Same thing happened to me, but remember thatK_N wrote:
Recalculate points pls.
After update i had 4800pp (4351-->4800)
Then i pass one map and i lost 639 pp (4800-->4361)
as if I have gained points to the old pps(4351+10)
Something is wrong :/
Tom94 wrote:
...your pp and rank will be fluctuating a bit in the next ~48 hours. Please be patient until the re-calculation is done and be easy on me with your complaints.
Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one categoryWas it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
If you actually read before...Myke B wrote:
Was it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
It's the same categories as in tp.Almost wrote:
It means if the song is difficult to aim or accuracy or requires a great deal of speed but not difficult in the other categories, then it'll give more pp.tastystew wrote:
wait what i just gained 190pp what happened
what does the recent change to pp actually mean?
" Performance: [Tom94] Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one category."
I think it means that if a score has 2 low value tiers and 1 really high tier that it will be weighted more than it was before. e.g. a map with 200 aim, 20 speed, 20 accuracy was weighted 240 before, now its worth 280, but its just a guess.Myke B wrote:
Increase pp-value of scores which excel in one categoryWas it already said what that one category was, and if not, can you tell us what it is Tom?
buny wrote:
[qq]i'm lower than the initial pp i started with[/qq]
Get your friend to make some new high-scores on any map. That should trigger an immediate re-calculation of his pp. If his rank doesn't go back up a while after that, then he will most likely stay at 804.Takuji wrote:
Is this still half fixed?
Because Yesterday I went from 560ish>615 and my friend went from 660ish>804, And now I'm back at 551 and my friend is still at 804?
Ah okay, thanks for the fast responser :3Tom94 wrote:
Get your friend to make some new high-scores on any map. That should trigger an immediate re-calculation of his pp. If his rank doesn't go back up a while after that, then he will most likely stay at 804.Takuji wrote:
Is this still half fixed?
Because Yesterday I went from 560ish>615 and my friend went from 660ish>804, And now I'm back at 551 and my friend is still at 804?
No I didn't hence the "not sure if it was already said" because who the fuck would want to read that deep into a giant QQ fest. her derAlmost wrote:
If you actually read before...
NoFail gives 10% less pp than without.ntaig wrote:
I saw this question some days ago, but don't remember it being answered.
Does the no-fail do anything to the pp you can gain? say you do 98% or something with nf, would there be any difference between the pp gained from that and a score without mod?
Before that change got reverted my best performances list looked way more accurate than how it was before/now. .-.pooptartsonas wrote:
When these most recent pp changes (the one that weights scores that excel in one category higher) kicked in and many people went up like 500pp, my top ranks changed and seemed to reflect these changes. Two of my scores in particular that are really high in one category moved way up. The pp reverted, as well as my top ranks, and I've gained pp since then through scores so I can't tell if I gained any after the revert due to the change.
So, Tom, did you accidentally weigh these scores that excel in one category much higher than you had intended at first and then fixed the number? Or are calculations still going on behind the scene? I'm confused.
JappyBabes wrote:
Before that change got reverted my best performances list looked way more accurate than how it was before/now. .-.
ppv2 is pretty much tp...Gray Pigeon wrote:
Why doesn't it make ppv2 into the same calculation method as tp?
Because pp of 3 section (aim, speed, acc) sum total of other musical scores is high although Legendre has the skill to take Acc99.76% of accuracy by HDHR of RedGoose [Another], the capability to take accuracy is not correctly reflected in ppv2ranking.
This is being able to say not only to him but to all the players.
I wish, ppv2 becomes the same calculation method as tp.
Because ppv2 of now cannot say it as the ranking which expresses the skill of a player correctly.
ppv2 is tp without the Rank 50 Limitation... and also Tom94 made itGray Pigeon wrote:
Why doesn't it make ppv2 into the same calculation method as tp?
Because pp of 3 section (aim, speed, acc) sum total of other musical scores is high although Legendre has the skill to take Acc99.76% of accuracy by HDHR of RedGoose [Another], the capability to take accuracy is not correctly reflected in ppv2ranking.
This is being able to say not only to him but to all the players.
I wish, ppv2 becomes the same calculation method as tp.
Because ppv2 of now cannot say it as the ranking which expresses the skill of a player correctly.
your acc was probably worst in the HD play there for you get a new score but takes off your pp because its HDThisabel wrote:
Today i beat my score on SENTIVE - Saigo ni Kimi ga Ita with HD. My rank increased from rank around 220 to 88. But at the same time I lost pp and therefore ranks.
Does anyone has an explanation for this?
Translation: Your second play, the one that was "better", was actually worse performance wise, so you lost points because you overwrote your other score.snosey wrote:
your acc was probably worst in the HD play there for you get a new score but takes off your pp because its HDThisabel wrote:
Today i beat my score on SENTIVE - Saigo ni Kimi ga Ita with HD. My rank increased from rank around 220 to 88. But at the same time I lost pp and therefore ranks.
Does anyone has an explanation for this?
I don't think many people realise this. But if this isn't true, then the system/my top ranks/other people's top ranks won't make sense. So I'll just agree with this.Gray Pigeon wrote:
ppv2 calculates PP which 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of musical scores totaled in high order.
tp calculates PP after making 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of a musical score into separately high order.
Therefore, although tp and ppv2 are alike, it is not completely the same.
Even if tp carries out rank in to the 10000th place and it will be reflected, a result differs from ppv2.
sorry, i'm just going to be out with this - your english is terrible and I can't understand what you're trying to point out.Gray Pigeon wrote:
ppv2 calculates PP which 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of musical scores totaled in high order.
tp calculates PP after making 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of a musical score into separately high order.
Therefore, although tp and ppv2 are alike, it is not completely the same.
Even if tp carries out rank in to the 10000th place and it will be reflected, a result differs from ppv2.
Apart from the fact, that in pp the 3 sections are not just totaled, this is true. The reason why it's not exactly like tp is, because I feel it's just as wrong to only look at single aspects of scores in isolation as it is to look at a totaled value only. Scores which demand skill in all 3 categories should also be rewarded.Gray Pigeon wrote:
ppv2 calculates PP which 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of musical scores totaled in high order.
tp calculates PP after making 3 sections (aim,speed,acc) of a musical score into separately high order.
Therefore, although tp and ppv2 are alike, it is not completely the same.
Even if tp carries out rank in to the 10000th place and it will be reflected, a result differs from ppv2.
Thank you for the answer, and I am sorry that I am poor at English.Tom94 wrote:
Apart from the fact, that in pp the 3 sections are not just totaled, this is true. The reason why it's not exactly like tp is, because I feel it's just as wrong to only look at single aspects of scores in isolation as it is to look at a totaled value only. Scores which demand skill in all 3 categories should also be rewarded.
Currently the pp a score is worth is computed by the following formula: (aim^X + speed^X + acc^X)^(1/X)
Where X at the moment is 1.1 and will likely rise a bit in the future.
