What if I tell you you're underrating DT
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.
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.
silmarilen wrote:i dont like the part where it hits 0
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.
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.
yeah but look at the pp amount
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
not "yeah", you haven't read anything of what I said...
FGSky wrote:yeah but look at the pp amount
uuh i thought the combo is more important than misses sorry :-)
silmarilen wrote:look at the amount of misses
is there any other map you know of where you can get over 200pp with 40+ misses?
no i don't know how to read
GoldenWolf wrote:not "yeah", you haven't read anything of what I said...
No. Tom made ppv2 not reliant on anything outside of the map itself so that popularity and other issues would not cause problems with weighting.
Loves wrote:Merge the average player accuracy (and their rank) into the map difficulty. It is very hard to tell how hard a map is purely by using an un-self-aware algorithm that renders half the hard maps less desirable to play because they're so f----ing hard in the first place with little to no reward.
Algorithm (50%) + average player rank (10% does not include HT/NF)+ average map score/accuracy/combo (40%).
Simply too many maps that are really difficult are underrated by the ppv2 system and vice versa. A bunch of 4.5-5 star maps that belong in the 5.5+ range is not my definition of fair ranking and skill level.
I had a similar idea in mind but didn't know how to put it to practice or come up with a solid explanation of how it would work, so I never posted about it. Glad someone did, this is a really neat idea.
Dexus wrote:a bunch of stuff i entirely agree with
I think that if you're using 1%, you might as well use 0%. If I set 100 100pp scores that are all weighted 1%, that's 100pp extra that i don't even deserve. As Drezi said, players should aim to improve their best performances, not set a bunch of average performances that are easier than opening a can of soda to set. I can consistently set OD7 TV Size SS ranks given that they're not too hard, and I don't become a better player from doing so. It's not a real achievement, thus I don't deserve to be rewarded for it at all.
Dexus wrote: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.