Sinnoh wrote:
I feel like the AR bonus could also be applied to non-hd, since EZ is still way under rated,
EZ is going to remain tragically under rated until we can start making SR changes. A slight buff to the low AR Bonus isn't unreasonable and I'll update the spreadsheets to include one. The effect will be minimal though and we do need to consider not over rewarding lower diffs such as Cups or equivalent where the AR has less of an impact on difficulty.Ttobas wrote:
Buff EZ, adularescence is 860pp DT and only 643pp EZDT, that is big for only an AR difference,
while it's true that CS makes some paterns easier, in overhall it's way more of a nerf due to hyper dashs not being spawned.
EZ not giving the right pp is more important than what you can think. What makes EZ hard (and low pp) is the same as what gives a lot of convert maps difficulty (and still low pp). So changing how the star diff is handled w/ EZ would benefit convert plays.
Absolutely, the buff to low AR HD is mostly a side effect of nerfing high AR HD. Which is absolutely fine, a buff to low AR HD isn't unwarranted but its impact will be very minimalTtobas wrote:
HD buff for low ar is a good idea but it's useless, there is no low AR map that would give enough pp to make a significant increase.
I took some time to play about with the FL buff but I can't reach numbers I'm happy with. Ideally the bonus would be a curve reducing at higher AR where memorisation is the primary factor but I cannot get the numbers to bend to my will. Scaling the bonus further to account for short maps (sub 200 combo) should be simple enough. If anyone can help out here that would be really appreciatedTtobas wrote:
Change flashlight pp to represent difficulty please, on AR lower than 6, flashlight shouldn't give anything noticable, especially on short map, and FL buff should increase as the AR increase (the faster the fruits scrolls, the more memory is needed), and increase as the star rating increase (because star rating should give an approximation of how "jumpy" the map is, even if it's not that good).
Worth pointing out that the current FL bonus doesn't account for AR at all and still applies the base AR bonus, meaning the FL bonus actually increases slightly as AR gets lower when comparing AR values under 8
There's no need to really, the penalty for misses and not achieving max combo will decimate pp values on a non-fc play, the acc penalty at that point is tiny in comparisonTtobas wrote:
But, maybe you could increase accuracy importance when the score is an FC, or just account the number of droplet miss (and not miss, that already nerf you) when you calculate the accuracy importance of the score.
Absolutely, I did initially look at adjusting the length bonus but was unsure if it was the right thing to do but I hadn't really thought about the point you raised.PakaChan wrote:
i think the way length is calculated needs a small revision, you don't actually move for every object in ctb. It makes streamy maps overrated.
FL gets a little broken because of this since it's jumpy maps that are the hard ones and streamy ones easier.
These 2 patterns shouldn't* have the same length bonus
In other gamemodes where every object, no matter how hard or easy it is, requires an input then scaling the length bonus with max combo works fairly well. But this doesn't apply to CtB where there's no guarantee that a note requires any sort of movement.
The ideal solution would be to calculate the length bonus in the actual difficulty calculator and only include objects that require movements, but any changes to the difficulty calculator look incredibly unlikely until it's ported to lazer.
Using total drain time instead has similar drawbacks to max combo but is probably more exploitable. It's easy to pad a map with long sliders in slow sections or long spinners.
For lack of a better solution I'll propose a nerf to the length bonus instead. It's quite strong right now and doesn't exactly achieve what it's intending to
Despite the variation of droplets from the slider path (which makes me very sad), they're still the same for everyone and still require skill to catch. They require more precise and accurate movements across sliders and better control of the catcher's momentum when you hyper into them. I absolutely believe catching droplets takes an amount of skill and that skill should be rewardedF D Flourite wrote:
Agree with Asriel on the Acc penalty part (which is opposite to Sorcerer's proposal) that it should be decreased. Because droplets are generated by random functions that slightly deviate the actual position of droplet from the slider position. They're not completely following the music anyways. So adding penalty for such a random algorithm doesn't seem to make sense for me.
This is quite interesting, atleast as a band-aid proposal to lessen the effects of the very inaccurate difficulty calculator we currently have. This does however go against the nature of SR a bit, where a higher SR map awards more pp under the assumption it's harder to fc. But currently the vast majority of high SR maps, about 8+, get their SR from hilariously over rated patterns which are usually high BPM streams, most others are using 2B elements which straight up breaks SR. This is definitely worth exploring some morebastoo0 wrote:
So I just did a short simple program to test an idea I had, by just editing the final pp value with a logarithm.
The aim of this is to reduce the insane amount of difference between really over-valued beatmaps (such as Uta or Envision) and beatmaps that worth less PP.
Star rating calculation changes aren't too feasible right now and are more complicated than pp calculation changes so for now I'm working with what I can. Saying that, current SR calculation does infact rate edge dashes quite strong, it's just it only does so for extreme edge dashes. Try it out in the editor using dashes right on the border of being a hyperdash, there'll be a noticeable increase in SR. It looks like the difficulty calculator is too strict with what it considers an edge dash but there could well be a reason for doing soChickenChanS wrote:
Personally, I think a star rating calculation change than a pp calculation change would be better considering how much it's tied to pp - especially for maps that use a minimal amount of hyperdashing (or none at all), but use jumps that come just short like https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1486886&m=2 which ends up having a star rating that makes you massively underestimate its actual difficulty.