I think our current pp system is deeply flawed and i have had alot of thoughts on how to actually fix it, but for any change to be justified i would first need to determine what "performance" actually means. (in osu)
Disclaimer: This is entirel my opinion. i only seek dicussion towards this topic.
I will here explain what i think the meaning of performance is.
Performance is explained by factors such as accuracy, consistency, combo, aim, rythm capability and Recources.
Accuracy: The ability to click in the correct time windows.
Consistency: The amount of time you can keep performing in a similar way.
Combo: Holding your combo is a skill that in my eyes is a factor in performance.
Aim: How precise you are with your mouse/tablet/TD. (Higher distance isn't the only way to show better aim.)
Rythm capability: How well you can read the rythm of the map. This is very much tied to the BPM.
Recources: What you use to play osu on -> there is no denying that using a Mouse/Tablet is harder/different than using a TD. We might see more ways to play osu on, in the future that are easier or harder.
In my opinion these are the core factors that tell you how good someone is performing in osu.
In my opinion these factors should be rewarded somewhat equally.
Now with this view of performance in mind, what is the flaw in our current pp system?
It is very easy for someone to think a play that they just made doesnt represent how they performed.
It is also very easy for a play you know is alot worse than your previous plays, to be rated higher by the system.
Example: i have used this map to show my point.
consider these two plays ->
1.) 65% accuracy overall - 534/534 combo FC - 114pp
2.) 99% accuracy overall - 100/534 combo play - 72pp
the first play is lacking in terms of accuracy, aim and rythm capability. It has good combo and is consistently performing the same. this means it has 2/5 factors mastered.
the latter play is the complete reverse, which means it has mastered 3/5 factors.
Although my perception of performance would suggest that the latter play is a better performance, our current system doesnt reward it as much as the first play.
My next point is a simpler one and doesn't have any philosophical background.
Why is the play with the highest score being chosen to be THE play used to determine how much pp you gain from a map?
Score and performance are two entirely different measurements and therefor shouldn't correlate.
This not thought through point causes alot of frustration and someotimes even hatred towards the pp system.
These are the flaws of our pp system very generalized.
I would like to see how others percieve the term performance.
With this post i'd like to gain new insight on this matter and maybe even change my view on performance.
Disclaimer: This is entirel my opinion. i only seek dicussion towards this topic.
I will here explain what i think the meaning of performance is.
Performance is explained by factors such as accuracy, consistency, combo, aim, rythm capability and Recources.
Accuracy: The ability to click in the correct time windows.
Consistency: The amount of time you can keep performing in a similar way.
Combo: Holding your combo is a skill that in my eyes is a factor in performance.
Aim: How precise you are with your mouse/tablet/TD. (Higher distance isn't the only way to show better aim.)
Rythm capability: How well you can read the rythm of the map. This is very much tied to the BPM.
Recources: What you use to play osu on -> there is no denying that using a Mouse/Tablet is harder/different than using a TD. We might see more ways to play osu on, in the future that are easier or harder.
In my opinion these are the core factors that tell you how good someone is performing in osu.
In my opinion these factors should be rewarded somewhat equally.
Recources is an exception here. I think our current way of dealing with different ways to play will suffice.
Now with this view of performance in mind, what is the flaw in our current pp system?
It is very easy for someone to think a play that they just made doesnt represent how they performed.
It is also very easy for a play you know is alot worse than your previous plays, to be rated higher by the system.
Example: i have used this map to show my point.
consider these two plays ->
1.) 65% accuracy overall - 534/534 combo FC - 114pp
2.) 99% accuracy overall - 100/534 combo play - 72pp
the first play is lacking in terms of accuracy, aim and rythm capability. It has good combo and is consistently performing the same. this means it has 2/5 factors mastered.
the latter play is the complete reverse, which means it has mastered 3/5 factors.
Although my perception of performance would suggest that the latter play is a better performance, our current system doesnt reward it as much as the first play.
The fact that i think combo shouldnt be rewarded as much as the other factors, does not make a better case for this flaw either.
My next point is a simpler one and doesn't have any philosophical background.
Why is the play with the highest score being chosen to be THE play used to determine how much pp you gain from a map?
Score and performance are two entirely different measurements and therefor shouldn't correlate.
This not thought through point causes alot of frustration and someotimes even hatred towards the pp system.
These are the flaws of our pp system very generalized.
I would like to see how others percieve the term performance.
With this post i'd like to gain new insight on this matter and maybe even change my view on performance.
