penalty. The fact that a person could lose (up to) 20K over a single miss is most likely overkill, considering that 20K can potentially be a game breaker, and almost certainly will be a game breaker if you're in very early stages. It still encourages a no room for error attitude, which just hasn't been adopted in osu!mania just yet.
Since you can't change the logarithm for this, you have to implement something else - a combo cap (which is done through something like min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap))). This means that at a certain point, the log(combo) component cannot go any higher, as log(combo cap) will be lower than log(combo), and the lower value will be taken. I used a combo cap of 400, which reduces the maximum losses to 3.42%, 10.26%, 21.70% (the format is 1 miss, 3 misses and 7 misses). Very noticeable drop for the 1 miss, and is arguably about right. Multiple misses are penalised quite appropriately as well, though it might arguably be too lenient, as this only highlights the extreme cases. You can increase the maximum penalty by increasing the combo cap - for example a combo cap of 500 increases the penalties to 4.16%, 12.47%, 23.97%. This is something that requires experimenting, and is probably one of the more important parts of the scoring formula to tinker around with.
You can also use a relative combo cap (and is probably better), rather than an absolute - I used 20% in my case, but 25% is probably fine as well. The relative combo cap can be truncated or rounded up, but the difference will be borderline negligible.
What are the drawbacks?
The figures used to show total losses are based on extreme cases - as a result, my suggestion for the combo cap might be a bit off. I don't know how the combo cap of 400 will be executed in practicality, but I don't expect the variance in performance to be that significant. Regardless of this, even if the variance does make the results look a bit unfavourable intersubjectively, this can be changed. This is something that requires community inquiry, more than anything else (perhaps it would be better to show combo score as if it's a 1mil equivalent?). You have to experiment around to see how the combo cap should be, but that's about it.
Location of misses still matter a decent amount, probably far more than what the community wants. This doesn't negate the problem entirely, but it does to some extent. Basically, the lower the combo cap, the less the location of misses matter, unless you're missing a lot in a concentrated area.
Another problem might be the fact that 300gs might not be weighted very heavily, since only the combo component of scorev2 looks at 300gs. The only two solutions that come to mind would to either increase the proportion of combo to emphasise more on 300gs, or to embed 300gs into accuracy (since as they are, they are weighted the same as normal 300s). The latter requires a lot more tinkering and probably creates more of a community uproar, so I think the former would be a better approach. Again, another thing that requires community response.
Lastly, there's the rounding problem, which I'm not sure how to do because I don't do programming aside from Python wankery. I assume that an extremely small logarithm should solve the problem - since it would eliminate the problem of rounding.
That should be all. Again, I'm not going to talk about visual mods and LNs, since Ciel (and many others) are more well-versed in those than I am. Hope this is a more tangible way of reshaping the scorev2 system - because I think it has massive potential to be a good scoring system that players widely agree on. If there's any questions/clarifications on what I mean or what each part of the spreadsheet does, I can respond to them.
For anyone who scrolled all the way down to read this, the main takeaways are that LN releases might be a touch too strict so it would be good for players to experiment and find out whether or not it's too stringent and to focus more on the formulas rather than blaming it on the name of the component (e.g. combo) and give constructive feedback as to how the scorev2 system can be improved.
@Bubbler
Thanks for the information! The latter snippet makes a good amount of sense to me.Bubbler wrote:
Accuracy ^ (0.5 + 4.5 * Accuracy)
This happens when the minimum power falls below 0.596 = 5 / (e^2+1).
Maybe not too much of concern since playing any map with 20% accuracy will most likely result in a failThis is because log(a)x = log(a)b * log(b)x, in other words, picking a different base is equivalent to scaling all values by a constant. And when the maximum total value must be scaled into some constant (in this case, 200k), constant scaling obviously has no effect.Shoegazer wrote:
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.