community forum

Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,650
show more
jesse1412
Alright here's the deal. You can pick a map of your choice and FL it and I'll try to beat your score with FL. I'll then pick a map of my choice with DT and you have to try and beat my score with DT and we'll see which one requires to most effort. If you can beat my score before I beat yours, I'll admit FL is underrated.
silmarilen
how about you do it this way
you pick a map that's worth 200pp with fl
and then you pick a map that's worth 200pp with dt
and you look which one takes longer to fc

both options are stupid and you know it
jesse1412

silmarilen wrote:

how about you do it this way
you pick a map that's worth 200pp with fl
and then you pick a map that's worth 200pp with dt
and you look which one takes longer to fc

both options are stupid and you know it
True, because effort isn't skill and effort shouldn't be rewarded. FL is literally just an effort mod that's all, if you sit there and FL a map for 2 months straight you WILL FC it but the same isn't true for DT. There are scores that, no matter how long someone sits there, they will never be able to do with DT, contrarily I doubt there is a single FL score where the same can be said. Maybe the amount of effort needed for FL grows almost exponentially with difficulty, but that doesn't make effort deserve any extra reward than results.
Nyxa
That's a silly thing to say, since FL does require several skills (memory, patience, the ability to aim at nothing and a shitload of focus) as opposed to DT which requires speed and accuracy, which, depending on the map, are also a requirement for playing with FL. Also, you put effort into developing your skill. You don't only retry maps for FL. There are people who simply can't FC with FL, and there are people who simply can't FC with DT. It's a separate skill and the fact that memory/retries are a requirement doesn't make it any less of one.

That said, I don't want FL to get a buff in general. I just want it to get a buff on longer maps. I agree that 500 combo FL maps are /way/ easier to FC than 2K+ combo FL maps. But 2K+ combo FL maps require a huge amount of skill (unless the map is easy, in which case it wouldn't give much pp anyway) to properly FC, and are not rewarded fairly right now. You're talking as if I want FL to reward as much as DT, but that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I want a combo pp boost added to FL on top of the aim pp boost. I don't see how that is such an unreasonable request.

Lastly, your rank is so much higher than mine that challenging me to something like that is an unfair challenge and you know that. It wouldn't make a point for you at all if you succeeded and I didn't, nor would it really make a point for me, since I'm not trying to compare FL and DT here. It would be better if you picked an FL player from X rank and a non-FL player from a similar rank and asked both of them to FL the same map, and see how long it takes each one to FC it, maybe above a certain percentage. I'm quite sure that the FL player would take less time to do it without a doubt because they've had practice with the mod (just as people who've never played with HD will usually suck at it once they try it out, and a lot of players who've never played with DT/HR will also suck at those mods once they try them out). Sucking at mods you lack practice in is normal, and the more practice you get, the better you become with those mods. The only difference with FL is that it is impossible to sightread FC with it. But no one's top scores are sightreads anyway, so using that as an argument is kind of pointless. I retry a lot for every mod if I want to get a good score, and FL is the only one that gives way too low a reward.
Topic Starter
Tom94

Tess wrote:

Why is this so hard to agree with or implement? In my opinion, it would be much better if the score bonuses were:

HD: 1.06x
HR: 1.08x
FL: 1.10x
DT: 1.12x
Knowing the underlying data and having dealt with balancing the system I can tell you that this kind of solution would work terribly. The bonuses would be for one part far too low for people to feel satisfied and for the other part horribly unbalanced on some maps, since they are just flat bonuses ignoring how the map is like.


Granger wrote:

In my opinion it would be a idea to slightly lower the base score bonus and have a scaling bonus for combos past 200.
I assume you are talking about the flashlight bonus alone in your above statement. It's worth thinking about changing the bonus from being scaling flat with aim pp to making it scale even more with map length. I'd ditch the base bonus in that case completely, though. Makes it easier to balance and makes more sense to me.


In general, please keep in mind that pp aims to satisfy as many people as possible, so I will keep tuning it towards what I feel is the prominent opinion of the community.
-GN
Skills required to play FL well are not measured by pp, and i doubt they ever will, so i don't think FL should be buffed much, if at all. Maybe if you incorporate reading difficulty into the system(maybe memorization score as a way to compare FL plays against each other), but that seems pretty unlikely, really.
Nyxa

-GN wrote:

Skills required to play FL well are not measured by pp, and i doubt they ever will, so i don't think FL should be buffed much, if at all. Maybe if you incorporate reading difficulty into the system(maybe memorization score as a way to compare FL plays against each other), but that seems pretty unlikely, really.
I suppose this is true, though I do think that this

Tom94 wrote:

I assume you are talking about the flashlight bonus alone in your above statement. It's worth thinking about changing the bonus from being scaling flat with aim pp to making it scale even more with map length. I'd ditch the base bonus in that case completely, though. Makes it easier to balance and makes more sense to me.
is a better alternative to what we have now.
FGSky
with this system FL is just a lose-time mod
Shimatora

FGSky wrote:

with this system FL is just a lose-time mod
-Soba-
Isn't FL just a lose time way of getting #1s
Vuelo Eluko
even if FL gave dt amounts of pp people would still look at FL players as randoms
jesse1412

Riince wrote:

even if FL gave dt amounts of pp people would still look at FL players as randoms
Pretty much this. People ignore FL for a reason. When you look at things like this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/155929?m=0 the last thing you care about is the fact that someone FL'd it (although that rank 1 is fairly impressive, no one cares about it).
NixXSkate

jesus1412 wrote:

Riince wrote:

even if FL gave dt amounts of pp people would still look at FL players as randoms
Pretty much this. People ignore FL for a reason. When you look at things like this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/155929?m=0 the last thing you care about is the fact that someone FL'd it (although that rank 1 is fairly impressive, no one cares about it).
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/154889
Yeah but looking at plays like this makes me rock hard. Which gets less pp than the HD+DT SSs of course. Despite the fact Dungeon coulda gotten an SS on the map way over 25 times with the amount of plays he put (and his accuracy wasn't bad at all).

Although combo after 200 should affect the pp FL gives, I think the speed of the jumps and the map itself should be a much much bigger factor, which it sort-of is currently, just not enough in some cases. If a long map has slow jumps, it's really just patience in order to FL it, there's not much rectum squeezing. It's sometimes unfair, however, because people tend to have the mindset that FL players played the map so much that it's so embedded into their muscle memory that FL barely makes a difference to them after their practice. But on a map that's really difficult to FL, they'd probably only FC it 1 or 2 times total. Basically, when they finally get the scores, there's like too much of a focus overload to hit an extremely good accuracy, which matters more than the aim bonus. They could, of course, play it 1000s of more times until it requires much less focus to aim so they can focus on accuracy, but not everyone has as much patience as this guy.

FL does take skill, people can get better at it, and people like loli_milk were able to FL scores fast because of the fast reflexes and jumping with fast recall he had. How to measure FL for PP? I have no clue, it's too much mental skill rather than physical, but just keep in mind that when someone manages to FL a song that's difficult with it on, they're probably having a focus overload and pissing their pants, especially by the end. Unless they're used to it like BluOxy. The difficulty FL adds is so much greater as the difficulty increases, and I think it would be fair if scores such as Mesita's score here was worth slightly more, or at least around the same as the DT+HD SS scores, because scores like this aren't really whore-able to 99.999% of players. You can't really decide "oh I'm gonna DT+FL something like this for the pp" because it would take so much conviction and dedication for the average non-autistic person, and you would need to be able to FC it somewhat consistently without FL.

Tess wrote:

Granger wrote:

In my opinion it would be a idea to slightly lower the base score bonus and have a scaling bonus for combos past 200.
Why is this so hard to agree with or implement? In my opinion, it would be much better if the score bonuses were:

HD: 1.06x
HR: 1.08x
FL: 1.10x
DT: 1.12x

It's a mod in the game and you can't tell me that HR is harder than FL. FL should be worth it on longer maps. That requires a hell of a lot of skill and not just anyone can memorize an entire 2000-combo map and get high accuracy on it. You can call any FL score easy - that doesn't make it so. That reminds me of the guy who played a map I recommended to him as a hard map, and he went "LOL this is easy LOLOL" but when I asked him to FC it he couldn't do it, and said it wasn't worth it because it would take too many tries.
I've suggested something like this in the thread that wants PP to act as score instead, but nobody seemed phased. (I think my idea was actually 1.03 for HD, 1.06 for HR, 1.09 for FL, and 1.12 for DT or something...)
Nyxa
Yeah, the basic idea was to have score reflect pp so that, for example, HDHR scores wouldn't be worth as much as DT scores.
Winshley
Spun Out reduces the final beatmap's pp by 5%.
SpunOut shouldn't reduce pp by flat percentage, but rather the total amount of length of the spinner(s) or total number of spinner(s) or both instead.

While this may sound silly, I'm planning to use SpunOut to make a HD+HR+FL+SO scores so that I can actually enjoy getting SS with such mod combinations on certain map(s) while preventing myself from taking #1 away from players who have HD+DT or DT+FL scores. Would be weird that I got less pp when the map has 0 spinners, isn't it? :P
Topic Starter
Tom94

Winshley wrote:

Spun Out reduces the final beatmap's pp by 5%.
SpunOut shouldn't reduce pp by flat percentage, but rather the total amount of length of the spinner(s) or total number of spinner(s) or both instead.

While this may sound silly, I'm planning to use SpunOut to make a HD+HR+FL+SO scores so that I can actually enjoy getting SS with such mod combinations on certain map(s) while preventing myself from taking #1 away from players who have HD+DT or DT+FL scores. Would be weird that I got less pp when the map has 0 spinners, isn't it? :P
Making spunout pp depend on the amount of spinners makes sense indeed. I'll see if I can add this in the next balance adjustment.
koromo

NixXSkate wrote:

I've suggested something like this in the thread that wants PP to act as score instead
I actually thought about this a week or so ago but didn't bother posting. Would love to see score replaced with pp for more accurate scoreboards, though a change this big seems unlikely, and is probably too much of a bother, but who knows.
NixXSkate

koromo wrote:

NixXSkate wrote:

I've suggested something like this in the thread that wants PP to act as score instead
I actually thought about this a week or so ago but didn't bother posting. Would love to see score replaced with pp for more accurate scoreboards, though a change this big seems unlikely, and is probably too much of a bother, but who knows.
I would hate it.
koromo

NixXSkate wrote:

I would hate it.
It's probably impossible anyway, considering SS scores + spinner bonus and whatnot (since spinners make no difference in pp), plus tons of replays not being available due to not being in the top 50 despite giving enough pp to make it otherwise.
Woobowiz
pp based scoreboards would be fantastic, and same pp tiebreakers can be resolved after by score, then by date achieved (1st to score it wins)
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply