Yales what are you even proposing? I've read through your posts and you think the system doesn't correctly evaluate the difficulty of scores/maps. Yeah, plenty of people think this, big deal. It's well known that the system isn't perfect.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
Well, I'm fine with this answer. I said I had nothing to suggest honnestly, but then people started to deny what I was pointed out, so I was just trying to explain that it wasn't just a whim or something. That's how I perceive things that are not good in the system, to me. I wasnt expecting some" I agree with you" but neither "you're a jerk"Rewben2 wrote:
Yales what are you even proposing? I've read through your posts and you think the system doesn't correctly evaluate the difficulty of scores/maps. Yeah, plenty of people think this, big deal. It's well known that the system isn't perfect.
Sorry but your condescending style isn't deserving of a more polite attitude on my part either.
If you actually read the thread you'd find that we're continuously comping up with rather detailed suggestions for improving the system, because everyone agrees that it isn't perfect. We absolutely want change for the better, but what you were saying was nonsense, empty criticism and of the wrong aspects at that.
If you actually read the thread you'd find that we're continuously comping up with rather detailed suggestions for improving the system, because everyone agrees that it isn't perfect. We absolutely want change for the better, but what you were saying was nonsense, empty criticism and of the wrong aspects at that.
the only thing that got my goose was the idea that ppv1 was somehow better
I got your point, I was just saying that maybe it would be nice to expend a little the circle of top performances (as v1 tended to do actually).Riince wrote:
the only thing that got my goose was the idea that ppv1 was somehow better
But Drezi explained that "if you have already proven that you can play at that level by setting 20-30 scores around that difficulty, you've already taken the rank you deserve for that level of play."
So... I got it now I think xD.
Thanks for your reply.
Topic Starter
osu!tp only did that if you had an extremely small amount of top50 scores. ppv2 is actually taking more scores into account (more specifically, the weight decreases by a slower rate) than osu!tp was.Yales wrote:
The pro of osu!tp was that each of your top 50 scores were giving you at least a little something. Now even if you top50 on an insane map, you break your a** off for it. you might get nothing AT ALL. People can't even see it in your top perf, even if the map is known to be hard to everyone, except osu! So I just CAN'T agree with you when you say" If you want to know how good is someone check his top performances" There's no way half of my top "pp" are actually my real top perfomances. It might show some good (sometimes) scores, but definetly not my improvement. It's actually not what I'd like to show to show my skill.
Tom, do you think a ladder system like the one I mentioned before would be feasible? Even if It doesn't replace the current system as I stated before, perhaps implemented as a new way to play multi player. And then you would just win for the glory.
I just find this would be really really fun.
I just find this would be really really fun.
MP ranking would be interesting...
Despite my actual skill being quite close than my rank (when I was 60k, I was losing against 100k+ ranked players, now at least I can win sometimes against players with my rank and generally win against lower ranked, but still exists very good low ranked players that are good - compared with their rank - ).
Despite my actual skill being quite close than my rank (when I was 60k, I was losing against 100k+ ranked players, now at least I can win sometimes against players with my rank and generally win against lower ranked, but still exists very good low ranked players that are good - compared with their rank - ).
Kyou-kun wrote:
aim/speed/accuracy points
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/122180242638Astar wrote:
Kyou-kun wrote:
aim/speed/accuracy points
Topic Starter
Did you read my answer to your post on page 117 of this thread? Such a ladder would certainly be feasible, but whether this is something we want to add to the game would first have to be discussed - and then a lot of time would have to be allocated for that. I wouldn't count on something like that in the near future.xasuma wrote:
Tom, do you think a ladder system like the one I mentioned before would be feasible? Even if It doesn't replace the current system as I stated before, perhaps implemented as a new way to play multi player. And then you would just win for the glory.
I just find this would be really really fun.
One thing that I've found frustrating recently and I don't know what a this is a symptom of but sometimes I'll play a map I haven't in a few months (that I actually got pp for then) and totally shatter my score both in terms of combo and accuracy and it will actually cause me to loose rank. It's super frustrating to show that you've demonstrably improved but you ranked down, can anyone explain this?
Are you sure it isnt just normal rank decay..? Ive never lost ranks for posting a score with a higher acc than before
If others improve more then you then your rank will go down. More people pass you than you pass others. It's working like intended.redhq wrote:
One thing that I've found frustrating recently and I don't know what a this is a symptom of but sometimes I'll play a map I haven't in a few months (that I actually got pp for then) and totally shatter my score both in terms of combo and accuracy and it will actually cause me to loose rank. It's super frustrating to show that you've demonstrably improved but you ranked down, can anyone explain this?
Did the last update change something about mouse movement reading ? I mean that when i move my mouse around it doesn't feel as smooth as it used to be and i've been struggling for like 15-20 mins changing my sensibility but it just still feels weird and inacurate and i can't do any hard maps anymore ^^'
Am i the only one (in that case it might just come from me but like i haven't played in 2-3 days it just can't be that xD)
Am i the only one (in that case it might just come from me but like i haven't played in 2-3 days it just can't be that xD)
Gh0stWarrior wrote:
Did the last update change something about mouse movement reading ? I mean that when i move my mouse around it doesn't feel as smooth as it used to be and i've been struggling for like 15-20 mins changing my sensibility but it just still feels weird and inacurate.
Am i the only one (in that case it might just come from me but like i haven't played in 2-3 days it just can't be that xD
???????
In all honesty ive got the same Problem with my mouse. 
That aside i've got a question about PP because im really confused. I had a Song on "A" with ~4kk Points and had 292PP. 2 Hours later i had that Song on "S" with ~5,5kk Points and 488PP. I had about 2% lower ACC, still. Is that the reason? But that can nbot be. I mean i have 1,5kk Points more... Im confused!
Someone can help me?
That aside i've got a question about PP because im really confused. I had a Song on "A" with ~4kk Points and had 292PP. 2 Hours later i had that Song on "S" with ~5,5kk Points and 488PP. I had about 2% lower ACC, still. Is that the reason? But that can nbot be. I mean i have 1,5kk Points more... Im confused!
Someone can help me?
score =/= pp
PP depends on your combo (FC or not) and your accShizuyi wrote:
In all honesty ive got the same Problem with my mouse.
That aside i've got a question about PP because im really confused. I had a Song on "A" with ~4kk Points and had 292PP. 2 Hours later i had that Song on "S" with ~5,5kk Points and 488PP. I had about 2% lower ACC, still. Is that the reason? But that can nbot be. I mean i have 1,5kk Points more... Im confused!
Someone can help me?
Gh0stWarrior wrote:
Did the last update change something about mouse movement reading ? I mean that when i move my mouse around it doesn't feel as smooth as it used to be and i've been struggling for like 15-20 mins changing my sensibility but it just still feels weird and inacurate and i can't do any hard maps anymore ^^'
Am i the only one (in that case it might just come from me but like i haven't played in 2-3 days it just can't be that xD)
Well Guys, i get that much but still then there 2 Questions:xYamiHikari wrote:
PP depends on your combo (FC or not) and your accShizuyi wrote:
In all honesty ive got the same Problem with my mouse.
That aside i've got a question about PP because im really confused. I had a Song on "A" with ~4kk Points and had 292PP. 2 Hours later i had that Song on "S" with ~5,5kk Points and 488PP. I had about 2% lower ACC, still. Is that the reason? But that can nbot be. I mean i have 1,5kk Points more... Im confused!
Someone can help me?
1. So Acc is WAY! more important than my Combo?
2. Why for my PP doenst Count the Score which gives me the most?
1. Not exactly. Accuracy is only important if you get a Full Combo, or at least close to a full combo. If you have 99% accuracy but you missed in the middle of the song, you will probably get no pp out of the song.Shizuyi wrote:
Well Guys, i get that much but still then there 2 Questions:
1. So Acc is WAY! more important than my Combo?
2. Why for my PP doenst Count the Score which gives me the most?
2. Because ppv2 was introduced recently and was not always an integral part of the game. The game is designed to save only your records which have the highest "in-game" score, which is 99% reliant on combo, and ppv2 is calculated off of this score.
mcdoomfrag wrote:
1. Not exactly. Accuracy is only important if you get a Full Combo, or at least close to a full combo. If you have 99% accuracy but you missed in the middle of the song, you will probably get no pp out of the song.Shizuyi wrote:
Well Guys, i get that much but still then there 2 Questions:
1. So Acc is WAY! more important than my Combo?
2. Why for my PP doenst Count the Score which gives me the most?
2. Because ppv2 was introduced recently and was not always an integral part of the game. The game is designed to save only your records which have the highest "in-game" score, which is 99% reliant on combo, and ppv2 is calculated off of this score.
Da dass ja auch ein Feedback Thread sein soll gebe ich dann auch mal eins ab:
Genau diese 2 Punkte sind absoluter Blödsinn! Es sollte keinesfalls möglich sein, dass wenn man mehr Punkte, aber dann durch eine niedriger Acc seine PP verliert. Damit verliert das System irgendwie seinen Sinn. Ich denke, dass entweder FC (oder eben der generelle Score) vorgehen sollte und dann andere Faktoren einfließen oder einfach immer dein Score einfließt, der dir auch die meisten PP bringt, selbst wenn dieser Score nicht dein "Bester" von der reinen Punktzahl her ist.
I really dont know man. Just happend to do it. Ill transalte it at some time when im not to lazy.
Posting this to remember Tom since the other guy seems to have forgotten (Or I missed it~)
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/122374575566
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/122374575566
I find it very strange that I can pass a song and FC it with one 100 granting 21pp, and when I add an extra mod and beat the score but with 3 more 100s (a little over a percent in the example I'm using), I get 14pp. Not complaining as accuracy should count more but it feels weird that you can show improvement and lose rank for it.
For the love of god
Can people start reading the thread before asking questions that are just downright stupid
I mean if you LOOK AT YOUR PROFILE you can see the fucking weightings on every score, it's not rocket science
Sheesh
Can people start reading the thread before asking questions that are just downright stupid
I mean if you LOOK AT YOUR PROFILE you can see the fucking weightings on every score, it's not rocket science
Sheesh
your accuracy was 4x worse, a few mods isnt going to make up for that.Plab719 wrote:
I find it very strange that I can pass a song and FC it with one 100 granting 21pp, and when I add an extra mod and beat the score but with 3 more 100s (a little over a percent in the example I'm using), I get 14pp. Not complaining as accuracy should count more but it feels weird that you can show improvement and lose rank for it.
the aim/speed value of the map probably barely changed since it was an easy/normal by the sound of it and those values are already almost nonexistent, but accuracy is a more quantifiable value regardless of aim/speed because its dictated by OD unlike the former, so accuracy gets weighted especially more the easier the map is. a 2 star od10 map would pretty much only be accuracy PP.
This was mostly educated guesses and speculation, but the first line remains true regardless.
at the end of the day, im glad accuracy is so highly weighted, since its quite a hard skill to develop and has the lowest 'visible impact' aside from less 100's, it makes it a desirable skill to have. I'd never even consider trying to become more accurate and just keep trying to go faster and faster and nothing else but with how heavily weighted it is, I'm definitely putting some time into that as well. It's a rhythm game. Even though Accuracy is my second worst trait aside from Aim..
For the love of godTess wrote:
For the love of god
Can people start reading the thread before asking questions that are just downright stupid
I mean if you LOOK AT YOUR PROFILE you can see the fucking weightings on every score, it's not rocket science
Sheesh
Can people start reading the questions before giving answers that are just downright stupid
I mean if you LOOK AT THE QUESTION you can see it's not about fucking weighting, it's not rocket science
Sheesh
You are now allowed to feel dumbTess wrote:
For the love of god
Can people start reading the thread before asking questions that are just downright stupid
I mean if you LOOK AT YOUR PROFILE you can see the fucking weightings on every score, it's not rocket science
Sheesh
This might be slightly off-topic, but it's related to the ranking system and similar suggestions have been posted here aswell, so I'll post it here.
I saw mention of an ELO-like system, and thinking a bit about it, an idea occured to me that I wanted to share and see what you think about it.
Basically an ELO system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) matches you up against players with a similar rating, winning increases your rating, losing decreases it, defeating higher rated opponents increases the gains, losses in rating are smaller against them, and vica versa against lower rated ones.
Now obviously there are issues with this in osu:
ELO requires a lot of games to slowly place players at their deserved rank, and in the process pros would stomp lower ranked players, but PP already provides a very strong starting point allowing us to completely avoid this process, and ELO is perfect for fine tuning.
Players could queue up to play random maps with the star rating range, AR and mods of their choice, and would be matched up with players of roughly the same rank, to play random maps fitting their criteria (the frequency of maps appearing could continously be adjusted based on upvotes/downvotes of players after games).
Players would gain/lose ELO rating based on their placement in these games, but ELO rating wouldn't be a separate ranking metric alone, it would be used in conjunction with your current pp and the two values together would determine the rating that is used to match you against other players. This ELO-pp could be used for a separate global ranking list too.
In practice it would look like this: I have 3400ish PP, I queue to play DT maps between 4,8 and 5,3 stars, and should I finish in the first places more often than not, my ELO would start increasing from the starting 1000. Let's say it reaches 1100, at that point my ELO-pp would be 3400 + 100= 3500, so I would be matched up against a bit higher ranking players, making winning and progression progressively harder.
Let's say I manage to farm 600 PP (4000 total) and I become overranked: at that point I would be matched up against 4100 players (4000 pp + the 100 from ELO in my case), and if I can't perform well compared to them, my ELO would decline and even go below 1000 if I can't play at a 4000 pp level either - let's say I do so bad that it goes down to 800, at that point my ELO-pp would be 3800 only, but it wouldn't decrease anymore if I can perform average at a 3800 level. (Numbers are placeholders, just to show the basic idea.)
Traditional PP gains could be subtracted from ELO (since the basis of those gains had been a lower pp level), so that someone who is better than their rank can't just gain ELO, then farm the PP aswell and sit on the double-dipped rank, without playing ELO ranked games, where his ELO would readjust to the deserved value naturally.
This would simply allow an additional way to reach the rank you deserve - instead of retrying for high acc FC-s, you could use this different skillset Tom mentioned: you could prove that you deserve a better rank by consistently performing better than similarly ranked players in multiplayer games. (yes, t/220119 implementing this first would help.)
What do you think? (Should I post this in feature requests perhaps?)
I saw mention of an ELO-like system, and thinking a bit about it, an idea occured to me that I wanted to share and see what you think about it.
Basically an ELO system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) matches you up against players with a similar rating, winning increases your rating, losing decreases it, defeating higher rated opponents increases the gains, losses in rating are smaller against them, and vica versa against lower rated ones.
Now obviously there are issues with this in osu:
However, what if this system was implemented not separately, but hand-in-hand with the current one?Tom94 wrote:
Regarding the elo based multiplayer system you are suggesting: There are quite some ways to exploit this such as practicing the maps you are going to pick beforehand and almost certainly winning all the maps you pick while losing all the maps your enemy picks. On top of that such a system would favor an entirely different skillset namely performing under pressure and on very specific plays rather than being able to retry a lot. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but it would mean an huge uproar in the ranking. Although I guess I'd profit quite a lot from such a system.
ELO requires a lot of games to slowly place players at their deserved rank, and in the process pros would stomp lower ranked players, but PP already provides a very strong starting point allowing us to completely avoid this process, and ELO is perfect for fine tuning.
Players could queue up to play random maps with the star rating range, AR and mods of their choice, and would be matched up with players of roughly the same rank, to play random maps fitting their criteria (the frequency of maps appearing could continously be adjusted based on upvotes/downvotes of players after games).
Players would gain/lose ELO rating based on their placement in these games, but ELO rating wouldn't be a separate ranking metric alone, it would be used in conjunction with your current pp and the two values together would determine the rating that is used to match you against other players. This ELO-pp could be used for a separate global ranking list too.
In practice it would look like this: I have 3400ish PP, I queue to play DT maps between 4,8 and 5,3 stars, and should I finish in the first places more often than not, my ELO would start increasing from the starting 1000. Let's say it reaches 1100, at that point my ELO-pp would be 3400 + 100= 3500, so I would be matched up against a bit higher ranking players, making winning and progression progressively harder.
Let's say I manage to farm 600 PP (4000 total) and I become overranked: at that point I would be matched up against 4100 players (4000 pp + the 100 from ELO in my case), and if I can't perform well compared to them, my ELO would decline and even go below 1000 if I can't play at a 4000 pp level either - let's say I do so bad that it goes down to 800, at that point my ELO-pp would be 3800 only, but it wouldn't decrease anymore if I can perform average at a 3800 level. (Numbers are placeholders, just to show the basic idea.)
Traditional PP gains could be subtracted from ELO (since the basis of those gains had been a lower pp level), so that someone who is better than their rank can't just gain ELO, then farm the PP aswell and sit on the double-dipped rank, without playing ELO ranked games, where his ELO would readjust to the deserved value naturally.
This would simply allow an additional way to reach the rank you deserve - instead of retrying for high acc FC-s, you could use this different skillset Tom mentioned: you could prove that you deserve a better rank by consistently performing better than similarly ranked players in multiplayer games. (yes, t/220119 implementing this first would help.)
What do you think? (Should I post this in feature requests perhaps?)
I think a pvp would be very fun. Funner than the current osu imo..
But I don't like this.
you just queue , you get what you get. You dont get to spam DT's
But I don't like this.
Drezi wrote:
I queue to play DT maps between 4,8 and 5,3 stars,
you just queue , you get what you get. You dont get to spam DT's
So when is this gonna be a thing?
Also, I like Drezi's idea, though I think it could use some adjustments for it to actually work in this game
Making multiplayer a means to gain rank would be cool, though I do wonder - let's say that I'm matched with someone in a HDHR game on Hoshizora no Ima, and I FC it with decent accuracy, beating the guy but also getting a top 50 rank (and thus the according pp). Would that mean that my pp would rise both from the multiplayer play and from the score simultaneously?
I mean the answer is probably yes but that might be a little too steep a rank gain
Maybe I'm wrong though
Also, I like Drezi's idea, though I think it could use some adjustments for it to actually work in this game
Making multiplayer a means to gain rank would be cool, though I do wonder - let's say that I'm matched with someone in a HDHR game on Hoshizora no Ima, and I FC it with decent accuracy, beating the guy but also getting a top 50 rank (and thus the according pp). Would that mean that my pp would rise both from the multiplayer play and from the score simultaneously?
I mean the answer is probably yes but that might be a little too steep a rank gain
Maybe I'm wrong though
i was wondering about that recently aswell. if someone can make a script to do it, im sure it wouldnt take a lot of time to integrate it into the website itself.Tess wrote:
So when is this gonna be a thing?
Yes, but while PP you earn is permanent, ELO is dynamic and it'd decrease if you can't perform as well as players at that higher rank on average, it increases only when you're doing better than your current rank. It always keeps changing to rank you where you win 50% of your games on average (in an 1v1 scenario).Tess wrote:
I mean the answer is probably yes but that might be a little too steep a rank gain
That's pretty much what I was thinking. I'd also hope to see some form of pp-per-play thing in the game itself, and maybe adding a pp ranking besides the other rankings. I don't think the pp ranking should be supporter only, though, considering that it'd be an alternate version of the Global Rankings. Maybe in the dropdown it could be called "Global Ranking (performance)" like the (selected mods) option.silmarilen wrote:
i was wondering about that recently aswell. if someone can make a script to do it, im sure it wouldnt take a lot of time to integrate it into the website itself.Tess wrote:
So when is this gonna be a thing?
Drezi wrote:
Yes, but while PP you earn is permanent, ELO is dynamic and it'd decrease if you can't perform as well as players at that higher rank on average, it increases only when you're doing better than your current rank. It always keeps changing to rank you where you win 50% of your games on average (in an 1v1 scenario).Tess wrote:
I mean the answer is probably yes but that might be a little too steep a rank gain
Now that I've gotten an explanation on IRC, I think this is an awesome idea. For anyone who doesn't know what it is, Chess.com uses this system, and it works really well. I'm gonna guess that if it were implemented into osu it should be a different kind of multi mode. Like, you'd select Play -> Multi and then get two more options "Friendly" and "Competitive". Friendly would be multi as we know it, and Competitive would be multi for rank. I think that this would be a really neat addition to the game, especially considering there are threads like these t/259907/start=0 who also encourage healthy competition. I could definitely see people playing 1vs1 tournaments in Competitive mode so that the winner would both get the tournament prize and the rank gain from beating all those players.
I do think that a proper implementation idea needs to be come up with first though.
Edit: I made a few images that might give a rough idea of what Elo could look like were it implemented in the game
This is just a rough idea since it would cost me too much time to make a separate tab just for an example's sake, but it should be good enough. You'd see the Elo gain per play both on the Recent Activity and the Recent Plays list. There could also be a separate Elo History section that depicts your recent competitive matches - who you played with, which map you played, what score you got and how much your Elo rating in/decreased as a result of that.
So no changes yet to problem where new best score actually giving out lower pp?
This happens a lot when you are doing +hidden or very hard map that you can't actually FC.
I'm very sure that Tom94 is already tracking this.
It has been too long. This can be as simple as not using higher score-but lower pp- as a player's record.
I remember tom94 once said about implementing mod-specific rank/score so this problem can be potentially solved, and I see nothing changed several months after that.
This happens a lot when you are doing +hidden or very hard map that you can't actually FC.
I'm very sure that Tom94 is already tracking this.
It has been too long. This can be as simple as not using higher score-but lower pp- as a player's record.
I remember tom94 once said about implementing mod-specific rank/score so this problem can be potentially solved, and I see nothing changed several months after that.