Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,647
show more
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.
Drezi

silmarilen wrote:

i dont like the part where it hits 0
The main idea was to reward your top2 to 5-10 performances higher as Dexus suggested, and not have the weighting draw out for so long. If it was feasible I would have made it hit 0 at around the 25-30th performamce, as I don't believe that any more performances are needed to evaluate a player, setting around that many good scores already proves that you're capable of playing at that level. But doing so would have resulted in large PP drops in everyone's PP totals, which is something I thought couldn't work due to people freaking out, even if cutting everyone's pp in half does nothing in reality.

I think pretty much everyone can effortlessly set any number of scores that are as good as their 40-50th ones, so why should those even be considered/rewarded? The faster you progress, or less scores you set, the more it's holding you back, or alternatively it can be filled up with your 2-3 try FC level of play performances, which again doesn't really prove anything.

It's mostly just phychological reasons that you feel it's bad if it hits 0 in my opinion, but even then it could always be adjusted so that around 25-35 it turns into the current weighting formula and it never reaches 0.
Dexus
spit-balled some numbers to give a better idea

Current Weighting

Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 95% 181.45
190pp 90% 171
190pp 86% 163.4
190pp 81% 153.9
total: 919.75

Player B
210pp 100% 210
203pp 95% 192.85
200pp 90% 180
200pp 86% 172
198pp 81% 160.38
total: 915.23

After Weighting Shift

Player A
250pp 100% 250
191pp 98% 187.18
190pp 97% 184.3
190pp 95% 180.5
190pp 93% 176.7
978.68pp

Player B
210pp 100% 210pp
203pp 98% 198.94pp
200pp 97% 194pp
200pp 95% 190pp
200pp 93% 186pp
978.94pp

As you can see if a player places a random or fluke score they can easily usurp a player who is clearly playing at a more consistent level. With the change it would shift these players closer in ranking without giving fluke scores such power and make placing similar scores within your top 10 more feasible. The player sporting a high pp scores IS deserving of a pronounced rank, but it really shouldn't overthrow players who are more deserving to be at that rank. This wouldn't allow farming neither because it would taper off still. At first I was against putting 0% worth, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense to not even count so many scores. 1% of a score shouldn't really be what a player is focusing on in my opinion, but constantly replacing your top score to get anywhere will just cause such anxiety. I'm honestly interested in seeing where all players would be sitting if such a weighting method was put in place.
Ziggo

GhostFrog wrote:

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.
I kinda agree with this, but I also see how a score with decent values in all aspects should be worth something. Maybe the tp system could be used with the players pp composed of aim, speed, acc AND combined pp as a forth value.
FGSky






why EZ is underrated than HT

HT is very easy mod
GoldenWolf
It's not?

the EZ score has 20 misses more and 4% worse accuracy, that's pretty huge, especially the 20 misses

To compare the score they need to be near indentical
FGSky

GoldenWolf wrote:

It's not?

the EZ score has 20 misses more and 4% worse accuracy, that's pretty huge, especially the 20 misses

To compare the score they need to be near indentical
yeah but look at the pp amount
silmarilen
look at the amount of misses
is there any other map you know of where you can get over 200pp with 40+ misses?
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply