Osu! has changed the PP system several times but the mappers always find a way to abuse of the System and make easy maps that award alot of PP. These maps are also called as PP MAPS.

There will never be a perfect PP System that prevents the mapper to abuse of the PP system.

My suggestion is to have a system that allow a chosen people of the BN/QA's team to increase or decrease the STAR RATING or PP of a unbalanced beatmap.

How this will works:

1 - The community chooses what beatmaps need a rebalance.
2 - The most voted beatmaps should appear on the top of priority.
3 - The BN/QA's will first verify if the beatmaps really need a rebalance and if they agree, the new proposal of PP/STARS should be first accepted by the community and then be accepted by at least 3 members of the BN/QA's team before the changes going live in-game.

The point is to make the beatmaps award exactly what they value, nothing more and nothing less!

This would also help to fix the issue of very difficulty maps that can't be correctly calculated by the star rating system, like 6 stars maps that are harder than 8 stars maps and fast sliders maps.

FAQ:

There's hundreds and thousands of beatmaps. how do you think we will manually change them all, one by one?
This system should works like the feature request system. The comunnity chooses the beatmaps that need to be manually buffed/nerfed and then the most voted beatmaps should appear on the top of priority.

New beatmaps should be manually calculate before going to the qualifying process.

To the rest of the beatmaps, the team must organize weekly changes. That means that they will select a bunch of beatmaps every single week and eventually this will cover all the beatmaps in osu!

So the BN/QA's will decide everything?
They will not decide everything, the community will decide and vote what beatmaps really need a rebalance and the BN/QA's will first verify before going to the rebalance process.

How they will know the exact amount of PP that the beatmap is worth?
I know, there's a lot of things that are considered on the pp system. Like the Aim, Speed and others.
The BN/QA's will manually recalculate every single aspect present in the beatmap and then they will decide together the closest value to reality.

What if someone decide to abuse of this and change an 1 star BM to 10 stars or 100 pp to 1000pp?
The request would need to be accepted by at least 3 or more members from the QA to be live in game, so there's no chance that it would be abused by any mapper or mapper friends.

So any BN/QA will have the power to decide these changes?
No, they can't! There will be a small group of high qualified people who will have the power to do it.

We can just make a new PP system instead of this
There will never be a perfect PP System and even the best PP system could be abused by the mappers, so i don't think any kind of PP system will fix the unbalanced system we have.

Silver Eyes wrote:

Osu! has changed the PP system several times to fix overweight but the mappers always find a way to abuse of the System and make easy maps that award alot of PP.
These maps are also called as PP MAPS... F U SOTARKS!!!!!!

I don't think we will see a system that prevents any kind of PP MAPS to abuse of the system... (at least not too soon)

My suggestion is to have a system that allow the Quality Assurance Team to Open a request to increase or decrease the star rating of a overweight/underweight beatmap.
Since most of the PP is based on the star and combo, this would affect directly the PP.

This request would need to be accepted by at least 3 or more members from the QA to be live in game, so there's no chance that it would be abused by the mapper friends
I named Quality Assurance Team but it's just an example, it could be a new role too.

The point is to make the beatmaps award exactly what they value, nothing more and nothing less!

This would also fix the issue of very difficulty maps that can't be correctly calculated by the star rating system, like 6 stars maps that are harder than 8 stars maps and fast sliders maps.

This idea of yours has various problems. If the position in question is not paid the people who will be put to do the work will not take it seriously and as a result nothing will change. They could also abuse the system to earn pp, or make bad choices.
There are some maps easier or more difficult than the stars that are attributed but the maps in question are very few, and the pp system is not based only on stars

andreapietro001 wrote:

This idea of yours has various problems. If the position in question is not paid the people who will be put to do the work will not take it seriously and as a result nothing will change. They could also abuse the system to earn pp, or make bad choices.
There are some maps easier or more difficult than the stars that are attributed but the maps in question are very few, and the pp system is not based only on stars

The request would need to be accepted by at least 3 or more members from the QA to be live in game, so there's no chance that it would be abused by any mapper or mapper friends.

I know, there's a lot of things that are considered on the pp system. Like the Aim, Speed and others. But whatever if we make a new pp system, it will never be perfect. There's aways will be a beatmap that doesnt value what it should. Because of this im sure that the best to do is to keep the actual system and implement this idea of mine to fix the minor problems instead of creating more problems.

Silver Eyes wrote:

andreapietro001 wrote:

This idea of yours has various problems. If the position in question is not paid the people who will be put to do the work will not take it seriously and as a result nothing will change. They could also abuse the system to earn pp, or make bad choices.
There are some maps easier or more difficult than the stars that are attributed but the maps in question are very few, and the pp system is not based only on stars

The request would need to be accepted by at least 3 or more members from the QA to be live in game, so there's no chance that it would be abused by any mapper or mapper friends.

I know, there's a lot of things that are considered on the pp system. Like the Aim, Speed and others. But whatever if we make a new pp system, it will never be perfect. There's aways will be a beatmap that doesnt value what it should. Because of this im sure that the best to do is to keep the actual system and implement this idea of mine to fix the minor problems instead of creating more problems.

If this idea is not implemented in a serious way in the long term it will create more problems of the benefits that it could give

andreapietro001 wrote:

If this idea is not implemented in a serious way in the long term it will create more problems of the benefits that it could give

Don't worry. The Peppy and his team know what they do, and they won't will implement anything until everything be fully right and safe

Silver Eyes wrote:

andreapietro001 wrote:

If this idea is not implemented in a serious way in the long term it will create more problems of the benefits that it could give

Don't worry. The Peppy and his team know what they do, and they won't will implement anything until everything be fully right and safe

Good luck on this

No.

KcHecKa wrote:

No.

Yes

YO HERBERT PUT THIS IN NOT EVEN JOKING STR8 UP

I will glue your ring finger to a shower curtain.

This is a horrible idea.

The pp system is designed to award approximately the right amount of pp, and nothing should change.
No matter how the system changes, mappers will try to make challenging and rewarding maps.

What if slider jumps or easier maps were more rewarding? Some mappers would map them more since the community wants maps that give pp. Giving QA's more power like this isn't a bad idea by itself. However, what if they created a big long statement to back up their claim that a map should have an insane amount of pp and give certain mappers priority hence creating snowflake pp mappers? The ranking system is already fine, but if you put your salt aside for a minute, and think about the possible outcomes of this kind of system it's not worth it.

If QA's can change SR or PP at will I guarantee you the community will backlash. You're creating more problems.

The QAT doesn't even exist anymore.

ah yes, insulting a person in a feature request, very classy.

this is a bad idea, mostly because if the whole star rating system shifts in anyway, then human-rated maps would be left at the selected difficulty and be inaccurate

the best possible solution is to make a pp/sr system that covers all cases

instead why don't make it so the mapper can choose what difficulty the map is considered for so the mapper can choose insane if it's intended to be a insane or expert if it's intended to be a expert so that a 3* normal can be rated as a normal

big "no thanks"

Dntm8kmeeatu wrote:

The QAT doesn't even exist anymore.

I named Quality Assurance Team but it's just an example, it could be a new role too.

since PP is not dependent solely on SR, but rather on multiple aspects of the map, it gets pretty complicated to work around. every single other human-level-rated rhythm games don't even have anything close to osu's pp system.

it doesn't end there. osu has hundreds of maps uploaded each day and tens of ranked ones every day. needing to approximate every single maps (and their individual diffs) gets exhausting quickly. not to mention that every players have different things that they're good at, which makes rating difficult and can spark new controversies every single day

a lot of people have also posted their opinions in this twitter post. i hope you know how unified everyone's voice are at this point

This needs to be denied

This has already been done before. Back in the day overrated maps were manually nerfed. Idk when last time this happened, but it feels wrong to manually correct what a formula is doing wrong. Rather,the formula needs to be fixed, and that was not option back in the day when the formula was a secret.

I don't think this system will work

abraker wrote:

This needs to be denied

This has already been done before. Back in the day overrated maps were manually nerfed. Idk when last time this happened, but it feels wrong to manually correct what a formula is doing wrong. Rather,the formula needs to be fixed, and that was not option back in the day when the formula was a secret.

There are too many variables to always have all the beatmaps with the exact difficulty, especially if the mapper abuses the system. If a person were to check the maps reported by the community i don't see where the problem is, mappers would have no problems from it, since the system will be implemented with a report-system

I'm sorry but the idea is just horrible. There are tens of new ranked beatmaps coming in every single day, you can never keep up and decide which one is overweighted and which one is not. If you're able to tell why they're overweighted/underweighted easily that means you can also just code it and improve the pp system. Which is what some people are doing for a while and it's getting better day by day.

yes

Valiente wrote:

I'm sorry but the idea is just horrible. There are tens of new ranked beatmaps coming in every single day, you can never keep up and decide which one is overweighted and which one is not. If you're able to tell why they're overweighted/underweighted easily that means you can also just code it and improve the pp system. Which is what some people are doing for a while and it's getting better day by day.

Why would anyone need to "keep up"? No one cares if maps are slightly overweighted or slightly underweighted. This system would be in place to tackle the huge outliers based on a priority spread (the more under-/ overweight a map, the more priority it would get based on community feedback)
I can easily tell that some jump maps are overweighted because, despite their distance, the jumps are easy to play. But balancing around patterns doesn't seem that easy to fix, seeing that we are at it for several years now.

People regularly pledge for implementing the current wip PP system despite it not "being finished". The system requested here could provide a way to iron it out until the development hits huge breaking points.
That or we just continue to play the waiting game while ladder and pp meta keep stagnating

pudingkokoro wrote:

Why would anyone need to "keep up"? No one cares if maps are slightly overweighted or slightly underweighted. This system would be in place to tackle the huge outliers based on a priority spread (the more under-/ overweight a map, the more priority it would get based on community feedback)

Okay this is ridiculous.

This proposal is basically saying "fuck farm maps, all hail tech maps, and the rest we don't give a shit". Which is not how a system like this should work.
If you want to have a system that is fair, you have to treat every single case, every single map, on its own. It's not a matter of "oh this map is not our priority you know, we only want to focus on the most important maps". It's basically putting tens of thousands of maps on the wayside just because your fragile egos were hit by the 1% of the maps that are (to you) over/underweighted. It's basically considering that this game barely has 2k maps while it has (shocker) about 100 times as much.

pudingkokoro wrote:

Valiente wrote:

I'm sorry but the idea is just horrible. There are tens of new ranked beatmaps coming in every single day, you can never keep up and decide which one is overweighted and which one is not. If you're able to tell why they're overweighted/underweighted easily that means you can also just code it and improve the pp system. Which is what some people are doing for a while and it's getting better day by day.

Why would anyone need to "keep up"? No one cares if maps are slightly overweighted or slightly underweighted. This system would be in place to tackle the huge outliers based on a priority spread (the more under-/ overweight a map, the more priority it would get based on community feedback)
I can easily tell that some jump maps are overweighted because, despite their distance, the jumps are easy to play. But balancing around patterns doesn't seem that easy to fix, seeing that we are at it for several years now.

People regularly pledge for implementing the current wip PP system despite it not "being finished". The system requested here could provide a way to iron it out until the development hits huge breaking points.
That or we just continue to play the waiting game while ladder and pp meta keep stagnating

I don't think you understand the problems of having that subjective of a PP system put in place. Targeting specific maps is not the way to go about this. There's no point to a band-aid fix, especially something as subjective as this. Also, just because there is a majority consensus that the test build is currently better than live does not mean it should be immediately implemented. It is better to have one roll-out with quality fixes than to constantly be changing live with little fixes. Simply quality over quantity. The amount of work required for this kind of band-aid fix is also far beyond worth it, especially when this much progress has been made with the test build.

Just have some patience man, there is no temporary fix that will be worth it for a system like this. "Ironing it out" is not the way to go. Once again, in a system full of outside subjectivity, the best way to approach it is by making the system as objective and algorithmic as possible, which requires some time. The waiting game you specify isn't as grudging as you think.

Inteleon wrote:

This proposal is basically saying "fuck farm maps, all hail tech maps, and the rest we don't give a shit". Which is not how a system like this should work.

No it doesn't, it doesn't even say which maps will be treated. That's up to the community as a whole

Inteleon wrote:

If you want to have a system that is fair, you have to treat every single case, every single map, on its own. It's not a matter of "oh this map is not our priority you know, we only want to focus on the most important maps".

The whole community would decide on what is the priority, so most of us would agree with it.

Inteleon wrote:

It's basically putting tens of thousands of maps on the wayside just because your fragile egos were hit by the 1% of the maps that are (to you) over/underweighted.

Why would anything be put on the wayside? Development of the system doesn't stop.

Camocratic wrote:

I don't think you understand the problems of having that subjective of a PP system put in place.

The system wouldn't be subjective (well, not more subjective than it is right now anyway). Only the unique changes on certain maps would be. Arguing that these unique changes are subjective is still a bit tippy though. I would say that the more points of view you have, the better you are qualified to make an objective statement. And since the whole playerbase would need to approve changes to every single maps pp value, you would have a lot of points of view.

Camocratic wrote:

It is better to have one roll-out with quality fixes than to constantly be changing live with little fixes.

That's why I said "when it hits huge breaking points"

Camocratic wrote:

The amount of work required for this kind of band-aid fix is also far beyond worth it

agree

Camocratic wrote:

Just have some patience man

I do, I personally don't care when the system will be implemented, but I think what is requested here is worth a discussion

pudingkokoro wrote:

Camocratic wrote:

I don't think you understand the problems of having that subjective of a PP system put in place.

The system wouldn't be subjective (well, not more subjective than it is right now anyway). Only the unique changes on certain maps would be. Arguing that these unique changes are subjective is still a bit tippy though. I would say that the more points of view you have, the better you are qualified to make an objective statement. And since the whole playerbase would need to approve changes to every single maps pp value, you would have a lot of points of view.

The development of the algorithm for the pp system may be objective, but the system itself is not subjective. Voting on changes to a specific map is as subjective as you can get. Also, I understand that a consensus is stronger in confidence when the number of votes increases. However, there are 90,000 5 digit players, and 900,000 6 digit players. There are 9000 4 digits and 900 3 digits, and so on. What I am getting at is the 5 and 6 digit players should have SIGNIFICANTLY less opinion, but if you let everyone vote on map changes, you're going to have a lot less meaningful votes. Even if impose a rank minimum for who can vote, there are going to be a lot less votes, which doesn't make for a strong consensus.

There's an incredibly important question here of how "community" is defined here, because when you're looking at the objective and subjective difficulty of a given map, the opinions of more skilled players will carry significantly more weight than that of a less skilled player.

So, do you give the skilled players more power in deciding what happens to the weighting of maps? Well, there becomes a problem in that very few people get most of the power in deciding how maps should be weighted in that case. This leads to a much smaller amount of maps actually meaning anything in the big picture, and if a single top player has an opinion on a lesser-known map, they could realistically overturn any opinion generated from anybody else.

Do you hold everyone's opinion of a map equally? You instead run into a problem of too many players who can't actually play a given map giving an opinion, which could potentially give a map an incredibly undeserved nerf or buff. Take Cycle Hit for a prime example. This is a map that many lower-level players idolize for its perceived difficulty. In fact, I can attest to this because I idolized the map myself a couple years back. In reality, once you have a certain amount of consistency and aim skill, which is a fairly low amount compared to the truly challenging maps in the game, the entire map, save for maybe the first drop of the song, becomes pretty damn trivial to hit. If you're to allow the community at large to hold an equal voice, an overwhelming majority of players will think to buff Cycle Hit, making the map significantly more farmy than practically anything we've ever seen. This example can be carried across many maps, both on the buffing end and the nerfing end.

This is only the first issue that I have with the proposal, and it only really scratches the surface of how flawed the idea actually is. Consider if a system like this were to actually be implemented. How would it be rolled out? If you're just going to open it up like a standard mod queue, it will VERY QUICKLY be completely overwhelmed, and the designation of a community team to handle these requests will become effectively worthless in situations like this. Every map that hits the ranked section can be farmed in some capacity, so the amount of requests to change the value of a map is likely significantly higher than any of us would expect. Combine that with the high potential for circlejerking maps because of their notoriety, and you get a complete unmanageable mess.

From a purely community standpoint (I won't talk about the BAT/NAT involvement because I think that's a different topic entirely), this is something that would be destined for complete and utter failure if it were to be implemented. There is far too much room for human error for this to create a more accurate system than what we currently have, or what is currently being developed.

Camocratic wrote:

there are 90,000 5 digit players, and 900,000 6 digit players. There are 9000 4 digits and 900 3 digits, and so on. What I am getting at is the 5 and 6 digit players should have SIGNIFICANTLY less opinion

The proposal would be forged by committed members of the community before it is voted upon. So even if the opinion of lower ranked playerbase as a whole doesn't match with the opinion of high ranked players, there are enough hurdles to avoid ridiculous changes.
For example, if you were to add or make the group entirely consist of high ranked players who are involved in the development of the PP system, you could assure that their opinion is represented to a high degree.

andreapietro001 wrote:

There are too many variables to always have all the beatmaps with the exact difficulty, especially if the mapper abuses the system.

A proper system would take account those variables. So far it's been about trying to frankenstein a formula and hand pick numbers in an attempt to get something that makes some sort of sense. Nobody did sufficient enough research into why certain patterns are harder than others and how to quantify that. Yea, yea difficulty is subjective, but you can break stuff down by appropriate skills and it will get a lot less subjective.


If somebody can figure out how to measure agility from a pattern, for instance, we would leap ahead in pp dev significantly. Why does moving the mouse/stylus in certain ways harder than others? Moving in square motion? Moving in circular motion? Moving in stop-go-stop-go motion? Moving in back-and-forth motion? This needs to be explained in a way it can quantified. I tried figuring that out and only got so far alone. We need more people on this.