Yes, that's what I said. Any BPM above 200 with DT applied make them over 300 BPM real time._Gezo_ wrote:
They become brutal above 200 1/4 DT @cubes.
And past 250 you come to 1/2 ticks :U
The first issue you mentioned seems to be well fixed in the newest list. Regarding hades in the heaven, the difference between the maps you called and this one seems to have shrunk, but there still is quite a gap.lolcubes wrote:
While it's understandable that everyone is focusing more on how the converts get converted and how the hard maps get valued, but let's talk about lower maps a little.
We have *** Passionate (TV Size) which is valued the same as Dragons. I FCd Passionate with hard rock where I barely get an A on Dragons, with a low combo. Dragons is so much harder because of really odd rhythms and because it's kinda long compared to the TV Size thing.
Then you have Hades in the Heaven which is valued slightly above but then you have a couple of much easier maps, namely Night of Fire by lepidon which is a lot higher above. Certain pattern chain in the middle of the map make Hades really really hard to FC, while Night of Fire has quite simple patterns and is something I consider a beginner's map. Thank you for playing isn't that difficult either and it's even further above.
Also in the mid class you have Intersect Thunderbolt 7491's Oni which is below Ernst Oni. I highly disagree with this, despite Ernst being a bit more pattern heavy. The patterns in Ernst aren't difficult, it's just slightly a more dense map, but in Intersect Thunderbolt you have high speed pattern changes, namely a quite hard 1/3 stream to perform correctly due to it's bpm which contains multiple hand swaps.
Just some thoughts.
Can't selectively apply mods for some maps for now. That'd require some very unnecessary program loogic for the final purpose if weighting pp and (imho) is a waste of time to implement. If the algorithm works well with the current maps you throw at it, then it should work well with pretty much any map and thus also those DT maps. All it does is create a new map with 1.5 the speed anyway.Luna wrote:
Tom, could you possibly add some DT maps to the difficulty list so we can see how those are rated?
Stuff like this maybe:
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/132889&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/214251&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/267841&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/153886&m=1
http://osu.ppy.sh/b/161275&m=1
All of those are hard DT maps, some moreso than others. I'd just like to see what your program thinks of them.
Thanks!
Sliders can't really be factored in for the same reasons as big notes. There might be one way to do it, though, which is to consider score relative to the maximum possible score instead of things like 300, 100, 50 and miss counts.lolcubes wrote:
It could be possible if the condition is a full combo though. There is extra score after all.
Could have small calculation issues with sliders though, but they give only a certain amount of score so...
Out of curiosity, how are sliders calculated then? You don't have to hit a slider to full combo, but it should show skill too, there are some maps where sliders become absolutely brutal if you have DT activated. Unreal BPMs and all (above 300).
That means implementing pp with it. Can't go and post gigantic lists with 30,000+ entries.Nashmun wrote:
From what we are sawing, I think we can give it a try so that we can see how it goes for every maps instead of a limited list and then adjust the algorithm little by little
Nashmun wrote:
Yeah I know, just saying that implementing it with pp would help us understand more how it weight every maps and then adjust the algorithm to be even more accurate
I don't think using the difficulty values it can be any worse than what currently is in place. It's not yet decided how it will be done, though.Luna wrote:
Since a full implementation in the current state would probably cause a lot of confusion/panic in the community, maybe we can get a thing like ppy did with the initial standard ppv2 testing, where he'd have a seperate (hidden) ppv2 ranking to observe changes etc? If you'd post the link to that ranking in this thread, we could give way more specific feedback without confusing the general public.
You didn't get the reason I called them though hehe.Tom94 wrote:
The thunderbolt vs ernst thing is very similar, you even called the 1/3 out... there's not much the algorithm can do in that regard. Also 1/3 can be trained just as easily as 1/4 - the only reason many people are bad at them is because they are so uncommon.
Pattern difficulty can only be considered to a certain extent due to subjectivity and due to the fact, that for the algorithm there is no way to find out about "1/3" or "1/4"How so? Given the BPM, can't you calculate the timing between the notes? Or just scan them from the .osu?
The bpm specified by the mapper can't be trusted... just look at The Big Black. And even if it could be trusted, there still would be songs which naturally require 1/3 most of the time, making 1/4 in turn harder. There is no general consensus, that 1/3 is harder thsn 1/4. And on top of that it's a very subjective thing - many people tell me, that 1/3 isn't hard for them at all.lolcubes wrote:
You didn't get the reason I called them though hehe.Tom94 wrote:
The thunderbolt vs ernst thing is very similar, you even called the 1/3 out... there's not much the algorithm can do in that regard. Also 1/3 can be trained just as easily as 1/4 - the only reason many people are bad at them is because they are so uncommon.
The thing is, the kat patterns in that 1/3 stream are very difficult. Despite being slower than 1/4, that bpm is still very high and you have multiple hand switches during the 1/3 stream, in addition to no hand switches at the first part of the stream, which is odd for a 1/3 based rhythm.
That's why I consider it much harder, because before I changed my playstyle I could almost FC Ernst (had an unlucky miss), while I would consistently get destroyed on that 1/3 stream, which is why I think Ernst being above isn't as realistic.
Besides, now when I swapped my playstyle to full alt and began training from scratch so my skill is much lower than it used to be, I can still get a B or A if lucky on Ernst, while I still can't pass Intersect.
No rush in fixing this, I'm sure you have other priorities, but I am just explaining this better since you seem to have misunderstood my 1/3 call over there.Pattern difficulty can only be considered to a certain extent due to subjectivity and due to the fact, that for the algorithm there is no way to find out about "1/3" or "1/4"How so? Given the BPM, can't you calculate the timing between the notes? Or just scan them from the .osu?
EBAWER123 wrote:
1/3 is slower than 1/4 so it's easier, no?
Also I don't see any point in calculating sliders and finishers in difficulty, have u ever played TnT on arcade? Noone ever hits big notes on hard maps, lol. Sliders, spinners and finishers just give me score, you don't really have any difficulties with them, given the same acc and mods, person with more score will get more pp, I thought it worked this way. Ot at least it should be like this I think.
On a side note, people who play ddkk/kkdd or kddk on the numpad like pm___ can hit finishers with 1 hand even on kddk due to the layout of numpad so for people like these hitting finishers is not a difficulty but instead free points
P.S. It would be really cool to have rating of songs not just players somewhere maybe not on the main site but like a .txt file on dropbox or smthn which would automatically update with each ranked map.
The point of BPM was you can get the timelines where the notes are snapped and by this you can detect how far are from each other. You don't need exact bpm to determine the difficulty of a stream.Tom94 wrote:
The bpm specified by the mapper can't be trusted... just look at The Big Black. And even if it could be trusted, there still would be songs which naturally require 1/3 most of the time, making 1/4 in turn harder. There is no general consensus, that 1/3 is harder thsn 1/4. And on top of that it's a very subjective thing - many people tell me, that 1/3 isn't hard for them at all.
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?lolcubes wrote:
The point of BPM was you can get the timelines where the notes are snapped and by this you can detect how far are from each other. You don't need exact bpm to determine the difficulty of a stream.
For example, if two notes are apart by 75ms that means they can be 1/4 on 200, 1/8 on 100 or even 1/2 on 400 BPM. If it's 100ms then it can be 1/3 on 200 BPM, 1/6 on 100 BPM and 2/3 on 400 BPM.
I'm not missing the point. Trust me, I understand you. There are also patterns which are very hard to play on 1/4 which in turn get easier on 1/3.lolcubes wrote:
You are still missing the point of the 1/3. 1/3 isn't hard to hit by default, the kat patterns inside is what can make it really weird to play. [...]
Uh, I worded it really carefully, if the BPM is 200, and someone chooses to halve or double it, you still get information you need. Incorrectly timed songs are unrankable and can't really get a scoreboard, right? That's why it's reliable enough.Tom94 wrote:
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?
Why not? If you can get the timing difference between the notes and you know the bpm, you can easily know what snap it's using. More importantly, you know where the beats are as long as you have a bpm and an offset.Tom94 wrote:
I'm not missing the point. Trust me, I understand you. There are also patterns which are very hard to play on 1/4 which in turn get easier on 1/3.lolcubes wrote:
You are still missing the point of the 1/3. 1/3 isn't hard to hit by default, the kat patterns inside is what can make it really weird to play. [...]
But since those 2 can't be distinguished (as described above) it's impossible to apply any weightings in the first place.
kddddkddddkddddkdWow, just looking at this stream makes me incredibly angry. I'm pretty sure if I ever encountered something like that in a real map I'd ragequit haha
The algorithm is supposed to work with any map, not just ranked maps, so your argument is invalid. Also keep in mind, that there are some horribly timed old ranked maps.lolcubes wrote:
Uh, I worded it really carefully, if the BPM is 200, and someone chooses to halve or double it, you still get information you need. Incorrectly timed songs are unrankable and can't really get a scoreboard, right? That's why it's reliable enough.Tom94 wrote:
And what speaks against 100ms being 1/4 on some other bpm? There is no way to find out whether something is 1/3 (or any multiple) or 1/4 (or any multiple) without trusting mapper information, whether it is the specified BPM or timings. This is not reliable and abusable, therefore can't be used. Wouldn't you find it strange if an exact same map suddenly became harder, just because someone decided to adjust the BPM to something possibly wrong without moving the hit objects?
Thanks for the reply NoYzE, I will definitely play more when I have time, getting rusty these days..NoYzE wrote:
You will have your rank calculated for all maps played online.
So if you play a good performance now you will have a higher rank if the new system goes online then if you don't play.
The ranking system we have now is not properly displaying your rank and is only a placeholder, so don't give it much credit and just try to improve for yourself to get ready and have good scores if the new system goes online.
You're not the only one.Haibanemu wrote:
Just lost around 8000 of pp. Why me?