Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,647
show more
Zare
you're continuously missing the point
what ppv2 measures is "what does this score tell me about the player's clicking speed, aim speed & precision and clicking accuracy"
a FL score on long maps is always impressive because of the mental aspect, but the actual, physical difficulty of the map doesn't really increase.
The score is only impressive for itself, because evidently a lot of effort went into it. But the player getting that score didn't gain any kind of physical strength he can use in other maps, his actual >skill< doesn't improve from getting that score
Rewben2
Damn this flashlight talk has been going down forever

It all comes down to whether you think that pp - your ranking compared to the rest of the community as a player - should be based off how much effort went into a score or how good the player is. I think the latter is quite clearly the way to go, isn't the whole purpose of a ranking system to give better players a higher rank? All we can base this off is scores, creating a system which can be manipulated to make scores appear good just because a lot of time went into it is not the way to go.
Dexus
I personally would like to see the weighting system shifted to where the top five or so scores have a higher weighting. The taper effect seems to sudden and then draws out too long. Past the top 25 it should be where it hits that 1% weight. The list view should be shorter as well since I and others don't bother to look very far down in the list. With this hitting your top five would be more rewarding and players would have a better idea of placing scores around their top ten instead of continually replacing their very top performance. It seem useless to score anything less than your best to move anywhere. More consistent players would be rewarded as well since they would have several good scores placed instead of a handful of odd weighted scores. No mod is kind of crippled because of this fact; there's not enough high rating maps no mod that are relative to where I'm ranked. Big black SS 300pp and Lewa can't FC it yet there are scores worth way more that are manageable in comparison.
Drezi

Dexus wrote:

I personally would like to see the weighting system shifted to where the top five or so scores have a higher weighting. The taper effect seems to sudden and then draws out too long. Past the top 25 it should be where it hits that 1% weight. The list view should be shorter as well since I and others don't bother to look very far down in the list. With this hitting your top five would be more rewarding and players would have a better idea of placing scores around their top ten instead of continually replacing their very top performance. It seem useless to score anything less than your best to move anywhere. More consistent players would be rewarded as well since they would have several good scores placed instead of a handful of odd weighted scores. No mod is kind of crippled because of this fact; there's not enough high rating maps no mod that are relative to where I'm ranked. Big black SS 300pp and Lewa can't FC it yet there are scores worth way more that are manageable in comparison.
Yes please, your best scores should be closer to 100%, and more than 20-25 being weighted higher than 1% just rewards you a bit for setting lots of scores at your average level.

I also hate that passive 416 bonus PP, around half of that would be enough I think (achieved by stricter weighting like 0,999 instead of 0,9994 and not cutting the individual per map bonus in half).
Drezi

Dexus wrote:

there's not enough high rating maps no mod that are relative to where I'm ranked. Big black SS 300pp and Lewa can't FC it yet there are scores worth way more that are manageable in comparison.
I think part of the reason that nomod plays aren't worth as much at higher levels is cause you can't gain significant acc PP with OD7 and 8, compared to OD10 HR and DT plays + the issue with pattern difficulty.
sayonara_sekai
I've randomly jumped 500-1000 ranks 3 times today. What could be causing this? I get 20-40~ ranks from doing good on hard maps and then randomly sometimes it jumps up around 700 ranks.
Drezi
Actually I ran some numbers, and made a weighting that yielded roughly the same amount of PP for the typical player, tested with actual PP numbers.

I used =(COS(X/12,5)+1)/2 with this weighting the top25 performances would be weighted higher than they are now, below the top25 they would be weighted lower, and reach 0 around the top40th performance. I might have made mistakes when it comes to the actual numbers, but you get the idea.

This would mean that having lots of average performances wouldn't be as valuable, as having good ones in the top spots, and having an outstanding Top1 performance wouldn't be as important as it is now.

Blue line shows the current weighting, Red line is the one suggested.
uzzi

Drezi wrote:

Actually I ran some numbers, and made a weighting that yielded roughly the same amount of PP for the typical player, tested with actual PP numbers.

I used =(COS(X/12,5)+1)/2 with this weighting the top25 performances would be weighted higher than they are now, below the top25 they would be weighted lower, and reach 0 around the top40th performance. I might have made mistakes when it comes to the actual numbers, but you get the idea.

This would mean that having lots of average performances wouldn't be as valuable, as having good ones in the top spots, and having an outstanding Top1 performance wouldn't be as important as it is now.

Blue line shows the current weighting, Red line is the one suggested.
I see this being very good alternative to the current weighting system. Kind of anti-farm as well in a sense.
Amianki
I support that only because it would apply to me perfectly. :*)
silmarilen
i dont like the part where it hits 0
Zare


¯\_(ツ)_/¯
silmarilen
that's a really good score, but what are you trying to gain from posting it here?
Zare
i'm criticizing how overrated DT is
I feel like that should give like


170~ pp
GoldenWolf
What if I tell you you're underrating DT
silmarilen
i feel like it should give ~215 pp in the current system
Zare
I'm getting these scores within 5-10 tries usually
Whenever I get a Nomod FC with these amounts of tries it's worth like nothing
silmarilen
>od
jesse1412

silmarilen wrote:

>od
>ar

The only issue with DT is it gives people an AR they're more comfortable with imo. It'd be fixed up a bit if AR was rewarded/punished accordingly but it's such a subjective topic it's not really balanceable.
Vuelo Eluko

Zare wrote:



¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Spaced streams are pretty difficult but a bit overrated, that i'll agree with. but that map isnt exactly free pp i havent been able to get higher than a 240 combo B.

also i thought it was already established pony maps are all free pp because even slow players can get fcs on them with dt and collect their ~5 star fcs because they all have low bpm compared to a lot of 3-.3.5 star maps which can sometimes get into the 280-290 bpm range.
GhostFrog
All of the above posts are pretty much correct, but to add to that, pp would be more accurate on a per-score basis if it worked like tp imo with regards to how aim speed and acc are treated. Your pp from a score isn't too much different from the sum of its aim speed and acc values (a power mean is used to weight the highest value a bit more), which means that most scores that don't give a decent amount of each are almost worthless. In tp, your overall aim/speed/acc values were calculated by putting all of your aim/speed/acc values in order and applying the same decreasing weighting method as is now employed for your total pp. That allowed scores like a low-acc DT FC on mendes (or impressive FCs on low OD nomod maps) to be properly rewarded, whereas the current system makes them seem relatively insignificant. In exchange, the current system allows you to get more pp from your stronger aspect(s) and that probably balances out total pp, but tp's system was certainly better about rewarding you for individual good scores.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply