Community Forum

# A few words of so-called combos

posted
Total Posts
120

#### RaneFire wrote:

http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/157821
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/149146

I think this brings up a good point, perhaps combo is a better system for rankings. But I think accuracy would be better for things like the upcoming ladder system or the OWC, because anyone can lose concentration for a moment and miss while someone else, who may be doing much worse in terms of accuracy, would fc and win.
About the point that the combo system gives variation to scores: it is possible to make a combo system at the same time that serves the same purpose, but without making the score so dependent on it:
For example: The current score given per hit is
Hit Value * (1 + Combo multiplier * Difficulty multiplier * Mod multiplier / 25 )
An alternate could be this (I don't say this would be a good formula, it is just a simple one to illustrate the point):
Hit Value * (1 + LOG10(1 + Combo multiplier * Difficulty multiplier * Mod multiplier / 25 ))

With old formula (scores are relative to each other): If anything that is not a combo break is a 300.
1000 combo full combo: ~20million
900combo + 99 combo: ~16million
500combo+ 499 combo: ~10million
300combo+400combo+298combo: ~6.8million
Alternate Formula:
1000 combo full combo: ~0.84million
900combo + 99 combo: ~0.82million
500combo+ 499 combo: ~0.78million
400combo+300combo+298combo: ~0.73million

With combo effect decreased then accuracy becomes more important (while combo still has enough effect to generate variation).

About the fact people can beat other players by ignoring circles in hard to aim maps, then there can be some changes in what misses do. A very simple change would be changing misses so they reduce score by 6000 and break combo instead of just breaking combo.
Isn't not missing/keeping a combo an integral part of the game? (aim)
Being consistent in not missing is a skill in itself.

#### Full Tablet wrote:

I think this brings up a good point, perhaps combo is a better system for rankings. But I think accuracy would be better for things like the upcoming ladder system or the OWC, because anyone can lose concentration for a moment and miss while someone else, who may be doing much worse in terms of accuracy, would fc and win.
About the point that the combo system gives variation to scores: it is possible to make a combo system at the same time that serves the same purpose, but without making the score so dependent on it:
For example: The current score given per hit is
Hit Value * (1 + Combo multiplier * Difficulty multiplier * Mod multiplier / 25 )
An alternate could be this (I don't say this would be a good formula, it is just a simple one to illustrate the point):
Hit Value * (1 + LOG10(1 + Combo multiplier * Difficulty multiplier * Mod multiplier / 25 ))

With old formula (scores are relative to each other): If anything that is not a combo break is a 300.
1000 combo full combo: ~20million
900combo + 99 combo: ~16million
500combo+ 499 combo: ~10million
300combo+400combo+298combo: ~6.8million
Alternate Formula:
1000 combo full combo: ~0.84million
900combo + 99 combo: ~0.82million
500combo+ 499 combo: ~0.78million
400combo+300combo+298combo: ~0.73million

With combo effect decreased then accuracy becomes more important (while combo still has enough effect to generate variation).

About the fact people can beat other players by ignoring circles in hard to aim maps, then there can be some changes in what misses do. A very simple change would be changing misses so they reduce score by 6000 and break combo instead of just breaking combo.[/quote]

Yeah, in another system a miss could just be more penalising than it is now but not so much that it makes or breaks a win/loss.

#### Philantropist wrote:

Isn't not missing/keeping a combo an integral part of the game? (aim)
Being consistent in not missing is a skill in itself.
I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.

#### Rewben2 wrote:

I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.

#### Rewben2 wrote:

I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
It totally depends on the map.

#### Rewben2 wrote:

I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
It totally depends on the map.
I guess so for a map like airman with those jumps near the start I don't even know if that's a good example at all but I think generally speaking, if the map is pretty similar difficulty throughout then the higher accuracy would be more impressive. 5% away from an SS is a huge difference compared to .5% away from an SS.

What is "more impressive" is opinion based, but that's my take on it.

#### Rewben2 wrote:

I'm aware of that and agree, which is why I think rankings should rely on it. But for tournaments owc etc etc., I think accuracy is better than combo. I think most people would agree that a 99.5% with a miss is more impressive than a 95% fc.
Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.
Yeah, creating a system for a ladder in a rhythm game that is actually accurate and will determine the better player each time is incredibly hard because of inconsistencies. Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?

#### Almost wrote:

Your point on scoring for tournaments is debatable really. The players selected would be quite different in an accuracy based tournament since aim type players would lose out to an accuracy based player unless you count really jumpy maps. Also, a low skilled player can beat higher skilled player in this type of match in the IC I managed to beat Shott in an accuracy battle even though I have a lot worse aim and speed then him and would lose to any other type of match.
Yeah, creating a system for a ladder in a rhythm game that is actually accurate and will determine the better player each time is incredibly hard because of inconsistencies. Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?
Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics. There is more luck involved in tournaments in a combo based system but the most important aspect of the game is aim so it's not worth removing that because there may be worse players in tournaments doing better.

#### Almost wrote:

Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics.
What do you mean by "removes half the game mechanics"?

#### Almost wrote:

Having an accuracy based system pretty much removes half the game mechanics.
What do you mean by "removes half the game mechanics"?
Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
It's not like aim isn't required in an accuracy based tournament... Anyways,

#### Rewben2 wrote:

Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?

#### Almost wrote:

Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.

#### Rewben2 wrote:

It's not like aim isn't required in an accuracy based tournament... Anyways,

#### Rewben2 wrote:

Don't you think the whole "low skilled player can beat higher skilled player" is more present in a combo-based system where a single mistake can determine the game, instead of relying on how well you do throughout the map?
It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.

#### Almost wrote:

Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.
I mentioned that in an earlier post.

#### Almost wrote:

Accuracy is only half the game. Actually having your cursor on the circle is the other. People wouldn't care about aim much in an accuracy based tournament.
The current scoring system values aim much more than accuracy.
Aim > Accuracy, i'd rather see remote control 95% DT than HD HR 100%

#### Almost wrote:

It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.
I agree, it's just I don't think that a match should be decided on who misses, because ultimately it is. A player with slightly better aim can beat someone with far better accuracy as a result of this. But when trying to rank in a map, the accuracy player would always get a higher rank because they can just retry until its a fc. Would you agree on an accuracy-based system if the misses were penalised much higher than it is now - but not to the point that it's the decider of a game?

#### Almost wrote:

It does, but it's not as important and players with better accuracy could do better accuracy even with misses.
I agree, it's just I don't think that a match should be decided on who misses, because ultimately it is. A player with slightly better aim can beat someone with far better accuracy as a result of this. But when trying to rank in a map, the accuracy player would always get a higher rank because they can just retry until its a fc. Would you agree on an accuracy-based system if the misses were penalised much higher than it is now - but not to the point that it's the decider of a game?
I would love to have an accuracy-based mode in a tournament where players play some random OD10 map and the game is decided by highest accuracy (average for a team game). But other than that, I would not support it.

#### Pelaaja_X wrote:

What you said that scores would be wiped, that's not really true. A rpgram could calculate all the scorse again based on the replays and then re-order the lists. I know it would be a shock a first, but it would work.
The server only keeps track of the replays for the top 50 scores, so that can't work. He could just keep the top 50 scores and rearrange those, but that would be unfair to all of the other players. The only other option would be to completely wipe the score database, which won't happen.

As I said, peppy would change they system if he could, but wiping the scores is unfair to the players and would upset a lot of people.
:I was watching peppy's presentation that he'd uploaded to his blog and he actually said that he would want to make the scoring more accuracy-based. The game's been going for years with combo-dependent scoring, so it'd be hard to uproot all of that and shift to an accuracy system.

Besides, who's to say that combo-based is wrong? If rewarding the player for managing a consistent playthrough means calculating the combo, then the better players are going to FC a map anyway.

DEEDIT: Just realised that other people had already pointed out the first thing. Besides, the whole point of the scoring system is that it mirrors that in Ouendan. Unfortunately, it's something that people will merely have to put up with for the time being, so they might as well strive to achieve highly based on that system.
pp disappears for 1 week and look what happens

#### RaneFire wrote:

pp disappears for 1 week and look what happens
You even linked threads of months ago discussing a similar thing - What are you talking about?