I believe Tom has said he's working on it.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
I just checked out those pp values and played a map that supposedly granted me 39 pp, the value increased to 52 yet my pp is still the same. Is this intended? If so, how does it work?
the pp shown on your profile is the raw pp amount, before the pp equation is applied.Kasugunai wrote:
I just checked out those pp values and played a map that supposedly granted me 39 pp, the value increased to 52 yet my pp is still the same. Is this intended? If so, how does it work?
also i have a suggestion; maybe show the raw pp a play is worth ingame on the score screen? to give an idea of how much the song would be worth.
It's still weird that a D-rank play (around 66% acc) is worth 52 raw pp when it's not even worth 1 after the equation is applied.
That 52 raw pp should be worth about 6pp (according to it's position on the rank list), but by making that score, any performance worth less than 52pp gives 5% less (except the scores that were worse than 39 raw pp, but those were giving practically zero anyways), so you might end up getting practically nothing.Kasugunai wrote:
It's still weird that a D-rank play (around 66% acc) is worth 52 raw pp when it's not even worth 1 after the equation is applied.
Topic Starter
Soon the percentage by how much a given score is weighted will be shown along with the raw pp value to avoid confusion. 
I approve of this.Soulg wrote:
also i have a suggestion; maybe show the raw pp a play is worth ingame on the score screen? to give an idea of how much the song would be worth.
New update, showing PP super, but can you add information about mod which played map (HR, DT, DT+HD, None...), and "new" as in the TP system. It is simply amazing
Any plans to implement a raw PP values into the "Recent Plays" area of a profile? Or something equal to that?Tom94 wrote:
Soon the percentage by how much a given score is weighted will be shown along with the raw pp value to avoid confusion.
And Accuracy as well would be nice. When I go over my top ranks I find myself looking for low accuracy plays to improve upon.Fanker wrote:
New update, showing PP super, but can you add information about mod which played map (HR, DT, DT+HD, None...), and "new" as in the TP system. It is simply amazing
PP scores on profile are awesome.
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
Topic Starter
The weight is only based on the position of the score's pp value compared to the other pp values of the player's scores. This basically ensures that there is no "farming" or whatever you may call it. In other words: Only your best pp scores count towards your final pp.TMoI wrote:
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
It has nothing to do with map difficulty. If it had, then someone could keep playing maps of the same difficulty and keep getting pp for that, which would be quite contrary to what pp wants to encourage: Play harder maps, improve.
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are madeTom94 wrote:
The weight is only based on the position of the score's pp value compared to the other pp values of the player's scores. This basically ensures that there is no "farming" or whatever you may call it. In other words: Only your best pp scores count towards your final pp.TMoI wrote:
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but why is it that only one map is weighted at 100% of the base pp value for everyone?
I would have thought that there would be maps that are slightly easier than the top one which would be weighted 100% but not give as much pp because, well, it's easier, while the top map would be weighted more around 95-100% based on your results.
Either that or my idea of how the pp is being weighted is skewed, and if so then please explain ;-;
It has nothing to do with map difficulty. If it had, then someone could keep playing maps of the same difficulty and keep getting pp for that, which would be quite contrary to what pp wants to encourage: Play harder maps, improve.
More mods!snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
rrtyui is that far up because he DTHD'd several maps that only have HRHD in the top rankings.
And at that point, I'm assuming that it's kinda hard to rank because everyone there is just as good as you, you know?
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without modsTMoI wrote:
More mods!snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
rrtyui is that far up because he DTHD'd several maps that only have HRHD in the top rankings.
And at that point, I'm assuming that it's kinda hard to rank because everyone there is just as good as you, you know?
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.snosey wrote:
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lol
It is hard. If it was easy, it wouldn't be impressive to be the #1. The goal is to make it hard, so that the top player deserves their position. I don't see what's bad about this.snosey wrote:
i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without mods
They are supposed to win less for playing maps that are not up to their standard. Did you even bother reading what you just wrote? They get such small amounts of pp for those maps because they are capable of doing much harder ones. That's how the system is supposed to work. They're not playing to get pp for playing maps they can do without even breaking a sweat. They, like everyone else, are supposed to improve to go further in pp. They have already gained all the pp that "other people are getting for doing hdhr", so don't compare it to that.snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
i interpreted he/her answer wrong thank you for clarifying me-Scylla- wrote:
He was answering your question, not assuming anything about you. You were the one assuming he was assuming.snosey wrote:
i never said i was good you are the one who is assuming lolIt is hard. If it was easy, it wouldn't be impressive to be the #1. The goal is to make it hard, so that the top player deserves their position. I don't see what's bad about this.snosey wrote:
i just said it would be hard and like you said rrtyui did amazing ranks but he will need to continue doing dthd more maps that most people do hrhd but of course he also has maps that are hell hard to fc without mods
"Draxuss wrote:
They are supposed to win less for playing maps that are not up to their standard. Did you even bother reading what you just wrote? They get such small amounts of pp for those maps because they are capable of doing much harder ones. That's how the system is supposed to work. They're not playing to get pp for playing maps they can do without even breaking a sweat. They, like everyone else, are supposed to improve to go further in pp.snosey wrote:
So for us to get pp we need to get a score that is higher then the 104 top scores but doing that it will make the top players win less and less because its not every day maps really hard are made
what you just said was what i wrote just without the "without even breaking a sweat" they will have to do harder maps but after some time the maps that don't give much pp are still really hard this is what i wanted to say but forget it let time pass by and see were this system will go have fun playing
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
Yes.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
In that case, if all your scores are worth 100 raw pp (and assuming you got many of them), then your total pp would be about 2000pp, and you won't ever be able to get more than 2000pp total unless you get scores that are worth over 100 raw pp.
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).-Scylla- wrote:
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.Full Tablet wrote:
Yes.pop102 wrote:
Wait so, how do the percentages work?
Does it work like if you have scores worth...
1st rank 100pp - 100% = 100pp
2nd rank100pp - 95% = 95pp
Totaling up to a total of 195pp with just 2 scores?
In that case, if all your scores are worth 100 raw pp (and assuming you got many of them), then your total pp would be about 2000pp, and you won't ever be able to get more than 2000pp total unless you get scores that are worth over 100 raw pp.
The function does in fact converge, so you'll never be able to surpass 2000pp unless you get at least one score with a pp value of 101 or better (Assuming the current decay value of 0.95)
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.TheVileOne wrote:
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.
Theoretically:
10 100pp scores: 862.4 total pp.
100 100pp scores: 1988.75 total pp.
1,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 10^(-19) total pp.
100,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 4.36*10^(-2225) total pp.
The values in practice could be different because of rounding errors with floating-point calculations, but even then the errors would be incredibly small.
Then I undercounted, since I started counting at 1%. Would it be safe to assume that 110 scores are counted, or would this still vary per player?Full Tablet wrote:
The 104th score should have a weighting of 0.482231% (it shows as 0% because the value is rounded).-Scylla- wrote:
That's how I'm assuming it works, and that's what makes the most sense. I counted all my scores with >0% weighting, and came down to 104 weighted scores. I wonder if this is the same for everyone, or if that varies as well.
In theory, all scores are counted.-Scylla- wrote:
Then I undercounted, since I started counting at 1%. Would it be safe to assume that 110 scores are counted, or would this still vary per player?
For performance reasons, there could be a cut-off rank (since after so many ranks, each score adds a meaningless amount to the total).
In case you guys are interested in the maths behind all of this (for example why it's impossible to break certain pp barriers), it's called a "geometric series". You can find lots of online resources with information on the topic.
Well I guess that it could approach any value without ever reaching it. What makes you say that value is 2000 and not some other number?Full Tablet wrote:
The thing is, not even with an infinite amount of 100 raw pp scores your total pp will past over 2000.TheVileOne wrote:
There's no bottom limit to the formula. Theoretically you could get an unlimited amount of 100pp scores and each score would add something to your pp. Only after awhile the pp given is so small that it could take 100s of performances to get a single pp from it.
Theoretically:
10 100pp scores: 862.4 total pp.
100 100pp scores: 1988.75 total pp.
1,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 10^(-19) total pp.
100,000 100pp scores: 2000 - 4.36*10^(-2225) total pp.
The values in practice could be different because of rounding errors with floating-point calculations, but even then the errors would be incredibly small.
Geometric series have easily calculatable limits, and it's 20 for 0.95.
100pp*20 = 2000pp limit
/E: To be more specific, the limit is 1/(1-x), with x being 0.95 here
100pp*20 = 2000pp limit
/E: To be more specific, the limit is 1/(1-x), with x being 0.95 here
Maths...
I used to be good at it. >.>
I used to be good at it. >.>
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
Why would this even be necessary?NotThat wrote:
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
I also prefer it as "recent" as it is currently.-Scylla- wrote:
Why would this even be necessary?NotThat wrote:
Would it be possible to sort the 'First Place Ranks' by PP as well? Browsing the user page of the likes of WWW is quite disorganized.
What could be done is to add a sort option just for the first place ranks, but top performances should already cover that... so I don't see a point either.
The point is when viewing his top PP ranks, you have to click 'show me more' a bunch of times. After each time fastest way to get to the 'show me more' button again is to scroll to the bottom of the page. What ends up happening is you accidentally click the 'show me more' of the first place list instead of the overall plays list. That's fine and dandy because if you're viewing his profile for top plays there's a good chance you came there to search his first place play of some map to see how much PP it gave him, which means you can find it on his 'first ranks' list just as well. If the list is unsorted and he has many first place plays, you gonna have a mess real fast.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
Topic Starter
Mind elaborating what you mean by 'max PP'? Where would you derive them from if not from beatmap difficulty?NotThat wrote:
The point is when viewing his top PP ranks, you have to click 'show me more' a bunch of times. After each time fastest way to get to the 'show me more' button again is to scroll to the bottom of the page. What ends up happening is you accidentally click the 'show me more' of the first place list instead of the overall plays list. That's fine and dandy because if you're viewing his profile for top plays there's a good chance you came there to search his first place play of some map to see how much PP it gave him, which means you can find it on his 'first ranks' list just as well. If the list is unsorted and he has many first place plays, you gonna have a mess real fast.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this. What I'm after is I'm curious how much PP a map awards with 100% on certain mods. This will help me figure out where to focus my efforts. If my play on map A had 98% accuracy and it gave me 150PP, and my play on map B had 96% and it gave me 143PP, which map has more potential for me for improvement?
I assume there's a direct correlation between that and the PPv2 'level' of the map with said mods selected. This gets me thinking. What is the purpose of using a PPv2 'level' to designate map difficulty? Wouldn't it be just as possible and more relatable to use 'max PP' as a measuring stick?
The PP score awarded for SS'ing the map. I assume that's basically what the 'Level' number from osu!tp website is with some conversion, except the maximum PP value obtainable from a playthrough of a map is a more relatable number to players. It would be nice to know that I got 145PP out of 163PP obtainable on a map with no mods, etc.
At the moment, it seems like N is more common for Easy diffs than the intended E, I'd suggest to put the minimal value for an N a bit higher.
Examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6257 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41379 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/87630 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/155457 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/81557 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/102307 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/152786 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/119359 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/134220 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150242 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150784 And many more.
Examples:
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6257 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/41379 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/87630 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/155457 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/81557 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/102307 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/152786 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/119359 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/134220 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150242 http://osu.ppy.sh/s/150784 And many more.
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of "Easy" difficulties are actually Normals, though.