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
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.
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.
smoogipooo wrote:
You'll be please to know that there are no more hidden multipliers and rounding issues have been eradicated, but that is not all. Let's go through a list of changes in this initial version(congratulation for all the hateposts of people that didn't even read everything *facepalms*):NF/EZ/HT were already here with 0.5x score, DT was here but did nothing special(hopefully it's not as broken as before it was removed), HR was unranked(considered as useless by...uh...who added them in first place), and HD/FI/FL shouldn't give bonus(already been since a shitton of times)
- Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy. If changes like shoegazer suggested are made, and the ridiculous losses on the tiniest error is fixed, I don't see any problem to adding some combo in the score value, but the score going down when you lose accuracy(losing score you already earned is lame (I don't like that system in the standard scorev2, and I don't like it here)
- We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo). Not much to say to say, but 20% is not small
- LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
- Previously LNs considered a joint timing distribution between the start press and end release. This made it unclear as to whether you'd get a MAX after an LN end as you had to take into consideration the LN start. Judging separately should feel more natural, rewarding (as you get instant feedback), and a bit more challenging.
- LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
- LN starts were previously given up to 1.2x timing window lenience and LN ends were given up to 2.4x timing window lenience. This reduces the complexity of releasing an LN whilst you're focusing on pressing other notes.Hum...I don't have enough information to really give an opinion on these, I'd say it doesn't change much except being a bit harder, since it changes 2 hits for a grade(With the first hit being harder and release being easier) to 2 hits with 2 grades(that are equally difficult(which from what I read in the thread can be 2 misses(that both removes HP)))
- If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.Nothing to say about it
- 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).That's something to actually test with the "newer players"
- LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes. This makes way more sense
- Feels more natural rather than displaying a useless number.^
- Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
We've had some internal discussions about how LNs should work, but have not reached a definitive conclusion as there are split opinions. We are eager to hear your feedback regarding osu!mania scoring and this new scoring system!You have mine ^^
I'll be adding here a list of changes I will consider. Please remember that we are fully intending to break the game with these changes. We will apply any changes necessary to make things work:
- Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that). Love this
- Increase the bonus of HR or decrease the tightness of the timing windows.Good luck with making HR good to add
Sakura Kyoko wrote:
Just throwing my opinion in here;
4. Score V2
Don't even get me started. So a song I previously had 992k on now gives me 900k, well okay then.
You LOSE points for poor accuracy. THAT is by far the worst idea I've seen in ages. Why would I lose points that I've gained for doing something well? Like, I'm already losing out on the points that I lose by having poor accuracy/misses. Why would I then lose points for stuff I had on 300S before? Dafuq is this?
It's like "yeah look, you had 10 of the 20 questions correct, but instead of giving you 50% of the points, we're giving you none, because fuck you!"
The new system ONLY benefits top-tier players, and even those will struggle to keep their scores where they currently are, except for accuracy-machines like Halogen-.
And the 200k for having a full combo, while only getting 25% of it for A SINGLE MISS OR COMBO BREAK is incredibly counter-intuitive aswell.
Imagine, 100% the entire song, great 300S-rate, boom, you miss the last note. Well good bye PP, because you just lost 150k for a single miss.
You didn't read through the thread(or you went too fast), you'd know that the 150K loss is if the miss is at the exact middle of the map's combo...Also it's only the first version...go ahead and try to make something perfect on your first try -.-I think our current score system isn't even that bad and most people didn't complain about it either. Why would you change a running system? There are MUCH bigger problems that need to be fixed, like that incredibly inaccurate star-rating algorithm.
Tom94 just CAN'T work on it right now, and peppy has Osu!Next to focus on...also you're not asking the right person to work on star-rating. it's not because someone is a dev that he does everything in the game...and the current "running system" isn't flawless, smoogi wants to improve it with help of the community
You're not making sense. You're saying that "playing without score multipliers" is something that no mod players make - that's not the case at all. A no-mod player can go onto HD/FL at free will and choose whether or not they want to play that way in an effort to help them. It's pretty well established that high level mania players can and often will go on HD to alleviate the extreme densities found in high difficulty maps in an effort to mitigate the amount of information they have to process.Kivicat wrote:
In this case, to play without score multipliers is the choice that no-mod-players make. I don't see any problem. Playing with HD/FL is more difficult, not due to SVs only. It demands higher concentration, especially when you try to keep combo.
By your logic, your skin and your scroll speed should count too. Some people play with too high of a scroll speed to do SVs right without memorizing them.Kivicat wrote:
In this case, to play without score multipliers is the choice that no-mod-players make. I don't see any problem. Playing with HD/FL is more difficult, not due to SVs only. It demands higher concentration, especially when you try to keep combo.
You're not making sense. You're saying that "playing without score multipliers" is something that no mod players make - that's not the case at all. A no-mod player can go onto HD/FL at free will and choose whether or not they want to play that way in an effort to help them. It's pretty well established that high level mania players can and often will go on HD to alleviate the extreme densities found in high difficulty maps in an effort to mitigate the amount of information they have to process.Maybe mania will get modspecific mappicks in future tournaments though?
Sakura Kyoko wrote:
4. Score V2
Don't even get me started. So a song I previously had 992k on now gives me 900k, well okay then.
You LOSE points for poor accuracy. THAT is by far the worst idea I've seen in ages. Why would I lose points that I've gained for doing something well? Like, I'm already losing out on the points that I lose by having poor accuracy/misses. Why would I then lose points for stuff I had on 300S before? Dafuq is this?
I dont know I understand what you are talking about here... IF you have poor accuracy of course you should drop your score...
It's like "yeah look, you had 10 of the 20 questions correct, but instead of giving you 50% of the points, we're giving you none, because fuck you!"
What if you have the 10 easy questions correct? Does that mean you deserve 50% of the score? Even with that, I still dont understasnd what you mean. If you miss 10 times and you have 100 notes then you just should lost 10% of the points? (100k).
The new system ONLY benefits top-tier players, and even those will struggle to keep their scores where they currently are, except for accuracy-machines like Halogen-.
They favour players that can handle difficulty at a certain level. Of course, thats how a scoring system should work. If you arent good enought to beat a map with a decent performance then it doesnt matter which score system you have. Or at least thats what I think
And the 200k for having a full combo, while only getting 25% of it for A SINGLE MISS OR COMBO BREAK is incredibly counter-intuitive aswell.
Imagine, 100% the entire song, great 300S-rate, boom, you miss the last note. Well good bye PP, because you just lost 150k for a single miss.
I am too sure that you didnt even test this... How about giving it a shot before complaining like this? And again, dont look at PP for god sake...I think our current score system isn't even that bad and most people didn't complain about it either. Why would you change a running system? There are MUCH bigger problems that need to be fixed, like that incredibly inaccurate star-rating algorithm.
Because tournament enviorment is really boring to watch most of the times for mania. Mostly because consistency is a thing that mania players do have (a lot of that) and its really acc-based. If you add combo to the table and mods multipliers then it becomes something 100% different, more exciting and of course as a benefit for those who play good, but a huge drop if you miss just once in a close battle.
5. Conclusion
While I really appreciate the time, effort and the attention mania FINALLY gets, I really think we're heading the completely wrong way. Instead of looking what other games do well (SM with rates, o2JAM LN mechanics), we desperately try to do stuff "our own way", which ends up hurting Mania more than it helps. Give a fair PP bonus for DT or give none at all, don't give bonus points for visual preference and for the love of god, don't subtract points for poor accuracy.
We do have problems, indeed. All mania players know that. But it is 100% needed to have rates? It surely doesnt. Would be a cool add for sure, same thing for a scoring system for tournaments. Now that we have the attention that we "deserve" then we have to clear this topic so then we can try something else like SM rates or whatever (you can always go to SM to play your songs at 1.1x if you want tho)
Sometimes, it's better to look at other, long-standing rhythm games and copy what people like about them. They're not popular for no reason. If we keep heading that way (that way being Score V2, 1.06x score multiplier for DT and visuals, lol), mania will never be taken seriously.
You know... Using "lol" after the multiplier "suggestion" is not helping at all. If you really love osu!mania then take this seriously and dont take everyones effort as it was a joke. Does mania really deserves the attention you pointed out? I am not to sure with this way that we behave sometimes. Like this one. Once that we get noticed at least in something we shouldnt just say those kind of stuff. At least thats my opinion
P.S.: I really love osu!mania, I'm not hating on the game in any shape or form, but I'm loving it how it CURRENTLY is. And I still think we should just copy things that other games (that were created long before osu! even existed) do way better.
I do believe this is the case, actually. The initial OP of this thread indicated that there would be mods in MWC, though the extent of what those mods are has yet to be seen.Endaris wrote:
Maybe mania will get modspecific mappicks in future tournaments though?
yeah, let's just make it easier for a worse player to luck their way to victory. sounds great!Yetified wrote:
Since it's basicly only for MWC(for now), I don't think having a combo is that bad. It might give the 'underdogs' a higher chance to get a point here and there against some crazy players. It should add some 'spectator value' aswell, since one player can kinda carry his team by holding combo if evrybody else breaks.
I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournamentWaltrusizer wrote:
yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters
Yea I kinda think it's a bit dumb that the only reason the score system is being change just to make MWC look "interesting" by making it combo base and more toward visual mods.Khelly wrote:
I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournamentWaltrusizer wrote:
yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters
Exactly, so why is it that they are trying to implement std features into an entirely different game?Khelly wrote:
Std is a completely different game and should not be paid attention to when talking about mania.
This is incorrect - or rather how you described LNs in score v1 is incorrect. Your message is still correct, however - I would recommend people to try out the LN changes.iJinjin wrote:
Just before anyone thinks that the new LN changes would make long notes easier... you're very mistaken.
Before I begin, I still stick to my words about supporting the new LN changes because it will make LNs less "mashy" and people would need more skills to hit them accurately, but I think the leniency timing could be increased a bit more.
Smoogipooo's post about LNs getting a 1.5x timing leniency is kinda misleading, because it makes it look like the timing window for long notes have become loose compared to what we had before.
However, the current system for LN releases actually works as follows:
2.4x timing leniency for Rainbow 300s
2.2x timing leniency for 300
2.0x timing leniency for everything else
The current proposal decreases that LN leniency to 1.5x. If you guys are supporting the new LN changes on the belief that hitting LNs accurately would be a lot easier, then you probably would want to disagree with the new changes instead.
In addition, the current system allows you to hold the key down even when the LN is over and will not cause a miss. Instead, it will just decrease the judgement that you get from the LN (200, 100, 50). However, the new system will give you a miss on the release if you don't time it correctly. This means that if you were the type of person that didn't really pay attention to LN endings and release them too early or too late (or usually get 200 or below on LNs), you're going to be hurt a lot by this new change.
Therefore, I strongly suggest you mania players to look again (and even try it out yourselves) into the LN changes, and see if you guys are satisfied with it.
Actually, it's slightly different from that.iJinjin wrote:
However, the current system for LN releases actually works as follows:
2.4x timing leniency for Rainbow 300s
2.2x timing leniency for 300
2.0x timing leniency for everything else
Idk what to say '-'smoogipooo wrote:
Hey all,
Cutting Edge has been updated with changes to ScoreV2 that were proposed by Shoegazer here. I want to stress that the changes are not final and we are still tweaking the system to properly represent a player's skill in a competitive setting.
Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.
I disagree. Scorev1 frequently has me beating my old scores where the old score has a higher accuracy and a similar combo. Hopefully this can mitigate that sort of thing, as it's really annoying when it happens. While I can't say anything about the release timing leniency as I haven't tried scorev2 (and I assume I can't, since cutting edge can't do multiplayer without supporter), the fact that LNs are split into two notes is a fantastic change imo. This gives the player much better feedback for how well they did on the start of an LN, and you can no longer cheese LN stuff by just holding everything and taking the 200s.robby250 wrote:
Here are my irrelevant opinions, I'll keep it short:
Combo: score v1 is fine, Shoegazer's suggestion might make it very slightly better than that.
Accuracy: same as above
LN timings: should be made more lenient than score v1, not tighter. There's a reason LN spam maps are made lower OD by mappers.
Mod multipliers: the only thing actually worth adding, finding the right multiplier for each mod so that pp for mods can be added until per-mod leaderboards get implemented.
EDIT: and yeah visual mods shouldn't have multipliers but that's already sorted.
My verdict: score v1 is probably the smallest of problems in osu!mania, other than adding mod multipliers for DT pp this is a waste of time.
I'm all for LNs being split into two parts for better feedback, and yeah I haven't tested scorev2 either because I can't but from what I've read in this thread the LNs were made tighter, when they should be the same or more lenient.Arras wrote:
I disagree. Scorev1 frequently has me beating my old scores where the old score has a higher accuracy and a similar combo. Hopefully this can mitigate that sort of thing, as it's really annoying when it happens. While I can't say anything about the release timing leniency as I haven't tried scorev2 (and I assume I can't, since cutting edge can't do multiplayer without supporter), the fact that LNs are split into two notes is a fantastic change imo. This gives the player much better feedback for how well they did on the start of an LN, and you can no longer cheese LN stuff by just holding everything and taking the 200s.
If anything, I'd say the game feeling good to play is far more important than "pp".
Yeah that's fine, sorry for derailing, I did however give my feedback on what I think about score v2 and what should be changed so take it or leave it.smoogipooo wrote:
Star rating and pp is irrelevant to this entire discussion. ScoreV2 will not even be ranked for a long time, and pp/sr calculations are a completely separate matter altogether.
We need more information, specifically:MegaAmoonguss wrote:
I tried out ScoreV2 in multiplayer yesterday and one person in the match literally SS'd the song but had one miss in the middle and got 896k for that. It probably would have been around 997-998k without the miss, and probably like 980-990k on regular Score. I'm not really a fan of how insanely the combo affects you score, and I'm personally hoping that it gets changed in some manner. One of the things I always liked about mania better than standard is the fact that in standard, it almost doesn't matter how well you actually do because if you hold a higher combo you get a higher score. I liked that in mania you can miss, but the emphasis is more on getting as many rainbow 300s and 300s as possible. I'm definitely all for some kind of combo system, but not one that punishes as hard as this lol
I guess it wasn't an updated version. I just used the ScoreV2 that is available in the latest stable release, which I guess must be an old version. The map was Sakura Mirage [ADVANCED], which is a low 3 star map and is 2 minutes long. I'll definitely check out the Cutting Edge version to see how it compares.smoogipooo wrote:
We need more information, specifically:
* How long was the map?
* Were they actually using ScoreV2? Or even the updated ScoreV2? Keep in mind they have to be on Cutting Edge to try it.
btw im not one of the ACC players so im kinda suck at r300 ratio but still feels lowosu!mania ScoreV2 does not exist on anything but Cutting Edge at the moment, so it's possible that the player in question was not using it. Likewise you would've seen the old scoring for yourself.MegaAmoonguss wrote:
I guess it wasn't an updated version. I just used the ScoreV2 that is available in the latest stable release, which I guess must be an old version. The map was Sakura Mirage [ADVANCED], which is a low 3 star map and is 2 minutes long. I'll definitely check out the Cutting Edge version to see how it compares.smoogipooo wrote:
We need more information, specifically:
* How long was the map?
* Were they actually using ScoreV2? Or even the updated ScoreV2? Keep in mind they have to be on Cutting Edge to try it.
Mathisca wrote:
I think that we should regain life when we hold sliders, like in ScoreV1.
Actually just noticed this in a multi I played earlier too. Not sure if HP is fine with LNs atm and want more opinions.Kernaus wrote:
Mathisca wrote:
I think that we should regain life when we hold sliders, like in ScoreV1.
Iii dont agree with this, the HP rate in o!m is generally very lenient, and we dont have a constant hp drain like in standard, failing in mania is generally because the chart is way way above the player's abilities.
Yeap that's a bug, if they failed instantaneously when the map was completed :prohen04 wrote:
Actually I did notice that people have failed songs with V2 that they have never failed before. Maybe it's part of a bug, or because of the harder LNs. This definitely needs more testing.
Other than that, occasionally it showed me right at the end of the song that I have failed it, even though I had a FC. I haven't tested the newest version yet, maybe it's already fixed.
By the way, thanks for changing the Combo system. This should be more in line of what people expect from such a system.
I do have the suggestion to maybe not make the cap static, but dynamic (i.e. 10-20% of the total notes). This would help to make 4K and 7K equally hard in this regard, since 4K usually has less notes in a similar difficulty level. Also this might avoid problems with songs with less than 400 notes (not relevant for MWC).
This is a lot better, but combo still has some influence on score. I think a purely accuracy based scoring system is what osu!mania really needs:smoogipooo wrote:
- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6sa
So, its better than before but still, i dont think the combo cap has to be at log_4(400), we are osu!mania the lair of the TVSAIZUS DESU, but being serious, maybe 200~300 should be fine, need to test to see the differences and see what is best, but i think 400 is kinda high, meaning that taiko is ''2k'' the combo cap is 100, so why osu!mania should be 400? this is my opnion btw.smoogipooo wrote:
- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6sa
Here you go.FelipeLink wrote:
So, its better than before but still, i dont think the combo cap has to be at log_4(400), we are osu!mania the lair of the TVSAIZUS DESU, but being serious, maybe 200~300 should be fine, need to test to see the differences and see what is best, but i think 400 is kinda high, meaning that taiko is ''2k'' the combo cap is 100, so why osu!mania should be 400? this is my opnion btw.smoogipooo wrote:
- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6sa
P.S: Some broken mechanics on that combo cap is that we have 9 keymods(6 can be ranked), to be FAIR i think every Keymod need to has his own combo cap, because more keys= more notes, less keys= less notes, 400 could be fine for 7k, but for 4k maybe not, 200 could be good for 4k but for the other keymods? this is a BIG problem in my opnion.
Still, i dont think the score system needs to be changed, maybe this is the small problem in the osu!mania is the score system, all people say ''i had the same combo and accuracy'' but what about the ''300g'' ? and the ''100,50'' ? you can get a 99,5 with Nx100 or with Nx200, and probably the 99,5 with only 200 will be the higher score(meaning that the two scores has the same amount of 300g)
I want to see some scores like:
Example:
992k 1500x 300g, 3x200, 0x miss
Beating a:
991k 1520x 300g, 3x200, 0x miss) i dont think this will happen.
(considering that the 200s were in the same places on the runs)
Hope thats help, my english is kinda bad )':
i dont think you understand what i said, mania on score v1 has a combo cap already so ''higher max combo'' dont do anything.Arras wrote:
Here you go.
Note how I have almost a full 2% higher accuracy, higher max combo, much less HP loss, more MAX, more 300 and less of every other judgement, yet a lower score.
They are. I pretty much stopped heavily playing not too long after that anyway. The only reason I picked those was because I remembered that as a score where I had a lower score even though it should be higher looking at the stats.Endaris wrote:
Am I dumb or are both scores from 2015, Arras?
Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanksDrojoke wrote:
This is a lot better, but combo still has some influence on score. I think a purely accuracy based scoring system is what osu!mania really needs:smoogipooo wrote:
- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6saSo basically just Keep It Simple, Stupid. Any thoughts on this?
- Inconsistent gameplay is already punished in a 100% accuracy based score. Inconsistent gameplay = missing notes and not timing well, resulting in lower accuracy and score. No need to involve combo at all here.
- Gone are the days of beating your personal best score on a song with a lower accuracy, sometimes even resulting in a loss(!) of pp.
- A purely accuracy based scoring system is a lot simpler and more predictable. Hit notes = higher score. Good timing = higher score. Right now you need to be mathematically inclined in order to comprehend or do calculations with both ScoreV1 and ScoreV2.
- No weird edge cases like '1 miss 10 seconds in' being punished more severely than '1 miss on the last note'.
A pure accuracy system can be based in something else besides the sum of the judgment values (which is not really a very good way to measure accuracy, since the value of each judgment is pretty arbitrary).Tidek wrote:
Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanks
I agree with it being percentage based instead of 400, and I agree with the 5-6% max combo values, but smoogipooo and other combo lovers would probably want a bigger percentage. So I suggest 10% of max combo as a compromise (please note that combo bonus still scales up after the cap but much slower).Remyria wrote:
I suggest that the combo cap could be scaled on song at something like 5-6% of max combo as the cap
There's always the option of making misses/50s/100s reduce accuracy. Using Stepmania's scoring system (which punishes for misses by reducing score) scaled up to a maximum of 1,000,000 points, you would get a score of 960k when missing 10 notes and hitting 990 r300's.Tidek wrote:
Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanks
You are forcing more anxiety with the combo based system, actually. Frustration as well. Currently the source of those emotions in mania is primarily when trying to PF a map with nothing but MAX or at least SS for less skillful players, but with this, you are going to extend that further. Having your score screwed for the rest of the play because of these mishaps on a non skillful level doesn't sound like a good gameplay mechanic. Also, a map can be as long as you want to be, but unless a player is being skillfully challenged, the player will get tired only from boredom. The way you made it sound is that you were referring to physical tiredness, which is not always the case.smoogipooo wrote:
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.
Gladly! I have my own proposal for a scoring system which should be better than accuracy based scoring and combo based scoring. The concept of this scoring system is influenced by the difficulty of the parts the player is playing.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.
Score += (diffScore[t] * accScore[t] * log(t)) / missesPunisher
I agree. This will work only if star rating is fixed, though it I think it could be better than scoreV1 even now. Also due to the nature of this thread I tried my best to avoid mentioning star rating. When I say difficulty, substitute that for what you percieve the difficulty as instead of star rating.FrenzyLi wrote:
diffScore take the difficulty of the map at point t
this is not a post about star rating. Any score system that takes into account the difficulty at time / point t should be deferred until a better, non-jumpstream-inflated, workable improvement or revamp to the SR system is made.
Whatever works. The formula I put up is psuedocode and not in proper mathematical notation.FrenzyLi wrote:
AccScore take the player's score point (50, 100, 200, 300, MAX) at point t
scalar sum of score values? I would rather not take a vector.
See aboveFrenzyLi wrote:
log(t) will a pause in a map affect this? You can't just take a single formula for everything. Divide map into discrete parts (by combo, timestamp, whatever) because a beatmap is not a continuous function. Smoothing will help but how do you smoothen this discrete chunk of data of user replays / beatmap hitobjects?
Not sure what you mean by the first sentence. To address your second point, this is the formula at the core without any constants. Ofc you would shift the function to the left to avoid the t=0 situation.FrenzyLi wrote:
Also, the objects at the end of a map is exaggerated in their importance compared to the first few notes. What if beatmaps has hit objects at point t=0?
I will experiment with this bit and see what works best.FrenzyLi wrote:
missesPunisher: v1 thanks.
dynamic last X milliseconds: seems interesting, please propose a working formula.
smoogi wrote:
Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.
Sounds like the same thing to me. The main difference is that your system works backwards from mine. You are putting the resultant score and getting out the corresponding difficulty of obtaining that score. I am putting in difficulty and result and getting out the score. Your system work of potential worth while my system works off immediate worth.Full Tablet wrote:
I think it is better to not make the scoring system difficulty-dependent.
Instead, make the star rating calculation output a function f(score) that maps a certain amount of score with the difficulty of achieving that score in the specific map.
I had a feeling I missed something. 15 pages was a lot to catch up to.Endaris wrote:
@abraker:smoogi wrote:
Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.
Visual mods won't have a multiplier, relax.LinkTaylord wrote:
How disgusting! ._.
You'll see ''best global players'' will be using HD/FI/FL only.
Goodbye Jackads, Inteliser, Yuko.
I think it's very fun and good modedenisol wrote:
And people wonder why Osu!Mania is considered a joke ...
There aren't many ways you can fuck up a VSRG at the base, but you can definitely screw up its contents.Khelly wrote:
I think it's very fun and good mode
That's just mindless thinking. Lampranthus isn't just talking about core gameplay, you have to take maps, score system, community, and other stuff into consideration.Khelly wrote:
I still don't understand your point because all it boiled down to was being underdeveloped without actually explaining in what way it is - I don't see how the core gameplay of a mode like this (Notes come down; hit note) can be less developed.
Most of osu!mania "unranked songs" are most just song converted from other VSRG or some really low quality maps. "Endgame" wise, if you look at mania maps that were originally made on osu, than other VSRG would be better for people looking to improve.Khelly wrote:
In addition to that, do unranked maps not count when you're trying to say someone is "getting to the endgame" or are there some weird ass "would be 8 star in 4k" maps I haven't seen yet?
thank you so muchKhelly wrote:
I like the osu client and think a lot of the other games look and feel like complete shit to me
