This suggestion has some merit in it.

Multiplier is determined by your difficulty stars, as in, the options. 19 total stars gives a different total than 18 total stars, but 16 and 18 are the same, so it goes by levels. ;P

If this feature was implemented, you shouldn't expect BATs to check the multiplier. Why? There are all kinds of things BATs have missed. Ex. Recently, on a map that got ranked, there were a few partially off-screen hit circles. I even pointed it out before it got ranked in chat, but they still went ahead and ranked it. <_<; As we all know, partially off-screen hit circles = should never, ever be there. Ever.

Better example; they missed stacking being turned off before. BATs are human beings, they aren't perfect; they miss things (or don't ask to see if things that obviously shouldn't be rankable are rankable [or don't care because they don't think it affects the map, even when it does]). So "BATs will check it!" should never, ever be brought up. A score multiplier is easy to miss.

--------------------

Now that I'm done correcting, I disapprove of this idea. First, if your map is over 10 mil, you shouldn't be able to make it magically rankable by just changing a multiplier. I prefer having to make it easier in some way, or shorter. ;P Second, the score system works well. If you have a problem with the score in a map, then change it by changing difficulty settings, or just plain mess with the map itself. I've done this before, so it's doable (why else do I often use 7, 5, 7 settings on Hards?).

Finally, calculations aren't biased. Humans are, no matter how hard they try to be unbiased. I say just let the calculations do the work, and work with the calculations. The only time I've seen maps have undeserving scores (IMO) are when the map is way too long (score increases exponentially, as you know), but eh.

Ekaru wrote:

First, if your map is over 10 mil, you shouldn't be able to make it magically rankable by just changing a multiplier.

This sounds a lot like this:

peppy wrote:

In case any difficulty can give a maximum score of over 10 million points (check this by pressing F5 in the editor to test play the map), try to lower it. Do not resort to dropping the slider tick rate to reduce score.

Ekaru wrote:

Finally, calculations aren't biased. Humans are, no matter how hard they try to be unbiased. I say just let the calculations do the work, and work with the calculations. The only time I've seen maps have undeserving scores (IMO) are when the map is way too long (score increases exponentially, as you know), but eh.

But the human who came up with the calculation is biased.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

Afaik the stars you see in the game are eyupstars, but the score multiplier due to star rating is actually based on peppystars.

LuigiHann wrote:

because it's applied identically to all maps

Although the same formula is used, the inclusion of map-specific variables (such as the star difficulty) skew the score, making higher-star maps have a bias. It's not a bias directly imposed by a human, but it's still a bias. A small one, though, so it's not that significant.

I was just pointing something out.

Echo wrote:

Afaik the stars you see in the game are eyupstars, but the score multiplier due to star rating is actually based on peppystars.

That's what I thought, too. I got confused by the differing opinion of Ekaru.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

strager wrote:

This sounds a lot like this:

peppy wrote:

In case any difficulty can give a maximum score of over 10 million points (check this by pressing F5 in the editor to test play the map), try to lower it. Do not resort to dropping the slider tick rate to reduce score.

I already covered that. "try to lower it" meant to either make it shorter, make it easier, or mess with the difficulty settings. This would be making insane maps worth 20 mil, then just changing the multiplier to .5x, and voila, you have a silly map that is magically rankable. Yes, you can get stupid crap rankable. I've done it! (the old Hirari, anyone?) You just need BATs whose brains aren't working clearly. ;)

And, as Luigi said, the formula is currently applied evenly to every map and every creator. There is no reason to change that. It's just a score limit. Anyways, there have been exceptions made, and if it's in the unrankable realm due to score (as in, more than a few mil, like over 15 mil), and there is no way to reduce the score to a reasonable level , chances are that it shouldn't be ranked anyways.

And I was close enough on the difficulty thing. <_<; Yeah, forgot it was by the mysterious peppy stars. On maps in the 4.5-5 star range, it's that way though . Anyways, my bad.

If the song is over 10m in score, it is TOO LONG, not too hard.

I could make a 10 mil 3 minute map if you want. It would suck balls though. ;P (or you could just play that one DJ Pop map about drinking and stuff). I also included "shorten it" in my first post as ways you could decrease the score, but *shrugs*. What I meant was that if you couldn't do something to make it under even 15 mil (like shorten it or make it easier), then it probably isn't rankable. >_>;

*ahem* Anyways, my view is that the score of the map is the score of the map, not what you want the score of the map to be. 10 mil is just a guideline, but I don't even know how people get maps over 10 mil in the first place, unless it's like 4 minutes long. Which I don't want to sit through, but *shrugs*.

Point is, if you can't even get it to the point where you can make an exception (under 15 mil), then you should probably be going for approved, where score doesn't matter.

Exceptions have been made, so keep that in mind. A map isn't automatically unrankable just because it's over 10 mil.

P.S. Maps aren't always 10 mil just because the song is too long, that's often the case though. There have been some really silly maps.

+1 support seeing how I needed to lower the drain rate on Black Parade to a brokenly low level just to give it a fair score.

A "score multiplier" scrollbar, with the same limits placed on it as the existing formula, would work fine. There would be a check box, "auto", which would leave it to osu! to calculate score multiplier in the usual way.

Ekaru wrote:

(score increases exponentially, as you know)

Score increases quadratically. Score multiplier increases proportionally to combo length, and is summated with each hit object. ∫O(1)dx = O(2)

MetalMario201 wrote:

Ekaru wrote:

(score increases exponentially, as you know)

Score increases quadratically. Score multiplier increases proportionally to combo length, and is summated with each hit object. ∫O(1)dx = O(2)

Don't you mean ∫O(n)dx = O(n^2)? =]

I support the idea of an "Auto" toggle. Still slightly skeptical on the entire concept, though.

I'm reviving this request.

Here is a perfect example of a map that could use this:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/33765

Play length is 2:52, and the current difficulties have high scores of 16,036,150 and 18,314,060. The maps really aren't that hard, and right now the only two solutions are to dumb it down, which would suck, or make it approved, which would also suck.

Custom multipliers has potential to be abused, but like all new mapping features, that's what the BAT approval system is for.

Old bump.

A lot of times, people like to map a 4-5 minute song to the end, and there ARE a bunch of people that would have fun playing the entire thing. But, due to the current multiplier, maps get waaaaaay too many points and thus aren't allowed. Sure, a mapset could go for approval, but it seems like a waste when the song would be perfectly fine for ranking if not for the score.

Total support for this request.

peppy wrote:

If the song is over 10m in score, it is TOO LONG, not too hard.

http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5332

That could easily be above 10mil if the song was maybe about 10-30 seconds longer, if I added more streams, increased tickrate, etc. ~. Not too long .~

4-5 minutes is too long.

Support? http://osu.ppy.sh/s/13654

Support!

In my case, I made a map with 2 difficulties, [Insane] and [Hard].
But the scores of [Insane] is less than [Hard].
I want to set different score multipliers to the two difficulties so that players don't just play the higher scores map.

Jerrysr wrote:

Support!

In my case, I made a map with 2 difficulties, [Insane] and [Hard].
But the scores of [Insane] is less than [Hard].

That shouldn't happen if the difficulty settings are different and the map is actually harder :/

I'm all for more freedom in mapping, so support.

TAIKO NEEDS THIS REQUEST XD

So, support :3

Support as well. I don't think it's a bad idea, however I think it has too much influence on the star difficulty.

No support.

1. People would try to get to as close to 10 mil as possible.

2. There's no real score cap... If your map is like 3 minutes or less then your score should be low enough to the point where it can get ranked. Sure, a tad bit more work if it's over 10 mil, but it can still get ranked if it makes sense and the map is reasonable.

Also, approval. Only if it makes sense to be approved, however.

There is no problem in the first place. Remember, there's no real cap, just guidelines. I think that the abuse that would result from this makes it not worth it for trying to cure a problem that doesn't even exist!

To fix the abuse, we can make this a BAT exclusive thing.

^
Well ofcourse, it would be either set when ranked, or you can let users set it and correct it when ranked.

I was talking about this today, and I havn't went through the whole thread, but this problem is present on both long and short maps.

It's pretty lame how some extremely hard short songs only give you a million, just because the mapper wanted to keep it brief and sweet instead of it being long and annoying.

Also, another thing this would help is jump maps. Currently, I could pretty much divide most maps in one of these 3 categories.
Stream, Speed, Jump
The first two dont' really have this issue, but the third one often gets smaller max scores since there are less objects and more distance instead.

Finally, I feel like there's a huge unbalance right now with maps. Some maps (which of course everyone love) give you an easy 12million, and can be pretty much FC'd on the first try by most people, and other maps that barely ever get a top40 filled with FCs. As you can imagine, the former one gets played far more, which is quite unfair tbh. Just because a mapper wants to make his maps challenging, and the other makes long easy maps to get more plays.

If you also include jumps into the difficulty algorithm, you could give people an "approximate" max score they should aim for, and anything too far above that shouldn't be rankable imo.

Just some suggestions and thoughts for food.

CDFA wrote:

To fix the abuse, we can make this a BAT exclusive thing.

wat. It would just be another thing to mod which is no problem whatsoever. MAT/BAT would catch abuse easily.

Ph0X took the words out of my mouth. So many songs have easy high scores while much harder songs have low scores. It makes me orz.

I asked peppy about taking into consideration the length of the songs for the 10m rule once on #mod, and of course the reply was: Make the song shorter. So i have to disagree in this aspect i guess. But if insane maps with lots of jumps are getting lower scores than insane maps with easily flowing streams that anyone can follow then i would think that's something to be taken into account for so +1