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.

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.

numbermaniac wrote:

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

lim38 wrote:

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

Tidek wrote:

lim38 wrote:

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

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

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.

Squishykorean wrote:

...

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.

Full Tablet wrote:

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

abraker wrote:

Full Tablet wrote:

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

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

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).

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.

Squishykorean wrote:

Full Tablet 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.

1. still rewards players for keeping their combo.
2. treats x consequent misses the same as x isolated misses (ScoreV2 punishes isolated misses more severely)
3. cannot produce broken scores where similar performances have unexplainable differences, because relatively more 200s were attained at <400 combo.
4. 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...:

1. rewards players for keeping 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...:

1. rewards players for keeping their combo.

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.

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.

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:

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)

I think you are like 3 months late. Pretty sure you can use the search function here.

juankristal wrote:

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)

I think you are like 3 months late. Pretty sure you can use the search function here.

-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.

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)

-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)

-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....

1. You have to get used to the ridiculously shallow visibility maxed out FI provides.
2. You have to deal with misses fucking up FI's shadow.

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 mods

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

fixate cover of FI/HD to hitposition

you have to drastically lower your speedmod.

Talking about mods and score multipliers (...)

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 screen

making 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 mindfuck

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.
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

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.

smoogi~ 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.

ReTLoM wrote:

Any news cause 7k MWC isnt far anymore

Shoegazer wrote:

Rainbow Accuracy

Shoegazer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Tachyon 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

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.

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...

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

Full 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.

LastExceed 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.

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.

being the FI guy I feel like its my duty to say this: "DUN DELET FAD-EN!1!!11one!"
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.

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.

changing the requirements for an SS

Full Tablet wrote:

A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.

Veracion wrote:

As i already said, it's highly unlikely that there will be an SSS added, since there is no equivalent in the other game modes.

Cuber wrote:

Why are the grades even based on accuracy at all? If score is a measurement of performance in a map, obviously the grading should be based on that and that alone! All grades do in my mind anyways is provide goals that feel more real than reaching an arbitrary number. On this train of thought, PP should also be entirely based on song difficulty and score.

LastExceed wrote:

. And yes, adding combo to the score calculation is indeed a bad idea especially during tournaments where you only have 1 try. It's way too luck based.

Adri wrote:

S < SS < 1 000 000

Adri wrote:

I think that an SS is deserved when you don't get 200s AND that you have a proper ratio between 300 and 300g, like 1:10 or 1:8.

LastExceed wrote:

Grades in mania are based on acc because mania IS all about acc. And yes, adding combo to the score calculation is indeed a bad idea especially during tournaments where you only have 1 try. It's way too luck based.

I really understand the idea of rewarding consistency and i support it, but you simply can't do it map by map. It would only make pp farming frustrating like in standard...

abraker wrote:

Cuber wrote:

Why are the grades even based on accuracy at all? If score is a measurement of performance in a map, obviously the grading should be based on that and that alone! All grades do in my mind anyways is provide goals that feel more real than reaching an arbitrary number. On this train of thought, PP should also be entirely based on song difficulty and score.

Make score = acc. Score is arbitrary anyway, so it can be anything. Since it can be anything, make it accuracy. Problem solved.

Cuber wrote:

Pure accuracy is not a good scoring system, because it does not reward consistency, which is an important part of skill. For example, an otherwise SS play with 2 misses at the same time is more impressive than an otherwise SS play with 2 misses spread out in the map. Obviously, in this example, the difference isn't huge, but still, score should represent performance on a map, and I stand with my position that pure accuracy is not the way to do this.

abraker wrote:

Ofc there is an argument about 65% FC VS 98% with a high miss-hit ratio, but there is no clear cut answer to which is more impressive

Cuber wrote:

While writing this, I came up with a (probably stupid) idea. The reason I'm not a fan of using combo for consistency is because it is possible to mash through hard patterns and keep combo. Also, I don't think that 1 miss should affect score too much. I mentioned that I like the system of using bonus score. Why don't we make the worth of a note (at least in the consistency portion of score) equal (scaled appropiately obviously) to your current health? Obviously, changes to health would need to be done, to punish any judgement less than a 300. However, maybe with a bunch of tuning, this might work. I'm probably just an idiot tho lol

johnmedina999 wrote:

By "making the accuracy curve steeper", do you mean we should lose more accuracy for a miss/50/100/200, or do you mean that we should lose more accuracy for a miss as we miss more (e.g., the second miss is more hurtful than the first)?

abraker wrote:

Veracion wrote:

As i already said, it's highly unlikely that there will be an SSS added, since there is no equivalent in the other game modes.

Unless you know, I dev like me submits a pull request for it and there is a backing to support the idea.

abraker wrote:

If you convert acc to score out of 1M as it is right now, 960,000 and 990,000 (96% and 99%) will be a very small gap and is also where most decent plays fall to. Transforming that same gap to 650,000 and 990,000 would allow to highlight skill more clearly. Yes anyone who gets less than an S gets wrecked, but then again you shouldn't be surprised at such results when you play maps out of your skill range.