When you set a score, your plays below it are pushed down and have lower weightings and contribute less towards your total pp.Apacci-k wrote:
Sorry, I have a problem..
As I've red in FAQ, the number in brackets is how much did you get from this map. Well here it says that I got 29 pp, when actually It gave me only 5 - 6 ppAnd I played this map only 2 times and didn't get any pp from it before. Help me, mb I don't understand something тт
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
The reason I suggested this is because star rating already finds the most difficult parts of the map, at least to my knowledge. Toms difficult calculator could generate graphs of the difficulty at certain times, hence why I thought the idea was feasible. Here's a picture of one of the graphs in question:Woobowiz wrote:
Regarding your suggestion, it might become feasible to code (but probably still not easy) if we use the combo colors. Considering the ranking of maps is getting more standardized, it'll be consistent for calculating these difficult parts.jesus1412 wrote:
Not sure how crazy this would be to implement but it doesn't sound easy.
The most difficult aspect though is, who's gonna sit around figuring out a system that will :But I suppose it's only theory
- Calculate the difficulty of each individual combo color segment
- Find the most difficult segment BEFORE you broke your largest combo (not overall in the map)
- (optional) Weight the rest of the segments relative to that segment so all segments sum to a pp value for SS
- Each individual combo color section broken/missed in their respective combo chunks further deducts from your final pp value
- If breaks combo and the combo is less than the number of notes in the particular combo segment, default that section to either 0pp value or some minimum pp
- (optional) pp Deductions become less severe the more your combo exceeds the combo of the most difficult section
- (optional) pp Deductions become more severe the more your combo precedes the combo of the most difficult section
- (optional) pp Deductions become based on the deviation between the most difficult segment and the others
- Curve pp value with your accuracy for only the sections that apply between the combo breaks
- This calculation will be done for each combo chunk, so if I missed/broke slider in the middle of a 1001 combo map, it will do calculations for the first 500 combo chunk and then a calculation for the other 500 combo chunk.
- 2 ways to deal with the final calculation :
- Sort chunks in descending order by value and weight each subsequent chunk after that (just like Top Plays) and the total pp after weighting will be the pp you earn
- Average all the chunks together, then scale the average down by the number of chunks you had
My mistake for interpreting the suggestion wrong, but now that I know, I agree.jesus1412 wrote:
Uhh the reason I suggested this is because star rating already finds the most difficult parts of the map, toms difficult calculator could generate graphs of the difficulty at certain times, hence why I thought the idea was feasible.
dem graphs again--- oh wait, wrong ones
If you had a list with the difficulty of each combo increment in the map (made with the strain graphs: Circles, Spinners and Slider Starts would have a value equal to their respective strains, while slider ticks and ends would have a fraction of their respective slider strains), you could find the easiest section of the map that gives X combo (by considering the "easiest section" as the section with the smaller sum of strains, it might be a good idea to fine-tune the scaling of the strains if using that criteria, by, for example, using a list of each strain to the power of 1.5, in order to increase the relative worth of the hardest parts)jesus1412 wrote:
The reason I suggested this is because star rating already finds the most difficult parts of the map, at least to my knowledge. Toms difficult calculator could generate graphs of the difficulty at certain times, hence why I thought the idea was feasible. Here's a picture of one of the graphs in question:
For example: In a map with maximum 100,000 combo with the speed strain like this (I just used a random number generator and a Gaussian filter to generate the graph, with many points to test how fast the computer can find those values):
The easiest sections that give 10%, 20%, 30%, ..., 90% of the max combo would be:
(Calculating and generating those graphics took 3.447622 seconds, in maps with smaller max combo it would take considerably less)
Third Example
Finding those sections could be useful for determining the worth of getting certain amount of max combo in the maps when calculating pp. For example, the difficulty factor could be related to the star difficulty of the section that was determined to be the easiest instead of the overall star difficulty (and, to compensate, reduce the penalty for misses and combo lost). This would balance the amount of pp given in maps where getting 95% of the max combo is relatively easy, since the hardest part is just at the end on the map, for example; or, maps where the hard parts are just in the middle, where getting 75% of the max combo (caused by a random mistake, after doing well on the hard parts) is undervalued.With another strain graph
http://a.pomf.se/pkjgav.mp4
http://a.pomf.se/panvrz.mp4 The same strain graph, but before applying the algorithm, the strain values were squared, making it so the hardest parts are weighted more. Ideally, the criteria should be "the section that would have the lowest star rating", but because of the way it is calculated (weighted sum based on rank of the strain values), it would severely increase the calculation time
http://a.pomf.se/pkjgav.mp4
http://a.pomf.se/panvrz.mp4 The same strain graph, but before applying the algorithm, the strain values were squared, making it so the hardest parts are weighted more. Ideally, the criteria should be "the section that would have the lowest star rating", but because of the way it is calculated (weighted sum based on rank of the strain values), it would severely increase the calculation time
The main issue would having to calculate the star difficulty for each play (which could potentially be very expensive for the servers), for that, instead of calculating after each play, calculate several star difficulties per map varying the combo and interpolate the star difficulties between the pre-calculated values for each play (this would increase considerably the amount of time it takes to recalculate values each algorithm change, though).
About the previous post, it had some issues:
- The algorithm didn't always find the sections with smaller star rating (it did most of the time when squaring the strain values, but not always), changing it so it always finds the correct sections would increase the calculation time considerably.
- In maps where the difficulty is near constant, the star rating of a section of the map is too close to the star rating of the whole map (so in those maps, the difference between ~30% and 80% of the max combo would be small). Similarly, if a map has 2 difficulty spikes of the same difficulty, the star rating of the sections with 1 difficulty spike is similar to the star rating of the section with both difficulty spikes.
So, there would be changes to fix those issues:
- Take the strain values of the combo increments, and weight them according to their rank (the highest value has 100% of it's value, the second 99%, the third .99^2, and so on) (in that case the sum of those weighted values is related to the star ranking of the map). Find the easiest sections with criteria of "smallest sum" of those weighted values.
- Instead of calculating the star rating of the sections found, just take the sum of the weighted strain values in the section found (weighted according to the rank of the combo increments in the whole map, not just the section), and give the combo factor in pp based on that.
Examples:
- The algorithm didn't always find the sections with smaller star rating (it did most of the time when squaring the strain values, but not always), changing it so it always finds the correct sections would increase the calculation time considerably.
- In maps where the difficulty is near constant, the star rating of a section of the map is too close to the star rating of the whole map (so in those maps, the difference between ~30% and 80% of the max combo would be small). Similarly, if a map has 2 difficulty spikes of the same difficulty, the star rating of the sections with 1 difficulty spike is similar to the star rating of the section with both difficulty spikes.
So, there would be changes to fix those issues:
- Take the strain values of the combo increments, and weight them according to their rank (the highest value has 100% of it's value, the second 99%, the third .99^2, and so on) (in that case the sum of those weighted values is related to the star ranking of the map). Find the easiest sections with criteria of "smallest sum" of those weighted values.
- Instead of calculating the star rating of the sections found, just take the sum of the weighted strain values in the section found (weighted according to the rank of the combo increments in the whole map, not just the section), and give the combo factor in pp based on that.
Examples:
Graphs
Map with the hardest section in the middle:
Hardest part towards the end:
2 Difficult Parts
Near constant difficulty
Perfectly constant difficulty: this is a pathological case, the result here was caused because the ranking of strains of the same value was done in canonical order: first element 1st, the second element with rank 2nd, and so on. Actually, since all values are the same, any ranking makes sense, and each way of ranking generates a different combo curve. The best way to solve this would ranking equal values with the same rank, with a rank where the sum of the weightings of the tied strains is the same: Example: 4 strains tied for first place; the fifth element would be ranked 5th, while the first 4 elements are ranked
(with u=4, so each rank is ~2.49372); if 6th and 7th are tied as well, then their ranks are 5+(previous expression with u=2)=6.49874.
This would make the curve linear (and more similar to the "near constant" difficulty curve)
Fixed combo factor curve (each strain value is ranked 230.1095838724)
How the combo factor looks currently for comparison (the shape is what is important, all curve values should be multiplied so the max value is 1)
Hardest part towards the end:
2 Difficult Parts
Near constant difficulty
Perfectly constant difficulty: this is a pathological case, the result here was caused because the ranking of strains of the same value was done in canonical order: first element 1st, the second element with rank 2nd, and so on. Actually, since all values are the same, any ranking makes sense, and each way of ranking generates a different combo curve. The best way to solve this would ranking equal values with the same rank, with a rank where the sum of the weightings of the tied strains is the same: Example: 4 strains tied for first place; the fifth element would be ranked 5th, while the first 4 elements are ranked
This would make the curve linear (and more similar to the "near constant" difficulty curve)
Fixed combo factor curve (each strain value is ranked 230.1095838724)
How the combo factor looks currently for comparison (the shape is what is important, all curve values should be multiplied so the max value is 1)
this wont work because it cant see where you missed. if you got 700 combo on a map, hitting the hardest part but getting a random miss at such a point that you did not get the smallest possible combo that you had 100% fc'd the hardest part (lets say the hardest part is at 720 combo into the map, and going on for 20 notes, meaning to get the most out of it you would have to have about 750 combo) you would not get the full difficulty bonus, even tho you hit the hardest part, only because your combo was 50 short.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing the difficult part is not how it should work.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing the difficult part is not how it should work.
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).silmarilen wrote:
this wont work because it cant see where you missed. if you got 700 combo on a map, hitting the hardest part but getting a random miss at such a point that you did not get the smallest possible combo that you had 100% fc'd the hardest part (lets say the hardest part is at 720 combo into the map, and going on for 20 notes, meaning to get the most out of it you would have to have about 750 combo) you would not get the full difficulty bonus, even tho you hit the hardest part, only because your combo was 50 short.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing is not how it should work.
but how does the system know where in the combo the hard parts are?
i dont think it does.
i dont think it does.
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.Full Tablet wrote:
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).silmarilen wrote:
this wont work because it cant see where you missed. if you got 700 combo on a map, hitting the hardest part but getting a random miss at such a point that you did not get the smallest possible combo that you had 100% fc'd the hardest part (lets say the hardest part is at 720 combo into the map, and going on for 20 notes, meaning to get the most out of it you would have to have about 750 combo) you would not get the full difficulty bonus, even tho you hit the hardest part, only because your combo was 50 short.
making 50 combo make such a huge difference when you did the same in terms of fcing is not how it should work.
Well, fixing the issue you mention would require knowing where the misses are (or taking even more assumptions, for example: making a model that estimates the probability the misses were in random easy parts instead of the hardest parts of the map, which would increase the complexity of the calculation and could potentially give overrated pp values).silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
I posted the graphs the old tp system uses. This already happens.Riince wrote:
but how does the system know where in the combo the hard parts are?
i dont think it does.
Rewarding SOME people for hitting the hardest part is better than rewarding none, plus the second person genuinely had a better play because they full combod the hard part and even some extra parts compared to the other player. It's also safe to assume if someone can do the hardest part of the map without missing then they can full combo the rest (this is the case the majority of the time).silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.Full Tablet wrote:
With the data available for the pp calculation, it is safer to assume the combo breaks were present in the hardest parts of the songs (and give a high combo factor if it can be sure you got the hardest part of the map right). After all, most of the time the combo breaks are present in the hardest part of the map (with random combo breaks being the exception, except in maps that are too long or is hard to keep concentration).
I'd say that it's better to reward as many performances as possible rather than denying some people their pp just because someone else COULD have FC'ed the same hard part.
i see, the graphs just had time so i didnt know if it had specific enough information to narrow it down to specific objects/combo #
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
Instead using this we could reward some non full combo performances adequately higher, than what they are currently worth with the (your combo^08/total combo^08) weighting, WHEN we can be sure that even in the worst case scenario (easiest consecutive "your combo length" section) includes the hardest parts.
So this way there wouldn't be any negative aspects to this, only the upside that certain non FC performances could be rewarded higher, where we can be sure that it's justified.
Well, comparing the proposed combo factor with the current one, maps that have the hardest part at the very end or very beginning relatively would get smaller combo factor for non-FC; but I don't think it is a bad thing.Drezi wrote:
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
For example, one of the reasons this map with DT gives so much pp for it's difficulty https://osu.ppy.sh/b/84811?m=0 is because the hardest part is at the very end, but the map is relatively easy, so you get a considerable amount of pp even if you failed the jumps at the end.
Yeah, I don't think it would be a bad thing either, I always support changes for the better, but most people don't like bigger changes, and here the current weight could simply be bumped up when it's appropriate, so that shouldn't be problematic in any way.
Unrelated to the previous discussion (It's interesting though, and I support the idea) - How are doubles weighted in this system? Are they counted separately or as a two note stream? Because, if it's the latter, then they are heavily undervalued. I know for a fact that a majority of the players I talk to have a lot of difficulty with playing doubles, mostly because they find the rhythm odd and because the constant switching from blue to red/white polarity that comes with doubles (or 1/6 patterns which are even harder to understand for non-musically inclined people) confuses them as opposed to your regular 4/4 signature rhythms.
I think that, unless doubles have already been addressed separately, they should be. A map full of doubles (like Lan's diff in Yoiyami Hanabi or Tsukimiyo Rabbit) is quite difficult to get a high accuracy on, especially when the OD is up there and when the map is fast. I apologize if I missed any sections on them, but I feel like they're something that should be addressed.
And then maybe take a look at 1/3 type patterns as well, since those are also often confusing for a lot of players. I don't think the boost should be huge (and maybe it's already there) but it would be nice to know whether those are rewarded in some form of the other.
I think that, unless doubles have already been addressed separately, they should be. A map full of doubles (like Lan's diff in Yoiyami Hanabi or Tsukimiyo Rabbit) is quite difficult to get a high accuracy on, especially when the OD is up there and when the map is fast. I apologize if I missed any sections on them, but I feel like they're something that should be addressed.
And then maybe take a look at 1/3 type patterns as well, since those are also often confusing for a lot of players. I don't think the boost should be huge (and maybe it's already there) but it would be nice to know whether those are rewarded in some form of the other.
I don't think there's such a thing as counting two notes separately or as a stream. Time and distance between notes is looked at afaik.
It's true that complex rythms are harder to acc though, not sure how well it is accounted for.
It's true that complex rythms are harder to acc though, not sure how well it is accounted for.
How difficult a map is rhythmically isn't taken into consideration at all right now. Doubles are treated the same as any other notes and contribute to the strain values in the same way any other notes would based on their position and timing.
1/3 patterns aren't given any bonus and I don't think giving them a bonus would be a good thing - changing the listed bpm of a map would change which patterns are 1/3 without changing anything about gameplay. It would probably make sense to give a bit of a bonus when the notes change from 1/3 to 1/2 to 1/6 to 1/4 etc, but that also is currently not considered.
1/3 patterns aren't given any bonus and I don't think giving them a bonus would be a good thing - changing the listed bpm of a map would change which patterns are 1/3 without changing anything about gameplay. It would probably make sense to give a bit of a bonus when the notes change from 1/3 to 1/2 to 1/6 to 1/4 etc, but that also is currently not considered.
That's a shame, when it comes to rythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpmDrezi wrote:
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum
you'd be surprised at how many people would have the tendency to speed up drastically if they didnt have some sort of metronome to follow
Something like the algorithm here in tom94's ask.fm could be used http://pastebin.com/cFGUJdGaDrezi wrote:
That's a shame, when it comes to rythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
It is for taiko, but could be used for standard too if the only variable of the objects is the time between hits, with only one color present, considering both circles and slider starts as the same kind of object. Sliders might be considered a little different (probably making sliders of a certain duration have a "partial" match with circles or sliders of different duration if both share the same time between key presses, where the partial match reduces the rhythm complexity strain less than a full match).
Using a weighting of the strains of 0.9975 (So the maximum value is 400):
"Rhythm Complexity"
xi - FREEDOM DiVE [FOUR DIMENSIONS]: 348.488
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/297463&m=0 351.973
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/312959&m=1 324.277
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272&m=0 271.207
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/323875&m=0 256.527
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/152078&m=1 369.495
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/58063&m=0 328.276
But in osu you DO have a metronome - the music itself (also if you start speeding up, you start getting 100s), and it doesn't even matter, cause the point is that relatively a constant beat is still easier to pull off more or less accurately than harder patterns.Apink Chorong wrote:
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpm
you'd be surprised at how many people would have the tendency to speed up drastically if they didnt have some sort of metronome to follow
@Full Tablet: that looks pretty good.
Are you planning on posting anything constructive?
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
Topic Starter
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
From my tests with alternative weighting of scores I still find that the current weight performs best, so there likely won't be a change in that regard.
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
I've been occupied with other things than osu! in the last few weeks and I don't know when I will find the time to further tune pp again, but I am still regularily reading the posts in the feedback threads.
Topic Starter
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
2: Calculate new difficulty for all ranked maps (takes a few hours)
3: Calculate new pp for a select amount of players for testing (takes from minutes to hours, depending on how many players)
4: Repeat at 1 if not satisfied with result (usually needs quite a few repetitions to fix / prevent undesired side effects of the changes)
5: Apply the new difficulty algorithm to _all_ maps (takes ~1 day)
6: Push the new difficulty algorithm into the osu! client so that ingame star rating aligns for online star rating (makes everyone recalculate star difficulty in song select, takes some minutes to hours depending on how many maps there are. Might make song select stutter a bit while in progress)
7: Re-calculate pp for every player and hope for as little as possible "I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Not necessarily, there're usually some people who gains pp while others lose pp for every calculation change. It's just that those who's gained pp after a change usually keeps quiet and grin, while those who's lost pp will go make threads/comments everywhere blaming the system being "stupid" =.=Woobowiz wrote:
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Do not under-estimate the effort to educate people after an "Armageddon" like that...
Tom94 wrote:
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
2: Calculate new difficulty for all ranked maps (takes a few hours)
3: Calculate new pp for a select amount of players for testing (takes from minutes to hours, depending on how many players)
4: Repeat at 1 if not satisfied with result (usually needs quite a few repetitions to fix / prevent undesired side effects of the changes)
5: Apply the new difficulty algorithm to _all_ maps (takes ~1 day)
6: Push the new difficulty algorithm into the osu! client so that ingame star rating aligns for online star rating (makes everyone recalculate star difficulty in song select, takes some minutes to hours depending on how many maps there are. Might make song select stutter a bit while in progress)
7: Re-calculate pp for every player and hope for as little as possible "I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
You could make this happen with no problem. I believe in you my friend
Jesse top 100 the dream incoming.Tom94 wrote:
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
From my tests with alternative weighting of scores I still find that the current weight performs best, so there likely won't be a change in that regard.
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
I've been occupied with other things than osu! in the last few weeks and I don't know when I will find the time to further tune pp again, but I am still regularily reading the posts in the feedback threads.
Christmas came early this year.Tom94 wrote:
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
EDIT:
I forgot to add this last time, but - about the max combo scaling; wouldn't it be possible to use the performance chart for that as well? It tells you about the HP bar's drain during the play, right? Which means that a section with a lower drain had less performance on. If you have a way of knowing where the most difficult sections in the map are, then it shouldn't be very hard to use the performance chart to determine how well the player did in said section. Maybe this is just a dumb idea because I'm missing something - but hitting more 100s results in a more empty hp bar, right? So it would be lower in that section. I know that this all heavily depends on the drain rate of the map, but there should always be some form of a difference between an SS and non-SS performance in the drain chart. If you combined that with max combo scaling, it might give you an even more accurate idea of the player's individual performance on a map.
Figured I'd throw that out there. Also, it might be nice to hear what kind of feedback there is on the doubles issue (unless that was already given and I missed it)
Problem Details: I SSed a map with NC and in my top ranks it says 202pp, however I gained absolutely no pp at all. Why is this?
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
The time between your top plays and their accuracies are hella suspicious yoakinator127 wrote:
Problem Details: I SSed a map with NC and in my top ranks it says 202pp, however I gained absolutely no pp at all. Why is this?
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
I'm kidding of course. The only solution is to wait for the pp to come, also that post should really be submitted in Tech Support
it was, and there they said to post it here
What, who said that? I think they told him to post in in Gameplay & Rankings, but he posted it in this instead of the general G&Rsilmarilen wrote:
it was, and there they said to post it here
p/3404843
links directly to this thread
links directly to this thread
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
yeah you lost 4.5% accuracy it's really underrated zzz
Well they chose the wrong place to redirect to, also not a Mod so he's even less crediblesilmarilen wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3404843
links directly to this thread
4.3% is MASSIVE, I'd say that should be the right amount of pp.Drezi wrote:
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
Different OD, that's the point -.-' Sure you can tell me that it's ok, but you can't just compare the %, the actual timing of hits is what matters. As someone said earlier you can't get pp for the acc you don't have and that's true, but you shouldn't get less accpp either, just because a higher OD means more 100s for the same hits.
but why should you get more accpp for the same hits at od10 that you would have made at od8 for that acc
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
What was the UR for each play if you can check? If you had similar accuracy for each and the difference of 4% acc was caused by the OD change, I feel it is undervalued. The smaller circles + use of hidden should give a benefit.Drezi wrote:
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
Like I wrote above, the use of hidden and extra aim should give a bonus. It's a similar play but there should still be quite a difference.GoldenWolf wrote:
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
Well he already got the aim bonus from the mods, but given the map... the bonuses are pretty small because the map itself is fairly easy to begin with, and since HD gives a percentage bonus... Yeah.
I think the issue here is that people arguing against Drezi aren't realizing that his point is that accuracy isn't the only thing that should be looked at with HDHR at Insane level or higher. It's not just the OD that increases - the circles decrease in size, the AR becomes disproportionate and HD on top of that increases the AR further and makes it way harder to time your notes correctly, as well as aim them properly - not to mention that weird sliders become incredibly hard with HR due to the decreased circle size, so you'd have to trace them much more precisely. In short - a 95% HDHR FC requires a lot more skill than a 99% nomods SS. I'm a HR player and I've yet to find a map where this isn't the case. HR is undervalued, both by the pp system and the players. I think the new update will do the mod some justice.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
well tess thats why i specifically said acc pp
Well, that's exactly what I said, we agree here. I said it shouldn't give less either, it should be the same.Riince wrote:
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
That's a great example, and so true. Easy to see, almost EVERYONE has that Darren Korb song in their top performances around my rank, and generally DT plays only, hardly anyone has any HR plays, you're crazy if you think that Shotgun Senorita play is of the same difficulty.Tess wrote:
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
My top plays are filled with DT too, even though I've been playing HR mainly for quite some time now, and still I only have one play that's worth anything with it. DT started to fill my top ranks, as soon as I got into it.
Do you guys really believe that the majority of players has a special gift for DT and sucks at HR magically? Maybe it has something to do with HR being underappreciated.
Anyway I did not intend to start a debate here, Tom already said he'll address some issues here, I just posted this example that I felt was off, as requested.
setting sail is just overrated because it has a lot of notes at od8 but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc while still giving a lot of acc pp
Oh, that's right, this is true and Tom hasn't addressed this rhythm complexity issue, while it's obviously something to consider. Full Tablet posted an approach that looked good.silmarilen wrote:
but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
This is why i mentioned the doubles earlier, doubles and other complex rhythms really deserve special attention, and it shouldn't be hard to recognize them (definitely easier than recognizing visual patterns) so there has to be a way to incorporate them. This way maps like this https://osu.ppy.sh/s/115011 and this https://osu.ppy.sh/b/171678&m=1 might actually get the value they deserve.Drezi wrote:
Oh, that's right, this is true and Tom hasn't addressed this rhythm complexity issue, while it's obviously something to consider. Full Tablet posted an approach that looked good.silmarilen wrote:
but they are all 1/2 notes, so easy to acc
Bolt; did you overwrite an old FC with a new FC? Or any older scores with new ones? I have a 98.10% A that's above a 98.16% S with HDDT on Golden Sky, which probably cost me around ~10pp. If I made that mistake 6 times, I'd have the same issue you do.
Topic Starter
t/246378bolt997 wrote:
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
Tom94 wrote:
t/246378bolt997 wrote:
Problem Details:
I was rank 9244 yesterday, and today i was rank 9861.
I'm very sure i didn't FC a qualified song that returned to pending,
all the songs i FCed yesterday are still ranked and I'm wondering where this 60pp decrease came from.
As you can see, the ranked score, the number of plays, total hits all stayed the same, somehow my accuracy increased.
Please tell me what is the problem, and if it is a miscalculation on osu's part please don't let my hardwork go to waste.
I apologize for the sudden change in topic but i was told if i had pp issues, this is the place.
Video or screenshot showing the problem:
So can we take back our PP?
does pp = global rank? I just gained PP and got zero ranks even though my rank is awful.
it is not = to global rank, but you are ranked globally by your pp compared to everyone elses.
pp = global rank, but pp =/= global rank. If that were the case, we wouldn't need two separate values. Anyway - sometimes it takes a while for ranks to update, and sometimes you just happen to achieve a pp value that doesn't gain you ranks. I can sometimes gain 50 pp without barely gaining any ranks, and then I gain 5 more pp and shoot up 100 ranks. It all depends, really. Just focus on gaining more pp and you will see your rank go up naturally.
ok that explains it since it was like a 0.8 pp gain
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
You still have to add other factors like OD, number of circles, object count and aim value though. The star rating can't really do that just yet, we'll have to wait.Tess wrote:
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
Your first map has approx. half the circles, half the objects and 1 less OD (9 vs 10). That's more than enough difference to give a significantly different pp value for the same acc.
The top map is 0.01 star lower than the bottom one, but still manages to give 41 more pp because it's 1 OD above and has 100 more circles.
If 2 maps have the same OD, same star rating and same length, they usually give similar pp.
E.g.
I am well aware, I guess my point is that things like these should be included in the star rating. Star rating is there as an indicator of difficulty. If it doesn't properly indicate the difficulty of a map, what's the point of having it? Sure, it's better than the old system, but if it's inaccurate it's still pointless.
I'm pretty sure Tom is looking to incorporate map length, od and ar into star difficulty which it currently isn't. It's never been claimed that star difficulty is a perfect indicator of how much pp a map will give, it's only a guide. It sounds as if you think that star difficulty is meant to show pp output perfectly, which may be the intention and may happen in the future but it's well known that at the moment that it doesn't reflect on a maps pp perfectly.Tess wrote:
I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that there's a huge flaw with the star system. At first I thought that HR was just underrated (which it is) but the amount of stars shown on a map have hardly anything to do with the amount of pp it gives, and that's just bad. Proof:
Take a look at these two plays. Nightmare is clearly worth more pp, seeing as I got a similar amount to Coloring with 1.37% less accuracy.
Now look at this and this. Notice anything? The HR one is 0.2 stars lower than the DT one, even if it gives a lot more pp. This should really be looked into, it's not like you can deny those numbers. All maps of an x amount of stars should give an x amount of pp. If map A is 5 stars and gives 200 pp for an SS, map B of 5 stars should give 200pp as well, and so should any other 5 star map. The star system is meaningless otherwise.
It's also not meaningless just because it doesn't tell you the exact amount of pp a map will give. It's pretty close as it stands in most cases and just by looking at od and map length you can figure it out pretty accurately yourself. I can guarantee most users would prefer having it then having it removed, it definitely has value.
It's also arguable whether the maps difficulty actually increases as the od and the map length do. It may be harder to get good acc on and to fc, but is the map any harder to play?
...Have you ever played HR? Everything you said was really reasonable up to that last sentence.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
OD shouldn't be included in star difficulty because it's handled differently than aim and speed. If you have 2 maps with different ODs that give the same pp for SS, the map with lower OD will give more pp for any accuracy less than 100% and it makes sense that that should be the case. Giving those maps the same star rating would be more misleading and less useful than the current system. Right now, the star rating system is meant to give the difficulty in FCing a map. Incorporating OD into star rating (especially without somehow accounting for the fact that some rhythms are harder to acc than others) makes it harder to extract that information and is redundant, since OD and number of circles already tells you how difficult the pp system thinks that map is to acc.
You're pathetic. I thought you were a smart person until this post which is just a blatant attack with absolutely no reasoning behind it. YOU PLAY TV SIZE DT THEREFORE YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPINION XDDDD. I also only have 3 tv size dt scores in my top 20. Please...Tess wrote:
...Have you ever played HR? Everything you said was really reasonable up to that last sentence.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
Anyways... I don't see how OD makes a map HARDER to play. It's the exact same map but it's harder to get accuracy on, which is what I said. A map being longer just means there's more to play through and will therefore be harder to fc. The map isn't any harder to play at any given point. This is how I see it.
I even put a question mark on the end of what I said to imply it was up for discussion, which it seems you missed.
Even if it's about how hard a map is to FC, in the two examples I gave, the map with lower star rating both gives more pp and is harder to FC. It took me a week to FC that and then another day to FC it with acceptable accuracy, while I did Coloring in under 20 tries (Considering that it was my highest pp play back then with a ~30pp difference to my #2 play, and that it stayed my highest play until a few days ago, that's quite an easy score for the reward it gives). I only play about half the DT as I do HR and I'm rarely fast enough to be able to FC any DTs at all, so don't give me that "lol you're just used to DT so it's easy 4 u" crap. I still don't see how Nightmare HR deserves a lower star rating than Coloring DT.
No, I was not making a personal attack nor saying that you don't have an opinion, and by "TV size" I meant short maps in general, whether they're labeled TV size or not. It's just not a real surprise that someone who doesn't play high OD often doesn't see how it makes a map harder to play. That's just like people who say "HD is meaningless, it shouldn't give pp" yet don't have a single HD score in their top performances. Could you take such a person seriously?
As for the actual argument you tried to make - you pretty much contradict yourself. You say "I don't see how it's harder to play" and then "It's the exact same map but it's harder" - whatever comes after "harder" doesn't matter, you literally say it is both harder to get high accuracy on with higher OD and harder to FC with a longer length. Accuracy and stamina are two aspects of gameplay - if the only thing you take into account is combo, then, yes, a higher OD doesn't necessarily make a map harder. But who the hell gets high ranks with only 90% scores? And who the hell gets anywhere without an FC? What aspect of gameplay do you consider to be gameplay anyway? Speed? If all we had to do was play fast maps without any regard for combo or accuracy, some of my current 10K friends would be in the top 50 around now. If you're making a reasonable argument, I sure as hell am not seeing it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to me what does make a map harder to play. I swear if all you say is "patterns"
Also, who the hell are you to act like you're doing me a favor by putting something up for discussion? Everything here is up for discussion - this is a forum, an online discussion board. Don't tell me you're so arrogant that you think that, because somebody didn't accept something you said, they simply weren't aware of the fact that it was up for discussion.
Calling someone pathetic for making a personal attack is rather backwards, don't you think?Rewben2 wrote:
You're pathetic. I thought you were a smart person until this post which is just a blatant attack with absolutely no reasoning behind it. YOU PLAY TV SIZE DT THEREFORE YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPINION XDDDD. I also only have 3 tv size dt scores in my top 20. Please...Tess wrote:
...Have you ever played HR? Everything you said was really reasonable up to that last sentence.
Edit: Checked your profile and wow, what a surprise. A TV size DT player saying that OD and map length doesn't really make a map harder to play.
Anyways... I don't see how OD makes a map HARDER to play. It's the exact same map but it's harder to get accuracy on, which is what I said. A map being longer just means there's more to play through and will therefore be harder to fc. The map isn't any harder to play at any given point. This is how I see it.
I even put a question mark on the end of what I said to imply it was up for discussion, which it seems you missed.
No, I was not making a personal attack nor saying that you don't have an opinion, and by "TV size" I meant short maps in general, whether they're labeled TV size or not. It's just not a real surprise that someone who doesn't play high OD often doesn't see how it makes a map harder to play. That's just like people who say "HD is meaningless, it shouldn't give pp" yet don't have a single HD score in their top performances. Could you take such a person seriously?
As for the actual argument you tried to make - you pretty much contradict yourself. You say "I don't see how it's harder to play" and then "It's the exact same map but it's harder" - whatever comes after "harder" doesn't matter, you literally say it is both harder to get high accuracy on with higher OD and harder to FC with a longer length. Accuracy and stamina are two aspects of gameplay - if the only thing you take into account is combo, then, yes, a higher OD doesn't necessarily make a map harder. But who the hell gets high ranks with only 90% scores? And who the hell gets anywhere without an FC? What aspect of gameplay do you consider to be gameplay anyway? Speed? If all we had to do was play fast maps without any regard for combo or accuracy, some of my current 10K friends would be in the top 50 around now. If you're making a reasonable argument, I sure as hell am not seeing it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to me what does make a map harder to play. I swear if all you say is "patterns"
Also, who the hell are you to act like you're doing me a favor by putting something up for discussion? Everything here is up for discussion - this is a forum, an online discussion board. Don't tell me you're so arrogant that you think that, because somebody didn't accept something you said, they simply weren't aware of the fact that it was up for discussion.
The point you were making is that star difficulty should reflect the pp given for a map, and getting lower acc on a map and more pp is flawed. The lower rated map being more difficult is a completely different point and discussion. That relates to the algorithm which determines a maps difficulty. It seems you've completely shifted topics.Tess wrote:
Even if it's about how hard a map is to FC, in the two examples I gave, the map with lower star rating both gives more pp and is harder to FC. It took me a week to FC that and then another day to FC it with acceptable accuracy, while I did Coloring in under 20 tries (Considering that it was my highest pp play back then with a ~30pp difference to my #2 play, and that it stayed my highest play until a few days ago, that's quite an easy score for the reward it gives). I only play about half the DT as I do HR and I'm rarely fast enough to be able to FC any DTs at all, so don't give me that "lol you're just used to DT so it's easy 4 u" crap. I still don't see how Nightmare HR deserves a lower star rating than Coloring DT.
What are you even talking about, "you're just used to DT so it's easy 4 u"? I didn't say or imply this and I quite frankly don't even know what you're talking about...
I don't even get what's your actual point anymore Tess...
I wasn't really talking about you here, but oh well. Perhaps I'm not being that clear - I already understood GhostFrog's point about the OD, however he mentioned that the star rating is there to show how hard a map is to FC, and my point was that I still find Nightmare HR to be harder to FC than Coloring DT, OD or not. So, even if we left the "It's harder to acc" part out, the star rating still wouldn't be right in my opinion.Rewben2 wrote:
What are you even talking about, "you're just used to DT so it's easy 4 u"? I didn't say or imply this and I quite frankly don't even know what you're talking about...
Yeah it is backwards, but I backed up what I said and didn't attach how "pathetic" you are to you being incorrect in any way. It very much appeared that you were saying that my opinion is less valid because I play dt, re-read what you wrote and look at the tone. I have absolutely no problems with a non-hd player claiming that hd is worth too much if they can legitimately back up what they are saying and explain themselves. I don't attach personal experience to the value of what someone's saying, I want to see arguments.Tess wrote:
Calling someone pathetic for making a personal attack is rather backwards, don't you think?
No, I was not making a personal attack nor saying that you don't have an opinion, and by "TV size" I meant short maps in general, whether they're labeled TV size or not. It's just not a real surprise that someone who doesn't play high OD often doesn't see how it makes a map harder to play. That's just like people who say "HD is meaningless, it shouldn't give pp" yet don't have a single HD score in their top performances. Could you take such a person seriously?
As for the actual argument you tried to make - you pretty much contradict yourself. You say "I don't see how it's harder to play" and then "It's the exact same map but it's harder" - whatever comes after "harder" doesn't matter, you literally say it is both harder to get high accuracy on with higher OD and harder to FC with a longer length. Accuracy and stamina are two aspects of gameplay - if the only thing you take into account is combo, then, yes, a higher OD doesn't necessarily make a map harder. But who the hell gets high ranks with only 90% scores? And who the hell gets anywhere without an FC? What aspect of gameplay do you consider to be gameplay anyway? Speed? If all we had to do was play fast maps without any regard for combo or accuracy, some of my current 10K friends would be in the top 50 around now. If you're making a reasonable argument, I sure as hell am not seeing it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to me what does make a map harder to play. I swear if all you say is "patterns"
Also, who the hell are you to act like you're doing me a favor by putting something up for discussion? Everything here is up for discussion - this is a forum an online discussion board. Don't tell me you're so arrogant that you think that, because somebody didn't accept something you said, they simply weren't aware of the fact that it was up for discussion.
The argument I'm making is on the basis of my definition of a maps difficulty. A map being longer doesn't make it harder in my book for reasons I've explained, it isn't harder at any given time. It's like me playing a 5 star map and then playing it twice, has anything changed at all? No, it's the same thing. Just longer. Nothing has gotten any harder or more difficult. OD works the same way, I play the same map with od7 then od9. My acc is lower but the map is the exact same and wasn't any more difficult to play. The definition of a word can sometimes be quite subjective so you're entitled to think differently, but this is my explanation of this.
Uhh, of course anything is up for discussion. Except... We were in the middle of discussing a certain point, and then you suddenly completely change topics when the initial idea hadn't even finished being discussed. It looked like you didn't even realise that the point you were making was unrelated. That's generally not how online discussion boards (or real conversations) roll.
Although worth noting that the longer a map is the easier it will be than a short map of the same star diff. i.e a 5 star 5 minute map vs a 5 star 1:30 minute map, you cant just cut out a 1:30 section of the 5 minute map and have it be equivalent star difficulty to the shorter one, it will be easier, because hit object count is taken into consideration with star diff.Rewben2 wrote:
playing a 5 star map and then playing it twice, has anything changed at all? No, it's the same thing. Just longer.
Tom actually said something pretty much exactly the way you did once iirc, that a map isnt harder just because its longer.
Is hit object count taken into consideration with star diff? I thought it wasn't.Riince wrote:
Although worth noting that the longer a map is the easier it will be than a short map of the same star diff. i.e a 5 star 5 minute map vs a 5 star 1:30 minute map, you cant just cut out a 1:30 section of the 5 minute map and have it be equivalent star difficulty to the shorter one, it will be easier, because hit object count is taken into consideration with star diff.Rewben2 wrote:
playing a 5 star map and then playing it twice, has anything changed at all? No, it's the same thing. Just longer.
Tom actually said something pretty much exactly the way you did once iirc, that a map isnt harder just because its longer.
of course, thats why if you isolate one of the hardest jump patterns of big black its under 4 stars
Well if it's just "one" of the hardest jump patterns then it would make the map much easier because there'd be no streams and a bunch of other stuff missing. Tom's said that if a map has both streams and jumps, it is worth more than if it was just streams or jumps.Riince wrote:
of course, thats why if you isolate one of the hardest jump patterns of big black its under 4 stars
Also, I have two versions of the deathstream compilation. One at the start and the other at the start of freedom dive. 3000 vs 960 objects, yet the star difficulty is the exact same. I'm not sure.
Same as Hoshizora no Ima, I have one full version and one just before the star jump. 400 objects vs 185, 5.34 stars vs 5.31. There's probably some pattern or part of the song at the start which adds a bit of difficulty.
Sure. I already admitted to not having been very clear about what I meant, and I do tend to get ahead of conversation sometimes, so that wasn't really great on my behalf. I also meant to imply that I take your opinion less seriously (not that it's less valid) because your lack of experience in said subject - meaning that I believe that, had you had more experience with it, you would've thought differently, which is enough of a basis to not take an opinion as seriously, to me. I don't entirely disregard it though - I did try to see your point, and I do see what you mean, I simply disagree.Rewben2 wrote:
Yeah it is backwards, but I backed up what I said and didn't attach how "pathetic" you are to you being incorrect in any way. It very much appeared that you were saying that my opinion is less valid because I play dt, re-read what you wrote and look at the tone. I have absolutely no problems with a non-hd player claiming that hd is worth too much if they can legitimately back up what they are saying and explain themselves. I don't attach personal experience to the value of what someone's saying, I want to see arguments.
The argument I'm making is on the basis of my definition of a maps difficulty. A map being longer doesn't make it harder in my book for reasons I've explained, it isn't harder at any given time. It's like me playing a 5 star map and then playing it twice, has anything changed at all? No, it's the same thing. Just longer. Nothing has gotten any harder or more difficult. OD works the same way, I play the same map with od7 then od9. My acc is lower but the map is the exact same and wasn't any more difficult to play. The definition of a word can sometimes be quite subjective so you're entitled to think differently, but this is my explanation of this.
Uhh, of course anything is up for discussion. Except... We were in the middle of discussing a certain point, and then you suddenly completely change topics when the initial idea hadn't even finished being discussed. It looked like you didn't even realise that the point you were making was unrelated. That's generally not how online discussion boards (or real conversations) roll.
You still didn't really answer my question directly, but it does turn out that what you think makes a map more or less difficult is the patterns used + the speed at which the patterns are played. Though this is true, OD and map length are still a part of it. For map length - your argument is that, if you play a 3-minute 5 star map twice in a row, that's the same as playing a 6-minute 5 star map. This couldn't be less true. First of all, the 6 minute map (provided that there is twice as much break time as in the 3-minute map) would be a lot harder to FC than it would be to FC the 3-minute map twice in a row. The combo is shorter, the amount of focus and stamina required is less and you don't have as much time to fuck up. Osu is about trying to get as close to SS'ing a map as you can, so that you can get the most points (be it score or pp) out of it. This means that both combo and accuracy are incredibly important, and it's also why they're weighed so heavily. Secondly, it would also be a lot harder to get good accuracy on, because the lack of breaks can make it easier to run out of stamina and start losing consistency. The longer a map is, the harder it is to SS it, this shouldn't be news. I think people should stop separating all aspects of difficulty and cherrypicking one of them instead of combining them all to form a more global idea of difficulty.
However, if you were to say that star difficulty is only an indicator of pattern difficulty, then I'm willing to see your point. I haven't heard of this though - "star difficulty" is known to be an indicator of a map's entire difficulty, not part of it. If it's not going to be a global indicator (like most people think it is), then perhaps it should be renamed to something like "pattern difficulty" or whatever else works. Right now it's just confusing, I know of a lot of people who don't understand that a 4.8 star map gave them more pp than a 5.3 star map. If it was depicted as only a part of the map's difficulty (just like OD, CS, etc.) then perhaps it would be easier for people to form a global idea of the map's difficulty for themselves.
I've said this before - the map length idea is supported by the map not being any harder at any given time. It's just longer, not harder. That's how I see it. Sure, it's harder to SS/fc/etc. but, as I've stated above, that's not because the maps hard. It's because it's long. As your last paragraph says, the pattern difficulty is a separate idea and when I think of how hard a map is, I really only think about it in that sense.Tess wrote:
Sure. I already admitted to not having been very clear about what I meant, and I do tend to get ahead of conversation sometimes, so that wasn't really great on my behalf. I also meant to imply that I take your opinion less seriously (not that it's less valid) because your lack of experience in said subject - meaning that I believe that, had you had more experience with it, you would've thought differently, which is enough of a basis to not take an opinion as seriously, to me. I don't entirely disregard it though - I did try to see your point, and I do see what you mean, I simply disagree.
You still didn't really answer my question directly, but it does turn out that what you think makes a map more or less difficult is the patterns used + the speed at which the patterns are played. Though this is true, OD and map length are still a part of it. For map length - your argument is that, if you play a 3-minute 5 star map twice in a row, that's the same as playing a 6-minute 5 star map. This couldn't be less true. First of all, the 6 minute map (provided that there is twice as much break time as in the 3-minute map) would be a lot harder to FC than it would be to FC the 3-minute map twice in a row. The combo is shorter, the amount of focus and stamina required is less and you don't have as much time to fuck up. Osu is about trying to get as close to SS'ing a map as you can, so that you can get the most points (be it score or pp) out of it. This means that both combo and accuracy are incredibly important, and it's also why they're weighed so heavily. Secondly, it would also be a lot harder to get good accuracy on, because the lack of breaks can make it easier to run out of stamina and start losing consistency. The longer a map is, the harder it is to SS it, this shouldn't be news. I think people should stop separating all aspects of difficulty and cherrypicking one of them instead of combining them all to form a more global idea of difficulty.
However, if you were to say that star difficulty is only an indicator of pattern difficulty, then I'm willing to see your point. I haven't heard of this though - "star difficulty" is known to be an indicator of a map's entire difficulty, not part of it. If it's not going to be a global indicator (like most people think it is), then perhaps it should be renamed to something like "pattern difficulty" or whatever else works. Right now it's just confusing, I know of a lot of people who don't understand that a 4.8 star map gave them more pp than a 5.3 star map. If it was depicted as only a part of the map's difficulty (just like OD, CS, etc.) then perhaps it would be easier for people to form a global idea of the map's difficulty for themselves.
For simplicity, I don't disagree with star difficulty including od, ar and map length because it is mostly used as an indicator of pp and should probably reflect this.
I think map length makes a map more difficult in regards to stamina though, especially on maps which don't have breaks/slow parts. I mean, you wouldn't say a 40 note stream is just as difficult as a 20 note stream but just longer, right? (not sure if that example applies here)
including ar and od in star rating is a bad idea imo.
star rating is supposed to indicate how hard a map is to fc, not how much pp it gives. od is completely unrelated to how hard it is to fc, and ar is only a mental thing. map length should be included tho, because it makes the map harder to fc.
if you start including od into star rating you can get a super easy map with od9 having the same star rating as a super hard map with od6 (say https://osu.ppy.sh/s/89810 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/39368) while the second one is way way more difficult to fc.
this would totally screw with how high star rating you can play.
star rating is supposed to indicate how hard a map is to fc, not how much pp it gives. od is completely unrelated to how hard it is to fc, and ar is only a mental thing. map length should be included tho, because it makes the map harder to fc.
if you start including od into star rating you can get a super easy map with od9 having the same star rating as a super hard map with od6 (say https://osu.ppy.sh/s/89810 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/39368) while the second one is way way more difficult to fc.
this would totally screw with how high star rating you can play.
I don't think length should be included in star rating, you can't calculate it properly. People can figure out on their own how difficulty a song will be to FC based on its star rating and length.silmarilen wrote:
including ar and od in star rating is a bad idea imo.
star rating is supposed to indicate how hard a map is to fc, not how much pp it gives. od is completely unrelated to how hard it is to fc, and ar is only a mental thing. map length should be included tho, because it makes the map harder to fc.
if you start including od into star rating you can get a super easy map with od9 having the same star rating as a super hard map with od6 (say https://osu.ppy.sh/s/89810 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/39368) while the second one is way way more difficult to fc.
this would totally screw with how high star rating you can play.
AR isn't just mental, it legitimately makes songs harder to read
OD does affect how hard a map is to FC. a 50 on od8 could be a miss on od9, etc.
if you miss because of hitting too early/late then you first need to learn accuracy before you complain about a map being hard to fc. star rating assumes you can acc.
This is how I started feeling after GhostFrog made his point about the OD. I do wish that there was a way to name star rating that indicated its meaning better. Also, I do think that AR should be counted into star rating, but in reverse. AR9+ doesn't affect the rating, and the lower the AR gets, the higher the rating gets, though it shouldn't be too large a number (Like, if AR9 were 5 stars, AR4 on the same map would be 5.15 stars or something). Higher AR means that you need more focus to read the map consistently and thus makes it harder to FC.silmarilen wrote:
including ar and od in star rating is a bad idea imo.
star rating is supposed to indicate how hard a map is to fc, not how much pp it gives. od is completely unrelated to how hard it is to fc, and ar is only a mental thing. map length should be included tho, because it makes the map harder to fc.
if you start including od into star rating you can get a super easy map with od9 having the same star rating as a super hard map with od6 (say https://osu.ppy.sh/s/89810 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/39368) while the second one is way way more difficult to fc.
this would totally screw with how high star rating you can play.
Still think that the star rating should be called "Focus rating" or "Stamina rating" or something, to prevent confusion, but I'm sure that not many will agree with that.
it's called star rating, what it actually indicates is up for debate, but i think right now it tries to indicate how hard it would be to fc a map.
ofcourse there are maps that are too hard/easy to fc for their star rating but those are a small number.
ofcourse there are maps that are too hard/easy to fc for their star rating but those are a small number.
a 50 is a less common type of accuracy mistake and usually a result of an aiming mistake rather than a rhythm error, so having less room to work with in that regard DOES make it harder to FC. may as well take star rating out entirely if its just going to assume you can combo everything.silmarilen wrote:
if you miss because of hitting too early/late then you first need to learn accuracy before you complain about a map being hard to fc. star rating assumes you can acc.
Instead of star diff a separate aim diff and speed diff would be better I think. Acc value is OD+number of circles, it could get a separate combined acc diff indicator too, and star diff could be a fourth one, a simple SS-pp/40 value used for the actual star numbers on the map list aswell. Maps could be sorted by aim diff, speed diff, acc diff and overall pp potential (the new stardiff).
It would be more straightforward at least, I think.
It would be more straightforward at least, I think.
Having four different difficulty indicators might be a bit much, but adding an Aim and Speed value would most certainly help a lot. Maybe replace "Stars" with "Level", and remove the decimal so it looks like a whole number in the hundreds. So, a 5.32 star map would be a level 532 map, or something. But if you're already showing aim and speed difficulty separately, you may as well include OD in the map's level so that you can see each individual aspect of difficulty, + the total average difficulty for the entire map (including OD and map length).
Basically, how hard it is to SS a map. Osu is about SSing maps after all, even though most of us (that aren't like this guy) don't focus on getting an SS all the time because that is so damn hard on most Insane+ maps. So, instead, we try to get as close to an SS as possible. I don't think it would be all that weird for the difficulty indicator to talk about how hard a map is to SS rather than to FC. In fact, doing it the other way around sounds illogical to me.
Basically, how hard it is to SS a map. Osu is about SSing maps after all, even though most of us (that aren't like this guy) don't focus on getting an SS all the time because that is so damn hard on most Insane+ maps. So, instead, we try to get as close to an SS as possible. I don't think it would be all that weird for the difficulty indicator to talk about how hard a map is to SS rather than to FC. In fact, doing it the other way around sounds illogical to me.
Topic Starter
To clarify: Right now the star rating indicates the difficulty of the hardest patterns in the map in their respective categories (speed and aim) in a way similar to how best performances of a player are weighted. The hardest pattern weights the most, the second hardest less and so on. Of course the "pattern" thing is just an abstract way of looking at it.
A consequence of this system is that map length is considered in star rating only up to a certain amount of hard patterns. This leads to the nice property that when taking a part of a map, then the star difficulty of that part is always smaller or equal to the difficulty of the entire map, which makes sense intuitively. The star difficulty thus focuses on the hard parts of a map and shall be interpreted as upper physical difficulty to FC. Note the physical - OD and AR are not taken into account. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean, that accuracy is completely unaffected by star rating. It is inherently harder to get a good accuracy on physically harder maps since you can't entirely focus your body on doing so.
It seems to me that it's best to leave AR, OD and map length as external parameters since this way it is easier for people to judge which maps they can play and which they can't play. If everything was condensed into a single number players would have to try out maps a lot more to see whether the difficulty is of the kind they want to have. The next step is to show aim and speed difficulty seperately as well, to further help with that notion and potentially even make a radar chart showing up in the game.
Dry details
In reality the map is divided into sections of equal length (between 250ms and 1s, I don't remember exactly) and for each section the highest difficulty of the hitobjects within is chosen. These sections are then sorted decreasingly by their difficulty and a similar weighting algorithm as the one used for player's best performances is used on these.
A consequence of this system is that map length is considered in star rating only up to a certain amount of hard patterns. This leads to the nice property that when taking a part of a map, then the star difficulty of that part is always smaller or equal to the difficulty of the entire map, which makes sense intuitively. The star difficulty thus focuses on the hard parts of a map and shall be interpreted as upper physical difficulty to FC. Note the physical - OD and AR are not taken into account. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean, that accuracy is completely unaffected by star rating. It is inherently harder to get a good accuracy on physically harder maps since you can't entirely focus your body on doing so.
It seems to me that it's best to leave AR, OD and map length as external parameters since this way it is easier for people to judge which maps they can play and which they can't play. If everything was condensed into a single number players would have to try out maps a lot more to see whether the difficulty is of the kind they want to have. The next step is to show aim and speed difficulty seperately as well, to further help with that notion and potentially even make a radar chart showing up in the game.
it has been forever since scores that yield "lower pp" are replacing the higher onces. There are some issues that are pretty complicated to fix, but this is relatively easy fix and i have no idea why this isnt getting fixed..
it is extremely frustrating when i know i can DT a map but it has reasonably high accuracy HDHR and i can't make pp out of it.
same refers to FL, and in very rare case, HT.
this also happenes even without mods. I exactly don't know why but
FYI, both of those were yielding 113 pp for me when i had lower accuracy and lower combo. this might not be bug since i have more x and more 50 but still, if it is less performed, the scores shouldn't have been replaced.
it is extremely frustrating when i know i can DT a map but it has reasonably high accuracy HDHR and i can't make pp out of it.
same refers to FL, and in very rare case, HT.
this also happenes even without mods. I exactly don't know why but
FYI, both of those were yielding 113 pp for me when i had lower accuracy and lower combo. this might not be bug since i have more x and more 50 but still, if it is less performed, the scores shouldn't have been replaced.
The reason this happens is because the PP system is not the same as the official score system.haha5957 wrote:
FYI, both of those were yielding 113 pp for me when i had lower accuracy and lower combo. this might not be bug since i have more x and more 50 but still, if it is less performed, the scores shouldn't have been replaced.
Because it's not that easy. For a fix like this to happen, Tom and peppy would have to work hand in hand to restructure the way scores are saved. Example, what happens if Tom changes the PP formula, and suddenly the scores you had before are now worth more? It's a complicated issue, which would require saving more than 1 score for each player on all maps.haha5957 wrote:
but this is relatively easy fix and i have no idea why this isnt getting fixed..
Any opinions on the viability of this Tom?
Even if the proposed algorhythm by Full Tablat for weighting acc values is imperfect or flawed, it is not a problem, since we're not breaking anything here - on the contrary, we'd be making progress towards reflecting actual difficulty. Not having rhythmic complexity being accounted for is a flawed state in itself, having at least SOME maps being evaluated better, having at least some degree of differentiation is preferable I think.
GhostFrog wrote:
How difficult a map is rhythmically isn't taken into consideration at all right now. Doubles are treated the same as any other notes and contribute to the strain values in the same way any other notes would based on their position and timing.
It really is much harder to acc a map with mixed doubles singles triplets etc, than a full 1/2 map like Setting Sail, Pony maps and some others, it's no wonder everyone around my rank has those in their top ranks - they are easy to acc, and rewarded just as high as maps with harder rhythmic patterns. It's part of the reason why DT feels more rewarding - easier maps sped up are usually simpler rhythm wise aswell, thus easier to tap into their potential acc pp.Full Tablet wrote:
Something like the algorithm here in tom94's ask.fm could be used http://pastebin.com/cFGUJdGaDrezi wrote:
That's a shame, when it comes to rhythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
It is for taiko, but could be used for standard too if the only variable of the objects is the time between hits, with only one color present, considering both circles and slider starts as the same kind of object. Sliders might be considered a little different (probably making sliders of a certain duration have a "partial" match with circles or sliders of different duration if both share the same time between key presses, where the partial match reduces the rhythm complexity strain less than a full match).
Using a weighting of the strains of 0.9975 (So the maximum value is 400):
"Rhythm Complexity"
xi - FREEDOM DiVE [FOUR DIMENSIONS]: 348.488
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/297463&m=0 351.973
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/312959&m=1 324.277
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272&m=0 271.207
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/323875&m=0 256.527
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/152078&m=1 369.495
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/58063&m=0 328.276
Even if the proposed algorhythm by Full Tablat for weighting acc values is imperfect or flawed, it is not a problem, since we're not breaking anything here - on the contrary, we'd be making progress towards reflecting actual difficulty. Not having rhythmic complexity being accounted for is a flawed state in itself, having at least SOME maps being evaluated better, having at least some degree of differentiation is preferable I think.
I think that the reason people feel that DT is overrated is this rhythm complexity issue, and not DT itself. Koigokoro, Setting Sail, Raise This Barn, Apples to the Core, etc. - these maps aren't /easy/ to FC, but they really aren't harder to get high accuracy on than, say, https://osu.ppy.sh/b/297463?m=0 this map, which gives less than 216pp for an SS while Koigokoro gives 300pp for that. Now, I understand that Koigokoro has the hard jumps and all that, but is it really that so many people are so talented at DT jumps that all of them have a good Koigokoro score?
I think that if rhythm complexity were taken into account (which is something that should've happened long ago, this is a rhythm game after all) that a lot of maps would be evened out in terms of pp and there'd be much less complaints about over or underrated maps.
I think that if rhythm complexity were taken into account (which is something that should've happened long ago, this is a rhythm game after all) that a lot of maps would be evened out in terms of pp and there'd be much less complaints about over or underrated maps.
mcdoomfrag wrote:
The reason this happens is because the PP system is not the same as the official score system.haha5957 wrote:
FYI, both of those were yielding 113 pp for me when i had lower accuracy and lower combo. this might not be bug since i have more x and more 50 but still, if it is less performed, the scores shouldn't have been replaced.Because it's not that easy. For a fix like this to happen, Tom and peppy would have to work hand in hand to restructure the way scores are saved. Example, what happens if Tom changes the PP formula, and suddenly the scores you had before are now worth more? It's a complicated issue, which would require saving more than 1 score for each player on all maps.haha5957 wrote:
but this is relatively easy fix and i have no idea why this isnt getting fixed..
At least i'm pretty sure that FL and HDHR won't worth more than DT with same accuracy in any future timeline
and they obviously do not have to change the way to save the score since they already have the current pp earned from the song, and all they have to do is to compare your achieved score to previous best score, not with the scorepoint, but with pp.
I think you're portraying the solution to this problem as something much simpler than it could possibly be.
Can this guys read and think or something? dear lord, Start thinking seperately.
1) Best scores not being the best performance achieved IS a problem, and it's coming from using old score system to determine the best score. This makes no sense and obviously decreases the true meaning of pp rank system that tries to measure true stkill and not very-combo centered, but fortunatly is extremely easy fix. Even if the algorithm changes in future, I'm very sure that the current pp system will look much alike the algorithm of future, not the score system.
A fix not being "perfect" does not mean it is not "better" than before. Do i really have to explain this kind of stuff? Being a no no man just because it is not perfect seems extremely immature and does not make any sense to me.
2) Now, the star diff being little off from what it really feels like, especially with high SV maps and complex rhythm maps, comes from different issue, most likely being pp not taking rhythm complexity and slider paths(I guess). This is where you start talking about how algorithm can get better to tell the true difficulty and is relatively hard fix compared to the first one.
1) Best scores not being the best performance achieved IS a problem, and it's coming from using old score system to determine the best score. This makes no sense and obviously decreases the true meaning of pp rank system that tries to measure true stkill and not very-combo centered, but fortunatly is extremely easy fix. Even if the algorithm changes in future, I'm very sure that the current pp system will look much alike the algorithm of future, not the score system.
A fix not being "perfect" does not mean it is not "better" than before. Do i really have to explain this kind of stuff? Being a no no man just because it is not perfect seems extremely immature and does not make any sense to me.
2) Now, the star diff being little off from what it really feels like, especially with high SV maps and complex rhythm maps, comes from different issue, most likely being pp not taking rhythm complexity and slider paths(I guess). This is where you start talking about how algorithm can get better to tell the true difficulty and is relatively hard fix compared to the first one.