getting <100ur on a 2star map is near impossible, give it a try if you want.Woobowiz wrote:
I'm a little iffy on the whole "Factor in Unstable Rate" thing, on the bright side it provides more maps to farm pp, on the other hand, players could FC easy maps with a really low unstable rate and get stupid amounts of pp for the difficulty of the maps they play.
Community
Forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,647
That is a terrible idea, UR should never be factored into pp. I don't mind the thought of low OD getting a small buff, but the reality is the current game meta is high accuracy and not amazing scores (rrtyui), traditional nomod isn't going to be the meta as long as this is the case. But you won't see much od8 in the future, soon nomod will be much more like mods, hard maps will probably be mostly ar/od9.x.
I don't really care that much about OD, FL etc., what really needs buffing is sliders.
I don't really care that much about OD, FL etc., what really needs buffing is sliders.
I don't really like the idea of factoring in UR either. I think nomod should be made more appealing somehow. For example, more OD9 maps in the 4-5 star range that your average 4/5 digit player could farm. (Though it doesn't really solve the current low OD issue with existing maps)
simple
separate aim, speed and accuracy
separate aim, speed and accuracy
A lot of people say this, got any example maps?B1rd wrote:
That is a terrible idea, UR should never be factored into pp. I don't mind the thought of low OD getting a small buff, but the reality is the current game meta is high accuracy and not amazing scores (rrtyui), traditional nomod isn't going to be the meta as long as this is the case. But you won't see much od8 in the future, soon nomod will be much more like mods, hard maps will probably be mostly ar/od9.x.
I don't really care that much about OD, FL etc., what really needs buffing is sliders.
There is probably a whole bunch of them but here is onejesus1412 wrote:
A lot of people say this, got any example maps?
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/148092
303 pp for first place with only 3 hdhr player
but I am staying neutral since there is so many kinds of beatmaps out there
Maybe maps like scary rose, big black, adult's toy and talent shredder? I'm sure there are better examples thoughjesus1412 wrote:
A lot of people say this, got any example maps?B1rd wrote:
That is a terrible idea, UR should never be factored into pp. I don't mind the thought of low OD getting a small buff, but the reality is the current game meta is high accuracy and not amazing scores (rrtyui), traditional nomod isn't going to be the meta as long as this is the case. But you won't see much od8 in the future, soon nomod will be much more like mods, hard maps will probably be mostly ar/od9.x.
I don't really care that much about OD, FL etc., what really needs buffing is sliders.
All underrated because of the 1key sections, not the sliders afaik.uberpancake wrote:
Maybe maps like scary rose, big black, adult's toy and talent shredder? I'm sure there are better examples thoughjesus1412 wrote:
A lot of people say this, got any example maps?
of those examples, the only ones with streams are big black and adult's toy and they are extremely easy streams, so the fact that most of the maps difficulty comes from 1key parts is a big factor, i think jesse is right
well except maybe towards the end of bb, but id say that map is still 6.5 stars so..
well except maybe towards the end of bb, but id say that map is still 6.5 stars so..
Re-posting my original suggestion because people keep seeing the UR thing Riince talk about after this.
Woobowiz wrote:
This may be a stupid suggestion, but is it within reason to "buff" lower OD by weighing the accuracy values of 100's and 50's?
So for OD 6, 100's would be worth 2/5 or 1/2 of a 300 rather than the usual 1/3rd of a 300. Low OD is weak enough for giving less pp even for an SS, why not give it a little push
that makes no sense since it basically rewards poor performance (low OD low acc) and would make low OD high acc further underrated.
No one replied because it was a stupid idea, don't just keep posting what you said until someone acknowledges it.
As for examples, I think you mentioned Neuroncia as one, this would be another example. But I think it's already pretty evident that sliders are underrated, I don't think there is one slider map that gives good pp, every good pp map is almost all circles. They don't give anywhere enough pp for the extra aim and reading you have to do, and of course they give no accuracy pp which is a big deal.
What do you mean by '1key section'? I think it's safe to say that those maps would be a lot easier if the sliders were circles, I actually tried changing some sliders to circles on Scarlet Rose and the star rating actually increased.jesus1412 wrote:
All underrated because of the 1key sections, not the sliders afaik.uberpancake wrote:
Maybe maps like scary rose, big black, adult's toy and talent shredder? I'm sure there are better examples though
As for examples, I think you mentioned Neuroncia as one, this would be another example. But I think it's already pretty evident that sliders are underrated, I don't think there is one slider map that gives good pp, every good pp map is almost all circles. They don't give anywhere enough pp for the extra aim and reading you have to do, and of course they give no accuracy pp which is a big deal.
1key sections as in... the entirety of the maps (if you 1key). Very spaced slow streams if that's how you prefer to see them.B1rd wrote:
No one replied because it was a stupid idea, don't just keep posting what you said until someone acknowledges it.What do you mean by '1key section'? I think it's safe to say that those maps would be a lot easier if the sliders were circles, I actually tried changing some sliders to circles on Scarlet Rose and the star rating actually increased.jesus1412 wrote:
All underrated because of the 1key sections, not the sliders afaik.
As for examples, I think you mentioned Neuroncia as one, this would be another example. But I think it's already pretty evident that sliders are underrated, I don't think there is one slider map that gives good pp, every good pp map is almost all circles. They don't give anywhere enough pp for the extra aim and reading you have to do, and of course they give no accuracy pp which is a big deal.
There are only two ways that I can figure this out, one possibility is that jump distance is taken from the ends of slider, in this case, when a player doesn't follow a short slider (as in, they treat it like a normal hit circle) the effective jump distance is calculated with the wrong assumptions. The player presses the slider start and then moves to the next note/slider as if it was a hitcircle but the star algorithm assumes that they follow the slider to the end then treats the jump as the shorter distance between the slider end and the next note.
The other possibility that could possibly mitigate the above scenario is that the jump distance is taken from the point furthest from the end of a slider that would yield a 300. In this scenario the previously mentioned scenario can still occur but it should be dampened unless the sliders get especially long. This solution however has it's own issues, shorter sliders will be assumed to work as standard hitcircles.
The one thing I can't understand is how long slider maps are underrated, in my eyes it just doesn't make any sense and I'd have to guess that it's underrated for other reasons.
I'll admit this is an issue and that it's probably one of the more fixable ones at this point in time (compared to heavy 1key sections/slow spaced streams).
to give you a better example of underrated sliders: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/128645 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/102282
i personally think pp doesnt look enough at technical difficulty, it's pretty much only physical ability. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/290040 are easily 5+ stars in terms of difficulty but only 4.32 stars because it's a slow map with pretty much no spacing
i personally think pp doesnt look enough at technical difficulty, it's pretty much only physical ability. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/290040 are easily 5+ stars in terms of difficulty but only 4.32 stars because it's a slow map with pretty much no spacing
lol I didn't know Terminal was so underratedsilmarilen wrote:
to give you a better example of underrated sliders: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/128645 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/102282
i personally think pp doesnt look enough at technical difficulty, it's pretty much only physical ability. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/290040 are easily 5+ stars in terms of difficulty but only 4.32 stars because it's a slow map with pretty much no spacing
Not sure if this has been suggested before.
Maps could analyzed for difficulty on a combo timeline to determine what combo guarantees you fcd the hard parts. Find the lowest difficulty section, that x combo passes for some amount of combos (25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100% combo for example).
You could make a simple table for every map to weight the pp/combo% they give and buff nonfcs on maps with hard parts in the middle, lower the pp nonfcs in maps with hard parts in the beginning/end give.
Maps could analyzed for difficulty on a combo timeline to determine what combo guarantees you fcd the hard parts. Find the lowest difficulty section, that x combo passes for some amount of combos (25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100% combo for example).
You could make a simple table for every map to weight the pp/combo% they give and buff nonfcs on maps with hard parts in the middle, lower the pp nonfcs in maps with hard parts in the beginning/end give.
Suggested but I still agree with the idea.jaaakb wrote:
Not sure if this has been suggested before.
Maps could analyzed for difficulty on a combo timeline to determine what combo guarantees you fcd the hard parts. Find the lowest difficulty section, that x combo passes for some amount of combos (25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100% combo for example).
You could make a simple table for every map to weight the pp/combo% they give and buff nonfcs on maps with hard parts in the middle, lower the pp nonfcs in maps with hard parts in the beginning/end give.
factoring in UR doesnt sound reasonable
first of all you'd have to replace it with average aberration and then again:
If you can get a bonus to a 300 why wouldn't you give extra pp for hitting circles closer to the middle?
And if there's already a function to calculate boni why wouldnt we replace every circle with a target like this?
http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/pc5 ... e9pkxi.png
would kill any DT-players with non-perfect aim and move the focus to smaller circle sizes when ppl git gud at it
slight irony because it would make the game weird imo but didn't want to keep it for myself
first of all you'd have to replace it with average aberration and then again:
If you can get a bonus to a 300 why wouldn't you give extra pp for hitting circles closer to the middle?
And if there's already a function to calculate boni why wouldnt we replace every circle with a target like this?
http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/pc5 ... e9pkxi.png
would kill any DT-players with non-perfect aim and move the focus to smaller circle sizes when ppl git gud at it
slight irony because it would make the game weird imo but didn't want to keep it for myself
UR isnt about where you hit the notes, it's about how accurate you hit them. it's a better version of accuracy
I think he knows that, but it measures your absolute accuracy, whereas hitting notes somewhere within the hitarea does not, only whether it's a hit or not based on CS, while this aim aspect could also be measured in an absolute way (regardless of CS, just like UR doesn't care for OD) if we wanted to go down that direction: hit distance from 1x1 centre of hitcircle, averaged similarly to unstable rate (and similarly to hit timing, more than X aim error = miss, where X depends on CS/OD).
It seems fair just like basing acc on UR, but I don't think it'd "feel good" to play like this (even though it'd be good to have mods that allow players to push their "aim accuracy" too by allowing CS7 and stuff like that on ranked maps). Probably measuring absolute error instead of categories wouldn't feel that harsh when applied to accuracy, maybe because that's already divided into 4 outcomes vs hit/miss of aim and we already have OD10-11 that require you to be rather precise with your acc, while CS7< is pretty rare.
It seems fair just like basing acc on UR, but I don't think it'd "feel good" to play like this (even though it'd be good to have mods that allow players to push their "aim accuracy" too by allowing CS7 and stuff like that on ranked maps). Probably measuring absolute error instead of categories wouldn't feel that harsh when applied to accuracy, maybe because that's already divided into 4 outcomes vs hit/miss of aim and we already have OD10-11 that require you to be rather precise with your acc, while CS7< is pretty rare.