score v2 what 
show more
Also reposting this I guess, because the overemphasis on 200s is still a major problem and this would fix the problem:
Also, The V2 scoring for osu!mania is available in the Stable version right now.
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
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.
For measuring the ability of being able to hit hard notes without missing, miss count is a better statistic than a score based on combo.
If you want to isolate speed/dexterity skill from overall accuracy skill, ideally, you should be able to calculate 2 different scores for each aspect of skill, and have two different leaderboards and rankings for the same plays.
It sounds confusing because it's sort off tackling the same problem in the exact opposite way. You're not actually rewarding players for keeping high combos, you're just upping the punishment of misses. Fewer misses generally equal higher combo, with edge cases like FC'ing a song and then missing the last 5 notes being an exception to that rule. Unsurprisingly, these edge cases also produce funny scores in ScoreV1/V2, but not in MIGS scoring for example.
The main ways you can get a massive amount of misses and only misses is if you're very negligent in an easy section (misreads), minor misreads in hard sections (which are generally penalised less anyway) or if you're hitting extremely conservatively in hard sections. Being negligent in an easy section is usually minor (1-2 misses), it's very very rare to actually early miss a massive chord in the first place anyway. And even then, that's an extreme edge case - and an extremely rare scenario that is rarely replicated in normal gameplay and can be discarded as an anomaly in gameplay.
Combo multiplier has the issue of not being able to discriminate between 5 misses spread out in easy sections and 5 misses in a hard section, definitely, but so do misses. Having a combo multiplier is just increasing the magnitude of that source of error. This is ultimately why people don't think combo multiplier is a good idea - it's an unnecessary metric that adds nothing if the game itself does not promote the idea of "perfection". osu!mania does not promote perfection. Otherwise, the PP system would favour more towards 1mil scores rather than 700-850K scores, SR would look at only the hardest part of the chart (it technically does this already if the hard section is long enough, but it doesn't address super short spikes completely well), and non-300 judgements would be far far more punishing.
The point here is that in order to advance is not that we really need much more stuff to talk about. We saw results in the MWC4K and what we can do is just post solutions to the problem (even tho this has been done already before and we all know what happened). Hopefully those points will be used for this 7K World Cup.
It's probably only because he can't reach a high combo on that map (as you said it's "just" an A) so the shadow didn't go very low
I'm gonna ask him that personally to clear this up. Any other potential FI players you know of? I am always searching
But even if there are a few players who can play better with FI and they just don't want to, the amount is still way smaller than FL players so the point persists.
I have no feeling for score or hp values because i have too few experience with v2 so i can't give an opinion on that.
Kamikaze is a nice guy. Although our opinions almost ALWAYS differ, its nice to have him in debates like these because he brings the discussion forwards alot by always staying on topic and serving good arguments for everything. A rare ability I really appreciate.
The only reason it doesn't feel right is because you are used to the current system. Having a judgement below the highest one negatively impact accuracy makes way more sense if you get out of the old frame of mind.
edit: confusing terminology
I don't think thats the issue here. Im completely fine with all scores dropping little and S ranks becoming harder when scoreV2 goes live because i know that relatively it stays the same (I just need to get used to the new standards) but making a whole rank a once-in-a-lifetime experience is like turning it into an achievement. Imagine how the user profiles would look like, most people would have 0 SS ranks. Further more: mania is the mode with the easiest S ranks in osu!. With scoreV2 as it is it would get the hardest SS ranks which is quite a contrast.
show more
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.
- 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
SPOILER
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.
Similar note, wanted to respond to this:
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).
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.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'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.
Similar note, wanted to respond to this:
A 66.67% score nets you about 306K (181K for accuracy, 125K for combo). Adding FL increases it to 324K, you might've miscalculated. In any case, I do agree with the fact that bad judgements (non-200/300 judgements) should be penalised more, but I don't think it's necessarily what they have in mind at the moment, since the values are carved in stone. MAX judgements are not.Drojoke wrote:
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.
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).
HardRock
SPOILER
Accumulating rainbows on HR on most charts is really strict already, but since the rainbow window is stricter in scorev2 in ODs beyond 8, it gets even stricter and probably way too difficult. On anything above OD7.5, the HR will be boosted to 10 - which means that it has a rainbow window of +-13ms. Add on the general effects of HR (which makes windows 40% tighter), it gets knocked down to 9ms, truncated. Considering that any hits within +-5ms is caused by computer performance variance, having only 4ms of "controlled" timing is very very low - especially since the difference between an 6ms controlled window (HRv1 window) and a 4ms controlled window is huge. While it is true that certain modes have windows this tight on HR (and maybe DT), 85% of charts used in MWC are OD8, whereas it's much less common in other game modes to have something this tight (in Standard it's some absurd DTHR with a decent OD, and in Taiko it's some absurdly high OD with DTHR, and I'd argue that timing on both games are easier than Mania).
There's also the fact that with the rainbow weightage aspect included, wins on FreeMod are very variance-based rather than performance-based.
My main suggestion is to keep the 40% tighter window (except for early miss judgements) on HR, but not increase OD with HR. 11ms (OD8-OD9 is standard), while I still think is noticeably harsh, is the norm and the 40% seems to fit the other judgement windows quite well anyway. In fact, v1 already does this, this is a OD5 chart on HR. While it appears as if it looks like OD7+HR, is actually aligned with OD5 with 40% tighter windows. Ignore the additional 0.5ms, as it's some byproduct of woc's janky coding.
But that's one thing. The other thing I noticed is that the difference between rainbow difficulty between scorev2 NoMod and scorev2 HR on on Cutting Edge is insignificant. I've experimented this with juan, and his performance on NoMod and HR is similar, variance included. Pictures included:
A 25x300 difference for something that should be a 6ms gap (15ms - 9ms) is absurd, and is most definitely not caused by variance in performance.
I told juan to play on the Stable build as well, and then he noticed a massive difference in accuracy with scorev2 HR. He can usually get a 6:1 to 7:1 ratio on scorev2 HR in CE (and is comparable to his nomod scores consistently), but he can barely break 2.5:1 on Stable. He didn't seem to mention any performance issues either. Here are pics of his scores on the Stable build:
Note that these two charts are also comparable in difficulty as well, both would've been in Group Stages last year (and Sakura Mirage was in last year).
I know you mentioned a HR rainbow fix earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure if it did what it was supposed to do. Seems like it created issues rather than fixed a problem. underjoy's ratio on HR before the fix made sense to me given the relatively low OD and all, my main concern was with the miss count (which I'll talk about in the next section).
tl;dr: Don't increase OD when HR is switched on but keep the stricter timing windows, Accumulating rainbows on OD10+HR is way too strict because the window where a player can control is really really small and it affects an overwhelming majority of charts in MWC. There might be a problem in Cutting Edge where HR currently is as easy as NoMod.
There's also the fact that with the rainbow weightage aspect included, wins on FreeMod are very variance-based rather than performance-based.
My main suggestion is to keep the 40% tighter window (except for early miss judgements) on HR, but not increase OD with HR. 11ms (OD8-OD9 is standard), while I still think is noticeably harsh, is the norm and the 40% seems to fit the other judgement windows quite well anyway. In fact, v1 already does this, this is a OD5 chart on HR. While it appears as if it looks like OD7+HR, is actually aligned with OD5 with 40% tighter windows. Ignore the additional 0.5ms, as it's some byproduct of woc's janky coding.
But that's one thing. The other thing I noticed is that the difference between rainbow difficulty between scorev2 NoMod and scorev2 HR on on Cutting Edge is insignificant. I've experimented this with juan, and his performance on NoMod and HR is similar, variance included. Pictures included:
A 25x300 difference for something that should be a 6ms gap (15ms - 9ms) is absurd, and is most definitely not caused by variance in performance.
I told juan to play on the Stable build as well, and then he noticed a massive difference in accuracy with scorev2 HR. He can usually get a 6:1 to 7:1 ratio on scorev2 HR in CE (and is comparable to his nomod scores consistently), but he can barely break 2.5:1 on Stable. He didn't seem to mention any performance issues either. Here are pics of his scores on the Stable build:
Note that these two charts are also comparable in difficulty as well, both would've been in Group Stages last year (and Sakura Mirage was in last year).
I know you mentioned a HR rainbow fix earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure if it did what it was supposed to do. Seems like it created issues rather than fixed a problem. underjoy's ratio on HR before the fix made sense to me given the relatively low OD and all, my main concern was with the miss count (which I'll talk about in the next section).
tl;dr: Don't increase OD when HR is switched on but keep the stricter timing windows, Accumulating rainbows on OD10+HR is way too strict because the window where a player can control is really really small and it affects an overwhelming majority of charts in MWC. There might be a problem in Cutting Edge where HR currently is as easy as NoMod.
LNs
SPOILER
LNs in v1 seem to be bugged - making them much easier than they should be. While I understand how the LN mechanics work, it doesn't seem to work that way for LNs that you don't let go but you hit the LN head perfectly. For some reason, no matter when you let go of the note, as long as you hit the head perfectly, you will get a 200. If you hit the head a bit earlier or later, you get a 100 instead. Here is video demonstration of this. This is probably (partially) why LNs in v1 are so easy compared to ones in v2 - particularly ones with very tricky releases. Players subconsciously don't let go of LNs properly and they don't get punished for it. In v2, the punishment becomes noticeable. In v2, players get a miss if they don't let go.
Getting rid of this bug is definitely a good start, but since scorev2 is implemented at such short notice (85% of participants probably haven't used scorev2 yet, though you can argue that it's their own fault) and MWC is used as testing grounds, you'd want to make LN releases more lenient than they currently are at the moment for easier transitioning - as players are getting a lot of misses already, even on NoMod. I think a LN leniency of 1.8x would be fine, but this is a bit of an arbitrary figure. I don't really know the effects of this because I don't play LN charts that much, and you're better off asking players like juankristal or _underjoy instead.
tl;dr: Increase LN leniency to 1.8x for easier transitioning, as LNs in v1 contain a bug that makes LN releases much much easier than they should've been in the first place.
Getting rid of this bug is definitely a good start, but since scorev2 is implemented at such short notice (85% of participants probably haven't used scorev2 yet, though you can argue that it's their own fault) and MWC is used as testing grounds, you'd want to make LN releases more lenient than they currently are at the moment for easier transitioning - as players are getting a lot of misses already, even on NoMod. I think a LN leniency of 1.8x would be fine, but this is a bit of an arbitrary figure. I don't really know the effects of this because I don't play LN charts that much, and you're better off asking players like juankristal or _underjoy instead.
tl;dr: Increase LN leniency to 1.8x for easier transitioning, as LNs in v1 contain a bug that makes LN releases much much easier than they should've been in the first place.
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.
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.
Topic Starter
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.
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
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
Topic Starter
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.
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
Topic Starter
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.
Edit: It's been propagated back to Beta now.
Thank you. The main issue was that it was only available for supporterssmoogipooo 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.
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
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
Topic Starter
@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?
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 thosmoogipooo 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?
Topic Starter
Nah he specifically stated beta.
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.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?
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.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?
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
Also reposting this I guess, because the overemphasis on 200s is still a major problem and this would fix the problem:
Shoegazer wrote:
Rainbow AccuracySPOILERI 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.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'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).
Topic Starter
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.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 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)
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)
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.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.
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.
Topic Starter
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.
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?
V2 scoring is only available as an option in multiplayer.numbermaniac wrote:
How do the map scoreboards work if most people are playing with ScoreV1 but those with Cutting Edge have V2?
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 
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? 
Combo, lim got more 300/200 on <400combo because of score multiplierlim38 wrote:
Only 2pts separation gap for only the difference between 2 300 xD
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.
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.
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.Tidek wrote:
Combo, lim got more 300/200 on <400combo because of score multiplierlim38 wrote:
Only 2pts separation gap for only the difference between 2 300 xD
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.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.
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.
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.
As a mod, yes pleaseSquishykorean wrote:
...
What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?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.
He means to have options on which scoring method to use. The combo mod in this sense would use the combo based scoring.Full Tablet wrote:
What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?
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.abraker wrote:
He means to have options on which scoring method to use. The combo mod in this sense would use the combo based scoring.Full Tablet wrote:
What do you mean by combo mod? What would it do?
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.
"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.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).
The thing is, combo is not a good way to measure the aspect of skill you mention either.Squishykorean wrote:
"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.
For measuring the ability of being able to hit hard notes without missing, miss count is a better statistic than a score based on combo.
If you want to isolate speed/dexterity skill from overall accuracy skill, ideally, you should be able to calculate 2 different scores for each aspect of skill, and have two different leaderboards and rankings for the same plays.
So yeah, accuracy is the main value in both score v1 and v2. Combo is important as your score drops if you miss, whats the point of having a "combo mod" then? I dont really get it.
If you are good at doing combos but your acc is really bad why should you win against a good accuracy with some missees? Into a level where everyone misses then yeah, sure, but adding the combo mod wont change stuff imo.
If you are good at doing combos but your acc is really bad why should you win against a good accuracy with some missees? Into a level where everyone misses then yeah, sure, but adding the combo mod wont change stuff imo.
What you (and I) want is better achieved by increasing the significance of a single miss. Accuracy players will be harshly (but fairly) punished for missing, and speed/dexterity players still stand a chance with their lower accuracy and higher combos. If ScoreV2 were to drop the combo component and go this route, we would have a scoring system that...:Squishykorean wrote:
"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.Full Tablet wrote:
...
- still rewards players for keeping their combo.
- treats x consequent misses the same as x isolated misses (ScoreV2 punishes isolated misses more severely)
- cannot produce broken scores where similar performances have unexplainable differences, because relatively more 200s were attained at <400 combo.
- can be significantly simpler to understand and implement.
Kempie wrote:
If ScoreV2 were to drop the combo component and go this route, we would have a scoring system that...:
- rewards players for keeping their combo.
When all you do is remove the combo component, misses aren't sufficiently punished for, i.e. keeping combo (not missing) isn't as big of a deal as it should be. By making misses more punishing, you are "rewarding" (more like not punishing) players that do not miss, and thus keep their combo.Ayaya wrote:
Kempie wrote:
If ScoreV2 were to drop the combo component and go this route, we would have a scoring system that...:
- rewards players for keeping their combo.
It sounds confusing because it's sort off tackling the same problem in the exact opposite way. You're not actually rewarding players for keeping high combos, you're just upping the punishment of misses. Fewer misses generally equal higher combo, with edge cases like FC'ing a song and then missing the last 5 notes being an exception to that rule. Unsurprisingly, these edge cases also produce funny scores in ScoreV1/V2, but not in MIGS scoring for example.
I knew what you meant but you just worded that part weird, also I just wanted to use that jpeg 
Yes I would agree punishing misses more harshly would solve much of the problem. The only thing that might make this slightly unattractive is the fact someone might mess up and cause a chain of misses even though they are hitting the notes correctly. The current combo multiplier doesn't punish as hard when this happens because as long as you recover and don't miss later, you are still given a chance at getting a decent score despite a tiny screw up that the game mechanics happened to snowball on.
Would you reward a player that missed 5 notes spread out throughout the map equally to a player who hit a chord wrong and missed 5 consecutive notes together?
This is purely opinion based but what this seems to be turning into is another stepmania scoring system and with lots of players here coming from that game, it would only be natural to lean towards their scoring system.
Would you reward a player that missed 5 notes spread out throughout the map equally to a player who hit a chord wrong and missed 5 consecutive notes together?
This is purely opinion based but what this seems to be turning into is another stepmania scoring system and with lots of players here coming from that game, it would only be natural to lean towards their scoring system.
So you should cater to the people migrating rather than having them adapt or leave like they should?Squishykorean wrote:
This is purely opinion based but what this seems to be turning into is another stepmania scoring system and with lots of players here coming from that game, it would only be natural to lean towards their scoring system.
Getting a chain of misses in isolation is an extremely rare scenario. In hard sections particularly, it is complemented with 100s and 50s, which is the major proportion of the penalty of a general CB rush/bad judgement rush. It's not misses that are particularly penalising despite the slightly higher penalty per judgement, since they happen less frequently than 50s/100s. A CB rush will almost always punish a player far more than misses in isolation, not necessarily because of the combo multiplier, but because of the accuracy component.Squishykorean wrote:
Yes I would agree punishing misses more harshly would solve much of the problem. The only thing that might make this slightly unattractive is the fact someone might mess up and cause a chain of misses even though they are hitting the notes correctly. The current combo multiplier doesn't punish as hard when this happens because as long as you recover and don't miss later, you are still given a chance at getting a decent score despite a tiny screw up that the game mechanics happened to snowball on.
Would you reward a player that missed 5 notes spread out throughout the map equally to a player who hit a chord wrong and missed 5 consecutive notes together?
This is purely opinion based but what this seems to be turning into is another stepmania scoring system and with lots of players here coming from that game, it would only be natural to lean towards their scoring system.
The main ways you can get a massive amount of misses and only misses is if you're very negligent in an easy section (misreads), minor misreads in hard sections (which are generally penalised less anyway) or if you're hitting extremely conservatively in hard sections. Being negligent in an easy section is usually minor (1-2 misses), it's very very rare to actually early miss a massive chord in the first place anyway. And even then, that's an extreme edge case - and an extremely rare scenario that is rarely replicated in normal gameplay and can be discarded as an anomaly in gameplay.
Combo multiplier has the issue of not being able to discriminate between 5 misses spread out in easy sections and 5 misses in a hard section, definitely, but so do misses. Having a combo multiplier is just increasing the magnitude of that source of error. This is ultimately why people don't think combo multiplier is a good idea - it's an unnecessary metric that adds nothing if the game itself does not promote the idea of "perfection". osu!mania does not promote perfection. Otherwise, the PP system would favour more towards 1mil scores rather than 700-850K scores, SR would look at only the hardest part of the chart (it technically does this already if the hard section is long enough, but it doesn't address super short spikes completely well), and non-300 judgements would be far far more punishing.
Since there's not much left to discuss about ScoreV2, I'll just post this interesting MWC match to remind the devs on the severity of MAX's being underrated:
Other scores left out for brevity.
Other scores left out for brevity.
Maybe the 1xgood was too bad for halogen
It's pretty telling that we know how harsh it is given we've also seen what the difference is with individual 300 judgments -- the fact that I got 164 less 300s but only had a single 200 and lost by 350 points when our scores were that high is very telling: 300s are not weighted enough, or judgments beneath that are weighted too heavily (or a combination of the two)...
Yeah, holy crap, that should not happen. If the ratio was closer I could see guil edging that out, but with that much difference in 300's that's pretty insane.
essentially, the mechanic of score in the end should be an indicator of which spread of judgements took more skill to hit
in the example of halogen vs. guilhermeziat, i think pretty much anyone can glance at those judgement spreads and say one is better than the other.
that's not being shown in the actual score however.
in the example of halogen vs. guilhermeziat, i think pretty much anyone can glance at those judgement spreads and say one is better than the other.
that's not being shown in the actual score however.
today's match between Japan and Brazil (and a lot of other matches throughout this tourney featuring dense LN maps) shows how ridiculously difficult the HP penalty is for LN maps. Please take this into consideration and rebalance HP losses and gains on long notes for the future.
ScoreV2 in retrospect (similar to my previous long post, you can just read the bolded parts if you can't be assed):
First things first. While some of these issues were pointed out before MWC started, there also wasn't that much time to actually go about fixing these changes. That doesn't mean I'm going to repost these issues here however. Also, I am mostly going to be reposting issues discovered, along with a few other of my own comments, so this will largely be a post combining info.
One of the major issues found, especially pertaining to high level play, comes from the fact that the accuracy component did not differentiate between 300g's and 300's. This resulted in the weights of the non-perfect judgements counting for far more than they should have, as the only advantage a 300g had was in the combo portion of the score, which was typically extremely small. In a previous post, Shoegazer suggested how we could let 300g's be weighted as a 305 in the accuracy portion of the score. (Smaller than scorev1 due to the exponential vs. linear nature of this portion of the score). A naive implementation of this, however, would make SS's pretty much non-existent, which I am not sure is good for the overall state of the game (as getting rid of an entire grade seems like a bad idea). When MWC 7k rolls around next year and people start actually caring about this again, it would be a good idea to start by testing out this change, especially as it significantly affects score in the earlier stages of a tournament.
At the time of my previous post, I mentioned how the ending window of LNs should be loosened a bit. As it turns out, there was never any extra leniency for releases in the first place, and for the most part, it now looks pretty fine. Overall, it is still more difficult to get good accuracy on LNs like before, but that is fine.
However, LNs still run into 2 problems. First of all, the HP drain rate (and health mechanics related to LNs) are generally fucked. This is due to a couple of reasons:
To be perfectly honest, this barely mattered at all during the tournament, as for the most part, the player/team with the better accuracy won. Other than the fact that the notes at the beginning of the song are weighted less than notes after the 400th notes, which can most certainly be fixed in the future, there is not really enough enough experimental evidence, especially with scores that aren't this high, in order to see what effect this really has. This probably has to be put off for a more large scale test in the future, especially considering outliers that have good acc/bad combo, and those that have bad acc/good combo.
First things first. While some of these issues were pointed out before MWC started, there also wasn't that much time to actually go about fixing these changes. That doesn't mean I'm going to repost these issues here however. Also, I am mostly going to be reposting issues discovered, along with a few other of my own comments, so this will largely be a post combining info.
300g's and 300's
One of the major issues found, especially pertaining to high level play, comes from the fact that the accuracy component did not differentiate between 300g's and 300's. This resulted in the weights of the non-perfect judgements counting for far more than they should have, as the only advantage a 300g had was in the combo portion of the score, which was typically extremely small. In a previous post, Shoegazer suggested how we could let 300g's be weighted as a 305 in the accuracy portion of the score. (Smaller than scorev1 due to the exponential vs. linear nature of this portion of the score). A naive implementation of this, however, would make SS's pretty much non-existent, which I am not sure is good for the overall state of the game (as getting rid of an entire grade seems like a bad idea). When MWC 7k rolls around next year and people start actually caring about this again, it would be a good idea to start by testing out this change, especially as it significantly affects score in the earlier stages of a tournament.
LNs
At the time of my previous post, I mentioned how the ending window of LNs should be loosened a bit. As it turns out, there was never any extra leniency for releases in the first place, and for the most part, it now looks pretty fine. Overall, it is still more difficult to get good accuracy on LNs like before, but that is fine.
However, LNs still run into 2 problems. First of all, the HP drain rate (and health mechanics related to LNs) are generally fucked. This is due to a couple of reasons:
- In Scorev1, simply holding an LN wouuld give you a small increase in HP every combo tick. This originally was not present in v2, but this was apparently fixed by smoogi before the tournament. I suspect then, that the main reason for the HP drain being fucked comes from the next point.
- While each normal note can only be "missed" once, you can actually miss a LN up to 3 times. The points where you can miss are namely: the LN start, the LN end, and releasing a held LN (resulting in a HoldBreak or whatever, can't be assed to search it up). In addition, if you don't have the LN start, or break the hold, you automatically reduce the highest judgement for the LN end to 50, hampering HP gain even more. Compare this to Scorev1, where you could only miss twice (one of the contributing reasons to why LN maps are harder to maintain HP in as well).
The Combo Portion
To be perfectly honest, this barely mattered at all during the tournament, as for the most part, the player/team with the better accuracy won. Other than the fact that the notes at the beginning of the song are weighted less than notes after the 400th notes, which can most certainly be fixed in the future, there is not really enough enough experimental evidence, especially with scores that aren't this high, in order to see what effect this really has. This probably has to be put off for a more large scale test in the future, especially considering outliers that have good acc/bad combo, and those that have bad acc/good combo.
Not sure if I understand this correctly, but if I do,
300g has been hit in two ways in scorev2:
1. Not playing a role anymore in multipliers.
The main difference between 300g and 300 other than HitValue was the HitBonus allowing more accurate players to more quickly make up for the score deficit after a mistake. The removal of HitPunishment and HitBonus means there's no difference in the following notes. Your combo multiplier increases the same way whether you get a 200, 300 or 300g. Literally there's a 1/16 raw score difference on a single note between the two judgments, which is in turn affected by:
(as mentioned multiple times)
2. Being confined in the combo portion of scoring.
80% of the score AND the multiplier (the main point!) of the remaining 20% portion have nothing to do with your 300g ratio. This results in a pathetic actual difference between the two judgments, and players with no actual sense of rhythm get scores like this: (forgot mp link, but the others had about 3:1 300g ratio give or take)
hue
Personally I agree with the 300g -> 305 idea, and to preserve the practicality of grades may I dare suggest the ridiculous idea of having TWO accuracy calculated: a displayed accuracy and an actual accuracy. The displayed accuracy does not differentiate between 300g's and 300's while the actual accuracy used in the scoring does. This is kind of like scorev1 though.
300g has been hit in two ways in scorev2:
1. Not playing a role anymore in multipliers.
The main difference between 300g and 300 other than HitValue was the HitBonus allowing more accurate players to more quickly make up for the score deficit after a mistake. The removal of HitPunishment and HitBonus means there's no difference in the following notes. Your combo multiplier increases the same way whether you get a 200, 300 or 300g. Literally there's a 1/16 raw score difference on a single note between the two judgments, which is in turn affected by:
(as mentioned multiple times)
2. Being confined in the combo portion of scoring.
80% of the score AND the multiplier (the main point!) of the remaining 20% portion have nothing to do with your 300g ratio. This results in a pathetic actual difference between the two judgments, and players with no actual sense of rhythm get scores like this: (forgot mp link, but the others had about 3:1 300g ratio give or take)
hue
Personally I agree with the 300g -> 305 idea, and to preserve the practicality of grades may I dare suggest the ridiculous idea of having TWO accuracy calculated: a displayed accuracy and an actual accuracy. The displayed accuracy does not differentiate between 300g's and 300's while the actual accuracy used in the scoring does. This is kind of like scorev1 though.
Where can I see the current characteristics of scoreV2 ? The OP is outdated and I honestly don't want to read through the 25 pages of this post
Also why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
Also why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
I think you are like 3 months late. Pretty sure you can use the search function here.LastExceed wrote:
Where can I see the current characteristics of scoreV2 ? The OP is outdated and I honestly don't want to read through the 25 pages of this post
Also why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
why 3 months late? also what am I supposed to search for?juankristal wrote:
I think you are like 3 months late. Pretty sure you can use the search function here.LastExceed wrote:
Where can I see the current characteristics of scoreV2 ? The OP is outdated and I honestly don't want to read through the 25 pages of this post
Also why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
juankristal wrote:
I think you are like 3 months late. Pretty sure you can use the search function here.LastExceed wrote:
Where can I see the current characteristics of scoreV2 ? The OP is outdated and I honestly don't want to read through the 25 pages of this post
Also why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
This is actually not late at all, we should be slowly starting to get back into discussions about v2 because 7K MWC is right after OWC which is about to start.
Just seems like no one cares anymore...
Sure thing, it is still a long way to go but same thing we said last time.-Kamikaze- wrote:
This is actually not late at all, we should be slowly starting to get back into discussions about v2 because 7K MWC is right after OWC which is about to start.
The point here is that in order to advance is not that we really need much more stuff to talk about. We saw results in the MWC4K and what we can do is just post solutions to the problem (even tho this has been done already before and we all know what happened). Hopefully those points will be used for this 7K World Cup.
still need an answer to my question though
why does FlashLight give a multiplier but FadeIn doesn't when there are some people who perform better with FL than NoMod but not a single one in the world who performs better with FI than NoMod? (I can tell by the "global rankings with active mods" that I am the only one in the world who uses FI for topscores, and even I only do it because it's a fun challenge, it's actually a handicap to my performance)
you are automatically assuming that noone can do FI just as good or better than nomod, so that's already a dumb point. It's all a matter of prefference, for example Tidek can do even better on FI than on nomod on some maps (he A'd blastix riotz with FI for example tho not pb)
I can hardly believe that it increases his performance and he just doesn't want to use it.-Kamikaze- wrote:
you are automatically assuming that noone can do FI just as good or better than nomod, so that's already a dumb point. It's all a matter of prefference, for example Tidek can do even better on FI than on nomod on some maps (he A'd blastix riotz with FI for example tho not pb)
It's probably only because he can't reach a high combo on that map (as you said it's "just" an A) so the shadow didn't go very low
I'm gonna ask him that personally to clear this up. Any other potential FI players you know of? I am always searching
But even if there are a few players who can play better with FI and they just don't want to, the amount is still way smaller than FL players so the point persists.
that would not be the case fyi if FI worked as it actually should work. at the moment the cover goes way too low, making it reaaaaaaaaally hard to read on default hitposition and that's pretty much the only reason why a lot of people tend to make skinned lanecovers instead. a lot of people in BMS, IIDX and even here use a lanecover that covers the screen in the same way as FI, but without the effect of it "growing" and it does help them a lot. some examples:
yeah I am aware of people using lane covers, I always thought that the difficulty of FI lays in its crazy scaling and I wish that I could get some sort of reward for handicapping myself with it one day, especially now that combo is getting some value in mania...
The growing effect is exactly what makes FI a whole lot harder. Getting good with FI means:-Kamikaze- wrote:
.... a lot of people in BMS, IIDX and even here use a lanecover that covers the screen in the same way as FI, but without the effect of it "growing" and it does help them a lot....
- You have to get used to the ridiculously shallow visibility maxed out FI provides.
- You have to deal with misses fucking up FI's shadow.
I know, and this is kinda what I mean, FI's design is flawed whether it's "growing" too far, from too high starting point or "growing" at all.
I have heard before that with v2 optimizations for next MWC there can be changes in mods, so I would suggest making both hidden and fadein either grow but from much higher point and not as far up/down or just be stable at like 2/3 up/down of the way from your hitposition to the edge of the screen and (this has to be done to make FI even semi viable) fixate cover of FI/HD to hitposition.
This is the main reason why FI is so hard to most, you can deal with the growing in various ways (like even putting a shirt on monitor) but it grows too far down to be able to handle dense patterns since you have to drastically lower your speedmod.
Talking about mods and score multipliers - after watching the last MWC I do think that both HR and FL/FI/HD should actually have the same multiplier and have the multiplier be 1,06x since up until finals (and even at that stage there were maps where this applied) using HR on freemods was nearly always a net positive. It was actually quite hard to get a lower score using HR than you would using nomod, because the score buffer on HR was more than enough to cover for lower acc. HR should be a risky mod for those who are REALLY confident they can do well on a map. That multiplier also made visual mods (FL there, but I'm talking about all for the sake of the future) unviable unless you were doing HR already, due to the lower multiplier. There should be multiple tactical avenues you can take on that and FL vs HR for example should be a good one.
I am aware that there are players that can do better with FL/HD/whatever than nomod, but that kinda eliminates them from nomod bracket, so it's another wrinkle on the player picking strategy for the capains which is nice.
Also there is a biiiig problem as explained before with LN drain being too high (both start and end drain the same amount of hp as normal notes which is a killer, imo it should be about 70% for the start and 30% for the release), MAX:300 ratio being underrated as fuck:
I have heard before that with v2 optimizations for next MWC there can be changes in mods, so I would suggest making both hidden and fadein either grow but from much higher point and not as far up/down or just be stable at like 2/3 up/down of the way from your hitposition to the edge of the screen and (this has to be done to make FI even semi viable) fixate cover of FI/HD to hitposition.
This is the main reason why FI is so hard to most, you can deal with the growing in various ways (like even putting a shirt on monitor) but it grows too far down to be able to handle dense patterns since you have to drastically lower your speedmod.
Talking about mods and score multipliers - after watching the last MWC I do think that both HR and FL/FI/HD should actually have the same multiplier and have the multiplier be 1,06x since up until finals (and even at that stage there were maps where this applied) using HR on freemods was nearly always a net positive. It was actually quite hard to get a lower score using HR than you would using nomod, because the score buffer on HR was more than enough to cover for lower acc. HR should be a risky mod for those who are REALLY confident they can do well on a map. That multiplier also made visual mods (FL there, but I'm talking about all for the sake of the future) unviable unless you were doing HR already, due to the lower multiplier. There should be multiple tactical avenues you can take on that and FL vs HR for example should be a good one.
I am aware that there are players that can do better with FL/HD/whatever than nomod, but that kinda eliminates them from nomod bracket, so it's another wrinkle on the player picking strategy for the capains which is nice.
Also there is a biiiig problem as explained before with LN drain being too high (both start and end drain the same amount of hp as normal notes which is a killer, imo it should be about 70% for the start and 30% for the release), MAX:300 ratio being underrated as fuck:
Ciel's post explains some of the issues as well: link for convenience sake.Kempie wrote:
Since there's not much left to discuss about ScoreV2, I'll just post this interesting MWC match to remind the devs on the severity of MAX's being underrated:
Other scores left out for brevity.
I have heard before that with v2 optimizations for next MWC there can be changes in modsthis would be some good news
I would suggest making both hidden and fadein either grow but from much higher point and not as far up/down or just be stable at like 2/3 up/down of the way from your hitposition to the edge of the screenmaking them smaller would result in even more people using them out of preference, and a fixed shadow would be boring (i find the scaling very fun so we should keep that. Yiu're right, somethng should change, but not like this.
fixate cover of FI/HD to hitpositionyeah this makes sense
you have to drastically lower your speedmod.you're overseeing something important here: yes you do have to slow down, but only as much as people like me (who play with low speed by default) have to speed up in order to play hidden. To me HD is as hard as FI is to you. This is also why i think the maximum scale doesn't necessarily have to be changed that much, if at all.
Talking about mods and score multipliers (...)All i can say here is that HR is too high, because even I (who has a horrible acc) get better scores with it. Balancing HR and visual mods would only be useful for tournaments, and I am not sure if that's really worth it.
I have no feeling for score or hp values because i have too few experience with v2 so i can't give an opinion on that.
Kamikaze is a nice guy. Although our opinions almost ALWAYS differ, its nice to have him in debates like these because he brings the discussion forwards alot by always staying on topic and serving good arguments for everything. A rare ability I really appreciate.
LastExceed wrote:
I would suggest making both hidden and fadein either grow but from much higher point and not as far up/down or just be stable at like 2/3 up/down of the way from your hitposition to the edge of the screenmaking them smaller would result in even more people using them out of preference, and a fixed shadow would be boring (i find the scaling very fun so we should keep that. Yiu're right, somethng should change, but not like this.
Bolded the sentence on purpose - the fact that you find scaling fun does not mean that it should be the way it's done. It's just personal bias. Also the way I see it - the initial cover should be larger for both FI/HD so it's not that much of a mindfuckyou have to drastically lower your speedmod.you're overseeing something important here: yes you do have to slow down, but only as much as people like me (who play with low speed by default) have to speed up in order to play hidden. To me HD is as hard as FI is to you. This is also why i think the maximum scale doesn't necessarily have to be changed that much, if at all.
That is actually not true. I play at a relatively average speedmod (25-26) and I can read hidden fine with that speed (or 1 higher), while for FI on default hitposition I have to use speed 9. Tidek as another example usually plays on speed around 22-23 (iirc) and he also took down his to 11 with lower hitposition while he learned how to do hidden before it was removed from mod pool for the last mwc and I'm pretty sure that he didn't up the scroll speed too much if at all. You also missed the point that you have to drastically decrease it and that the field of vision is too low with default hitposition, and I believe that if the cover area is fixated not to the edge of the screen but to the hitposition the field of vision will already be a decent bit bigger.Talking about mods and score multipliers (...)All i can say here is that HR is too high, because even I (who has a horrible acc) get better scores with it. Balancing HR and visual mods would only be useful for tournaments, and I am not sure if that's really worth it.
I have no feeling for score or hp values because i have too few experience with v2 so i can't give an opinion on that.
Even if it's only for tournament purposes it's still hella worth it, you would like to see a fair tournament with interesting scoring and mod mechanics more than one with broken ones would you?
Kamikaze is a nice guy. Although our opinions almost ALWAYS differ, its nice to have him in debates like these because he brings the discussion forwards alot by always staying on topic and serving good arguments for everything. A rare ability I really appreciate.
oh, thanks haha I appreciate that
The previous formulas I proposed (based on fitting the timings of the play to a normal distribution) become, simpler, more accurate, and faster to calculate if one uses the exact timing of each hit instead of the judgment counts.
How would the scoring system work:
1) Take the exact error of each note that was hit. For LN releases, divide it's error by x1.5 (to account for the fact that it's harder to time releases than hits), the multiplier could be adjusted to other value. Do not consider hits/releases that were hit in their "Miss" timing window.
Take the sum of the squares of those errors (that value will be referred as "s"), and the count of the hits and releases that weren't misses (referred as "k").
2) Count the amount of misses notes and releases (referred as "m").
3) With that information, calculate the Normal Distribution with zero mean that fits the data the best, obtaining the standard error Sigma (details of the calculation below).
4) Use a scaling function that maps that standard error to a score. A good choice for this function is, for Sigma measured in ms:
Erf is the Error Function. In the case Sigma is zero (which is only possible with a perfect play, which should be almost certainly impossible), then the score is 1 million.
For EZ/HT, for balance, it would be best if they don't change the timing window for 50s nor the timing window for Misses. That way, they can't have an effect on score, they become merely cosmetic (changing the distribution of the judgments during the play). DT/HT shouldn't change the timing window of 50s and Misses either (besides scaling to make internal clocks match real time, like it is done currently). To make scores with different ODs in the same map be directly comparable, those timing windows shouldn't change either (this way, OD becomes merely cosmetic as well while playing).
How would the scoring system work:
1) Take the exact error of each note that was hit. For LN releases, divide it's error by x1.5 (to account for the fact that it's harder to time releases than hits), the multiplier could be adjusted to other value. Do not consider hits/releases that were hit in their "Miss" timing window.
Take the sum of the squares of those errors (that value will be referred as "s"), and the count of the hits and releases that weren't misses (referred as "k").
2) Count the amount of misses notes and releases (referred as "m").
3) With that information, calculate the Normal Distribution with zero mean that fits the data the best, obtaining the standard error Sigma (details of the calculation below).
4) Use a scaling function that maps that standard error to a score. A good choice for this function is, for Sigma measured in ms:
Erf is the Error Function. In the case Sigma is zero (which is only possible with a perfect play, which should be almost certainly impossible), then the score is 1 million.
For EZ/HT, for balance, it would be best if they don't change the timing window for 50s nor the timing window for Misses. That way, they can't have an effect on score, they become merely cosmetic (changing the distribution of the judgments during the play). DT/HT shouldn't change the timing window of 50s and Misses either (besides scaling to make internal clocks match real time, like it is done currently). To make scores with different ODs in the same map be directly comparable, those timing windows shouldn't change either (this way, OD becomes merely cosmetic as well while playing).
Calculating the Standard Error "Sigma"
The variables are:
s = Sum of the squares of the timing errors of hits/releases that weren't a Miss. (Releases with errors scaled by a constant)
k = Count of hits/releases that weren't a Miss.
m = Count of Misses.
T = Upper limit of the timing window for a 50, in ms.
Case with no Misses
Sigma is simply
Case with Misses
Sigma is the positive number that solves the equation:
The equation doesn't have a simple closed form solution, but it can be easily solved numerically with Newton's Method (since the function to find a root for is convex and monotonic).
A first approximation of Sigma (that always is smaller than the real solution) is:
With BS = T/Sigma.
Function to find the root for:
It's derivative:
Note: Because of numerical errors while using double floating-point numbers to calculate the functions, for high values of BS, it's more accurate to use a series expansion near Sigma=0, instead of attempting to calculate their values with the exact formulas.
If BS > 7, then:
If BS >20, then:
The, starting with the initial approximation for sigma, iterate with Newton's Method until F[Sigma] is small:
Sigma[n+1] = Sigma[n] - F[Sigma[n]] / F'[Sigma[n]]
Testing this algorithm, it takes about 0.8ms in average to find an accurate value for Sigma (with an absolute error of 10^(-7)).
s = Sum of the squares of the timing errors of hits/releases that weren't a Miss. (Releases with errors scaled by a constant)
k = Count of hits/releases that weren't a Miss.
m = Count of Misses.
T = Upper limit of the timing window for a 50, in ms.
Case with no Misses
Sigma is simply
Case with Misses
Sigma is the positive number that solves the equation:
The equation doesn't have a simple closed form solution, but it can be easily solved numerically with Newton's Method (since the function to find a root for is convex and monotonic).
A first approximation of Sigma (that always is smaller than the real solution) is:
With BS = T/Sigma.
Function to find the root for:
It's derivative:
Note: Because of numerical errors while using double floating-point numbers to calculate the functions, for high values of BS, it's more accurate to use a series expansion near Sigma=0, instead of attempting to calculate their values with the exact formulas.
If BS > 7, then:
If BS >20, then:
The, starting with the initial approximation for sigma, iterate with Newton's Method until F[Sigma] is small:
Sigma[n+1] = Sigma[n] - F[Sigma[n]] / F'[Sigma[n]]
Testing this algorithm, it takes about 0.8ms in average to find an accurate value for Sigma (with an absolute error of 10^(-7)).
That looks pretty impressive, I'll have to read into it later though (currently at work).
As good as it might be, I do think you're wasting your time. Quoting from Smoogipoo's askfm:
So basically; calm down and suck up to scorevcombo
As good as it might be, I do think you're wasting your time. Quoting from Smoogipoo's askfm:
Answered ~4 months ago.Anonymous questioner wrote:
Will you keep trying with different versions of scorev2 for mania? The current iteration is more a compromise between what players want, and what the game developers think it should be, instead of what players really want with the score system.
http://ask.fm/smoogipooo/answers/138940251287smoogi~ wrote:
Yeah. I've just been busy the past week with exams and will continue to be busy in the coming week with the same...
But let me address something. Combo _will_ remain regardless of iteration. It is not going anywhere. So if "what players really want" is for scoring to be an accuracy-only model, forget it.
Likewise, if players want us to copy another game's scoring system, forget it. If players want us to make a massively complex scoring system that takes into account difficult in sections of the maps and/or requires careful analysis of the timing distributions of hits, forget it.
But why, why will combo remain? You HAVE to realize that ScoreV2 is going to be used for MWC, and there are other aspects to consider in such an environment to make gameplay more exciting and to really show off the best-of-the-best. I've explained this before on reddit/the forums.
The scoring system must be easily able to be changed/recomputed and must be easy to use for _all_ other modes with minimal to no modification. Yes, this is "what the developers want", because we want to be able to re-balance the meta easily in the future.
So basically; calm down and suck up to scorevcombo
I'd like to know as well.ReTLoM wrote:
Any news cause 7k MWC isnt far anymore
So, gonna start this train now: adjust LN life weighting so that heads/tails are 0.5x of normal, as a miss of a head almost certainly means you're missing a tail and you shouldn't be penalized twice as harshly for missing a LN than you would a normal tap, haha
this incorrect life weighting caused a *lot* of fails in 4K MWC because LN's were mathematically twice as harsh in penalty.
this incorrect life weighting caused a *lot* of fails in 4K MWC because LN's were mathematically twice as harsh in penalty.
Reposting this as well; considering that rainbow accuracy is a major component in assessing skill, I think embedding higher emphasis in rainbow accuracy will make the scorev2 system more accurate when it comes to assessing skill.Shoegazer wrote:
Rainbow AccuracyI 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.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'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).
I don't think making SS max scores only is a good idea, with how hard it is. the accuracy needed for hitting only 300g is at a completely other level than any other mode. I gueninely hope it's not planned for osu!lazer and is just a tournament thing
Topic Starter
Who cares, this is only for tournament/MWC for now. Ideally come osu!next if this is the best path forward, osu!mania should have an SSS ranking.
That would be amazing actually.smoogipooo wrote:
Who cares, this is only for tournament/MWC for now. Ideally come osu!next if this is the best path forward, osu!mania should have an SSS ranking.
if there's such thing as an SSS or SS+, I can already see the achievement's description "Beyond perfection."smoogipooo wrote:
Who cares, this is only for tournament/MWC for now. Ideally come osu!next if this is the best path forward, osu!mania should have an SSS ranking.
Well, I'm gonna be screwed as soon as this launches.
;-; [*] R.I.P
Wouldn't it be something if they got rid of FL and kept HD and FI (Which should be called sudden) but put FI where FL was such that if you had both enabled it would function as FLRedon wrote:
FI is a stupid idea and needs to be removed completely
FL and HD need to simply not influence score or pp at all because they are purely a question of player preference.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
There, I solved it all for you.
Now that a non-shiny 300 doesn't give 100% acc anymore, does that mean an SS in scoreV2 is as rare as a million in scoreV1 ? that imagination really doesn't feel right...
The big differences are the the fact that FL doesn't scale and that it covers the entire screen while the FI/HD shadow only covers the stage.
no srsly FI can be really fun, there's no reason to remove it.
FI + HD =/= FLTachyon wrote:
Wouldn't it be something if they got rid of FL and kept HD and FI (Which should be called sudden) but put FI where FL was such that if you had both on it would function as FL
The big differences are the the fact that FL doesn't scale and that it covers the entire screen while the FI/HD shadow only covers the stage.
being the FI guy I feel like its my duty to say this: "DUN DELET FAD-EN!1!!11one!"Redon wrote:
FI is a stupid idea and needs to be removed completely
FL and HD need to simply not influence score or pp at all because they are purely a question of player preference.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
There, I solved it all for you.
no srsly FI can be really fun, there's no reason to remove it.
Found a small issue with SV2. When you initially play a file, you are given a different accuracy percent than you get after reloading osu.
Perhaps osu calculates sv2 mod scores with sv1 after a reload of osu.
This was the screenshot I took right after playing a file.
This was a screenshot of the same play, same score, but the accuracy is markedly higher.
Perhaps osu calculates sv2 mod scores with sv1 after a reload of osu.
This was the screenshot I took right after playing a file.
This was a screenshot of the same play, same score, but the accuracy is markedly higher.
LastExceed wrote:
Now that a non-shiny 300 doesn't give 100% acc anymore, does that mean an SS in scoreV2 is as rare as a million in scoreV1 ? that imagination really doesn't feel right...
The only reason it doesn't feel right is because you are used to the current system. Having a judgement below the highest one negatively impact accuracy makes way more sense if you get out of the old frame of mind.
edit: confusing terminology
Cuber wrote:
The only reason it doesn't feel right is because you are used to the current system. Having a judgement below the highest one negatively impact accuracy makes way more sense if you get out of the old frame of mind.
edit: confusing terminology
I don't think thats the issue here. Im completely fine with all scores dropping little and S ranks becoming harder when scoreV2 goes live because i know that relatively it stays the same (I just need to get used to the new standards) but making a whole rank a once-in-a-lifetime experience is like turning it into an achievement. Imagine how the user profiles would look like, most people would have 0 SS ranks. Further more: mania is the mode with the easiest S ranks in osu!. With scoreV2 as it is it would get the hardest SS ranks which is quite a contrast.
It's a good thing that non-shiny 300s do not give 100% accuracy. When they give 100%, the acc% value becomes an imprecise measure of accuracy at high accuracy levels (for example, there is a big difference between a SS with 1:3 300:300g ratio, and a SS with 1:10 300:300g ratio).
A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.
A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.
Thats true. Time to bring the SSS rank hereFull Tablet wrote:
It's a good thing that non-shiny 300s do not give 100% accuracy. When they give 100%, the acc% value becomes an imprecise measure of accuracy at high accuracy levels (for example, there is a big difference between a SS with 1:3 300:300g ratio, and a SS with 1:10 300:300g ratio).
A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.
I don't think you really understood either post very well, what I meant is that if you enabled both mods it should function the way FL does at the moment, and Redon specified thatLastExceed wrote:
FI + HD =/= FL
The big differences are the the fact that FL doesn't scale and that it covers the entire screen while the FI/HD shadow only covers the stage.being the FI guy I feel like its my duty to say this: "DUN DELET FAD-EN!1!!11one!"Redon wrote:
FI is a stupid idea and needs to be removed completely
FL and HD need to simply not influence score or pp at all because they are purely a question of player preference.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
There, I solved it all for you.
no srsly FI can be really fun, there's no reason to remove it.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
oh ok yeah that makes more sense.Tachyon wrote:
I don't think you really understood either post very well, what I meant is that if you enabled both mods it should function the way FL does at the moment, and Redon specified that
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.lane covers can already be skinned, there wouldn't be a need for a mod at all anymore. Also there are some people (like me) who actually like the fact that the shadow scales with combo, it just needs to be fixed so that the shadow size adapts to scrollspeed (or bpm if you play bpm scale)
Wowow guys we're getting off-topic here, how did we get from "improve scorev2" to "SSS" and "remove FI" ?
How about we don't remove FI, why remove features when we already got so few. I'd rather see new mods instead.
And I think we already agreed that the 3 visual mods shouldn't give score rewards, because it wouldn't make any sense to do so.
Further on, if we are clear about them being only preferential, It would make sense to even enable them for Nomod maps in tournaments, even if it sounds a bit weird.
Now to the idea of an SSS, uhmm no.
This is still osu so the ranks should be the same for all modes.
Now there are two ways to go about this.
- either say that an SS isn't 100% anymore, and you can only have a certain percentage of normal 300s or something like that
- or make normal 300s be 100% again, which is like starting out from the old system again.
But yeah otherwise rip accuracy players, only gonna see SS on 1-2* maps then.
How about we don't remove FI, why remove features when we already got so few. I'd rather see new mods instead.
And I think we already agreed that the 3 visual mods shouldn't give score rewards, because it wouldn't make any sense to do so.
Further on, if we are clear about them being only preferential, It would make sense to even enable them for Nomod maps in tournaments, even if it sounds a bit weird.
Now to the idea of an SSS, uhmm no.
This is still osu so the ranks should be the same for all modes.
changing the requirements for an SSseems to be the best solution here.
Now there are two ways to go about this.
- either say that an SS isn't 100% anymore, and you can only have a certain percentage of normal 300s or something like that
- or make normal 300s be 100% again, which is like starting out from the old system again.
But yeah otherwise rip accuracy players, only gonna see SS on 1-2* maps then.
SS requirement should be "only 300 and 300r" just like it is right now