and who decides what 'patterns' are objectively hard? it varies massively from player to player. hard to make a system that includes everyone single those patterns out.
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
DeletedUser_4329079
The more uncomfortable the patterns are to grab and to tap, the more hard to accurate is. For aim, usually these circles that forces you being more time at a determinated place of the screen to then move more sharply will cost you most, if the map is constantly fluid then there is no kind of problem with aim level. About tapping the less variety of tapable patterns there are the more easy to repeat it constantly is, meaning that there should be something that evaluates some kind of "strain" for this ... likely quick changes from duplets to tripletse or a stream that ends with 1/2 of null timed note then slider over THE SAME position, this last one makes lots of sliderbreaks and is proportionally difficult to the more circles had the stream before the slider.
This is what I would consider pattern difficulty, even more if you mix bboth complicated aim + complicated tapping instead of just fast tapping and fast aiming
This is what I would consider pattern difficulty, even more if you mix bboth complicated aim + complicated tapping instead of just fast tapping and fast aiming
Mhm, I agree on OD being a too big factor for map selection but I also think that the differences in OD are something that develop with time.
Personally I don't really stand a chance to get a SS on any OD8 map but it's fairly possible on OD7 and below. I think it's reasonable that it's worth a lot more than lower OD.
A possibility to upgrade the OD of the map somehow would be cool for pp-farming but it's also kinda lame as lower OD can have a sense for the map and it would also feel even more unfair for people whose OD is limited by suboptimal input devices.
You could say something like "if 2σ of hit notes are in the σ-environment of the 300-area OD is upgraded by 1 for pp-calculation" to reward very accurate players for a result instead of letting them edit the map-specs beforehand and get higher pp even though it wouldn't even have been that good on the original OD. Or you could make it exclusive to SS-scores/find some new name for this scorecategory.
Imo it's important to put strong limits to how players can influence the maps metadata without mods so it can't get abused.
Personally I don't really stand a chance to get a SS on any OD8 map but it's fairly possible on OD7 and below. I think it's reasonable that it's worth a lot more than lower OD.
A possibility to upgrade the OD of the map somehow would be cool for pp-farming but it's also kinda lame as lower OD can have a sense for the map and it would also feel even more unfair for people whose OD is limited by suboptimal input devices.
You could say something like "if 2σ of hit notes are in the σ-environment of the 300-area OD is upgraded by 1 for pp-calculation" to reward very accurate players for a result instead of letting them edit the map-specs beforehand and get higher pp even though it wouldn't even have been that good on the original OD. Or you could make it exclusive to SS-scores/find some new name for this scorecategory.
Imo it's important to put strong limits to how players can influence the maps metadata without mods so it can't get abused.
Physics and physiology?Riince wrote:
and who decides what 'patterns' are objectively hard? it varies massively from player to player. hard to make a system that includes everyone single those patterns out.
Certain angles are harder to make depending on the momentum from the previous patterns than others. Also, there's a big connection between rhythm and aim pressure. As pressure on either increases, so does the "energy distribution" (which is more of attention) between both, and that means that the other half would undeniably increase in pressure as well.
In other words, let's say I have a map with a really long stream, like 2 minutes. And let's assume I'm not that fast a streamer, but the map is only 160bpm, and the stream starts out with stack spacing, and gradually increases to 1.3x spacing. Now, at fist, streaming this would be easy peasy. However, the longer I stream, the more strain is put on my left hand. Even though the streaming is constant 160bpm, it will take more and more effort to continue streaming uninterruptedly. Now my aim hand has more stamina than my stream hand, but since the stream keeps spacing itself out gradually, I'll experience a roughly equal stamina loss in both hands rather than just my streaming hand.
That's one thing, the affecting of rhythm on aim and vice versa. It'd also work if I had lots of fast jumps - my tapping hand gets a lot more tired playing Nyan Nyan Drive (which I alt) than a map that's 30bpm higher and has mostly alt singles. It's something I call mutual strain. I also find it best to approach mapping under the assumption that the player will use two hands as opposed to mouse-only because that's just the majority of the game.
Another difficulty aspect is angle. And angle is always directly tied to momentum, which is always tied to pressure, which is always tied to the strain caused on the player. I've found that with small momentum any angle seems to work except weird stuff like a 270° turn coming from the bottom right at low speed. Basically, in my experience, I've found that other players (and myself) have more ease with what I call "conventional angles" (mainly 90°, 45°, 120° and 180° turns) and "unconventional angles" which, even if they work as a map, are just not seen commonly. Some popular users of these angles would be Amamiya Yuko, or HanzeR. fanzhen seems to combine conventional angles with unconventional ones in a creative way so he'd kind of fall in a league of his own, in this respect.
I don't know precisely which kinds of angles are preferred on average but it wouldn't be hard to figure that out with some sort of poll. And then it wouldn't be hard (I assume) to determine that x angle at y momentum has z difficulty value (for aim). Momentum is simply the combination of spacing + aim + previous angle. "previous angle" would be same direction the followpoints take (clockwise). So, let's say I make a 4.0x jump at a 90° angle at 220bpm, and the next jump is a 2.0x jump at yet another 90° turn - this jump's difficulty would feel more like a 4.0x jump followed by a 1.0x jump, due to the massive speed you've gained from the initial jump. Whereas if the pattern was reversed, the second jump would feel like a 5.0x jump because the initial jump didn't give much power and then you have to add extra force to make up for the sharp angle too.
These are just two takes on difficulty that I haven't seen yet but they seem pretty relevant to me. I mean, the laws of motion are a thing, they don't hold exemptions for circle clickers.
Tess wrote:
quote
The biggest flaw here is that you assume patterns are all PHYSICALLY difficult, they're not. Certain shapes are simply hard to break down and follow. You listed 90°, 45°, 120° and 180° as the easier angles yet 90 and 45 are imo the hardest angles to follow in the game. It's far too subjective to model using "some sort of poll" and it's far more complex than just calculating hand velocities.
I'm talking about physical strain, not physical difficulty. If you model things by difficulty it gets subjective. It should never be about what's the most difficult for people, but about what causes the most objective strain. I also said that those angles are easier relative to other types of angles, and it's always contextual.
The image I'm trying to draw there is that you can calculate contextual strain objectively by paying attention both to the natural physical strain patterns would give, and the average difficulty of certain patterns for the average player. You mentioned "90 and 45 are the hardest angles to follow in the game" but it always depends on the context of the strain of the previous patterns, the bpm, the rhythm complexity, the note density, and the angle you're coming from. I wasn't talking about "which angle is the hardest", I was talking about "which angles do I see more people being able to complete".
If you look at "what's hard" then you fall into the personal context world of subjectivity and if you look at "what strains" then you're still taking the context of the map and physiology into account with little regard for the player's ideas of what's difficult and easy, since that's different for every player anyway. Physical strain is not, and if you model things that way then you're looking at which player can deal with the most strain in all areas (aim, reading, speed, rhythm, accuracy) rather than "who can do stuff that others can do less".
The image I'm trying to draw there is that you can calculate contextual strain objectively by paying attention both to the natural physical strain patterns would give, and the average difficulty of certain patterns for the average player. You mentioned "90 and 45 are the hardest angles to follow in the game" but it always depends on the context of the strain of the previous patterns, the bpm, the rhythm complexity, the note density, and the angle you're coming from. I wasn't talking about "which angle is the hardest", I was talking about "which angles do I see more people being able to complete".
If you look at "what's hard" then you fall into the personal context world of subjectivity and if you look at "what strains" then you're still taking the context of the map and physiology into account with little regard for the player's ideas of what's difficult and easy, since that's different for every player anyway. Physical strain is not, and if you model things that way then you're looking at which player can deal with the most strain in all areas (aim, reading, speed, rhythm, accuracy) rather than "who can do stuff that others can do less".
im not really sure what you mean by strain, it might just be because my fingers are pretty strong from years of pen spinning, but i've never felt strained from aiming, even if i'm going out of my way on crazy jump maps for an extended time. i nofail spammed eighto for like almost an hour once because im stupid and thought it would help, and if anything my hand felt more flexible afterwards.
even for the average player i think the factor of strain for angle snapping is kind of irrelevant unless were talking intense long marathons that have consistent 6+ star difficulty minimum. which don't exist afaik.
I agree that stamina should be a factor. for tapping. but aiming stamina is something that is a far larger variable than tapping stamina. you've got people with smaller/bigger areas, and people who use touchscreens which pretty much completely eliminate any angle-related difficulties...
even for the average player i think the factor of strain for angle snapping is kind of irrelevant unless were talking intense long marathons that have consistent 6+ star difficulty minimum. which don't exist afaik.
I agree that stamina should be a factor. for tapping. but aiming stamina is something that is a far larger variable than tapping stamina. you've got people with smaller/bigger areas, and people who use touchscreens which pretty much completely eliminate any angle-related difficulties...
By strain I mean quite literally the amount of effort (based on an average) it costs to do a certain something. I mean, there's so much available data on maps and scores on those maps, it shouldn't be hard to see what kinds of angles are relatively more intensive to play than others, along with rhythms as well. I'll agree that when it comes to pure aim my stamina between aim and tapping also doesn't compare. But I've noticed that in myself (and other players, I've even seen index mention this) as soon as I start running out of stamina in one hand, I run out of stamina in the other as well.
As for touchscreens, those always seemed to have had an apparent advantage when it comes to aiming. Isn't that why Tom disabled TAG4 pp?
Also, do keep in mind I'm just giving a rough idea of the general direction you could go in when considering how to calculate pp more accurately. I purposefully avoided any specific ideas because, in my experience, people tend to argue or neglect any precise propositions unless they reach them together.
As for touchscreens, those always seemed to have had an apparent advantage when it comes to aiming. Isn't that why Tom disabled TAG4 pp?
Also, do keep in mind I'm just giving a rough idea of the general direction you could go in when considering how to calculate pp more accurately. I purposefully avoided any specific ideas because, in my experience, people tend to argue or neglect any precise propositions unless they reach them together.
Strain is caused through having to tense your hand to hit small circles or to accelerate or decelerate your hand quickly. I experience way more strain playing 4.5* old cs5 maps compared to maps with jumps that flow well like Senketsu no Chikai.
huh, i guess i just don't think that kind of strain has a noticeable impact on playing, anymore than how hard it is to press a certain type of key down. in my experience if someone messes up on aiming it's reading related.
What is aimif everyone connects misaims to misreads?
Well reading has a strain of its own which is the time it takes for your brain to process what's on the screen and react to it accordingly. I don't get what's so "subjective" about that. The more things on the screen at once, the longer your brain will take to organize everything because it can't rely on reflexes. The less time you have to react, the more trained your reflexes will have to be to react to something. These are both two reading strains determined by the opposite ends of note density, and yet the attention paid to them is rather minimal.
DeletedUser_4329079
Because most people have no clue what actually makes flashlight difficult. Memorization is the smallest factor, not the only one.
Strain as described by Tess is a real thing. When you have a series of jumps, the algorithm will calculate the aiming difficulty of each individual jump, and then this number is further increased as you have more jumps. That's strain, I think, but of the most simple variety.
If you have a series of jumps end on a spaced stream, that's a different matter. There is clearly a *lot* of effort that you need to put in order to hit all notes on the spaced stream at the end, but the current difficulty algorithm doesn't really take that into consideration, IMO. The effort you have to put to decelerate your cursor like that is definitely real, as B1rd said. I think this is also partly the reason why CS difficulty calculation is flawed and a flat bonus had to be put in place in order to fix star ratings for high CS maps.
That said, I don't think looking at angles alone is the way to implement a reading calculator. There are some good things you can do with it, but I don't think it's enough to fix highly overrated maps like Koigokoro. For that, you would need a pattern detector: an algorithm that looks at mapping patterns as a whole, instead of just calculating the angles from individual jumps. I'd say that if Tom wants to look into that, he should start very small and safe (as is many times the case in software developing), by testing individual patterns that are *for sure* a pain in the ass to everyone who plays this game and are also underrated by the current algorithm. I think that if you add a small batch of those to the current build, you would already be fixing DT farm maps by making everything else give much more PP. Alternatively, you could detect EASY patterns and then add a penalty, but to me that sounds more difficult.
If you have a series of jumps end on a spaced stream, that's a different matter. There is clearly a *lot* of effort that you need to put in order to hit all notes on the spaced stream at the end, but the current difficulty algorithm doesn't really take that into consideration, IMO. The effort you have to put to decelerate your cursor like that is definitely real, as B1rd said. I think this is also partly the reason why CS difficulty calculation is flawed and a flat bonus had to be put in place in order to fix star ratings for high CS maps.
That said, I don't think looking at angles alone is the way to implement a reading calculator. There are some good things you can do with it, but I don't think it's enough to fix highly overrated maps like Koigokoro. For that, you would need a pattern detector: an algorithm that looks at mapping patterns as a whole, instead of just calculating the angles from individual jumps. I'd say that if Tom wants to look into that, he should start very small and safe (as is many times the case in software developing), by testing individual patterns that are *for sure* a pain in the ass to everyone who plays this game and are also underrated by the current algorithm. I think that if you add a small batch of those to the current build, you would already be fixing DT farm maps by making everything else give much more PP. Alternatively, you could detect EASY patterns and then add a penalty, but to me that sounds more difficult.
Regarding the angle thing that got mentioned briefly several posts back, I think a lot of underweighted and overweighted aim patterns could be brought more into line just by considering the angle between the current straight line path and the previous straight line path. If you call that angle theta, something as simple as d^(a-cos(theta))/t^(a+cos(theta)) rather than d^a/t^a (where I think right now a=3) would fix a looot of problems. Would need to use a smaller measuring stick for distance in order to make it actually work, but that would be probably easy enough to find a good approximate value for.
Doing that correctly would nerf "slow" DT farm maps relative to faster ones - DT farm maps have lots of jumps with small angles between consecutive paths and the change I'm suggesting would make such jumps more dependent on effective bpm and less dependent on distance between notes. On the other extreme, large spacing with really wide angles would be buffed, but would scale less with effective bpm - things like the ridiculous quintuples in Genryuu Kaiko or any pattern at all in Worldwide Choppers.
Doing that correctly would nerf "slow" DT farm maps relative to faster ones - DT farm maps have lots of jumps with small angles between consecutive paths and the change I'm suggesting would make such jumps more dependent on effective bpm and less dependent on distance between notes. On the other extreme, large spacing with really wide angles would be buffed, but would scale less with effective bpm - things like the ridiculous quintuples in Genryuu Kaiko or any pattern at all in Worldwide Choppers.
I'd just like to drop by to say (and repeat) that I really do think that even simpler and smaller pattern/rhythm complexity evaluation logic could be added, since anything in the right direction would be a step forward and better than not considering these aspects at all. As long as we feel the average error of the algorhythm gets smaller that is.
For rhythm complexity simply considering variability of the rhythm to a small extent would be great, to reward accing stuff that isn't 1/2 spam almost exclusively a bit more.
For rhythm complexity simply considering variability of the rhythm to a small extent would be great, to reward accing stuff that isn't 1/2 spam almost exclusively a bit more.
i suck at this game and I'm a loser lol 
Is this intended behaviour?
I'm assuming that perhaps the speed difficulty is being calculated based upon the length of streams based on time, rather than the number of notes? It seems very counterintuitive though.
Here is a spreadsheet of values: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
Here is a copy of the mapset I made while testing if you want to inspect it, I only just updated it though so it hasn't calculated the online difficulty ratings yet: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/298070
edit: This is, of course, a very primitive test, but I tried to minimise the effect that could happen due to aim or accuracy by using OD0 and perfect stacks with stack leniency 0. I don't claim to know how the pp/tar diff systems work but I do fine this rather odd
edit2: It was suggested that I also test this with different length streams to see if it changes and perhaps becomes nullified, I may do that at some point soon. 32 was just an arbitrary power of 2 that's a decent stream length in order to make my copying and pasting easier
I'm assuming that perhaps the speed difficulty is being calculated based upon the length of streams based on time, rather than the number of notes? It seems very counterintuitive though.
Here is a spreadsheet of values: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
Here is a copy of the mapset I made while testing if you want to inspect it, I only just updated it though so it hasn't calculated the online difficulty ratings yet: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/298070
edit: This is, of course, a very primitive test, but I tried to minimise the effect that could happen due to aim or accuracy by using OD0 and perfect stacks with stack leniency 0. I don't claim to know how the pp/tar diff systems work but I do fine this rather odd
edit2: It was suggested that I also test this with different length streams to see if it changes and perhaps becomes nullified, I may do that at some point soon. 32 was just an arbitrary power of 2 that's a decent stream length in order to make my copying and pasting easier
Now i know why Tom is planning to buff high bpm, since 240 seems to be the highest bpm that is being properly rewarded.
blahpy's post said it all, just check the star rating of Mad Machine DT if you want a ranked map to test on, it's way too low.
Tom pls why would you do this to us.
Nice post count Jesus. Well memed, I know.
With so few notes, this could be another little quirk related to the fact that tom's difficulty algorithm breaks the map into short time intervals and chooses the highest strain from each. Or at least it did back in the days of tp. Probably still does.
Try 64 and 128 notes?
Would been a good idea about considering stream lenght by time instead amount of circles at all. Also both cases of very long streams and really fast stacks (355 bpm likely seen at xi - Breakthrough Atmosphere +DT because streams of 1/6 at 237 bpm) are both cases underrated. Seems that the meta for pp is finding a map full of "streams" 5-9 circles frequently, not complicated stream shape (mainly lineally and fluided ones) with higher spacing between circle and OD equal or over to OD8. Maps with streams of +30 circles and over 4 seconds of tapping aren't that seen in people's best performance, mainly because they're highly underrated compared to easier maps that can give more pp for less effort.
I find confusing that on some cases a 5.1 stars map likely Tristam & Braken - Frame of Mind [Chill] can give more pp than maps with 5.48 stars likely Shounen Radio - neu [Gold]...
Facts to consider
1.- Shounen radio has 821 elements, Tristam has 1042 elements
2.- Shounen radio is OD7, Tristam is OD8
3.- Tristam is much more consistent than Shounen radio is
4.- General ranking on top 50's talks by itself.
Personal tought: Tristam [Chill] is being highly farmed because it gives a way too much pp from accuracy value, instead shounen radio [gold] is avoided due it needs strong constancy at fingers on some parts and being massively underewarded because it's worth as very low accuracy on pp.
What I want to highlight from this?
1.- There should been a star system from "average star level" and "hardest star level", this would allow people to find maps to properly train constancy or instead going ahead for maps with high peaks of difficulty.
2.- General pp obtained from a map SHOULD be based on "average star level" and if this is worked finely, it should been balanced on both cases that requires or constancy or a nuke of skill on atleast a single part. This would take lots of effort, but looks promising.
3.- Accuracy is being overrated (mainly OD+8 with many circles). This makes people to avoid maps that they can't do with really good accuracy and instead they go for free accuracy = free pp maps. Needed of more tries to FC 95.50% Shounen Radio [gold] than to FC Tristam Frame of Mind [Chill] with 98.02% accuracy.
Preffered to not extend on too many topics at the same time, just mentioning one and describing another clearly.
I find confusing that on some cases a 5.1 stars map likely Tristam & Braken - Frame of Mind [Chill] can give more pp than maps with 5.48 stars likely Shounen Radio - neu [Gold]...
Facts to consider
1.- Shounen radio has 821 elements, Tristam has 1042 elements
2.- Shounen radio is OD7, Tristam is OD8
3.- Tristam is much more consistent than Shounen radio is
4.- General ranking on top 50's talks by itself.
Personal tought: Tristam [Chill] is being highly farmed because it gives a way too much pp from accuracy value, instead shounen radio [gold] is avoided due it needs strong constancy at fingers on some parts and being massively underewarded because it's worth as very low accuracy on pp.
What I want to highlight from this?
1.- There should been a star system from "average star level" and "hardest star level", this would allow people to find maps to properly train constancy or instead going ahead for maps with high peaks of difficulty.
2.- General pp obtained from a map SHOULD be based on "average star level" and if this is worked finely, it should been balanced on both cases that requires or constancy or a nuke of skill on atleast a single part. This would take lots of effort, but looks promising.
3.- Accuracy is being overrated (mainly OD+8 with many circles). This makes people to avoid maps that they can't do with really good accuracy and instead they go for free accuracy = free pp maps. Needed of more tries to FC 95.50% Shounen Radio [gold] than to FC Tristam Frame of Mind [Chill] with 98.02% accuracy.
Preffered to not extend on too many topics at the same time, just mentioning one and describing another clearly.
Good theory, could be the reason yeah.GhostFrog wrote:
With so few notes, this could be another little quirk related to the fact that tom's difficulty algorithm breaks the map into short time intervals and chooses the highest strain from each. Or at least it did back in the days of tp. Probably still does.
Will try some different numbers of notes later today when I have timeKheldragar wrote:
Try 64 and 128 notes?
Pretty interested for the results. Also, the pp vs. star rating thing DroidBass mentioned is legit. Some star ratings seem really off, and it still feels counterintuitive to me that a map of a certain SR would give less pp than a map of lower SR than the first.
This can happen often due to accuracy rating due to OD, length, etc, i'm trying to minimise that effect here thoughTess wrote:
it still feels counterintuitive to me that a map of a certain SR would give less pp than a map of lower SR than the first.
Topic Starter
This is probably the reason. In the graph you can see how the amount of BPM difference increases between each of these "steps". Those breakpoints are where the 32 note stream starts being completely contained within one less of these intervals.GhostFrog wrote:
With so few notes, this could be another little quirk related to the fact that tom's difficulty algorithm breaks the map into short time intervals and chooses the highest strain from each. Or at least it did back in the days of tp. Probably still does.
If you'd want to compare the difficulties of such streams I suggest you make a map at least 30 seconds long where you just repeat those streams with a short break inbetween. Sadly there could still be aliasing artifacts when the BPM and the time interval share common divisors, but they shouldn't be as bad.
The sudden knack at 300 BPM is by the way currently caused by a hard cap avoiding singularities in maps putting some hitobjects 1ms or even 0ms apart. I should probably make that higher now that some people actually start to pull off 300bpm scores.
you forgot 1 major thing.DroidBass wrote:
Facts to consider
1.- Shounen radio has 821 elements, Tristam has 1042 elements
2.- Shounen radio is OD7, Tristam is OD8
3.- Tristam is much more consistent than Shounen radio is
4.- General ranking on top 50's talks by itself.
tristam has 923 circles
shounen radio has 652 circles
sliders arent considered for acc, only for beatmap length.
so not only is tristam a higher od, it also has almost 300 circles more.
when aim/speed/acc get divided you will see that tristam most likely gives 30-40pp more in the acc part compared to shounen radio. while shounen radio will give more in the combined aim/speed part.
unfortunately pp cant tell how hard a map actually is to acc, it purely looks at od and amount of circles for that part afaik.
IIRC that's the main reason why HR often feels undervalued. If the map doesn't score high in aim or speed but is still hard to acc (like marathons) it won't give any decent pp below 99%
also because most people don't have high acc.
Thanks for the explanation, makes perfect sense nowTom94 wrote:
This is probably the reason. In the graph you can see how the amount of BPM difference increases between each of these "steps". Those breakpoints are where the 32 note stream starts being completely contained within one less of these intervals.GhostFrog wrote:
With so few notes, this could be another little quirk related to the fact that tom's difficulty algorithm breaks the map into short time intervals and chooses the highest strain from each. Or at least it did back in the days of tp. Probably still does.
If you'd want to compare the difficulties of such streams I suggest you make a map at least 30 seconds long where you just repeat those streams with a short break inbetween. Sadly there could still be aliasing artifacts when the BPM and the time interval share common divisors, but they shouldn't be as bad.
The sudden knack at 300 BPM is by the way currently caused by a hard cap avoiding singularities in maps putting some hitobjects 1ms or even 0ms apart. I should probably make that higher now that some people actually start to pull off 300bpm scores.
This, the reward curve for HR is incredibly steep so the only way it rewards you is if you get 99+% acc or if you're playing a 3+ minute map.Riince wrote:
also because most people don't have high acc.
Even 6 minute maps give little under 98.5% unless it's a map that's hard to FC.
ZenithPhantasm
Well, no.ZenithPhantasm wrote:
And I feel like Hidden aim pp should be 0 because its basically preference.
While it's true that maps can become easier to read with Hidden it's still a lot harder to maintain combo. Hidden is clearly my mostplayed mod and the amount of shitmisses I get with hidden compared to nomod on maps i can play very comfortably(99%+ nomod) is immense. I think the difference could get smaller once I get better but I don't think you'll ever be equally consistent when using hidden.