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.

@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.

NinjaSM wrote:

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.

hi

i play this game

i'm advocating and have been helping with this score change

so do yourself and everyone else who has had nothing but a negative opinion without explanation a favor: kindly piss off.

as to others who are still helping out and giving suggestions: that's what this needs.

Just sharing my two cents on FL mod, the visual mod I am usually playing with.

Certain people with visual mods ON may find it easier to play, and perform better, why? They are only required to focus a small portion (example: upper half ) of the screen, and process in their brains n' hit the keys accordingly. Notes on the lower half is deemed unnecessary to the players; they may treat anything appears at the lower half as a distraction which may make them lose focus.

However, personally, FL mod makes things harder mostly, only when a song contains lots of SVs. Take these songs for example:
xi - Happy End of the World by Blocko
FamiRockP - Oni Kanojo by Entozer
Risk Junk-G - Candy Galy by Staiain

Recall the portions of these songs which has slowjams.

As player score is judged heavily based on accuracy in this game, heavy SV of a song (especially unpredictable "slowjams", or too many notes to be processed during slowjams) will affect accuracy of a player, this brings the difficulty for the player to get a better score.

For some people, they may think FL is difficult and very impressive....as only minority group of people plays with FL. However, IMO, it is not that hard but it takes time for someone to get oneself familiar with the mod.


It's pretty layman as I am not someone good in describing things, but I hope the community gets my point.

smoogipooo wrote:

1. Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that).

Please do.

Can you apply that to HT of 0.8 and 0.9?

Khelly wrote:

Can you apply that to HT of 0.8 and 0.9?

This would be amazing. I play a lot of 0.8x-0.9x in stepmania because I usually suck at 180-200 bpm jumpstreams and 150-180 bpm jumpstream maps are harder to find. I definitely miss being able to practice harder songs without going full snail mode with HT @0.75x speed.

There's lots of fun maps for me that are too easy ht and way too hard nomod; that's why I widh osu mania had those speeds

Are you think LN (lonte noooooooodel) is easy?

And you give 1 combo for 1 ln?

Ok try ENTODZER map like dis
1, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/130464

Dis

2. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/146623

And dia

3. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/138430


I waiting you result score and kombos.

And say ln is easy like nornal notes.

masdafugh wrote:

Are you think LN (lonte noooooooodel) is easy?

And you give 1 combo for 1 ln?

Ok try ENTODZER map like dis
1, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/130464

Dis

2. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/146623

And dia

3. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/138430


I waiting you result score and kombos.

And say ln is easy like nornal notes.

Considering that the actual combo number didn't affect score at all in the V1 scoring, LNs are worth more than they used to be, since they have two judgements now.

I had a multiplayer session with a friend to test out v2 a bit. Wanted to see it in action after hearing complaints. Here's a play we had that stood out to me, and which I thought could make for some good input.
These spoilerboxes will contain an image each.


Sv2 score, first play:

Sv1 score, second play:

On my first impression of these, I thought this was fair, even scores and all for fairly even plays. What with the 200 count being the same.
However, what stands out is the MAX/300 ratio. It's a fair bit higher in the v2 play (thank you LNs), while managing to receive a lower score.

V2: 980/198/5/0/0/0 = 991944 score
V1: 921/210/5/0/0/0 = 991995 score

This is giving me the impression that MAX count impacts score less in v2 than in v1.
What am I missing here? Is this how it's supposed to be?

‎

Redon wrote:

Gameplay: [smoogipooo] Increase osu!mania FL ScoreV2 mod multiplier to 1.10x.

Please stop. I thought ten pages of people explaining why this is a bad idea was enough? Just get rid of it, it's nothing but a visual aid.

But he really wants to shoehorn it in, people explaining why its bad just isn't enough.

oi... I was pretty sure that a bunch of people, including those who mained Flashlight... were (rightfully) against a scoreboost... why are we adding it now?

Increase osu!mania HR ScoreV2 mod multiplier to 1.20x.

This seems like a really significant change, coming from a multiplier of 1.06x.

Consider an FC on an OD 8 song with a perfect normal distribution and standard deviation of 20ms (i.e. 200 UR). Disregarding combo score, this would give a score 959.3k:

Consider the same play, with HR turned on. The score is now reduced to 910.3k before multipliers:

With a 1.06x multiplier, the HR score would've been 964944.5k, which is very close to the no-mod score. A 1.2x multiplier would make the score skyrocket to 1,092.4k. A mere 820k HR rank S score, including several 100s and 50s, would dominate a 980k rank SS score.

HR's 1.2x multiplier is so good, you're only better off playing no-mod when HR makes you fail a song or if you're trying to play a song that's way out of your leage. I would suggest keeping it roughly at its original multiplier of 1.06x. Emphasis added to roughly, because I'm sure 1.08x would work out just fine. I just can't be bothered to dig any deeper right now.

On a side note, I'd like to point out how incredibly high the aforementioned HR score is. Assuming a 1000 note song, that's 152 200s and 9 100s. Both the no-mod and HR scores would be even closer to both the 1 million mark and each other, because I ignored the combo aspect of the score. This just goes to show how severely unpunished bad judgements are in ScoreV2. Using a purely accuracy based scoring system similar to Stepmania's MIGS DP, does pretty well in this situation:

With the score system I made, HR/EZ get a balanced score by design. In previous posts I have posts I posted some approximate formulas for it, but I think that using a calculation method that is more accurate would better, I wrote some code that can calculate score using double precision floating numbers quite accurately.

The algorithm basically does a maximum likelihood fit of the timing errors in the play, using a normal curve with zero mean, using as input the distribution of the judgments in the play (taking into account their timing windows); the parameter to fit is the standard deviation of the curve (the lower the standard deviation, the more accurate is the play). The timing window of LN releases would be considered be same as of presses, to account for the increased difficulty of releasing accurately (assuming using the current timing windows already balance the difficulty of releases compared to presses)

Then, a penalty is applied based on the amount of judgments in the play, to take into account if the results were just by chance. This is analogous to the case of estimating how loaded a coin is by throwing it 5 times, if you get 5 heads in a row, a safer estimation of the probability of getting a head would be 87.055% (probability when getting at least 5 heads when throwing 5 times happens half of the time) instead of 100% (the probability that makes the result of the throws most likely).

Then, the standard deviation (std) found is mapped to a score value (standard deviation of 0 = 1 million score, standard deviation-> Infinity = 0 score). The exact function used to map standard deviation to score doesn't really matter (as long as it strictly monotonically decreasing), but a good option would be using something in the form of: (A*Erf(a/std) + B*Erf(b/std) + ...)/(A+B+...)*1,000,000, since that way score scales in the same way as a accuracy%/DP/MIGS/Exscore system (while still avoiding the balancing problems those systems have).

Note that since a penalty is applied based on the amount of judgments, getting 1 million score is not possible with a map with a finite amount of notes (you can only get very close, when the amount of notes is high and the timing windows are tight), this might be seen as a problem, but it actually this solves another bigger problem. Without that penalty, getting all rainbows with EZ or No-mod would both give 1 million score, so there would be no reason to ever use HR if you want to maximize your score; with the penalty, using more strict timing windows makes it possible to get closer to 1 million score, giving reason to players to use HR if they can handle it.

Examples of scores (using a standard deviation -> score function that scales similarly to Exscore): Note that those plays were done with Scorev1 mechanics (only 1 judgment per LN), but the idea remains.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/647965 Drop - Granat [5K EZ] (a very short map)
All Rainbows No-Mod: 993,738 score.
All Rainbows EZ Mod : 966,397 score.
All Rainbows HR Mod: 999,830 score.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/552745 Soleily - Renatus [Hard], all plays done by me in the same day: Rainbows/300/200/100/50/Miss
1040/641/145/16/4/7 No-Mod: 650,298 score.
1343/446/52/7/0/5 EZ Mod: 646,645 score.
710/745/316/63/3/16 HR Mod: 657,208 score.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/866194 deadmau5 - Orange File [Emptiness]
235/137/31/1/0/0 No-Mod: 729,438 score.
293/101/10/0/0/0 EZ-Mod: 723,009 score.
170/138/86/9/0/1 HR-Mod: 704,914 score.
All Rainbows No-mod: 999,143 score.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/746951 UNDEAD CORPORATION - The Empress scream off ver [MX]
677/530/162/23/6/30 No-Mod: 519,410 score.
432/564/295/82/8/47 HR Mod: 544,990 score.
930/408/55/14/1/20 EZ-Mod: 501,934 score
All Rainbows No-mod: 999,757 score.

I suggest that hitting a 50 should break your combo because the combo bonus is supposed to reward consistency.

Quoting smoogipooo

We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).

Consistency is the ability to hit good judgments continuously, and therefore hitting bad judgments does not show this skill and should not be awarded extra points due to consistency. Other more established rhythm games such as O2Jam also break your combo at a BAD (roughly equivalent to Osu!mania's 50). This implies that breaking combo at 50 is a tried and tested move and is a more sensible scoring system.

Not breaking combo at 50s would undoubtedly cause people to be rewarded by indiscriminate mashing and punish high accuracy players as low accuracy players would have a chance to overtake high accuracy players through combo points awarded by unskilled mashing.
It is very easy to mash any map in the whole game, as shown by drace's play below. (check t/224534&start=0 for more details)


On the contrary, if the combo is broken at 50s, it can ensure that players are rightfully rewarded by their consistency in hitting the right notes at the right time, which was the objective of the game before any changes.

That is why I strongly suggest that combo to break at 50 to preserve the value of combo as a way to sort good players from bad players.

In regards to the combo section of what scorev2 currently is, a lot of people have recommended doing a percentage of the max combo, to find the combo cap. I think that instead of having the combo cap linearly related to the max combo, there should be a square root relationship.

I propose: Combo Cap = floor(sqrt(Max Combo) * 10)

This means:
-500 max combo has a 223 combo cap
-1000 max combo has a 316 combo cap
-2000 max combo has a 447 combo cap
-5000 max combo has a 707 combo cap

but then again id rather combo not matter at all so lol.

Cuber wrote:

I think that instead of having the combo cap linearly related to the max combo, there should be a square root relationship.

I strongly disagree. Making the combo cap dependent on the max combo is problematic, as it couples the difficulty of getting a high score to the length of a map.

The current proposal has the combo cap fixed at 400, so now the scoring system is only flawed for songs with less than 400 notes. This may not sound like a big deal, but this means it's going to be easier on maps like Drop - Granat to get a higher score. Noodle maps with very little notes yet considerable difficulty also come to mind as songs that will be easier to score on with ScoreV2.

Cuber wrote:

but then again id rather combo not matter at all so lol.

Neither do I. Holding combo shouldn't be awarded, especially in osu!mania where key mashing goes unpunished. Hitting accurately should be rewarded, hitting poorly should be punished and hitting that which does not exist should be punished if not severely discouraged. All of these things can be achieved without involving combo.

Just a tangential point: I legitimately hate it when people use that video of all examples to prove that osu!mania is easy to mash. He's literally smashing 1/2 notes on a song where the spacing between 1/2 notes is larger than the individual timing windows themselves. Of course he's not going to break combo.

The odds of running into a chart like that are far lower than they are running into something that's actually got a legitimate structure/melody.

Cuber wrote:

but then again id rather combo not matter at all so lol.
Neither do I. Holding combo shouldn't be awarded, especially in osu!mania where key mashing goes unpunished. Hitting accurately should be rewarded, hitting poorly should be punished and hitting that which does not exist should be punished if not severely discouraged. All of these things can be achieved without involving combo.

I hope you're extending edge cases of players who ghost tap in between notes to keep a solid rhythm (and not necessarily are mashing to hold combo).

Halogen- wrote:

I hope you're extending edge cases of players who ghost tap in between notes to keep a solid rhythm (and not necessarily are mashing to hold combo).

There's no point in punishing for hitting keys when there's nothing to play within 'x' ms, where 'x' is the time in ms when a miss is usually triggered (or something similar). Pressing 5 keys on a 3 note chord is a whole different story, of course.

Drojoke wrote:

Halogen- wrote:

I hope you're extending edge cases of players who ghost tap in between notes to keep a solid rhythm (and not necessarily are mashing to hold combo).

There's no point in punishing for hitting keys when there's nothing to play within 'x' ms, where 'x' is the time in ms when a miss is usually triggered (or something similar). Pressing 5 keys on a 3 note chord is a whole different story, of course.

You're getting closer. You'd want to consider x in a time per lane as well. I see no issue hitting 5 keys on a 3 note chord if that chord is alone and by itself. Likewise, if a song has a high tempo but slow repeated notes, players might feel inclined to fill in a rhythm on the other hand to keep steady (I do this all the time).

???

These are these score multiplier I would do

1. HD 1.00x
2. FL 1.05x
3. FI 1.08x
4. HR 1.10x
5. DT adjust to 110%/120%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (lowest is 110% with 1.05x multiplier and max is 150% with 1.25x score multiplier)
6. HT adjust to 75%/80%/.../95% with score bonus increments of 0.10x (lowest being 75% with 0.50x score multiplier and max as 95% with 0.9x multiplier)

I think HD shouldn't give because all it does is cover the bottom half off the screen in which most average/top player already focus on the upper half so this doesn't make much difference and just aids players, also people will always just skin a static HD since it's better anyways. I use to play with HD only for months and even I'm saying this shouldn't give any bonus.

Reason why I think FL should give a slight score multiplier is because it does make vision a bit tighter so note will be lumped up also they would have to use about half their normal nomod scroll speed. It's lower than FI because if you get FI too the max, it's below the middle of the screen (middle being where most average/top players focus on looking while FL is always in the middle). The higher the bpm the harder it can get because of density. I use to play with FL only for months and I think FI is more challenging a bit.

I want to give HR to be 1.10x and not 1.20x is because are you trying to say HR = 140% rate of song?

HR is higher than visual mods is because accurate players should be rewarded more than visual mods since they doesn't even do much (except for FI/FL slightly)

DT max 150% should be 1.25x because it's makes the map way more challenging then playing with HR or a visual mod.

HT increments is different from DT because HT makes maps way too easy. Since it makes the map easier than intended, it should be more lower of course.

.

my opinion on score multipliers:

HD - 1.00x
FI - 1.00x
FL - 1.00x
HR - 1.15x
DT - 1.30-1.35x
HT - 0.5x
NF - 0.8x (it's just no fail)
EZ - 0.8x (doesn't make a significant difference really)

If we can have all visual mods be 1.00x I would love that
even though they said they would remove score bonus on all visual mods but instead kept it for FL

Setting a fixed score multiplier for HR and EZ, with the current accuracy formula (accuracy percentage scaled with x^(1+4x)) makes it so there exists accuracy ranges that determine which mod is the most convenient (maximizes the score part of the total score) to use depending on the level of accuracy of the player.
The table is interpreted like in the following example:

If in a map a player gets in average 99.5% accuracy percentage with no mod, then he would get in average more accuracy score using HR if it's multiplier is x1.024 or more (if it is lower than that, then no mod would give in average more score), similarly, the player would get more score in average with EZ compared to No-Mod if the multiplier was x0.894 or more.

IMO, those ranges where in average players get more score by using a specific timing window mod shouldn't exist, the player should get the same score if he plays the notes the same way, regardless of the mod used (and make the mods just a change of scale of the worth of the judgments, analogous as being able to measure the mass of something with either kilograms or pounds). Since the accuracy part of the score only has information about the judgment counts (and not the exact timing of each hit), this is not possible in the edge case where the player gets 100% accuracy or close to it (but it can be accounted for correctly, by making rainbows different to 300s in the accuracy part, and considering the amount of notes to penalize based on the probability the accuracy obtained was far from the expected accuracy of a play; or even better, make the timing windows of rainbows constant regardless of OD and Mods).

Edit: Another possible idea:

Add a new judgment beyond Rainbows (300g), with a tight fixed timing window (for example, +/-10ms), which is required to hit for every note to get 100% of the possible score.
Advantages of the judgment:

1. Scores that were close to the maximum score possible in the previous system would be farther away from it. Since they are farther away, the difference between the median accuracy and the mean accuracy of a player that repeats the map becomes smaller, making it not as necessary to compensate for map length to make a system that balances between different timing window mods fairly. This is specially important for easy charts, where scores of 1 million or very close to it are common.
2. Even if there are scores that end up being close to 100% anyways, having the timing windows of the tightest timing window the same regardless of mods makes the differences between mods smaller for the high accuracy range (virtually the same for 100% and close to it), so there wouldn't be need to compensate for map length even in that case.

‎

I've done some testing on group stage maps from last year's MWC, me Feerum and Xylo played on diffrent mods, first I played FL, Feru HR and xylo nomod and then me and Feru nomod and Xylo HR. I've played FL for about a week on and off, so my acc is still meh on it, but I've noticed some things:

1) Sometimes on HR and even on FL you randomly get a fail on the end of the map, but most of the time it doesn't show it in mp link while it does in your game. For example Xylo and Feru had that on their respective HR plays of Good-Bye Tears, I had that on my FL play of Analyze. Feru's fail on Analyze was also the same thing (he had HP on the end and it just dropped to zero for no reason) and it did show up on mp link.
2) The mods have too high multiplier for sure.

First example is Vision (we had a wrong mode setup, but w/e, that just doesn't show all the stats).
Me vs Xylo - I had 95,82%, 9 misses, 371 max combo and similar ratio while he had 99,00%, 1 miss, 978 combo and I somehow still managed to win by 22k points despite having score objectively a shitton worse.
The scores are 951,783 vs 929,027, my score without a multiplier would be about 856k and really, score that bad should lose despite having FL on.



Second example is Good-bye Tears
Me and Xylo had similar accuracy (I had 0,3% less), 3 misses and I had a slightly higher combo, while Feerum on HR had half of our max combos, negative ratio, 9 misses and almost 2% worse accuracy and he still managed to win with Xylo by 70k points and only lost to me by 18k. The diffrence between our scores wasn't that big, and while I should've still won since I had a similar score on FL, Feru shouldn't have won by this much. Even counting in the diffuclty of scoring with HR, it's giving too much of an edge, it should be a lot closer.
The scores were 1,003,659 (FL) vs 985,018 (HR) vs 915,042 (NM) and without multipliers it would be 912,4k (FL) vs 820,8k (HR) vs 915k (NM). The fact that you need to score about 830k to beat any nomod score is not fair imho.



I'd suggest making the mods, especially HR riskier to pick by lowering the multipliers to 1,06x for FL and 1,1 for HR. That way if you want to edge out nomod plays you need to score around 940k with FL alone, around 909k with HR alone and about 857k with FL+HR which in my opionin is a reasonable threshhold.
Here's the mp link for said testing match: https://osu.ppy.sh/mp/26344409

Just to clarify things...

With hard rock enabled, any diff with OD8 and HP8 will be adjusted to OD10 and HP10, which is easily done, despite with a huge accuracy drop from players. The HR gives score boost that isn't quiet necessary. Reduce the score multiplier to 1.05 would be just fine.

I also consider to rank the random mod if enabled with HR, as it will be much more harder than before, if RD and HR combined, it will be 1.10 with completely random notes on each tick.

hey guys i know it's a weird request but can someone make sure that this never becomes anything more than a tournament score?

O2MasterFX wrote:

Just to clarify things...

With hard rock enabled, any diff with OD8 and HP8 will be adjusted to OD10 and HP10, which is easily done, despite with a huge accuracy drop from players. The HR gives score boost that isn't quiet necessary. Reduce the score multiplier to 1.05 would be just fine.

That is only half of the story, HR also makes timing windows tighter than OD10's by a decent about:

This is OD 10 nomod


This is OD 10 with HR

-Kamikaze- wrote:

... HR also makes timing windows tighter than OD10's by a decent about: ...

EZ/HR multiplies/divides the timing windows by exactly 1.4. The UI has a weird method of rounding everything to 0.5ms, but even when assuming the numbers shown by the UI are correct you're left with an insignificant margin of error.

just my random input, consider that hp7 hr is hp 9.8 which is easy enough to die on during tournament finals and stuff, for the high risk i would at least go higher then 1.1 or make it scale somewhat with difficulty but idk how you would do that

w

Last try at this.

Currently accuracy does make a good metric of how hard the map is. I can tell you straight up what the star rating of a map would be according to my accuracy. I feel the score should reflect that. However, there is a point, around between 986k and 1M scores, where it is more of a matter of consistency. Playing a score for 990K+ often feels like playing standard. A lot of retries and a lot of hope for more MAX. If anything, I think that's where you should focus combo based scoring at (if you are persistent about it).

Instead of the combo portion being dependent on misses, have it be dependent on not have a MAX and adjust so it is worth around 100k out of 1M or whatever most would agree on. That way players who are trying to get a better play have to worry about their overall performance by acc'ing the map like now, and players who are going for the SS and beyond would have to worry more about consistency.

Just don't have the element of luck forced on players unless they are really going for a perfect play. And I do say luck because consistency involves taking the probability that you may fuck up somewhere along the line.