forum

Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,750
show more
Wolfskin
Thanks anyway! That sounds nice :D
koromo

-Ruri no Tori- wrote:

that is getting changed 'soon'. When?

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.

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.
GhostFrog
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.
E m i
well, I've been getting different star ratings from simply changing the offset of a map, so...
Nyxa

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?
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 10

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.
DT-sama

[ Momiji ] wrote:

well, I've been getting different star ratings from simply changing the offset of a map, so...
That's something about rounding I think.
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.
GhostFrog

- DT - wrote:

[ Momiji ] wrote:

well, I've been getting different star ratings from simply changing the offset of a map, so...
That's something about rounding I think.
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-sama

GhostFrog wrote:

Offset doesn't change the time between notes though, does it?
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.
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.
GhostFrog
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:

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;
Unless all object timings are decreased by map offset, this gives an offset-dependent partition of map objects.
DT-sama
Oh, yeah, I just assumed it started splitting the intervals from the first hitcircle, but apparently it doesn't.
Yutsuten

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?
Wolfskin, I had the same problem here...

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...
FuZ
Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
Vuelo Eluko
quality post^
uzzi

FuZ38100 wrote:

Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
Because a rhythm game is about hitting as many notes as you can without any regard to how accurately you hit them. Nice.
Yuudachi-kun

- [ U z z I ] - wrote:

FuZ38100 wrote:

Losing PP when making a better combo and score but with a lower accuracy is the most retarded thing ever
Because a rhythm game is about hitting as many notes as you can without any regard to how accurately you hit them. Nice.
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?
DT-sama

Kheldragar 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?
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 another 5%3% from the pp. What more do you want, "completely disregard accuracy until the score is full combo"?
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.
silmarilen

- DT - wrote:

and each miss takes off another 5% from the pp.
3%
where did this 5% come from and why do people believe it?
DT-sama

silmarilen wrote:

- DT - wrote:

and each miss takes off another 5% from the pp.
3%
where did this 5% come from and why do people believe it?
You're right, sorry. No idea where I read it was 5%.
Yutsuten

- 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.
And how what you said would be converted to code? Multiply pp by zero if there is a single combo break?
Hopefully, the best solution has already been said:

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.
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.
Granger

mattkun7 wrote:

- 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.
And how what you said would be converted to code? Multiply pp by zero if there is a single combo break?
Err...

If A > B
then use A
else use B
DT-sama
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...
E m i
increase acc pp for high od low acc (95-98%) and low od high acc (100%)
pls :(
DeletedUser_4329079
High OD sliders seem to be extremely underrated by the pp system considering they are harder to hit because of the smaller follow circles :?
Yuudachi-kun
When you miss twice and 3% is taken off your max pp twice, is that 94% or 94.09%
silmarilen

Kheldragar wrote:

When you miss twice and 3% is taken off your max pp twice, is that 94% or 94.09%
94.09
Ziassan
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.
Vuelo Eluko
plsno not my dt
Yuudachi-kun
Dt is weird with acc since od7 becomes od9 yet I can maintain 96%+? I can hardly 95% od8 so idgi
GoldenWolf

Kheldragar wrote:

Dt is weird with acc since od7 becomes od9 yet I can maintain 96%+? I can hardly 95% od8 so idgi
Because it's easier to acc on faster tempos at the same hitwindow, just because you have less room for errors

also OD doesn't get increased by DT
silmarilen

GoldenWolf wrote:

also OD doesn't get increased by DT
saying that is only going to confuse people. it decreases the hit window so in essence it's the same as increasing OD.
E m i
OD7 DT is not OD9.
OD7 DT has the same time window as OD9.
B1rd
and why do we need to make that distinction?
E m i

GoldenWolf wrote:

OD doesn't get increased by DT
Yuudachi-kun

GoldenWolf wrote:

Kheldragar wrote:

Dt is weird with acc since od7 becomes od9 yet I can maintain 96%+? I can hardly 95% od8 so idgi
Because it's easier to acc on faster tempos at the same hitwindow, just because you have less room for errors

also OD doesn't get increased by DT
The osu client tells me it does and apparently pp gets calculated as if it's OD9?
DT-sama
Saying that OD7 DT isn't OD9 is pointless.
pp takes that OD7 DT = OD9, which is true for the hit windows of 300s, but if it took OD7 DT's actual hit windows for 100s and 50s, non-SS scores would give more pp compared to the same OD9 scores, because they are actually narrower than nomod OD9:
OD9 is 24ms/66ms/108ms, OD7 DT is 24ms/54ms/85ms, which makes it harder to get 100s in OD7 DT than OD10 (58ms), and harder to hit the notes at all compared to an hypothetical nomod OD11 (88ms).

What makes OD7 DT "easier" is that AR8 DT maps usually have easier patterns with less overlaps and easier rhythms than nomod OD9 maps, which have more complex patterns, rhythms, and have lower AR to begin with.
Also, nomod OD9's wider hit windows means that the notes' hit windows overlap more, which makes it harder to recover from misreads and misaims.
E m i
doesn't matter to me, i can get ~90 unstable rate nomod and ~135 unstable rate DT... but there aren't many OD9 nomod maps :(
Yuudachi-kun
Solution: Learn HDHR.
E m i
>tfw pp doesn't recognize that cs5.2 and ar10 makes acc harder
>tfw can get 98.5-99.5% od10 if i memorize the map but too hard to fc
Full Tablet

[ Momiji ] wrote:

>tfw pp doesn't recognize that cs5.2 and ar10 makes acc harder
>tfw can get 98.5-99.5% od10 if i memorize the map but too hard to fc
How AR affects the difficulty of getting good accuracy is pretty subjective.

For me, if a map is very simple to read, then AR10 is easier to get good acc than lower AR; otherwise, AR9 is easier.
E m i
Yeah, I meant in my specific case. I guess I'm just made for DT, acc>speed>aim 8-)
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply