I've been thinking about this for some time, and I decided that this is the best place to start a discussion.

Why should 2 (or more) players have different ranks in online ranking lists when they have same score value but one achieved that score earlier than other? I can think of this being fair in situation where we give contestants map in exactly same time, and who gets max score first, he is the winner, but this isn't applicable here due to some reasons:
First, imagine that someone made a record with max score in 2010, and that someone who arrived in 2013 falls in love with the song wanting to have #1, but being technically unable to do so, because max score has already been reached.
Second, let's consider newly ranked Easy beatmap with low combo, one can download map immediately after it gets ranked and rush to do a 4 mod max score. While it may seem "cool" to get a "forever" #1 rank like this, my opinion is that even if he really has forever #1, others should also have the possibility to have #1 (note that in the ranking score list, the one who achieved it first can be positioned at top, but everyone else with the same score should also have #1 left of their username).
These tied scores usually happen on Easy / Normals without spinner (or with very short spinner).

Basically, what I think that would be just is that score rankings look like this (letters being the player's username):

#1 - A - 200.000
#1 - B - 200.000
#1 - C - 200.000
#4 - D - 190.000
#4 - E - 190.000
#6 - F - 150.000
#7 - G - 120.000

Also note that all of players A, B, C should have this song listed in their Top Ranks, because they are all #1. If it somehow happens that player X arrives with score 210.000, A, B, C will lose that top rank, while X will gain it (pretty much the same as it is for now, just for multiple players).

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

also imo, having multiple firsts beats the purpose of using ordinal rankings.

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

That would be pretty messy if there are like 10 players who can do it in 2-3 tries, it would turn to a battle of persistent

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

also imo, having multiple firsts beats the purpose of using ordinal rankings.

Indeed it is, but sorting by achieved time isn't really good solution as I described in OP, and I don't think there is anything else we can sort by. In many other contests the solution is to reward all tied players with same place, so I thought it might work here.

PS. I actually got a nice idea how to avoid possibility of getting ties, but I never fully developed it into a Feature Request as it should take careful consideration. The idea was to implement harder versions of already possible mods (if you look it that way, PF is already "harder" SD), like HR^2 multiplying thing by 1.5 or 1.6, DT^2 making song run at 175% speed, FL^2 being smaller view area etc. Also even with these, who can guarantee there still won't be ties?

Last Remnant wrote:

That would be pretty messy if there are like 10 players who can do it in 2-3 tries, it would turn to a battle of persistent

that would be fun

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

also imo, having multiple firsts beats the purpose of using ordinal rankings.

I can't disagree more. The original request is better IMO.

It's a duplicate of t/18676 but yours is more detailed.

In many instances whole top 50 lists are full of the same scores, just imagine how weird it would look to see the same rank everywhere. You can already see what rank you would have if others didn't share the same score as you.
and since you don't get the same pp t/100138 it doesn't matter if you're being displayed with rank 1 or not. This feature would just be more misleading than useful.

why not make it a spoiler type thing where there would be a list of people who got the same score, but the name it showed outside of the spoiler was the first?

eg: (this map doesn't exist, random values)

rank l grade l score l player l max combo l 300/100/50 l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1(+) l SS l 15 239 000 l Cookiezi l 920 l 920/ 0 / 0 l


ideally, the (+) would be some sort of spoilerbox opener that would show the rest of the names of players that achieved the same score.

ninjastarr wrote:

why not make it a spoiler type thing where there would be a list of people who got the same score, but the name it showed outside of the spoiler was the first?

eg: (this map doesn't exist, random values)

rank l grade l score l player l max combo l 300/100/50 l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1(+) l SS l 15 239 000 l Cookiezi l 920 l 920/ 0 / 0 l

SPOILER

#1 l SS l 15 239 000 l White Wolf l 920 l 920/ 0 / 0 l
#1 l SS l 15 239 000 l rrtyui l 920 l 920/ 0 / 0 l

ideally, the (+) would be some sort of spoilerbox opener that would show the rest of the names of players that achieved the same score.

and have these guys get less views because of that?

why complicate it. are you guys not happy with the current system?

i am.

I think this would be good to implement

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

this wouldnt work on CtB, as there are maps with no spinner, and if you SS (whatever mode you put HDHR/HDDT) thats it, would seem useless on those kind of maps.

Seph wrote:

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

this wouldnt work on CtB, as there are maps with no spinner, and if you SS (whatever mode you put HDHR/HDDT) thats it, would seem useless on those kind of maps.

then don't do it for CtB?

pp already counts same score as same rank, so does the ingame ranking. so this is pretty much implented already.
the suggestion in the OP is exactly how it works right now (except for showing as #1 on profile for the other people)

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/54224&m=0 HUEHUE

eldnl wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/54224&m=0 HUEHUE

ahem
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/166017&m=0

yeah, can you guys really imagine the entire list having the same rank? You can already see that they have the same score or the score difference very easily now.

really close to denying this now.

Those maps with the whole ranking list with the same score are edge cases. All those ranks show is that ranking position in near irrelevant for these maps.

Currently, tying scores are decided by date of the rank. Is there any reason of why, in that case, date is the tie breaker?

For pp calculations tied scores should be considered.
For example: There are 6 tied scores for #1, then, as for calculations purposes goes, each record would be considered as "#3.5" = (6-1)/2+1, and then 11 tied scores for #7, for calculations each rank would be considered "#12" = (11-1)/2+7, etc... (In general: (A-1)/2+B, where A is the number of tying scores in a rank and B is the rank where the tie is)
That way, there is a pp penalty if people tie your scores (since that shows that the rank was less impressive), but the penalty is smaller than it would be if the score was beat.

Full Tablet wrote:

For pp calculations tied scores should be considered.
For example: There are 6 tied scores for #1, then, as for calculations purposes goes, each record would be considered as "#3.5" = (6-1)/2+1, and then 11 tied scores for #7, for calculations each rank would be considered "#12" = (11-1)/2+7, etc... (In general: (A-1)/2+B, where A is the number of tying scores in a rank and B is the rank where the tie is)
That way, there is a pp penalty if people tie your scores (since that shows that the rank was less impressive), but the penalty is smaller than it would be if the score was beat.

this then t/100138

theowest wrote:

Full Tablet wrote:

For pp calculations tied scores should be considered.
For example: There are 6 tied scores for #1, then, as for calculations purposes goes, each record would be considered as "#3.5" = (6-1)/2+1, and then 11 tied scores for #7, for calculations each rank would be considered "#12" = (11-1)/2+7, etc... (In general: (A-1)/2+B, where A is the number of tying scores in a rank and B is the rank where the tie is)
That way, there is a pp penalty if people tie your scores (since that shows that the rank was less impressive), but the penalty is smaller than it would be if the score was beat.

this then t/100138

That request suggests considering tied #1 scores as #1 ranks for calculation purposes. What I propose is that if the #1 score is tied, nobody receives the #1 pp bonus (instead they receive a lesser bonus).

I posted that here because it is directly related with the OP request. Even, the calculated ranks I propose might be shown instead of the ranks proposed in the OP: That would show to players the worth of each record more easily, but might have the problem of being slightly more confusing to read.
Example:
#3.5 Player A, score: XXXX,etc....
#3.5 Player B, score: XXXX,etc....
#3.5 Player C, score: XXXX,etc....
#3.5 Player D, score: XXXX,etc....
#3.5 Player E, score: XXXX,etc....
#3.5 Player F, score: XXXX,etc....
#12 Player G, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player H, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player I, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player J, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player K, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player L, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player M, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player N, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player O, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player P, score: XXXY,etc....
#12 Player Q, score: XXXY,etc....

In the case of the maps with more than 50 tied scores for #1, it would show a list with the same rank for everyone, everyone with a rank of about ~#30.

For reducing the amount of tied ranks, there can be other parameters (that are relevant to performance) defined as tie breakers. Example: Score is used for the first to rank, then the next parameter to break ties, etc... For standard mode:
Score > Accuracy > Mods (4-mod > DT+FL+HR > DT+FL+HD > DT+HR+HD > FL+HR+HD > DT+FL > DT+HR > DT+HD > FL+HR > FL+HD > HR+HD > DT > FL > HR > HD).
(Note that this wouldn't be perfect since the "best" mod combination is subjective, and the difficulty of each mod depends on the map).
If the ranks are exactly the same, they deserve the same rank (the one calculated with the formula for tied ranks). Then, with all that considered, the listing can be ordered by date for when someone reads it (but this wouldn't change the rank of the players in the list at all); instead of date, the ordering can be alphabetical too.

eldnl wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/54224&m=0 HUEHUE

2stronk

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

also imo, having multiple firsts beats the purpose of using ordinal rankings.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

OP's idea is awesome, this needs to be in. Have FIVE votes.

Eh yet another request I missed?

It's common to allow Ties/Draws, so I don't see why not.

PS: The title can be reworked a little, eg Allow same score to Tie for a place

I
Need
Stars ...
To
Support
Yeah, I like this (I got a dupe ;-;)

Seph wrote:

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

imo the last player who got an equal score with #1 should replace that #1. Which means that in order to reclaim the rank 1, the former rank 1 needs to get a score equal to or higher than that.

this wouldnt work on CtB, as there are maps with no spinner, and if you SS (whatever mode you put HDHR/HDDT) thats it, would seem useless on those kind of maps.

dont play SSable maps, or use more mods than the other people. it's simple really.