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.

However this can turn out to have the exact opposite effect as in players that are naturally unable to hold combo or break more often (especially on dense maps that keep on going like there is no tomorrow) will get punished very hard and will get stomped pretty hard if the opponents can hold combo much better but have for example 2% less accuracy.

I think adding combo for TOURNAMENTS might be a good thing to do so, but the values need to be reconsiderd and definetly needs alot of playtesting to find the right numbers.

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.

yeah, let's just make it easier for a worse player to luck their way to victory. sounds great!

yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters

Waltrusizer wrote:

yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters

I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournament

Khelly wrote:

Waltrusizer wrote:

yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters

I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournament

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.

How the fuck combo based is more interesting to watch than accuracy based ?

I don't even watch STD tournaments because it's combo based.

Std is a completely different game and should not be paid attention to when talking about mania.

Khelly wrote:

Std is a completely different game and should not be paid attention to when talking about mania.

Exactly, so why is it that they are trying to implement std features into an entirely different game?

Acc > Combo, always.

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 (edit: this is actually slightly incorrect, check out Shoegazer's and Full Tablet's correction to how the LN timing mechanics works):
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.

I am against any kind of multiplier for visual mods, and too large of a combo scoring. I think that o!maina's scoring is fine as it is, but LN changes are definitely welcome. The main reason that I prefer playing mania over standard was because combo didnt count in score, and I'd like to keep it like that since acc is much more important than combo.
Thanks for your attention.

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.

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.

LNs in score v1 are based on two criteria - the gap between last LN head hit and the LN head (let's say, LNStart), and the combined time of the difference between the last LN head hit and the LN head (LNStart) and the difference between the LN release and when you're supposed to release the LN (LNEnd).

If you release a LN too early and you repress the LN, that repress would be considered your last LN head hit.

Here are the timing windows for OD8 (I assume timing values are truncated), for the first criterion (LNStart):
300g: 19ms (16ms * 1.2 rounded down)
300: 44ms (40ms * 1.1)
200: 73ms
100: 103ms
50: 127ms

Basically, if the last LN head hit is 20ms from the LN head, you will never get a 300g. If your last LN head hit is 14ms, as long as it meets the second criterion, you will get a 300g.

The second criterion works like this, keep in mind this accounts for the combined time of LNStart and LNEnd.
300g: 38ms (16ms * 2.4 rounded down)
300: 88ms (40ms * 2.2)
200: 146ms (73ms * 2)
100: 206ms (103ms * 2)
50s: 254ms (127ms * 2)

If your LNStart is 14ms, you have a release window of 24ms for a 300g, a 74ms release window for a normal 300, 132ms window for a 200, and so on. If this was scorev2, your release windows will be 24ms/66ms/104ms. Not necessarily a change with rainbows, but it greatly affects 200s and lower judgements.

How LN releases can potentially be 2.4x as lenient as normal hits is when you have a perfect LNStart (0ms) and you hit a rainbow 300. Same deal with normal 300s, except it's 2.2x as lenient based on the table above.

What iJinjin has said about requiring community input about LNs is definitely necessary, because the 1.5x lenience is a complete mislead as the LN mechanics are not explicitly listed anywhere on the forums. Play through LN heavy charts that you have issues FCing or getting 96%+, and let smoogi (and post your thoughts in this thread) know so we know whether or not we should make LNs more lenient. I personally want LN releases to be 1.75x as lenient rather than 1.5x, but again - this is something that requires experimenting.

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

Actually, it's slightly different from that.

To get a Rainbow 300:
- You must hit the start within a timing window that is 1.2x the size of the timing window of a Rainbow in a regular note.
- AND, the average of the error in the start and the release must be within a timing window that is 1.2x the size of a Rainbow in a regular note.
(the 2.4x actually represents the sum of the error in press and error in release).
- AND, the error in release must be within the timing error of a 50 judgment.
- AND, there must be no hold breaks.

To get a 300: Same as rainbow, but with timing windows that are 1.1x the size (and you must have missed the conditions to get a Rainbow, of course).

To get a 200 or 100: Same as before, but with timing windows that are 1.0x the size, and the condition of not breaking the hold is removed.

To get a 50: The only condition is releasing the note within the time window of a 50 in a regular note.

proposing a combo v2 formula that does not need combo cap.

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.

Edit: Posting this because I've explained it on reddit:

There are two components to the score.
- Accuracy
Essentially as accuracy increases we want you to gain more and more score while accounting for the difficulty of maintaining a 99%+ accuracy over 90%. To do this accuracy is exponentiated so that it is not quite a linear multiplier. In the previous iteration it was raised to the 10th power, in the new iteration it is raised to a factor of the accuracy.
This has the effect of causing lower accuracies to not be so much of dead weight as they were previously, while still providing a steep curve towards 100% accuracy as seen in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/sykzM

- 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

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.

Idk what to say '-'

Personally i think that being able to hold 400 combo really depends on the song, some songs will have this being easily achievable despite the songs overall difficulty due quiet sections with lighter patterns, at least in 4key i would suggest raising this or having the system account for how hard it is to hold combo in a certain song overall and change judgement slightly based on that however that may just be me ._.

edit* i feel for 7keys 400 seems about right but maybe its because im at a low level and far less consistent

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.

So, i suppose, no changes will EVER come to Stable Fallback and no Score v2 to mania?

Changes will not be coming to Stable Fallback.

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 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".

You might make a poll to know how much peoples are playing each mode so you can adjust multipliers properly...

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".

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.

I'm not sure the changes in score v2 would fix the issue you're mentioning as so far it seems to be similar but with the combo cap higher at 400.

Star rating is broken when you look at a per-map basis, but assuming that everyone plays every map (which is the case as there are so few of them), it's fine.

Maybe for you pp isn't important but the complete lack of difficult maps kills the game for higher end players.

Therefore I believe the most important issue remaining is the lack of maps for top players, which also kills competition and activity from top players, and with fewer top players and less competition there's much less attraction for the game mode overall.

Ranking more maps isn't something that can be done as easily as adding mod pp, so just add mod pp faster instead of trying to fix a score system that isn't broken.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

http://puu.sh/puPSz/42e2a1abb5.jpg

Here i got a Score with old Version of V2 and it feels way to low btw im not one of the ACC players so im kinda suck at r300 ratio but still feels low

I think the main problem is that by making combo so important you're encouraging mashing in a mode that already has super lenient windows and a lack of excess press window.

MegaAmoonguss wrote:

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.

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.

osu!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.

The today's update for ScoreV2 is way better, and properly rewards the combo. The scores are closer to ScoreV1.
I think that we should regain life when we hold sliders, like in ScoreV1.

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.

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.

Actually just noticed this in a multi I played earlier too. Not sure if HP is fine with LNs atm and want more opinions.

That being said I've also noticed quite a few HP bugs and will begin sorting them out soon.

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).

i tried some LN Converts and i think it is fine with no regen cause i cant spam thru the song i have actually to play it l

Yeah, osu!mania's very lenient HP gain on LNs was one of the major things preventing clears from being impressive on songs with a decent amount of LNs. Now that this has changed, perhaps clearing songs can be more of a goal in and of itself.

rohen04 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).

Yeap that's a bug, if they failed instantaneously when the map was completed :p

okay i think i found a Bug when u start a Song and press only one note Your score hits example 190 and start to grow fast->slowly

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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. No weird edge cases like '1 miss 10 seconds in' being punished more severely than '1 miss on the last note'.

So basically just Keep It Simple, Stupid. Any thoughts on this?

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.

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 )':

FelipeLink wrote:

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.

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 )':

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.

Am I dumb or are both scores from 2015, Arras?

Arras wrote:

Here you go.

SPOILER

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.

i dont think you understand what i said, mania on score v1 has a combo cap already so ''higher max combo'' dont do anything.
Anyway, i'm talking about High acc scores, not a LOT OF MISS scores, if you miss only in one part and in the other run miss in a lot of parts you score will be different, its not even plausible to debate;
AS i can see in your screenshot you missed a lot on ''bursts'' in the first SS, and in the other you did well compared to the first, but in the middle you can see that in the 2nd SS you were bad its noticeable.
i have B who beats A, A who beats S, but why!?!?! because you did well the Entirely map except the ''Burst'' example of that? Ranked 4k charts: M.A.M.A / Blastix Riots.
This should not happen with >>Full combo<< stuff (FC 97 less 300g Nx200 beating a FC 98 with more 300g and the same amount of 200s)

I suggest that the combo cap could be scaled on song at something like 5-6% of max combo as the cap, on short songs it would be WAY less than the 400 you tried, but on longer songs, it can reach over 400, without being over penalizing, since the song is...uh...longer. (I noticed someone suggesting the same)

(and that's just my opinion, but i'd make the accuracy points raising very slightly faster, of a few % only, but I have no justification, I let people like shoegazer give their opinion with an actual justification that makes sense :3)

Endaris wrote:

Am I dumb or are both scores from 2015, Arras?

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.

is 300MAX (rainbow) counts on accuracy? or is it only the percentage accuracy thats being counted on "accuracy" ?

Drojoke wrote:

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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. No weird edge cases like '1 miss 10 seconds in' being punished more severely than '1 miss on the last note'.

So basically just Keep It Simple, Stupid. Any thoughts on this?

Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanks

Tidek wrote:

Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanks

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).

The scale of the score system is not really important, for example, you could take the accuracy ratio "r", and change the scale by using:
Scaled_r = r^3
And the meaning of the scale doesn't change (if ra and rb are different accuracy ratios from different plays, and ra>rb, then the scaled valued of ra is also bigger than the scaled value of rb).

The only situation where the scale matters is from team multiplayer matches, since the scores of different players are added together; the solution here is, instead of adding different scores together, make the overall score of the team be a score calculated by adding the judgment counts of the players together.

Another way to calculate accuracy is fitting the Normal Distribution probability curve (with mean 0) that fits the distribution of the hit errors the best.
In this case, for example:
- Play A: OD10 map, no mod, 10,000 judgments, 100 misses (the rest are Rainbows).
- Play B: OD10 map, no mod, 10,000 judgments, 153 50s (the rest are Rainbows).
- Play C: OD10 map, no mod, 10,000 judgments, 308 100s (the rest are Rainbows).
- Play D: OD10 map, no mod, 10,000 judgments, 996 200s (the rest are Rainbows).
- Play E: OD10 map, no mod, 10,000 judgments, 3263 300s (the rest are Rainbows).

All those score would be rated as very similar under the normal distribution fit (the order is C<A<E<D<B, but the differences between plays are very small).

Under the current accuracy percentage formula (scaled linearly so the max is 1,000,000).
- Play E: 1,000,000 (no different as if the play was only rainbows)
- Play D: 966,800
- Play C: 979,467
- Play B: 987,250
- Play A: 990,000

My proposal on score composition:

• 20% combo-based scoring: for each combo achieved, divide it by max combo to get "dimensionless combo". For each dimensionless combo (between 0 and 1), use a function to map it from [0,1]->[0,1]. Sum the function values. The sum, which is still a value within [0,1] will then be scaled to 20% of max score. Refer to my algorithm proposed at the end of page 12, which doesn't use combo cap, and is being discussed by devs and a few members of community (thanks evening on this).
  
  75% old-acc-based scoring: a curve based on v1 accuracy. (refer to research by shoegazer, et al)
  
  5% 300g score bonus: linear against 300g ratio. Example: If 80% of all registered score values are 300g, the user gets 1 million * 5% * 80% = 40k score due to 300g.

Note that 300g = 320 = 300 + 20, and 300:20 = 75:5.

So, I'm asking for references and history as to:

Errrm. . . . . . , well its up to all of you. Well Goodluck.

Remyria wrote:

I suggest that the combo cap could be scaled on song at something like 5-6% of max combo as the cap

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).

Other suggestions, taken from reddit, are:

- Separating 300g and 300, regular 300s should give 95% accuracy. And yeah 300g should probably scale with OD too in that case. Alternatively, make 300g only visual, no effect on the actual game, and tighten up the judgements by a lot.

- Color based timing option like in stepmania

- Adding some kind of anti-mashing system that penalizes HP. I'm fine with the current one, but some find it too lenient and the range for missing/losing HP from hitting too early should be extended. Maybe offset HP up by 1 point too (new HP5 = old HP6, except in the upper values where there should be diminishing returns such as new HP9 = old HP9.2 or so because they're penalizing enough).

- Speed rates. These are mentioned in the OP but I want to enforce that it's a good thing that should be done.

There are other changes I've mentioned on reddit but they're beyond the scope of this thread. I still suggest you try to make them happen if you truly want osu!mania to thrive.

I'm fine with all the score v2 changes tbh, except the combo which should be percentage based as mentioned above.

Tidek wrote:

Yeah, and player with 10misses on 1000notes map can still get 990k points, no, thanks

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.

smoogipooo, this entire idea is a mess. You are creating a Frankenstein's monster by mashing together accuracy and combo components. I don't know whether you have modeled the possible edge cases or not, but most players are going to be sure this is a bad idea until the edge cases are addressed and solutions are proposed. Until then, this has too many flaws to take seriously.

Here are two cases which I know are an issue:

1. Suppose there exists a high spike in difficulty in the beginning of the map and the player has a miss there and only there. The player misses in the beginning, and as a result, got one short of an FC. Suppose there is the same spike in difficulty in the middle of the map and has a miss there and only there. The player misses in the middle, and as a result, has half of an FC. The first case would have a higher score than the second case, yet the difficulty spike is the same. Justify this matter.
   
2. Players like Bobbias have become accustomed to a visual mod in such that they play worse without it. The player can easily become accustomed to a visual mod like that if they have the will to. How would it make sense for there to be a difficulty multiplier for visual mods then?

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.

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:

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.

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.

Let me tell you the main flaws in combo and accuracy first.

1. Combo: Notes following a poor hit after a point have permanent diminished potential worth. Therefore, the position of the hard part matters to set the worth of every following note following.
2. Accuracy: Doesn't care about disproportionate difficulty. Map can be mostly easy with one hard part and the player still gets high accuracy.

If you combine those together, what you get is a mechanic in which notes following after a poor hit at a point have permanent diminished potential worth while the player is still able to amount a high score if the easy part is sufficiently long enough. That's why I called it a Frankenstein's monster. You are trying to put life back into something while still creating something sill imperfect and ugly. It doesn't solve the problem, rather it compounds it.

A score might be a pretty number to some players, but to me it is a measure of skill. This number has to reflect how well you are doing against what you are given. As such, this number should be under the influence of two primary things: difficulty and result. When you multiply by the difficulty of that part, easy parts are worth little and hard parts are worth more, and should address the problem accuracy based scoring has. If the player misses on the hard part, tough luck, try harder, and if the player spams the hard part, the missesPunisher will do its job to not reward the player for random hits.

Here is the formula:

Score += (diffScore[t] * accScore[t] * log(t)) / missesPunisher

diffScore take the difficulty of the map at point t

AccScore take the player's score point (50, 100, 200, 300, MAX) at point t

log(t) increases as the map progresses. This has a similar effect like combo, but not quite. It's there to give a bonus for longer maps and how much depends on however you wish to scale it. I think this shouldn't give a noticeable effect unless the map is more than 5 minutes long.

missesPunisher is the number of misses and possibly bad score values in the last X milliseconds. If you want, you can do interesting things with this value such as an exponential increase with every miss or increase X for every miss so that it looks at a broader time period. However, the most important thing is that it doesn't destroy the worth of every proceeding pattern indefinitely if there is a miss. If there are misses, this would result at a temporary reduction in worth unlike your system where the potential worth is permanently reduced.

Reply to abraker:

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.

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.

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?

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?

missesPunisher: v1 thanks.
dynamic last X milliseconds: seems interesting, please propose a working formula.

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.

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:

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.

Whatever works. The formula I put up is psuedocode and not in proper mathematical notation.

FrenzyLi 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?

See above

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?

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:

missesPunisher: v1 thanks.
dynamic last X milliseconds: seems interesting, please propose a working formula.

I will experiment with this bit and see what works best.

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. If a map is mostly made of easy notes, with one spike of difficulty at some point, then the difficulty rating of achieving scores that are possible by playing only the easy part correctly (without playing the hard part correctly) remain low, then the difficulty rises abruptly for scores that require playing the hard part correctly as well; if the beatmap is more even in it's difficulty, then the difficulty curve rises more evenly with score as well.

I don't agree with giving harder parts more weight compared to easy parts in the score system, the relative weight of each note is a matter more complex than that. If you are estimating the skill shown in play by looking at the judgments the player gets at each note (which is better than estimating skill by just looking at the score, but it is not feasible since it would be pretty expensive computationally, and the information required is not there for most plays), not always failing to play a note correctly in a hard part hurts the overall skill in the play more than failing a note in the easier part (it actually depends on how sensitive is the probability of playing the note correctly with certain skill level with changes of skill level, not with the absolute difficulty of the note).

There are certain EASY patterns a mid-level player has about 99% chance of playing correctly, while a high-level player has about 99.9%; also some MEDIUM pattern a mid-level player has around 80% chance of playing correctly, while the high-level player has about 95%. In this case, the harder pattern indeed has more weight when estimating skill by looking at the play. Also, there can be a HARD pattern a mid-level player has 30% chance of playing the pattern correctly, while a high-level player has about 40%; in this case, the MEDIUM difficulty patterns would have more weight than the HARD pattern when estimating the skill of the player in the play.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

I had a feeling I missed something. 15 pages was a lot to catch up to.

How disgusting! ._.

You'll see ''best global players'' will be using HD/FI/FL only.
Goodbye Jackads, Inteliser, Yuko.

LinkTaylord wrote:

How disgusting! ._.

You'll see ''best global players'' will be using HD/FI/FL only.
Goodbye Jackads, Inteliser, Yuko.

Visual mods won't have a multiplier, relax.

.

And people wonder why Osu!Mania is considered a joke ...

denisol wrote:

And people wonder why Osu!Mania is considered a joke ...

I think it's very fun and good mode

try to consider more about mods multipliers.
Many players who come from o2jam or other 7k games maybe good at HD/FL even better than none,I think HD/FL/fl should keep 1x score.
others,DT in mania is a very hard mod,Obviously most players playing DT songs can't get same acc as songs which is none mod in same stars,even can't pass in DT.so DT should be 1.12x imo.

Reply to LinkTaylord and MDLC:
Quote smoogipooo:

Khelly wrote:

I think it's very fun and good mode

There aren't many ways you can fuck up a VSRG at the base, but you can definitely screw up its contents.

What you think is a "good mode" is just really a basic principle that VSRG follows which is a genre of games in itself. What you think of mania isn't a mode; it's a huge category of rhythm games in general. Because of this it can be compared and judged to other games. Based on the standards set by other games, it is a "joke", as in it's not really developed, because it is only a sub-mode here when there is so much competition for similar games that are fully fleshed-out.

However I don't agree with it being an easier game cause standards change base off the difficulty of the game so I feel like that argument is invalid if you don't actually compare it 1:1, even though there would probably be a mob of stepmania/lr2 players who would completely crucify me for saying this. (this goes for pretty much every VSRG)

On top of Osu!mania being a sub-mode that isn't really super relevant in the grand scheme of all things Osu!, it's also shooting itself in the foot by trying to be too innovative and change the format that other VSRG games has set; keep in mind these games are half of what the community in this game is, and what this games is now is based off of just that in terms of the later game, basically making the players who ARE in touch with the community (and players are also trying to reach the late-game) players influenced by certain styles set by other games. Changing this is inherently difficult without creating some sort of backlash unless you have set a style to follow through everything. Unfortunately, if a player wants to pursue that "endgame", they can't really turn to osu!mania itself because it's not really a game with difficult stuff in it; making it a forced link to those other games.

TL;DR

Basically, Osu!Mania is the undeveloped child of keyboard VSRG in general and it's almost too late to change it without displeasing a huge amount of people (rather the players who can put in the input to change the game) because of its community being made up of more developed VSRG games.

Truly, the community (I should say the content mostly, but half of it is regulated by the community) has an internal conflict that isn't going to really resolve itself unless something is ACTUALLY done with this game mode. This is probably why it "suffers" so much.

Edit: went to fix some oddities with how the post was worded but got lazy after a few so sorry if it some of it makes 0 sense in actual script.

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. 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?

I don't think you understand what Lampranthus is trying to explain. He is saying there are many VSRG games out there that has been running way longer then osu!mania (e.g. o2jam, stepmania, flashflashrevolution, lr2 etc) and was developed through loads of trial and errors. These VSRG has already developed certain rules and systems that works really good for the game most people love. Osu!mania been out since Q4 of 2012 but didn't even have mania specific maps back then. Osu!mania does't even have a close to perfect pp system or star rating at all, this is why it's consider undeveloped. But now randomly Osu are trying to change the way most VSRG standards were laid out by changing the score system to focus on combo more and mods.

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.

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:

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?

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.

If you can have convert maps from any other game, then what difference does it make for you to play it there or here rather than preference for whatever client you'd actually like to use? (Score is not a difference here since it does not affect your gameplay but just your end result) I like the osu client and think a lot of the other games look and feel like complete shit to me so as long as I'm fed with good unranked maps then I'd stay here. (And I "seem" to have hundreds of them still that are far above me)

Personally I still don't like it whenever someone says "Look at what these other Vsrg does and emulate that" because they want osu mania to be exactly or more exactly like the other games they could just play instead. What's the point of different games if you make the games the same? Even though I think combo based for a mania-type game sucks.

You could say I haven't played it too long, but I'd rather speak as someone with a lot of experience in standard who quit that for mania because it's so much more fun rather than someone who started in other vsrg's who came to osu mania, found it bad, and doesn't seem to like it. At least that's the impression I'm getting. If most of the problems you have are in relation to things like score and pp, then that's just the metagame and not as important as actually playing imo - map availibility and the actually vsrg. All these good yolomania maps come in unrankable collections qq

Khelly wrote:

I like the osu client and think a lot of the other games look and feel like complete shit to me

thank you so much
as someone who started playing VSRGs two years ago and tried many different games, those are exactly my thoughts of o2jam/stepmania lmao

i like o2jam very much though

Khelly wrote:

Personally I still don't like it whenever someone says "Look at what these other Vsrg does and emulate that" because they want osu mania to be exactly or more exactly like the other games they could just play instead. What's the point of different games if you make the games the same? Even though I think combo based for a mania-type game sucks.
[/spoiler]

This is basily the mentality of the people who are just here to bash on ScoreV2. They are like:'Oh Stepmania does 'X' much better therefore it is superior'.
=> Well good for you, play stepmania than instead of bashing on o!m. If you only like things that are implemented in that game, and thing o!m is trash becasue it does stuff differently, then you're just being cocky and pretending that you're some 'masterrace' mania player.

Anyways, my question is now: if the combo is going to be capped, with the intend of getting similair scores as the current system(correct me if i am wrong here), then what is the point in changing the system at all then? I mean the current score also uses some kind of accuracy combo which punishes incosistent players even on their 200s, but had a pretty low cap so each punishment isnt that big of a deal.

Scorev2 will punish not as often as before but, the punishment is way harder than scorev1 and will impact all players (especially with high acc scores on hard maps) with the result that people will have to grind maps to hold combos while getting consistenly a good accuracy.

I don't mind having a some sort of combo system but please make sure it wont make getting good scores grinding and kinda luck dependent ( getting good acc+combo), which will kill mania for lots of players.

I also love osu client since it does looks better than most other VSRG.

Khelly wrote:

Personally I still don't like it whenever someone says "Look at what these other Vsrg does and emulate that" because they want osu mania to be exactly or more exactly like the other games they could just play instead. What's the point of different games if you make the games the same? Even though I think combo based for a mania-type game sucks.

Yetified wrote:

This is basily the mentality of the people who are just here to bash on ScoreV2. They are like:'Oh Stepmania does 'X' much better therefore it is superior'.
=> Well good for you, play stepmania than instead of bashing on o!m. If you only like things that are implemented in that game, and thing o!m is trash becasue it does stuff differently, then you're just being cocky and pretending that you're some 'masterrace' mania player.

When people ask for certain feature from other VSRG for osu!mania, it's mainly because it's useful and could help osu!mania improve. Look at fixed scroll speed, that was based off of cmod in Stepmania. But there are people who compare just to bash on osu!mania. I do agree with you that I dislike it when people bash osu!mania as a whole just because it's not 100% like another VSRG

Comparing mania to other VSRG's is a lost cause because it is a subjective matter. Players are going to cause backlash bacause it's aiming to be different than the standards those set. That's all can be stated and is not even a good arguement against scoreV2. I suggest you guys argue against scoreV2 objectively and explain what flaws it has within results and/or calculation.

abraker, here's something I came up with that could plug in to your diffscore[t], with t in my case being an actual timing/score object.

An individual hit difficulty would be based on two components, timing and physical difficulty.

1. Timing Difficulty:
   TD is a pseudo-reading difficulty calculation that looks at the note that came directly before the current note. If your current note is part of a double/triple/etc. the other notes are ignored and calculated separately. The shorter the time between the two notes, the higher the TD.
   TD only cares about timing points so if there was a double/triple/etc. the TD is not doubled/tripled/etc.
   
2. Physical Difficulty:
   PD compares the current note to the previous note on the same column. PD increases as the time between the two notes decreases. PD's purpose is to make a distinction between grace notes and minijacks, for example.

PD and TD would be combined at an appropriate ratio to give a final difficulty score. The ratio can easily be tweaked of course to find the best combination.

You might think that the PD calculation could be replaced with just checking columns on TD and multiplying accordingly, but PD has a few more subtleties which makes it better as a separate component. The following three examples show how the two components can vary:


As for how PD and TD scale with the time differences, I expect there to be a timing cuttoff where the PD or TD component defaults to just the minimum value. I'm thinking maybe a linear scaling for TD (as this is just reading based), and some form of normal distribution curve for PD.

EDIT: to nerf minijacks maybe PD could use the hit300 timing window in some way to accomodate rushing. IDK though, just a thought.

OppaiDefender wrote:

...

Interesting ideas, but describing how diffScore[t] works would deal more closely with star rating than score, so I am not so sure this is approprate for this thread.

abraker wrote:

Interesting ideas, but describing how diffScore[t] works would deal more closely with star rating than score, so I am not so sure this is approprate for this thread.

Yeah, I'm aware it's sliding into the SR domain a bit, but I believe it can still apply to scoring directly. I'm not sure how SR is calculated currently and grabbing the difficulty at a timing point t might not be accomodated for.

abraker wrote:

Comparing mania to other VSRG's is a lost cause because it is a subjective matter. Players are going to cause backlash bacause it's aiming to be different than the standards those set. That's all can be stated and is not even a good arguement against scoreV2. I suggest you guys argue against scoreV2 objectively and explain what flaws it has within results and/or calculation.

Score v2 = more combo based than score v1, yes?
Combo based = encourages spamming restart on the first miss instead of playing songs through, adds a lot of needless frustration, anguish and stress in a game that is supposed to be fun.
The people who want a combo based system exist most likely because of osu! standard, because they can't fathom the possibility of a game where a miss isn't a play ruiner.

Or perhaps you have people like smoogipooo who just want to make a system that's more entertaining to watch for MWC; to make scores more excitingly different from each other. In that case, why not instead add harder songs in the map pool? Is it because the same people would win consistently every time because they're better instead of randoms winning because they got lucky and didn't combo break that time? Yeah well, unfortunately that's the nature of rhythm games and better players are supposed to win. Maybe stop separating people per country for a change and together with adding harder maps in the pool you might get more exciting matches. But rhythm games just aren't as exciting to watch as other e-sports, and nothing will change that, specifically because skill differences in players are so well defined here, it's much more objective and straightforward.

Sure, I'll admit that a combo based scoring system makes tournament games more exciting to watch, but the trade-off which is making the game much more frustrating to play for the average user isn't worth it.

Sorry if this comes off as a rant, I'm just trying to give my opinion as constructively as I can. I'm not against anything in score v2 except making it more combo based.

robby250 wrote:

The people who want a combo based system exist most likely because of osu! standard, because they can't fathom the possibility of a game where a miss isn't a play ruiner.

I'm against a combo based system for a mania type game but I feel it's appropriate for standard because I'm capable of separating these two games into categories that have nothing to do with each other.


2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: Hey rate my combo based scoring idea
2016-06-20 14:38 Lampranthus: yeah
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: Combo is worth 100,000/1,000,000 points
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: 25% of a map's total combo
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: will give you all 100k points
2016-06-20 14:40 Khelly: Is that good or bad
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: I think it's pretty good
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: Again, if you back it up with making your game's content able to fit those standard there's nothing you can do really wrong
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: but speed players will leave, and MA players from Stepmaina and LR2 will flock in

@robby: Combobased scoring doesn't make tournaments more exciting to watch as the winner can already be decided halfway through the map which is lame. Don't give combo any pro-arguments it doesn't have.

Endaris wrote:

@robby: Combobased scoring doesn't make tournaments more exciting to watch as the winner can already be decided halfway through the map which is lame. Don't give combo any pro-arguments it doesn't have.

I remember in February 2015 when Rrtyui S'd image material about a third of the way through the map everyone just focused on him and the other team members and opponents were irrelevant.

But I mean then again it was the first S of a famous then un-fc'd map.

He would've got that spotlight in any other mode too. I think in TWC 2015 tasuke was FCing that dragonforce tiebreaker and he got all the spotlight too. And in both cases it was a "pseudo"-tiebreaker that was played after the match had already been decided.~

Khelly wrote:

I'm against a combo based system for a mania type game but I feel it's appropriate for standard because I'm capable of separating these two games into categories that have nothing to do with each other.

Sure, standard has the aiming aspect to it, you can't just mash through the hard parts and get lucky. You can sometimes emphasize on not dropping combo at the expense of losing a bit of accuracy, but it's nowhere near the same thing as mashing in mania. Even then you could argue that it's way too combo based, in no dimension should an 80% score be capable of being rated higher than a 99% score.

Endaris wrote:

@robby: Combobased scoring doesn't make tournaments more exciting to watch as the winner can already be decided halfway through the map which is lame. Don't give combo any pro-arguments it doesn't have.

It's more exciting in the sense that it adds an RNG aspect to the game, and it's not the same winners every single time. But that randomness is also what makes it bad.

robby250 wrote:

Or perhaps you have people like smoogipooo who just want to make a system that's more entertaining to watch for MWC; to make scores more excitingly different from each other. In that case, why not instead add harder songs in the map pool? Is it because the same people would win consistently every time because they're better instead of randoms winning because they got lucky and didn't combo break that time? Yeah well, unfortunately that's the nature of rhythm games and better players are supposed to win. Maybe stop separating people per country for a change and together with adding harder maps in the pool you might get more exciting matches. But rhythm games just aren't as exciting to watch as other e-sports, and nothing will change that, specifically because skill differences in players are so well defined here, it's much more objective and straightforward.

Oh so much this. smoogipoo want to add a bit of dice into the game by potentially magnifying any mistake the player makes. The maps they choose are pretty uniform in difficulty generally speaking, so it it shouldnt be surprising if the match was decided from the beginning. If you want more interesting matches, pick more interesting maps. Maps which are long and have difficulty spikes layed throughout like land mines should make it interesting.

robby250 wrote:

abraker wrote:

Comparing mania to other VSRG's is a lost cause because it is a subjective matter. Players are going to cause backlash bacause it's aiming to be different than the standards those set. That's all can be stated and is not even a good arguement against scoreV2. I suggest you guys argue against scoreV2 objectively and explain what flaws it has within results and/or calculation.

Score v2 = more combo based than score v1, yes?
Combo based = encourages spamming restart on the first miss instead of playing songs through, adds a lot of needless frustration, anguish and stress in a game that is supposed to be fun.
The people who want a combo based system exist most likely because of osu! standard, because they can't fathom the possibility of a game where a miss isn't a play ruiner.

Or perhaps you have people like smoogipooo who just want to make a system that's more entertaining to watch for MWC; to make scores more excitingly different from each other. In that case, why not instead add harder songs in the map pool? Is it because the same people would win consistently every time because they're better instead of randoms winning because they got lucky and didn't combo break that time? Yeah well, unfortunately that's the nature of rhythm games and better players are supposed to win. Maybe stop separating people per country for a change and together with adding harder maps in the pool you might get more exciting matches. But rhythm games just aren't as exciting to watch as other e-sports, and nothing will change that, specifically because skill differences in players are so well defined here, it's much more objective and straightforward.

Sure, I'll admit that a combo based scoring system makes tournament games more exciting to watch, but the trade-off which is making the game much more frustrating to play for the average user isn't worth it.

Sorry if this comes off as a rant, I'm just trying to give my opinion as constructively as I can. I'm not against anything in score v2 except making it more combo based.

This guy.

I am having a lot of issue understanding this "RNG" concept that you guys are talking about. There's been plenty of instances of the game pulling RNG-like behavior on scores.

This one is beyond me. You'd need a PhD level dissertation to properly justify that one (hint: you can't).


Almost as bad, but still telling.


etc.


... it doesn't take long to see this. Anyone saying that the current score system is in any way or shape better than the proposed V2 without any actual data is out of their mind and is just spewing at this point.

@Halogen I'm not defending the current system. I'm simply against the combo component of score v2, which would enforce situations similar to the ones you've listed. For your examples, I'm guessing the distribution of misses/combo breaks is what made the difference in score.

Here's my proposed changes for score v2 specifically:

- Make regular 300s give 95% accuracy and make rainbow 300 scale with OD.
- Replace the fixed combo cap of 400 with 5%-10% of the max combo of the map, using the same algorithm as score v2.
- LN starts and ends should be separated like score v2 does, however LN ends shouldn't add combo (I don't mind if they do though) and they should be made more lenient instead of tighter (I don't really care either way, I just think that making them tighter would make even more people hate LNs and it would be harder to integrate LNs into a map without lowering OD).
- Increase HP drain and make a better anti-mashing system (discussing specifics is futile at this point)
- Add rates, give each mod/rate a multiplier that doesn't make it too difficult to beat your earlier score as long as you master the map relatively well.

The changes I've mentioned are very rough and could be interpreted for better or worse.

I always felt regular 300's should give 99% and rainbow's should give 100% because when it comes to multiple SS's or high acc scores you basically have to look at the score number or the actual # of rainbows and 300's each player got in order to compare instead of a quick % glance. Besides, rainbow's don't change from 16.5 ms no matter the OD.

gintoki147 wrote:

Khelly wrote:

I like the osu client and think a lot of the other games look and feel like complete shit to me

thank you so much
as someone who started playing VSRGs two years ago and tried many different games, those are exactly my thoughts of o2jam/stepmania lmao

Ever since stepmania introduced scripting as a part of skinning, theming, the diversity of stepmania themes skyrocketed.

Khelly wrote:

I'm against a combo based system for a mania type game but I feel it's appropriate for standard because I'm capable of separating these two games into categories that have nothing to do with each other.


2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: Hey rate my combo based scoring idea
2016-06-20 14:38 Lampranthus: yeah
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: Combo is worth 100,000/1,000,000 points
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: 25% of a map's total combo
2016-06-20 14:38 Khelly: will give you all 100k points
2016-06-20 14:40 Khelly: Is that good or bad
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: I think it's pretty good
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: Again, if you back it up with making your game's content able to fit those standard there's nothing you can do really wrong
2016-06-20 14:45 Lampranthus: but speed players will leave, and MA players from Stepmaina and LR2 will flock in

cringe

Basically the point (indirectly but in relevancy to the topic at hand) of my post beforehand was that you can't really make a game based off of consistency and combo when your game mostly consists of charting styles based off of other scoring systems that don't include these systems.

Mini-LNs in stepmania are completely justified and are actually welcomed as a booster for your DP; the equivalent of raw score/%accuracy in O!M. In this game, it is the contrary; many conversions such as Brute Force have watered down the amount of mini-LNs used for what I assume is this reason (I don't want to put words into the "mouth" of the person who converted them).

I truly think that if Osu!Mania was a little more strict with creating their own original content while also mass producing it. You would also have to unrank stuff like haelequin's bullshit ending to fully justify these changes without making it a half-assed game like it currently is. (Unranked stuff doesn't really matter in scoring that much anyway aside from in tourneys which only affects the minority of players)

toolazytowriteanymore so

tl;dr Anything can work as a solid game as long as the work is put in to actually make it a fully-fleshed out thing. It may not appeal to all audiences of course; being a player who doesn't play for consistency I don't think it would much appeal for me, but it would definitely make for interesting content. Pretty much, if you're going to make a game that breaks the mold of current popular VSRG, you had better make the innovations elsewhere than in just the scoring system.








really lazy sry

*Also I should probably say that I understand that this is actually only going to be in MWC for now, just saying stuff

It's only sort of related to scorev2, but I wanted to make a small point about scoring and mapping style.

See, when osu!mania was released, I saw it as a possible way to create a place where every kind of chart/map/file/whatever is acceptable. Not just another game with it's own exclusive community that comes up with their own style and ignores everything every other game is doing. The fact that it supports a wide number of key modes just added to this sense of inclusivity. I'm all for osu!mania finding it's own style, but I'd rather not have a scoring system that is designed around that single style. Nor do I want to see ranked maps all conform to a singular style.

Here's a suggestion for accuracy score part. I tried to keep both essential score bonus for each additional percent above 95% and lenient enough loss for low acc players to give their teams a chance.


Also, i support Shoegazer's combo suggestion. In his system, one miss at 1000 combo map means loss of ~10k. In regular score system, this number is almost the same, lol. Shoegazer's suggestion would make score v2 not combo-based, but combo-adjusted. I didn't find any plots, so i've made one:


I hope, this will help people to understand advantages of Shoegazer's combo formula.

Kivicat wrote:

That means, if you miss in the middle of map and then get 300 combo, you'll lose ~18% of score for those 300 notes. If map has 1500 notes, that will be 18% of 1/5 of 200k, lol (that's about 7k).

If I understood your post correctly (correct me if I did not), this would mean that playing badly punishes you for notes played later on in the song. That's a big problem, consider this scenario:

Beatmap X, 2000 notes, hard 20 note burst @ 980th note and another equally hard 20 note burst @ 1980th note. Player A hits all notes, but misses 1 note in the first burst. Player B hits all notes, but misses 1 note in the last burst. Both players performed equally well, but player B gets a higher score.

The same problem exists in the current scoring system. I don't think I've seen any combo based scoring system proposed that doesn't have problems like these, which is why I think it's better to look for a scoring system that does not rely on combo.

Drojoke wrote:

If I understood your post correctly (correct me if I did not), this would mean that playing badly punishes you for notes played later on in the song.

See Shoegazer's post, there's no such a problem due to logarithmic function for combo and combo limit.

My Brain: *Math Error intensifies*

Kivicat wrote:

Drojoke wrote:

If I understood your post correctly (correct me if I did not), this would mean that playing badly punishes you for notes played later on in the song.

See Shoegazer's post, there's no such a problem due to logarithmic function for combo and combo limit.

The problem is still present in some extent.

For example, in a map with 2000 notes, 3 20-note bursts at 500, 550, and 600.
Two players miss once during the first burst. Player A misses once during the 2nd bursts but doesn't miss during the 3rd. Player B doesn't miss during the 2nd burst but misses once during the 3rd. Player A gets a higher score overall than Player B.

The only case where situations like these don't happen would be when the current combo doesn't have an influence in the amount of score given by a note.

For increasing the influence of misses, it would be better to redefine how accuracy is determined. The current accuracy percentage formula (and any scaling defined by a monotonic function of it) underestimates the importance of misses and bad judgments compared to better judgments.

Kivicat wrote:

See Shoegazer's post, there's no such a problem due to logarithmic function for combo and combo limit.

By multiplying the hit value with the logarithm of your combo (up to combo limit), you're only making the problems Full Tablet and I suggested smaller. Differences in scores that really should've been the same are now smaller, but they're still there.

Full Tablet wrote:

The current accuracy percentage formula (and any scaling defined by a monotonic function of it) underestimates the importance of misses and bad judgments compared to better judgments.

Accuracy and score both underestimate the importance of misses and bad judgements, and they always will as long as misses give 0 score and 0% accuracy. Combo bases systems try to make misses matter more by (usually) reducing the score given by subsequent notes, but this creates all sorts of edge cases where such a scoring system produces very odd score differences.

I still think it's best to take inspiration from stepmania's way of punishing for misses and bad judgements; by reducing score. This punishes bad gameplay without edge cases like the ones Full Tablet and I mentioned.

lets be real the only reason they want combo scoring is because they're hoping the entire planet doesn't get blown out by an undefeated usa team that doesn't even play their game, again

NoSaucierMagic wrote:

lets be real the only reason they want combo scoring is because they're hoping the entire planet doesn't get blown out by an undefeated usa team that doesn't even play their game, again

This post made my day

Here is a formula for score based on the judgment counts (acc-based score).
It is based on linear approximations during the calculation of the normal curve that fits the distribution of the judgments (using exact formulas required using numerical methods that were somewhat computationally expensive, and maybe they were too complex); the linear approximation is better for low accuracy scores (but it still should gives sensible values for high accuracy scores).

Variables:
a: Hit window for a Rainbow (16.5ms with no-mod with old timing values).
b: Hit window for a 300 (OD and Mod dependent).
c: Hit window for a 200.
d: Hit window for a 100.
e: Hit window for a 50.
JMAX/J300/.../JMISS : Count of the judgments.

anm: Linear scale constant, to make the maximum score 1,000,000, then anm=a. To make scores between different OD or timing window mods (HR/EZ) in the same map directly comparable (a higher score represents a higher accuracy), then anm has to be constant regardless of the timing windows.

1. To balance EZ/HR/Nomod, it would be a good idea to always make anm equal to the value of "a" with Nomod. That way HR can go beyond 1 million score (as long as the player has very good accuracy during the play), EZ gets less than 1 million even with all rainbows, all-Rainbows with no-mod is always 1 million score.
2. If the timing window for a Rainbow is ever OD-dependent, then anm would need to be OD-dependent as well to make the max score with no-mod 1 million, but then, the difficulty of achieving certain score would vary depending on the OD. For that reason, I think it would be better to not change the timing window of a Rainbow depending on OD.

Score formula: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4z6 ... a.png?dl=0

Edit: Here is a better approximation (but this formula might be too long): http://i.imgur.com/rcWR71N.png

NoSaucierMagic wrote:

lets be real the only reason they want combo scoring is because they're hoping the entire planet doesn't get blown out by an undefeated usa team that doesn't even play their game, again

Beautiful.