It's great, but it's taking time.
As a counterpoint to the statement above, this change would be indiscriminately altering the intent of all the people who designed something around a system working a certain way which is super disrespectful to all the people who made maps depending on those mechanics. The intent of the original work should be preserved unless absolutely necessary.shortpotato wrote:
It feels to me (correct me if im wrong?) that the staff feel as if removing score V2 (or aspects of it) is a direct attack against all of the work they have done into making it.
I 100% support this idea. Then people are given choice to decide whether they want it or not. Everyone is happy.chainpullz wrote:
Making slider acc into a difficulty increasing mod
The reason a 82%acc score only gives about 9% of the possible score is not because of the score cap, the same thing happens with scorev1 (a SS in a certain map can give you ~27 million, while a 82%acc score with misses can give you ~3 million, for example). In my opinion, this is not a bad thing. Getting through a map with ~80% accuracy usually means you barely passed it, so the amount of score you get from that pass should be close to the minimum possible; that way, scores are distributed more evenly over the possible range of values (instead of most plays be concentrated on the 90%-to-100% range, which would happen if the percentage of score was close to the acc% of the play)Kyreo wrote:
Hey there.
I was somewhat disappointed by the new scoring system so I started to look for a topic which deals with it. I finally found it – that's why I'm here – so I have to share my point of view.
First, this system is somewhat discouraging to me. If you rock, it's ok. But if you fail...
I saw there's a sort of one million points limit. It is a huge problem since people might be discouraged to play harder maps. That's what I usually do to improve at osu! Recently, I got something like 90k points on a map rated "insane". 90k under 1000k... Though, my accuracy was about 82% or something. The score means I only cleared 9% of the map. Come on, that's unfair. How could you get some motivation to play & improve if the game tells you "yea, you've got 82% acc but you cleared 9% of the map, you fool". Am I supposed to play easy & normal maps until I get one million points on them...?
Second, the loss of points when you fail a circile, slider, of whatever.
It's about the same issue: progress. When you're on this slippery slope, playing again & again in order to improve, you sometimes get inspired by a divine might or something. It helps you to do a 200 streak combo or else, it shows how much you've improved. Then, a tricky pattern comes and you make some fails. Taadaa! You lost so many points, your last good move has been erased because of this loss combined to the fact there's a 1 million limit. Don't you think it's way too hard to climb back after a few fails? If the map is shorter than 2 minutes, you're screwed at the moment you fail a bit. Sure, it's a good thing for tryharding pros. But think about the little players, those who want to progress. It's pretty unwholesome...
Thanks for answering.Full Tablet wrote:
The reason a 82%acc score only gives about 9% of the possible score is not because of the score cap, the same thing happens with scorev1 (a SS in a certain map can give you ~27 million, while a 82%acc score with misses can give you ~3 million, for example). In my opinion, this is not a bad thing. Getting through a map with ~80% accuracy usually means you barely passed it, so the amount of score you get from that pass should be close to the minimum possible; that way, scores are distributed more evenly over the possible range of values (instead of most plays be concentrated on the 90%-to-100% range, which would happen if the percentage of score was close to the acc% of the play)Kyreo wrote:
[Cut for obvious reasons; readability.]
In scorev1, the maximum score a map gives doesn't depend heavily on their difficulty (an Insane map only gives about twice the amount of score for the same amount of notes compared to an Easy map, based on the OD/HP/CS settings), it depends mainly on the amount of objects (the maximum score of a map is approximately proportional to the square of the maximum combo). In the same mapset, harder difficulties tend to give more score mainly because they have more notes, not because they are harder.
When you do poorly in a note (missing, or a bad judgment), the "current" amount of score decreases. In strict rigor, since the accuracy part of the score is not something that is accumulated (acc% is the average of the judgment values of the notes you have played so far), your score does not exist until you finish the map; the number in the corner can be seen just as an indicator of how well you are doing.
The "current" amount of score during play could be modified to be always increasing, by showing the amount of score you would get on the map if you missed every single note you haven't played yet, but that would case some issues (the acc portion of the score would be near 0 for most of the play, then jump quickly to the final value when close to the end of the map; during a multiplayer match or when comparing to previous plays of the same map, the current score value would be a worse predictor of how much score you will get on the map)
I'm not saying we should reward anyone, just that people need to be encouraged to play. The difference between what you call a mediocre and an amazing play will still exist whatever it takes. A very good player will do something like 980 000 to 1 000 000 points, that is to say an average achievement of 98% to 100% of the map while a "mediocre" (you're somewhat condescending just by saying so) with 500 000 points will have an average achievement of 50% of the map. It is totally legit to me. Besides, I'm not for "earning a great score", just something coherent with the true achievement. Having a 90k under 1000k is not representative of what I've done, clearly. It's representative of what I could have done a few days before when I was less experienced.Philosofikal wrote:
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the score system.
The score system is there to rank people as accurately as possible relative to each other. It is being changed because the current system provides very inconsistent information from map to map and rewards combo disproportionately over accuracy, not to mention the score difference between mediocre and amazing plays is marginal at best.
The score system is not there to make you feel good or encourage you (especially when you didn't actually achieve anything). That burden of motivation is on you and you alone. What you are proposing is essentially a watering down of the system so that everyone gets a participation trophy at the expense of compressing the scores into meaninglessness. You want to take away the impact of working hard for and eventually earning a great score so you don't have to feel bad about not being good at the game after eight whole hours of gameplay.
When everyone gets a reward, the reward is meaningless. Earn your rewards.
The scale used for scores is completely arbitrary, changing it doesn't affect the balance of the rankings (For example, you could change it so all values become the logarithm of their previous values, and nothing would change in terms of relative rankings). That said, I consider 9% of the maximum score for a play like that not a bad representation of the worth of the play. If someone managed to get 9% score in some map after about 8 hours of practice, it wouldn't be strange they only managed to achieve a 90% score after over 100 hours of practice.Kyreo wrote:
I'm not saying we should reward anyone, just that people need to be encouraged to play. The difference between what you call a mediocre and an amazing play will still exist whatever it takes. A very good player will do something like 980 000 to 1 000 000 points, that is to say an average achievement of 98% to 100% of the map while a "mediocre" (you're somewhat condescending just by saying so) with 500 000 points will have an average achievement of 50% of the map. It is totally legit to me. Besides, I'm not for "earning a great score", just something coherent with the true achievement. Having a 90k under 1000k is not representative of what I've done, clearly. It's representative of what I could have done a few days before when I was less experienced.
And yea, the scoring system is here to rank people. Still, it is more than possible while being logic at the same time. Scorev2 will not help e sport & competition at all. Why? Imagine a second: there's a 1 million limit. If someone already did the maximum score, then someone else, & again... How are these people ranked? Who will be displayed as the first? With the "limitless" system of scorev1, you could manage to surpass the first of the ladder by adding mods, doing better at accuracy or combos or by spinning faster. The limitless system is the one rewarding the best players who always manage to be in the ladder. With a one million limit, how many maps do you think we will have with numerous rank 1? Scorev1 already ranks the best players on top of the ladder.
Ps: I've a question; what about the leveling system? Since you progress thanks to the scores you make, will it be changed aswell?
Kyreo wrote:
I'm not saying we should reward anyone, just that people need to be encouraged to play. The difference between what you call a mediocre and an amazing play will still exist whatever it takes. A very good player will do something like 980 000 to 1 000 000 points, that is to say an average achievement of 98% to 100% of the map while a "mediocre" (you're somewhat condescending just by saying so) with 500 000 points will have an average achievement of 50% of the map.
That wouldn't actually change things much.Rayne wrote:
If you want to put on emphasis on accuracy which is undervalued in the present score system, you could just make the 300s be worth like 1k-1,5k points and make 100 / 50s still be the same. That way you can still surpass someone with a way higher combo than you by being way more accurate, while players that can hold both accuracy and combo will be rewarded with the maximum amount of points.
smoogipooo wrote:
Hey all,
We're just over two months away from OWC and I want to know what the community likes/dislikes about the current ScoreV2 system so we can get it perfected before OWC comes a-knocking.THIS IS NOT FINAL
Please, do not discuss Star Rating and PP here.
Here are a few facts/talking points about the current osu! ScoreV2 system:Basically, I'm willing to experiment trying different stuff so throw out any ideas you have. I'll be checking this thread periodically but don't expect me to reply to every comment, and please _please_ don't spam me with PMs telling me to read a comment in here ;___;.
- 70% of score comes from combo, the remaining 30% comes from accuracy.
- Spinners award 500 points per tick.
- The mod multipliers are as follows: HR - 1.10x, DT - 1.20x, FL - 1.12x, HD - 1.06x
it's there already lol. in the win conditionBWSnoob wrote:
Would love the option of score v2 on multiplayer mode, even if it's unranked
Converting scores would be trivial. You just run all of the plays through the same algorithm used to calculate the play normally. There is no need to wipe anything, it's a straightforward, one and done conversion.Eraser wrote:
Score wipe is still unavoidable though, if they want to fix the scoring system, or until they can find a way to convert all of the scores.
IMO this is actually the point. It makes scores easier to compare and understand relative to each other instead of being a bunch of big numbers that are cool to look at but provide very little contextual information.Z4ckFairX wrote:
In my opinion the new score system is just a percentage with way to many 0s after it.
My issue with this isn't that I don't think it is the right idea. My problem is that it's ten years too late to make this decision. This would be like removing the AWP from Counter-Strike. It's not even a question anymore of whether or not it makes the game better, the issue is that the game is no longer what people expect of Counter-Strike, and it changes the meta into something completely unrecognizable from the past. This is a really stupid choice to make when you have a formula that has been established for so long and lots of things have grown around this formula.Z4ckFairX wrote:
About the changes in slider accuracy I think that it's both good and bad. It's ok to demand of a rhythm player to play at the right rhythm at all times but what I actually don't get is what you gain from it. Every time i see a 100 on the screen after a slider i have to think what the hell i did wrong; did I click too early/late or not followed it correctly, also if you have no combo break sound or you just started a combo in the case of a 50 hit makes you wonder if you actually dropped combo or just mistimed it badly.
Then stop calling it score and drop the zeroes. For that purpose it might be even better if it was represented as a decimal number from 0.0 to 1.0 with as many decimal places as you want.Philosofikal wrote:
IMO this is actually the point. It makes scores easier to compare and understand relative to each other instead of being a bunch of big numbers that are cool to look at but provide very little contextual information.Z4ckFairX wrote:
In my opinion the new score system is just a percentage with way to many 0s after it.
Personally, I look at score to avoid uniformity.Eraser wrote:
1m cap grants uniformity, and easier way to identify how well you do in a map. There is no real reason to use the current one really
Philosofikal wrote:
Converting scores would be trivial. You just run all of the plays through the same algorithm used to calculate the play normally. There is no need to wipe anything, it's a straightforward, one and done conversion.
Only top 500 or so plays in the map leaderboard have their replays saved and you can't recalculate the score when you don't know where the misses/50/100/300 happened.Only 500 are available for public.
Still an SSToffee wrote:
does this mean rrtyui's big black score will not be SS anymore? cuz i have a feeling he havent done all the sliders properly x)