forum

Add pp as a scoring system in standard mode

posted
Total Posts
318
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +2,788
show more
Drezi

Riince wrote:

Tess wrote:

If you're going to use that as an argument, Tom might just as well not make adjustments to the pp system at all because people's rankings might change. "Oh no, someone might go back in ranking if I fix this, better leave it broken so we don't have to change."
Player A: "oh Player B you think you're hot stuff because your 99.5% DT put you in first over my 99.1% HD DT? just wait until tom buffs hidden nerd and that spot is mine!" see the inherent issues with that? Player A should have to work for his #1 there not feel like he can wait for the system to conform to where he thinks his play should be, and player B shouldn't have to worry about his score being passed because of such a change.
Yeah, it's so much better to have HDHR scores as 1# when someone actually DT-d the map... and generally just flawed map rankings, due to lower acc scores being able to beat higher acc scores if 100s happened earlier etc.

Logic.
Vuelo Eluko

Drezi wrote:

Yeah, it's so much better to have HDHR scores as 1# when someone actually DT-d the map... and generally just flawed map rankings, due to lower acc scores being able to beat higher acc scores if 100s happened earlier etc.

Logic.
explain how that relates to what i said. i was drawing a comparison between hd dt and dt, didnt mention hd hr anywhere. obviously hd hr is going to take a nosedive when the system is first implemented but im talking about very similar and very closely related in pp scores changing places with eachother afterwards.

Constantly
Drezi
No explaining will help you, if you don't get it by yourself.
Vuelo Eluko

Drezi wrote:

No explaining will help you, if you don't get it by yourself.
no, it's you who didn't understand what you quoted. i wasn't talking about the initial transition.

anyway if it's going to be implemented it's going to be implemented. It's not a terrible thing that ruins scoreboards or anything, I was just pointing out some conceptual flaws with it that we'll probably see happening in the future with it.
Drezi
Ok, I'll try.

You're counterarguing against this change with the fact that similar scores might switch places with changes to the algorythm (Oh no! If Tom makes the algorythm better, a play that is deemed more worthy will take 1#, how terrible).

...

Right now the real 1# plays might not even be in the top50 and plays that are clearly inferior can overtake better plays, so please tell me how this is better than the possibility of rankings changing around a bit FOR THE BETTER, should Tom make a change.

That downside you're arguing with is negilible compared to the downsides of the current system, which makes your point completely irrelevant if we look at the picture as a whole.
Vuelo Eluko
i think that when someone gets #1 on a scoreboard after the change, there should be no question that their #1 is going to suddenly become #2 because of tom, unless it's because tom took #1 on the map himself, of course. there should be some permanence, it shouldn't be written in water, but carved in stone until someone else picks up the hammer and chisel and puts their name in above it..

it's definitely not as big of a downside as the current score system where hd hr gives way too much, but it does fundamentally change the way scoreboards function, they become less historical in a sense. less ceremonious, even. all things should be taken into account when any change is implemented and this is just one i felt wasn't brought up yet.
Drezi
Stop editing your posts constantly, it's annoying that by the time I send my reply, half of the content is different/new.
Vuelo Eluko

Drezi wrote:

Stop editing your posts constantly, it's annoying that by the time I send my reply, half of the content is different/new.
whoops ok
i should just draft properly im not used to having such rapid replies i usually have time to post this way.
Nyxa
As I've said before, the main argument against this idea is "Oh no, stuff might change!". Things change in life, how can you reject improvement purely because you refuse to step out of something lesser? That's like saying "I appreciate your offer to give me that Ferrari but this half-broken Suzuki Swift has driven me around town all my life, so I'm good."

There is no logic in this, how the hell can't you realize that?
Topic Starter
Ohrami
So this alternate scoreboard which doesn't effect the current ones might change periodically to better reflect what is a good play. I don't see the problem here at all. Could you please explain why that's a bad thing?
Nyxa
Apparently not.

I don't want to see this thread die, though. This isn't just a random idea and no yes/no has been given yet, I don't see why it should randomly stop at this point. I'll pull up my summary post again if anyone needs that, but it bothers me that this thread doesn't have much attention paid to it, even though it would be a /huge/ progression in rankings and how they work. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this idea, and I'm sure many others would agree.

So, you know, let's try to get discussion going again, if possible.
Vuelo Eluko
i think this is a good idea and it should be added asap
Sea_Food

Tess wrote:

Apparently not.

I don't want to see this thread die, though. This isn't just a random idea and no yes/no has been given yet, I don't see why it should randomly stop at this point. I'll pull up my summary post again if anyone needs that, but it bothers me that this thread doesn't have much attention paid to it, even though it would be a /huge/ progression in rankings and how they work. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this idea, and I'm sure many others would agree.

So, you know, let's try to get discussion going again, if possible.
Come on 19pages of discussion and your complaining why people dont keep going. I am sure that everyone important knows about this thread so no reason to keep it bumbed just so people would keep talking about the points in your summary post when everything that can be said about this has already been said.

Also i dont know if you ment that there isnt a post by bluename confirming or denying this request but AFAIK its a bad thing to ever give statements like that before the developer is atleast working on implenting the feature yet.
Nyxa

Sea_Food wrote:

everything that can be said about this has already been said
Everything that you wanted to say about this has already been said*


Sea_Food wrote:

Also i dont know if you ment that there isnt a post by bluename confirming or denying this request but AFAIK its a bad thing to ever give statements like that before the developer is atleast working on implenting the feature yet.
Why? He could've at least mentioned whether he thinks it's a good idea or not. I've already seen Tom say a few things, but I feel like the involvement is way too low. Also, we both know that you don't want this feature, so it's only natural that you wouldn't mind the thread dying off.
deadbeat
this thread doesn't HAVE to be on the first page to get attention. we see all. just remember that
Granger
Also its in the ninth place of the pirioty sortings, really no need to bump.
Topic Starter
Ohrami
but really men why isn't this in the game yet
DT-sama
Just dropping this in here.

http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
Topic Starter
Ohrami

DT-sama wrote:

Just dropping this in here.

http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
no! i don't want that
manjumochi

DT-sama wrote:

Just dropping this in here.

http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.
This happening would be quite interesting.
Nyxa
Wow so mods would actually give a bonus fitting to their difficulty?

Praise jesse this is actually happening
Railander
yes this definitely needs a better scoring system.

also, as someone who doesn't have over 1k beatmaps downloaded, i wish the system better took into account people that repeatedly plays the same maps over someone with 10k beapmaps that just clears every one of them one by one with mediocre performance just for the ranking points.
jesse1412

Railander wrote:

yes this definitely needs a better scoring system.

also, as someone who doesn't have over 1k beatmaps downloaded, i wish the system better took into account people that repeatedly plays the same maps over someone with 10k beapmaps that just clears every one of them one by one with mediocre performance just for the ranking points.
Weighting percentages already does this to a degree but not enough imo.
Topic Starter
Ohrami
I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
Railander

Kyou-kun wrote:

I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
one thing i have no idea how could be made properly is weighting difficulty categories against each other.
for instance, when does X speed become harder (worth more) than Y aim/acc?
Drezi
What.. They'd be weighted separately and summed after that. Currently they are summed per map, and weighted afterwards, so a performance that excels in only one category is pushed down by ones where the sum is higher.
Railander

Drezi wrote:

What.. They'd be weighted separately and summed after that. Currently they are summed per map, and weighted afterwards, so a performance that excels in only one category is pushed down by ones where the sum is higher.
sure, but that's not what i'm asking.
they are fundamentally different from one another, like apples and oranges.
at what point do you say "hey this apple tastes better than this orange"?
how do you decide where the line is that says the difficulty in each category can be quantifiably equal?
Drezi
oh, that's a good point, if I had to guess it's based on statistics with some subjective touch to it.
Topic Starter
Ohrami
but oranges do taste better, especially the juice that comes from them
Nyxa

Kyou-kun wrote:

but oranges do taste better, especially the juice that comes from them
I can confirm this

Railander wrote:

Kyou-kun wrote:

I wonder if I would actually get pp for DTing maps which I think are hard if the system actually distinguished between aim/speed/accuracy pp like it should
one thing i have no idea how could be made properly is weighting difficulty categories against each other.
for instance, when does X speed become harder (worth more) than Y aim/acc?
Once we figure that out there's still the major issue with comparing FL to pretty much anything else

When it comes to aim/speed/accuracy though, using your oranges to apples analogy, you just need to find some common ground between the fruits to compare them to each other. For example; The orange may not be tastier than the apple, but its color is most certainly more intense - that's objective, so if you're looking for the fruit with the "warmest" color, the orange wins. If you're looking for the least acidic fruit, the apple wins. We can apply the same to the three basic skills required to play this game. The common ground between aim, accuracy and speed is strain.

So, what you'd like to know is the amount of strain each category gives you within each map. A 150BPM OD10 map with lots of streams but no jumps obviously gives more strain in terms of staying accurate than in terms of aim or speed (it's easy to fc the map, but harder to ss it). If it's high BPM but pretty much only 1/2 and highly spaced at OD7 CS5, then aim is clearly the leading factor. Lastly, high BPM and note density with low spacing and OD makes speed the most straining attribute of that map.

Now, not all maps are this straightforward, but this does give us some guidelines to look for - accuracy is basically OD + amount of hit circles. The higher those two values are, the higher your accuracy pp value should be. Aim is BPM, spacing, and circle size, as well as awkward angles but pp doesn't really take that into account yet. And speed is BPM + note density. So, a map such as Freedom Dive [FOUR DIMENSIONS] will give lots of pp, even if you don't ss it, because there are high values in all three attributes - there's a shitton of notes, it's OD8, there's lots of streams at a high bpm and the streams are spaced, as well as matched by some tricky jumps - in short, the strain this map puts on a player is very high. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% with HR on that map would give over 700pp.

In short, all we need to do to compare skills is by finding some common ground between them. Which is why it's so hard to give a proper value to FL because it has no common ground with anything. There's no physical strain for FL, it is purely mental strain, and the other skills simply don't take mental strain into account yet. Giving it a value will probably be more possible once pattern complexity and reading difficulty are taken into account for pp. By that point we'd have 2 types of strain, physical and mental, which can be compared to each other as wholes because they're both "strain", but the individual aspects that makes up each of those 2 types (aim, speed and accuracy for physical, and pattern complexity, approach rate and reading mods for mental) can not really, since you can't weigh the strain of aiming a map against reading it, since the two go hand in hand.

It's a bit of a tricky issue but we'll find an answer at some point.
Topic Starter
Ohrami

Ohrami wrote:

but really men why isn't this in the game yet
Kayla

Ohrami wrote:

Ohrami wrote:

but really men why isn't this in the game yet
tired of not being able to get pp because i have a better no mod "score".. or losing pp because i beat the score but have terrible acc with mods.
Oinari-sama
Separate score submissions for mods is planned and wip in case you don't read osu dev twitter/blogs.
Topic Starter
Ohrami
but that's not what this thread is about
mijkolsmith
pp has long been integrated in standard mode? or is there a different matter now
Bara-
Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
jesse1412

baraatje123 wrote:

Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
This thread is about the score with the highest pp being #1 on a map, not submitting your highest pp giving score.
Topic Starter
Ohrami

jesus1412 wrote:

baraatje123 wrote:

Lol
This thread is about the most-pp worthy scores being your submitted score, and not the one with the highest amount of points
Pp>Points
This thread is about the score with the highest pp being #1 on a map, not submitting your highest pp giving score.
it's really about both
Pituophis
Peppy pls
Endaris
OP should just add the 3 posts that are actually worth reading to his original one which are p/3199942 p/3212339 and p/3190666 maybe along with some follow-up post from Tom where he states more clearly that he'd find separated score- and pp-boards useful.
-Makishima S-
+1 for this idea.

Unfortunately cannot say this better because:



When you try to say "S uppo rting this idea!"
Bara-
Isn't this basically added now, now that mod-specific score are all saved?
Swerro

Bara- wrote:

Isn't this basically added now, now that mod-specific score are all saved?
Imagine a simple beatmap with 2 FC's, all 100's get on the very first few notes:

HDHR 95% acc (1.12 multiplier)
DT 94% acc (1.12 multiplier)

The HDHR play gives the most score on beatmaps, however
DT is worth more pp, and for most maps, (few exclusions in very old maps), DT requires more skill than HDHR.
The PP calculation sytem knows this: DT FC on a map should be awarded more than a HDHR FC, and so it awards the DT play more pp, however, the scoring system works differently, very skillful plays don't come in the top50, especially chokes.
Example: Score multiplier changes won't fix this as: Kneesocks+DT choke 500pp < Kneesocks(nomod) FC 250pp scoringwise. (The DT play on kneesocks takes huge amount of skill, yet the nomod play gives way more scoring)

I myself think that Scoring system and PP system, even though they work very differently, can live fine along each other. All the top50 old scores that have been set with so much effort would be lost and would break many people's hearts. That's too big of a loss in my opinion.
Bara-
You do know that the DT play now gives pp right? Or at least it works that way in Mania (or am I misunderstanding something?)
Swerro

Bara- wrote:

You do know that the DT play now gives pp right? Or at least it works that way in Mania (or am I misunderstanding something?)


Barry, it's about the scoring system, the top50 scores, to behave like the pp system calculates pp.

http://puu.sh/tt3FZ/7b52e4dd2b.jpg see this? Even though HDDT is a choke, it requires way more skill than the HD play. PP-wise, it would end up allright, the DT score will be submitted and would give more pp than the HD score,
But if you go for a global top50, the HD has more score, even though it's much harder to set that HDDT choke play. Scoring doesn't take skill in account, so the most skillful plays, might not be in the top50. That's the problem asserted in this post, and the solution would be to make the score calculation ~the same as the pp calculation.
Bara-
WAIT
I have literally been misinterpreting this request for years O.o
Never mind, you are right, my bad... Sorry
Chrli
So its basically leader-board scores, sorting by the pp worth not the score total?

I kinda like that, since then the good plays of DT 6* fc's will show instead of those HD fc's that no one really pays attention to due to being so common :x
Remyria
then it should be a "Global(pp)" added
Juan_98
I literally have spent the last hour going through some awesome feature requests like this one, and NONE of them has been implemented, and most of them are 3/5 years old. This kinda works the same as reporting, I once reported a guy (very obvious account sharing), but months later I found out that the player was never punished and even kept sharing his account. I don't know how osu staff work, but they seem pretty lazy, no big changes since I started playing osu 7 months ago, and that's a lot of time compared to any other games.
Sandy Hoey

Juan_98 wrote:

I literally have spent the last hour going through some awesome feature requests like this one, and NONE of them has been implemented, and most of them are 3/5 years old. This kinda works the same as reporting, I once reported a guy (very obvious account sharing), but months later I found out that the player was never punished and even kept sharing his account. I don't know how osu staff work, but they seem pretty lazy, no big changes since I started playing osu 7 months ago, and that's a lot of time compared to any other games.
Not sure about lazy, but the developers have not been working on implementing these feature request because they have been putting all of their efforts into osu!lazer, which is a complete client and website rework. This new client will include some of the more popular feature request, not sure about this one though
Juan_98
I know but, how long could it take. I know that they are focused on osu!lazer, but come on, the whole developer team? Well maybe they don't want to make any changes to the actual osu becuase it would be senseless since osu!lazer will have the new features already. But still, how long has it been since osu!lazer has been showed up for the first time?
Please sign in to reply.

New reply