forum

# Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)

posted
Total Posts
2,660

#### silmarilen 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
lol I didn't know Terminal was so underrated
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.

#### 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.
Suggested but I still agree with the idea.
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
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.
UR weighting would be really unfair for those who have cheap setups, I don't think it's a good idea.
Introduce rainbow 300's to standard that give acc weightings of 150%.

huaehaueahu

#### Drezi wrote:

I think he knows that
^

#### osu! Wiki wrote:

This value represents how consistently you time your hits, with lower numbers being better (top players often score below 150). Note that this measures consistency, and not accuracy, so if you're consistent in hitting 15ms early, you'll get similar results to if you're consistent in hitting on time. The formula is essentially the standard deviation of your hit errors (in milliseconds) multiplied by 10.
Which the part with "average aberration" referred to as UR doesnt measure accuracy as mentioned in the definition.
You'd need a different value that calculates the deviation to the perfect timing in a sensible way.

The part with the target thing was meant as a fitting analogy that shows how awkward it would feel if something like weighted accuracy outside of OD would be added to the pp-calculation. Because what it essentially would be is that you're able to modify the OD of the map at will(to exactly what you're capable of) and the map still counting for your pp afterwards.
Coming from that, you could claim that possibility for any of the metadata: O look, I can SS this map at Hp4 and Hp9, gimme more pp for the latter.

and

#### Default wrote:

UR weighting would be really unfair for those who have cheap setups, I don't think it's a good idea.
My personal UR went down by around 30 INSTANTLY just because i switched to good input-devices before I even got used to them. When cheap setups already have a harder time it'd be unfair to give them less reward for something they already have to put more effort in.

PS: I feel seriously trolled by scoring system:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/13768 this map has insanely hard sliders too and gives ~180pp (WWW is the only one who has an S on it) I'm unsure if it's possible to fix it with the current system though.
pp: [Tom94] Reduce value of the Easy mod to counterbalance difficulty calculation bugfix.
May I ask, what exactly happened in this update? It sounds like Easy got nerfed, but neither me or any of my friends that have Easy scores in their top ranks seem to have lost any pp.

Fix fast sliders and fast streams not worth anything atm
This has probably already been mentioned (and is probably a bad idea for one reason or another), but oh well, prepare for opinions.

I think it's a bit odd that max combo% has such a large impact on the amount of PP that a non-FC play is worth; I have had multiple cases where a play with multiple misses at the end of the song is worth considerably more PP than a play with one miss in the middle of the song.

In my opinion, the number of misses should have a bigger impact on how much PP a non-FC play is worth, and combo% should have a much smaller impact (or no impact at all). To account for slider breaks, perhaps there could be a PP bonus for getting a full combo (or a penalty for not getting a full combo).

#### 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.
I think this is a good idea too.

#### 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.
Imo it doesn't make too much sense to reward for a play where you missed on the easy part. Giving less pp for non fcs on maps with difficulty spikes near the end or beginning does sound like a good idea though.

#### Skyanide wrote:

In my opinion, the number of misses should have a bigger impact on how much PP a non-FC play is worth, and combo% should have a much smaller impact (or no impact at all). To account for slider breaks, perhaps there could be a PP bonus for getting a full combo (or a penalty for not getting a full combo).
You're probably right about number of misses being weighted too little and % max combo being weighted too much in judging how good a play is, but you also found the problem that prevents a more accurate system from being possible: sliderbreaks. It's not possible to get accurate information about them from past plays and they're pretty much the equivalent of misses. I don't think there's a better way to account for the possibility of sliderbreaks than using max combo achieved, though exactly how much pp should scale with combo is debatable.

Bonus/penalty for FC/non-FC might be a good thing but it can't be too big without being unnecessarily harsh towards a low number of missed slider ends on a lot of maps.
I think it already counts for sliderbreaks in that you aren't (I'm assuming since it still doesn't count as a miss on the score screen) penalised 3% off of your max pp. You still fucked up your combo.
About the Max combo thing, let's face it, why a miss at the middle and a miss on the last note change just everything, performance-wise ? Their is no real point to this, it's just a miss.
The main reason is that PP & Score would be too different from each other, and everyone would be randomly losing PP because of higher scores worth less PP everywhere.
Since this topic has been addressed many times and the differentiation PP/Score is not gonna happen, the max combo importance will keep being something.
Holding a 1200 combo is much harder than getting two x600's.
In both cases the player did 1 miss, I don't really get why the fact the miss is here or there matter that much.
It's like with the 100's and 50's, them being at the start or the end have a huge impact on the score but not on the PP since when you do them don't change the performance.

edit : "higher level of skill to hold the combo" how ? it's still the same miss, it should not matter perf-wise if the player get it here or there, like getting a 50's at middle or at the end doesn't change the PP.
Because it shows a higher level of skill to hold and keep a high combo rather than two smaller ones.