you stop cluttering the forum with thoughtless posts where you could have figured out the answer with 5 minutes of thinking then.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
Please be nice; I love you.
It wasn't a thoughtless post. I did in fact think there might be a reason why the easy method I had pointed out hadn't been implemented, the reason of my post was to get a reason why it hadn't been. And Granger helpfully established the reason why, instead of repeating the statement that there was no easy way to fix the problem; how easy it is is besides the point, the aim of the discussion is to actually fix the problem.
This is not about performance points but rather about the star rating system, I just don't know where else I should put it.
This map is split into three silimar parts (125, 138 and 165bpm) and gets harder every time the song speeds up. I took the Insane and cut the three parts into separate maps to be able to play them individually and I noticed this:
-Full map - 5,22 stars
-Part 1/3 - 3,91 stars
-Part 2/3 - 4,53 stars
-Part 3/3 - 5,22 stars
Apparently the star rating ignores two thirds of the map and is only based on the hardest part. I figured this might be interesting since obviously playing the whole song should be harder than playing only a third of it, no matter how easy the rest is. I know that the full map gives more pp than the individual parts would, because they have less objects, but I thought I'd point out that this is not reflected in the star rating.
I don't know if this is something that has been talked about many times before and if it is, I apologise in advance. I didn't want to read through over 100 pages before posting.
This map is split into three silimar parts (125, 138 and 165bpm) and gets harder every time the song speeds up. I took the Insane and cut the three parts into separate maps to be able to play them individually and I noticed this:
-Full map - 5,22 stars
-Part 1/3 - 3,91 stars
-Part 2/3 - 4,53 stars
-Part 3/3 - 5,22 stars
Apparently the star rating ignores two thirds of the map and is only based on the hardest part. I figured this might be interesting since obviously playing the whole song should be harder than playing only a third of it, no matter how easy the rest is. I know that the full map gives more pp than the individual parts would, because they have less objects, but I thought I'd point out that this is not reflected in the star rating.
I don't know if this is something that has been talked about many times before and if it is, I apologise in advance. I didn't want to read through over 100 pages before posting.
that's known, and it's fine. star difficulty should show the peak difficulty of the map, and no map is perfectly consistent difficulty wise.
So you could have one map that is insane all the way through with a peak and a map that is really easy all the way through with the same peak, and they'd have the same star difficulty?
If they had the same amount of circles, would they also give the same amount of pp despite being very different in difficulty for most of the song?
If they had the same amount of circles, would they also give the same amount of pp despite being very different in difficulty for most of the song?
essentially yeah
see https://osu.ppy.sh/b/362949?m=0
see https://osu.ppy.sh/b/362949?m=0
nah the easier one would still be a lower star rating. the longer the hard part went on the more the star rating would increase, until it eventually got to a point where it wouldn't increase anymore.uberpancake wrote:
So you could have one map that is insane all the way through with a peak and a map that is really easy all the way through with the same peak, and they'd have the same star difficulty?
If they had the same amount of circles, would they also give the same amount of pp despite being very different in difficulty for most of the song?
I don't think star rating directly affects pp, I think that it's calculated from all the hit objects, so it should give more pp.
I think.
Nah it does, star rating, OD, and map length are the only things that affect PP, aside from subtle things like how many sliders vs circles and their effect on accuracy ppB1rd wrote:
I don't think star rating directly affects pp
Oh and also intangible aim bonuses from superficial mods like FL/HD
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/29157
marathon and in the middle of the night are same star rating. so yeah, pretty much.
marathon and in the middle of the night are same star rating. so yeah, pretty much.
Hi!
I would'nt call myself a very good player or anything, but maybe my post might be worth reading none the less.I can see where the performance points are coming from and they seem mostly neat, but this bugs me:
Let's say, I've got different scores on my top Beatmap . Now in order to determine which one of these individual scores gets picked to give me as a player performance points, the map with the highest rank (!) is used. Why? Why does the system choose this map, and not - which would make more sense to me - the map which would result in the best pp?
Example:
I had my pp-wise top map on 98% Acc, 269 Combo,1084.000 points, which gave me 46pp.
After replaying it recently: 94% Acc, 276 Combo, 1111.000 points, 38 pp.
So, the system only compares the point value, and I lost 8 pp by beating my record on this beatmap. It picks the 38 pp score, allthough I've got one who is higher, which is quite a downer. Feels in fact a bit as if I get punished for trying to get better on my best maps. You shouldn't be able to lose ranks just by achieving a higher map ranking, right?
cheers
I would'nt call myself a very good player or anything, but maybe my post might be worth reading none the less.I can see where the performance points are coming from and they seem mostly neat, but this bugs me:
Let's say, I've got different scores on my top Beatmap . Now in order to determine which one of these individual scores gets picked to give me as a player performance points, the map with the highest rank (!) is used. Why? Why does the system choose this map, and not - which would make more sense to me - the map which would result in the best pp?
Example:
I had my pp-wise top map on 98% Acc, 269 Combo,1084.000 points, which gave me 46pp.
After replaying it recently: 94% Acc, 276 Combo, 1111.000 points, 38 pp.
So, the system only compares the point value, and I lost 8 pp by beating my record on this beatmap. It picks the 38 pp score, allthough I've got one who is higher, which is quite a downer. Feels in fact a bit as if I get punished for trying to get better on my best maps. You shouldn't be able to lose ranks just by achieving a higher map ranking, right?
cheers
that is getting changed 'soon'. When?
It is a mystery.
It is a mystery.
Not exactly. You will be able to have scores with all mod combinations on the same map, but will get pp from the highest-pp-giving score only, however this will not change anything regarding same mod combinations (or nomod) at all. If your top score is a 99% HR score with a sliderbreak near the end, and then you FC with 98% and get a higher score, you will still lose pp.-Ruri no Tori- wrote:
that is getting changed 'soon'. When?
It is a mystery.
Easiest solution would be to switch to a pp based ranking system on maps or something I think. It's kinda weird how our rank itself is determined by pp, yet scoreboards still rely on the ancient scoring system.
I can't remember if this is a known bug or not, but....
The star rating of something I'm currently mapping is 6.26. However, if I add a single circle more than half a beat away from my final object (at 201.25 bpm), the star rating jumps to 6.31 (?!). If I instead put it 1.875 or more beats away, the star rating shows as 6.32 (regardless of how long of a break I add). If I put the circle half a beat or less away from the final object, star rating stays at 6.26.
I thought it might be a slider-related bug since the last object I mapped was a slider, but adding a circle half a beat away and then another circle more than half a beat away from that circle triggers the same bug.
The star rating of something I'm currently mapping is 6.26. However, if I add a single circle more than half a beat away from my final object (at 201.25 bpm), the star rating jumps to 6.31 (?!). If I instead put it 1.875 or more beats away, the star rating shows as 6.32 (regardless of how long of a break I add). If I put the circle half a beat or less away from the final object, star rating stays at 6.26.
I thought it might be a slider-related bug since the last object I mapped was a slider, but adding a circle half a beat away and then another circle more than half a beat away from that circle triggers the same bug.
E m i
Best FriendS and stuff are high rated because of that, literally every top 300 player I know has a Best FriendS DT FC in their top 10uberpancake wrote:
So you could have one map that is insane all the way through with a peak and a map that is really easy all the way through with the same peak, and they'd have the same star difficulty?
If they had the same amount of circles, would they also give the same amount of pp despite being very different in difficulty for most of the song?
This is how mappers make "popular" maps that get high ratings, because everyone wants easy pp. Nobody plays the harder and more creative maps much because they generally contain sliderspam and therefore give less pp (Talent Shredder is rated sub-5 stars, it's ridiculous). The big issue here is that sliders are way underrated due to that slider leniency overrating fear. I really think that issue should be addressed, it's starting to get annoying. Maybe it's just me though.
That's something about rounding I think.[ Momiji ] wrote:
well, I've been getting different star ratings from simply changing the offset of a map, so...
The difficulty algorithm doesn't look at the bpm and beat snap to determine the interval between two notes, it takes the difference of the two notes' offsets. And that's where the rounding error could come from.
Offset doesn't change the time between notes though, does it?- DT - wrote:
That's something about rounding I think.[ Momiji ] wrote:
well, I've been getting different star ratings from simply changing the offset of a map, so...
The difficulty algorithm doesn't look at the bpm and beat snap to determine the interval between two notes, it takes the difference of the two notes' offsets. And that's where the rounding error could come from.
It doesn't, but the offsets of the notes themselves do, which according to this code are floating point numbers. That means that calculations involving the offsets of the notes, including their distance in time, could cause a 5.994 (rounded to 5.99) star map to become a 5.9995 (rounded to 6.00) star map because of rounding errors.GhostFrog wrote:
Offset doesn't change the time between notes though, does it?
I'm mostly talking out of my ass, though, it's just what I think might be the cause of it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Ooh, nice link.
If map difficulty is calculated the same way as in that code, I think I see what causes offset to affect star rating:
If map difficulty is calculated the same way as in that code, I think I see what causes offset to affect star rating:
Unless all object timings are decreased by map offset, this gives an offset-dependent partition of map objects.that link wrote:
// In milliseconds. For difficulty calculation we will only look at the highest strain value in each time interval of size STRAIN_STEP.
// This is to eliminate higher influence of stream over aim by simply having more HitObjects with high strain.
// The higher this value, the less strains there will be, indirectly giving long beatmaps an advantage.
private const double STRAIN_STEP = 400;
// The weighting of each strain value decays to 0.9 * it's previous value
private const double DECAY_WEIGHT = 0.9;
private double CalculateDifficulty(DifficultyType Type)
{
// Find the highest strain value within each strain step
List<double> HighestStrains = new List<double>();
double IntervalEndTime = STRAIN_STEP;
Oh, yeah, I just assumed it started splitting the intervals from the first hitcircle, but apparently it doesn't.
Wolfskin, I had the same problem here...Wolfskin wrote:
Let's say, I've got different scores on my top Beatmap . Now in order to determine which one of these individual scores gets picked to give me as a player performance points, the map with the highest rank (!) is used. Why? Why does the system choose this map, and not - which would make more sense to me - the map which would result in the best pp?
Example:
I had my pp-wise top map on 98% Acc, 269 Combo,1084.000 points, which gave me 46pp.
After replaying it recently: 94% Acc, 276 Combo, 1111.000 points, 38 pp.
So, the system only compares the point value, and I lost 8 pp by beating my record on this beatmap. It picks the 38 pp score, allthough I've got one who is higher, which is quite a downer. Feels in fact a bit as if I get punished for trying to get better on my best maps. You shouldn't be able to lose ranks just by achieving a higher map ranking, right?
My best record on this song (LiSA - Rising Hope [pk's Hard]) was:
- Combo: 574 Accuracy: 99.15% Score: 6,492,564 (41pp)
Now I played it again and got this
- Combo: 932 Accuracy: 96.62% Score: 11,415,828 (35pp)
I was with 913pp, but it dropped to 907pp after breaking my own record with lower accuracy. This don't make sense...
Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
quality post^
Because a rhythm game is about hitting as many notes as you can without any regard to how accurately you hit them. Nice.FuZ38100 wrote:
Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
You should be able to hit the notes first then worry about accuracy. Who cares if you can press a button with 0 ms error everytime if you can't aim?- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
Because a rhythm game is about hitting as many notes as you can without any regard to how accurately you hit them. Nice.FuZ38100 wrote:
Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
Yes. That's why you get less than 60% of the pp for half combo than max combo, (just look at how harshly the combo bonus scales on a 10000 combo map: http://tinyurl.com/m29cgyo ) and each miss takes off anotherKheldragar wrote:
You should be able to hit the notes first then worry about accuracy. Who cares if you can press a button with 0 ms error everytime if you can't aim?
The difference between 98% and 94% in acc is HUGE, it completely justifies the loss of 8pp, especially since the combo was high enough already.
The only thing that doesn't make sense here is the obsolete scoring system letting more pp-giving scores to be surpassed by less pp-giving scores.
3%- DT - wrote:
and each miss takes off another 5% from the pp.
where did this 5% come from and why do people believe it?
You're right, sorry. No idea where I read it was 5%.silmarilen wrote:
3%- DT - wrote:
and each miss takes off another 5% from the pp.
where did this 5% come from and why do people believe it?
And how what you said would be converted to code? Multiply pp by zero if there is a single combo break?- DT - wrote:
The only thing that doesn't make sense here is the obsolete scoring system letting more pp-giving scores to be surpassed by less pp-giving scores.
Hopefully, the best solution has already been said:
Makes all sense. pp is not about "you must be full accuracy" or "you must be full combo", but a combination of them. That's what pp is doing right now. So the wrong here is the scoreboard that only consider the best score (and not the best pp) to keep on the server.koromo wrote:
Easiest solution would be to switch to a pp based ranking system on maps or something I think. It's kinda weird how our rank itself is determined by pp, yet scoreboards still rely on the ancient scoring system.
Err...mattkun7 wrote:
And how what you said would be converted to code? Multiply pp by zero if there is a single combo break?- DT - wrote:
The only thing that doesn't make sense here is the obsolete scoring system letting more pp-giving scores to be surpassed by less pp-giving scores.
If A > B
then use A
else use B
http://ask.fm/Tom94/answer/119955854542
- Rework the scoring system (and mod boni) to be strongly correlated with pp while still remaining simple.This was 5 months ago though...
DeletedUser_4329079
When you miss twice and 3% is taken off your max pp twice, is that 94% or 94.09%
94.09Kheldragar wrote:
When you miss twice and 3% is taken off your max pp twice, is that 94% or 94.09%
I think it was discussed before but Double Time really gives insane amount of pp sometimes even given the difficulty. I mean for an equivalent difficulty between an easier song with DT and another harder song without DT, the DT seems more worth it.
I don't really like playing DT because it ruins a bit the song, but given how everyone's top rank was filled with DT everywhere, I tried one, and it directly went #1 in my PP list far away all the others, not even a FC, with like 5 tries. It really didn't feel harder than non DT songs I did before, but the difference was just that huge.
Maybe it's not the case for all the maps and that I've yet not enough experience to judge that but well, I really felt the difference in pp/difficulty.
I don't really like playing DT because it ruins a bit the song, but given how everyone's top rank was filled with DT everywhere, I tried one, and it directly went #1 in my PP list far away all the others, not even a FC, with like 5 tries. It really didn't feel harder than non DT songs I did before, but the difference was just that huge.
Maybe it's not the case for all the maps and that I've yet not enough experience to judge that but well, I really felt the difference in pp/difficulty.
plsno not my dt