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.

Gameplay: [smoogipooo] Fix osu!mania ScoreV2 LNs not correctly capping to 50 score when the hold starts after the LN start was fully missed.

Why not remove the ability to repress missed LN's? I've always thought it was weird that completely missing a LN gets punished, but missing it and, repressing it waaaaay too late and not releasing until seconds after the LN has ended somehow gives you points and pepe points.

Gameplay: [smoogipooo] Reduce osu!mania ScoreV2 FL multiplier to 1.06x (prev. 1.10x).

I still stand for FL giving 1.0x points, for reasons many people have pointed out already.

I would like to look at the v2 when it comes to harder LN maps with HR. As a pretty decent LN player I tried some things out and I was astonished with the results. On the screenshot below you can see that I had a pretty good acc and nice score. However I FAILED IN THE MIDDLE because LN releases on hr are so incredibly tight that you get a miss on what would have been 200 (or even 300) on v1 nomod. This is so hilarious when you hokd a good acc then the denser sections come and you fail so easily because of high HP on HR. All but 1-2 of the misses were because of stupid release windows. Despite my efforts to release as precisely as I can, I still died. The release windows on HR should be more lenient, especially when it comes to window for miss. I practically have not received other release judgments than MAX, 300, 200 or miss.

My suggestion: either increase the miss window for releases (with making the 100/50 windows wider as well), or change all of the misses to 50s which will prevent failing the map so easily.

btw as we discovered today while we had a friendly Poland vs Argentina match on score v2 the maxes are disgustingly underrated for some reason.
I mean take a look at this:


Poland won despite with 6 less 200s overall while having 220 maxes less, and by over 5k points to top it off which is just ridiculous.
Also if you take a look at Juan's and Hudonom's scores: Hudonom got a score 18 points better than juan despite having 98 less maxes just because he had one less 200. That is really not okay.

There were other cases where scores were ridiculously close for no good reason:



Grubonom vs Juan vs aluu, I know that Grubonom missed right at the end but still

MAX'es really should be weighted much more that they are now.

mp link for this match: https://osu.ppy.sh/mp/26530910

That sounds impossible. Are you sure everyone was actually using Stable (latest) / Beta / CE?

Right now, percentage is the only number that factors into the Accuracy calculation,, so there's no differentiation between 300g/300. Therefore, there is only a very tiny portion of the score actually affected by the difference (mainly the combo).

Actually, when looking at the code, I'm not even sure that is true right now, though that's probably not intended. I'm a dumbass I found it.

Also as a minor side note: Maybe consider starting the combo counter at max combo? (if possible). That way, it doesn't diminish the weighting of the first 400 notes of the map.

Ciel wrote:

Right now, percentage is the only number that factors into the Accuracy calculation,, so there's no differentiation between 300g/300. Therefore, there is only a very tiny portion of the score actually affected by the difference (mainly the combo).

This is correct - 320s are very much underweighted because the only component of the scoring system that takes into account 320 accuracy is the combo component, which only has a 20% prominence. Add on to the fact that the difference between a 300 and 320 is so small and that the absolute difference between juan and Hudo's 320 count isn't that significant, it would make sense that 320s are really underweighted at the moment.

You could mitigate this by including 300gs into accuracy, but from what I've experimented it might create too much emphasis on MAX accuracy with charts that players have issues getting 96%+ on (and as a result would not be an accurate assessment of skill). You can try having a weightage of 310 instead of 320 for accuracy instead, but it's up to you.

But by including the rainbow component into accuracy, I don't really see much purpose in having a combo component in the first place, but I'm not quite sure how to justify it and put it in words.

Alternatively, you can avoid including MAXes in the accuracy component and just increase the importance of MAXes to like 360 to increase the emphasis of it by a noticeable but not overpowering amount in the combo component, but that requires a bit more experimentation.

Also as a minor side note: Maybe consider starting the combo counter at max combo? (if possible). That way, it doesn't diminish the weighting of the first 400 notes of the map.

Also supporting this.

Also, emphasis on underjoy's post. He brings up a pretty good point about LNs, and it wouldn't make sense for him to have so many misses with a distribution like that. Here's a HRv1 and HRv2 comparison as well for another chart. Given the 50/100 windows of v1, it wouldn't make much sense for the miss count in v2 to be that high in the first place, unless there's some bug that scorev1 has with LNs.

Make MAX worth 100% and 300 worth 99%

_underjoy wrote:

I would like to look at the v2 when it comes to harder LN maps with HR. As a pretty decent LN player I tried some things out and I was astonished with the results. On the screenshot below you can see that I had a pretty good acc and nice score. However I FAILED IN THE MIDDLE because LN releases on hr are so incredibly tight that you get a miss on what would have been 200 (or even 300) on v1 nomod. This is so hilarious when you hokd a good acc then the denser sections come and you fail so easily because of high HP on HR. All but 1-2 of the misses were because of stupid release windows. Despite my efforts to release as precisely as I can, I still died. The release windows on HR should be more lenient, especially when it comes to window for miss. I practically have not received other release judgments than MAX, 300, 200 or miss.

My suggestion: either increase the miss window for releases (with making the 100/50 windows wider as well), or change all of the misses to 50s which will prevent failing the map so easily.

HR was being added twice to the hit windows. I've pushed a fix (only on CE for now) that rectifies this and modifies all other timing windows sliiiiiightly so they align with MAXs a bit better by interpolating from OD0-OD5 and OD5-OD10 instead of linear scaling from OD0-10.

Please test again.

I don't know what to say.

Todestrieb wrote:

I don't know what to say.

With the current system not using HR after you reach some level of accuracy is a bad idea (unless the map has some part that would make you fail with HR, even with good overall accuracy). Additionally, the FL multiplier is more significant the closer the play is to a perfect play.

lmao.

There's another issue with the current proposal I don't think has been addressed in this thread. Bad judgements like 50s, 100s (and 200s to some extent) have significantly less impact on score compared to ScoreV1.

In ScoreV1, bonusscore is severely reduced by anything worse than a 300. Bonusscore accounted for 50% of your total score, so getting a ton of bad judgements is going to seriously impact your total score in ScoreV1. ScoreV2 replaces bonus score, which punishes bad judgements, with combo score, which only punishes misses. Mashing is a common complaint in osu!mania already, but this is going to get worse by rewarding players for keeping combo without taking bad judgements into account.

To give a slightly over the top example: scoring a 200 on every note in a song is going to give you an accuracy of 66.67% and a score of about ~335k. The score is really low because you barely get any bonus score. The same play would net you a somewhat respectable 733.3k in the current proposal. Add FL to this, and you get a score of 777.3k. In practice, it's going to be less extreme than this, but it's definitely present.

I don't think this is acceptable at all. Inaccurately mashing your way through hard parts of a song while keeping combo is going to give really good scores. Not just because of the combo score, but also because bad judgements give too much score.

lim38 wrote:

lmao.

Yeah, maxes should be weighted a lot more imo

score v2 what

Have been talking to other people about scorev2 and its issues. The main three issues that people have said are:
- Rainbows are weighted too little.
- HR on v2 is ridiculously difficult to get rainbows on (on Stable at least, on Cutting Edge it seems as easy as accumulating rainbows on nomod - but more on that later).
- LNs generate a lot of misses if they have really tricky releases. They work fine for other types of LNs.

All of those problems can definitely be amended.

Rainbow Accuracy

HardRock

LNs

I think that should be all, feel free to ask any questions if you're uncertain about a couple of things that I've pointed out/suggested.

Gameplay: [smoogipooo] Make osu!mania ScoreV2 early miss window unchanged by HR.

Such a small detail, but very effective in punishing spamming. I'm digging this!

Hello,
I decided to do some testing of LN maps on v2 system. As you know, there was previously an issue that caused LN maps on HardRock to be barely playable due to the excessive amount of misses made on LN releases. However, today I have observed that this problem is also really visible on v2 nomod play. We've tested some maps, here is the mp link and some screenshots from our play that show the problem very well:

https://osu.ppy.sh/mp/26731666
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5743076
http://puu.sh/qlPHd/c3d92da6d5.png

As you can see, there is one thing those screenshots have in common: abnormal amount of misses and negligible amount of 50 and 100 judgments. As a pretty decent LN player I can easily notice when I'm hitting a LN as I should and when I'm releasing it too early/too late. My observations are that for releasing a LN on normal terms you can get only MAX, 300, 200 and miss. Apparently there is a bug that doesn't allow the other judgements to appear and converts them into misses.

This is very visible on the Funny Shuffle map, which has really bizarre LN endings. If the system worked correctly, I'd get a lot of 50s and 100s for uncorrect releases - however, I got only one 50. How? It seems that while I cannot see a way to get a 100 from releasing a long note, there is a possibility (and only possibility it seems) to get a 50, if you release the LN much too early and repress it.

Anemone LN is another difficult LN map with unintuitive long note patterning, and releases don't follow the music. I struggled with the map, not only because it's quite hard, but mostly because the lack of my precision on releasing gave me a high number of misses which caused me to fail really quickly as well as tank the score and be unable to recover. The amounts of 50 and 100 also look very suspicious. In this map I also tried to repress the LNs as said above, and I got 50s. This leads to an interesting conclusion: it's more beneficial to repress a LN, than to hold it too long (to avoid a miss).

About maps like Inside DT, where the numbers look okay: 100 and 50 judgments are caused by wrong note presses, not by releases. I still felt got two seemingly random misses near the start of the map. At the ending fast jacks combined with noodles made me obtain bad judgments.

It's really easy to observe that LN releases are at the moment not working as intended, and while this might not be so blatant in early stages of the MWC, it will surely cause a lot of trouble in higher-end maps.

Thanks to _underjoy and a few others that notified me of this - yes LN release timings weren't accounting for the 1.5x lenience. They have been fixed now. Please test again!

Holding LNs also gradually restores HP again now.

ok this is too funny not to comment on:

was playing a very long song, too hard, so i stopped playing. watched as my score dropped for a while

2 minutes later into the song, and I haven't hit any more notes, and my score is going up now

I've checked to make sure what was causing this, and it is intended. The reasoning is simple - towards the lower end of the accuracy model, there is less of a difference between 30% accuracy and 20% accuracy (as an example), but this is not the only factor that defines the accuracy portion of your score. To keep things looking progressive it also takes into account how much of the map has been completed, so for very short maps this value increases much more drastically than your accuracy decreases at those lower accuracies.

To simplify it, no, the calculations are not incorrect and you aren't getting "more score by missing", it's just your accuracy being recalculated to consider how much of the map has been completed.

The fix that fixed LN misses does not seem to have made its way to the beta build. A fix before the tournament would be much appreciated

The fix will propagate all the way to Stable (latest) by Friday in time for MWC. Please use Cutting Edge until then.

Edit: It's been propagated back to Beta now.

smoogipooo wrote:

The fix will propagate all the way to Stable (latest) by Friday in time for MWC. Please use Cutting Edge until then.

Edit: It's been propagated back to Beta now.

Thank you. The main issue was that it was only available for supporters

Hello, so i noticed a super major issue on scorev2 related to LNS (I'm using beta btw)

Even with this new update about the ''hold gives hp'' this is mere nothing, like i didnt feel nothing.

Its hard to talk about this, but like on score v1, a map with HP 9, if you KEEP missing and hitting your hp will be like dropping a little and recovering FAST.

On scorev2 a map on HP 8.5, if you keep missing and hitting or even missing a little and start combo'ing the DRAIN is pretty big and the recovery is super small.
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756787 - score v2
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756802 - score v1
i even stopped played for like 2secs on v1 and still got my hp to recover in like 1~2secs, on v2 if i rush any ln pattern my hp will be drained so much and the recovery is super small i cant even reach max hp, score v1 replay ~ http://puu.sh/qo0SF/86fb41302b.osr (score v2 replay is lost, my osu! didnt saved idk why)

so please take a look again on LN HP Drain, and LN HP Recovery.
Thanks

i dont consider me a good LN player, but all players who knows me always tell me i'm a good LN player, so well you should at least read my opnion.
here some scores that maybe be a proof about my ln skills
- https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756872
- https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756878
- http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756892
- https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756897
- https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5756900

@FelipeLink: Have you tried making a simple map of few notes and testing? I have and the HP looks almost exactly the same. The difference is that LNs have two judgements now instead of one, so the punishment is doubled for missing a complete LN. It is also slightly harder to achieve perfect scoring on LNs due to both the reduced leniency of LNs and that they have two judgements.

All according to plan in my opinion?

smoogipooo wrote:

@FelipeLink: Have you tried making a simple map of few notes and testing? I have and the HP looks almost exactly the same. The difference is that LNs have two judgements now instead of one, so the punishment is doubled for missing a complete LN. It is also slightly harder to achieve perfect scoring on LNs due to both the reduced leniency of LNs and that they have two judgements.

All according to plan in my opinion?

Pretty sure he might tested that in stable while the change was only in cutting edge implemented. Not sure tho

Nah he specifically stated beta.

smoogipooo wrote:

@FelipeLink: Have you tried making a simple map of few notes and testing? I have and the HP looks almost exactly the same. The difference is that LNs have two judgements now instead of one, so the punishment is doubled for missing a complete LN. It is also slightly harder to achieve perfect scoring on LNs due to both the reduced leniency of LNs and that they have two judgements.

All according to plan in my opinion?

I believe his main concern was the fact that the HP recovery while holding on to LNs in v1 was far more lenient than what it currently is in v2.

Its hard to talk about this, but like on score v1, a map with HP 9, if you KEEP missing and hitting your hp will be like dropping a little and recovering FAST.

On scorev2 a map on HP 8.5, if you keep missing and hitting or even missing a little and start combo'ing the DRAIN is pretty big and the recovery is super small. i even stopped played for like 2secs on v1 and still got my hp to recover in like 1~2secs, on v2 if i rush any ln pattern my hp will be drained so much and the recovery is super small i cant even reach max hp

From what he told me, the HP drain of LNs in v2 was reasonable, he was talking about the HP recovery itself that is too harsh (regenerates too slowly) and causes him to fail much more easily than on v1. Maybe that's intended?


Also reposting this I guess, because the overemphasis on 200s is still a major problem and this would fix the problem:

Shoegazer wrote:

Rainbow Accuracy

SPOILER

Shoegazer wrote:

320s are very much underweighted because the only component of the scoring system that takes into account 320 accuracy is the combo component, which only has a 20% prominence. Add on to the fact that the difference between a 300 and 320 is so small and that the absolute difference between juan and Hudo's 320 count isn't that significant, it would make sense that 320s are really underweighted at the moment.

You could mitigate this by including 300gs into accuracy, but from what I've experimented it might create too much emphasis on MAX accuracy with charts that players have issues getting 96%+ on (and as a result would not be an accurate assessment of skill).

Alternatively, you can avoid including MAXes in the accuracy component and just increase the importance of MAXes to like 360 to increase the emphasis of it by a noticeable but not overpowering amount in the combo component, but that requires a bit more experimentation.

I initially wanted to increase the rainbow judgement weightage without embedding rainbows into accuracy, but no matter how much I changed it, the difference is very minor (~600-1,200 points) and a 200 will almost always be too powerful compared to a rainbow 300. So I scrapped that idea and thought that embedding rainbows into accuracy with a reasonable weightage and maybe making the curve more lenient would be the best idea.

I've been experimenting with weightages and discussing with people about how much a 200 should be worth compared to a 300. I initially thought that 310 would be fine (and a 200 would be worth 11 300s), but when it came to matches like this, if accuracy was the only factor, Argentina would win by 21,000 points. I do think that Argentina should win and it's a step in the right direction, but 21,000 seems extremely overwhelming since it undermines the fact that Poland had overall, noticeably less 200s. I tried it with harder charts too and they seem to favour rainbow accuracy a little too much for my liking - especially since when it comes to harder charts (where players struggle with), good rainbow accuracy is usually caused by variance rather than a higher skill level. 200s and worse judgements should determine performance for that.

I wanted to use 307 afterwards, but it still gave a bit too much emphasis for my liking, about 12,500 points for that Argentina/Poland match. I went down to 305, and the difference is about 6,800. I think that's ultimately the most reasonable assessment, and others I've talked to seem to agree with the prenotion that a 200 is about 21 normal 300s. Ignoring the bad judgements (since those values are pretty much set in stone at this point), this is probably (part of) the ideal solution. This does mean that only full rainbow scores are SSs, but I don't see that as a problem as frames of reference can be shifted.

Getting rid of the difference between a rainbow and a normal 300 in the combo scoring component is probably ideal too, since that should be in the accuracy component, not the combo component. If rainbows are included into accuracy, the combo component does not need a rainbow component.

I also wanted to soften the exponential curve a tiny bit when it comes to including rainbows, mainly because at a certain point extremely good accuracy is more caused by variance rather than a very high skill level - unless the performance is consistently done, which is not measurable with just one match and one attempt. The exponential I had in mind was Accuracy^(2 + 2 * Accuracy), but it's essentially Accuracy^4 - so 1 power down.

tl;dr: Embed rainbows into accuracy with a weightage of 305 instead of 320, change the accuracy curve to Accuracy^(2 + Accuracy * 2), remove the differentiation between rainbows and normal 300s in the combo component (both of them should have a HitValue of 30).

That's the thing - it isn't any more or less lenient, the code is identical. It's just that there are other factors that cause you to lose more HP in ScoreV2. The actual rate of recovery of HP is unchanged. Perhaps if this starts to matter more in the later rounds I can issue a quick update, but I don't think it's good to make last minute changes until that's determined to be a problem by the map selectors.

And likewise I'm pretty sure it's too late now to improve on the weighting of MAXs. That will definitely be looked into for MWC7K, but probably not for MWC4K unless there are very significant results that show a fix is 100% needed. Let's wait until after the first round!

Hmm, actually when we played with underjoy on updated v2 he said that hp recovery was too easy and he was playing on HR so no idea

Am I the only one who thinks it's silly to have a system potentially changed through the tournament (That it'a specifically made for) because of being unfinished?

Unless you redo round1 after a fix if that ever was needed.

I really don't like the idea of waiting for results of the round where the max:300 aspect matters the most by far, but eh, nothing I can do about it at this point.

@smoogi: Fair enough on the HP recovery.

Khelly wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks it's silly to have a system potentially changed through the tournament (That it'a specifically made for) because of being unfinished?

Unless you redo round1 after a fix if that ever was needed.

I do agree that having system changes in midst of a tournament is a bit silly, but I do feel that if it's to ensure a more accurate assesment of ability, I don't think it's a problem in itself. The fact that it is unfinished does justify the change.

I would much rather see the change now, especially since group stages is the round where MAX accuracy matters the most, and cases like this and this (lim vs bumpinho) are going to be very common. I don't think the competitors will mind a change in MAX weightage especially since it'd be similar to scorev1 would look like (which makes for easier transitioning) and from what I've talked to with other players, they certainly wouldn't mind having a change in MAX weightage if it meant for a more accurate assessment of ability. The frame of reference of what defines an SS will be malleable, especially since they know that these context of an SS is now situational.

But that's how I see it really, I w ould much rather have short-term discomfort (for a long-term gain) rather than an implementation afterwards when in the stage that matters, it had a noticeable problem for certain facets of the tournament. Ultimately up to you.

@smoogi:
I made a ''test'' map for trying how LN v1 works vs LN v2 and well i just found that the HP recovery is the same but well the HP drain is kinda a problem, with score v2 LN you can fail twice faster than v1, so well yeah thats the only problem i can find on lnv2, the recovery is not significant because the drain is too big.
And well, on hard LN maps even good skilled players can do rushs and miss like 1~3 lns in a row and on v2 this is like 100% dead and on v1 this isn't a big problem.

Oh and i miss my Hit Lightning, after the new beta update they just disappeared ):
(i talked with some players who use's beta and all of they hit lightning disappeared too)

Shoegazer wrote:

I would much rather see the change now, especially since group stages is the round where MAX accuracy matters the most, and cases like this and this (lim vs bumpinho) are going to be very common. I don't think the competitors will mind a change in MAX weightage especially since it'd be similar to scorev1 would look like (which makes for easier transitioning) and from what I've talked to with other players, they certainly wouldn't mind having a change in MAX weightage if it meant for a more accurate assessment of ability. The frame of reference of what defines an SS will be malleable, especially since they know that these context of an SS is now situational.

I'm going to have to agree with Shoegazer on this. At first when I heard people were talking about how 200s were overemphasis, I thought it wasn't change a lot but when I saw those picture, that is crazy. I'm pretty sure every mania player would want this too be fix because we all know accuracy is key in mania. Just because someone has a rainbow ratio of 11:1 and someone has 4:1, that doesn't mean the person with the 4:1 ratio should win just because he has 1 less 200... (juan vs Hudonom). Need to be fix asap! It's not too late to change this before MWC starts.

What the players above are saying is true. accuracy is CRITICAL in group stages, and this is where the MAX counts really matter. It's much better to slightly give more weight to the MAXs than keep the current system and wait it out.

Matches haven't happened yet. It's not too late to make this change to the score system -- the ratios that players will get on the songs in groups will not change based off of this, but the physical scores and the representation of their abilities well.

It is too late, the changes are untested, which is especially dangerous since the proposal modifies MAX's value, and there are other things to do to get osu! ready for MWC. Sorry but it's not happening just yet, and won't happen until MWC 7K. I discussed with Loctav and we both agreed the impact as a result of not putting this change through would be unnoticed in most cases.

Droves of people participating in MWC are taking note about how ridiculously impactful non-300 judgments are. We saw lim post a score where the presence of an additional 200 caused them to lose against a person who had 90x more 300s, which is absolute insanity -- this issue was actually brought to light by both map selectors: Kamikaze with the screenshot of a mock match between Poland/Argentina that showed juankristal losing to Hudonom by 18 points when he had less than half of the 300 count but a single 200 added on (and just so this doesn't get looked at the wrong way, it was juankristal's 79 to Hudonom's 177 - we're not talking small values here), and Shoegazer with his very usual, eloquent explanations as to why the formula is flawed.

This has been mentioned for the past few pages, I might add. It hasn't gone unnoticed in the slightest.

How do the map scoreboards work if most people are playing with ScoreV1 but those with Cutting Edge have V2?

numbermaniac wrote:

How do the map scoreboards work if most people are playing with ScoreV1 but those with Cutting Edge have V2?

V2 scoring is only available as an option in multiplayer.

Also, The V2 scoring for osu!mania is available in the Stable version right now.

Only 2pts separation gap for only the difference between 2 300 xD

that's

a thing

make sense, 1 point for each note :^)

If It's HR and 2 max = 2 points, Sounds of Summer have 1407 objects, only 1.407/1.100.000 scores is rewarded for the MAXs?

lim38 wrote:

Only 2pts separation gap for only the difference between 2 300 xD

Combo, lim got more 300/200 on <400combo because of score multiplier

Consider the following scores from the group stages:


Cheetose has a 28.6% higher MAX/300 ratio compared to WindyS. Cheetose's score should be a fair bit higher, but somehow WindyS got a higher score??? Also notice how just a couple of 200s and 2 misses create a pretty large gap between juankristal and the entire Korean team. There are many more examples like this in the group stages. Players are barely rewarded for significantly better MAX/300 ratios, while players getting just a couple of 200s/100s/50s are severely punished. This has one very serious implication in the MWC4K: teams are severely punished for having a (relatively) bad player on their team, but not proportionally awarded for having really good players on their time.

Without changing ScoreV2 too much, having MAX's included in the accuracy component would make most sense. Thinking about it, completely ignoring the most important judgement of accuracy in the accuracy component of ScoreV2 is more than a little odd.

Tidek wrote:

lim38 wrote:

Only 2pts separation gap for only the difference between 2 300 xD

Combo, lim got more 300/200 on <400combo because of score multiplier

Can we please get rid of the combo component? These kind of wonky differences are going to be a thing as long as combo is involved in the scoring system.

The second thing is a bit too much to ask for since they've already decided that that's going to be a major feature and that's final.

Khelly wrote:

The second thing is a bit too much to ask for since they've already decided that that's going to be a major feature and that's final.

Is it still too much to ask for when this major feature is inherently flawed? Because this clearly is the case with the combo component, as can be seen in some of the scores posted in this thread. The scoring system's combo aspect can most definitely be improved upon without completely removing it, but it's always going to be susceptible to producing undesirable scores.

I want ScoreV2 to be the BestThingEver™ as much as everyone else here, but I'm pretty sure osu!mania is even better off with the old bonus score compared to ScoreV2's combo component. If the devs have decided to go with it anyway (have they even stated this?), then that's a pity.

/rant

Has anyone talked about combo as being a mod?
Just like how perfect and sudden death are mods, combo is pretty much just the more lenient form of sudden death where you don't die when you combo break. It could give like a score multiplier or something so people have an incentive to use it.
So on a song that is really hard to FC because of some dense minijack or burst that only a few people can get will be much more rewarding for those who can FC and won't be discouraged if their full combo was beaten by some better accuracy player that completely missed that one impossible section.
This would make it more appealing for tourneys as missing a note midway basically ruins your potential from scoring an even remotely decent score while getting a full combo will be very rewarding.

Squishykorean wrote:

...

As a mod, yes please

Squishykorean wrote:

Has anyone talked about combo as being a mod?
Just like how perfect and sudden death are mods, combo is pretty much just the more lenient form of sudden death where you don't die when you combo break. It could give like a score multiplier or something so people have an incentive to use it.
So on a song that is really hard to FC because of some dense minijack or burst that only a few people can get will be much more rewarding for those who can FC and won't be discouraged if their full combo was beaten by some better accuracy player that completely missed that one impossible section.
This would make it more appealing for tourneys as missing a note midway basically ruins your potential from scoring an even remotely decent score while getting a full combo will be very rewarding.

What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?

Full Tablet wrote:

What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?

He means to have options on which scoring method to use. The combo mod in this sense would use the combo based scoring.

abraker wrote:

Full Tablet wrote:

What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?

He means to have options on which scoring method to use. The combo mod in this sense would use the combo based scoring.

In that case, wouldn't it better if both scoring methods were calculated simultaneously for each play, and both values are recorded in the play? In leaderboards, people would have an option to sort by combo scoring or accuracy score.

Accuracy score should be the main value used for the rest of the performance and ranking system (as long there is only one ranking based on the one-dimensional pp value of each player), since the count of the judgments is a more reliable statistic to base inferences about the skill of a player, compared to the length of string of non-misses (mixing both by adding two different formulas together doesn't make it better than a pure accuracy-based formula either, the quality of the formula used for overall score increases the lower the weight of the combo portion of it is).

That said, basing the accuracy score on the current Accuracy Percentage formula is not good either. Accuracy Percentage underweights the importance of Rainbows over regular 300s, and overweights the importance of 200s over 100s/50s/Misses.

Full Tablet wrote:

Accuracy score should be the main value used for the rest of the performance and ranking system (as long there is only one ranking based on the one-dimensional pp value of each player), since the count of the judgments is a more reliable statistic to base inferences about the skill of a player, compared to the length of string of non-misses (mixing both by adding two different formulas together doesn't make it better than a pure accuracy-based formula either, the quality of the formula used for overall score increases the lower the weight of the combo portion of it is).

"Skill" isn't all about accuracy. Although most people agree it should be the largest factor, players have a variety of other skills which some focus more than others and that should deserve some acknowledgement in their score. In this case, it would be for players with the speed/finger dexterity to hit those few extra notes in the hardest part of a map to keep their full combo compared to accuracy players who will skim through that section and perfect everything else on the map.