Meh, it has been made clear that ACs are going to be counted anyways. By the way, most mania-spec players who have been posting in here are not all "high-level" players. I would say I am average at best considering the wide range of difficulties mania has to offer. I also don't understand this whole easy mania-spec are too hard. It's true that many mapsets, including unranked ones, have their easier diff being rather hard fir a beginner. But don't make it sound like there is no "real" easy maps for beginners. Heck, I know a bunch a bunch a bunch of people to whom I've introduced mania, and guess what, they kept failing at first like everyone does, and I told them to search for mania-spec maps first. They ended up with mapsets I don't even have and were soon able to clear these "hard-easy" diffs that you guys are complaining about, all within one or two weeks. Nobody said that mania is EZ mode.

MwarriorHiei wrote:

like what? can you point out what argument has no basis instead of just saying it has no basis?

Everything said is untrue or opinions blinded by ignorance.

MwarriorHiei wrote:

to me, that comes off as "don't rank auto-convert songs because high-level players don't like them." auto-converting standard maps is a major, attractive feature of osu!mania. they don't need to go through the ranking process because they are an inherent feature of osu!mania. whether you like the quality of the maps or not is completely irrelevant. and whether those maps hold up at a high level is also completely irrelevant.

So what? you conducted a survey and deduced that only high level players like mania specifics? You're pulling false statements out of fin air in hopes of making a valid argument. What my statement is saying is that the notes do not follow the music, they play along. Notes are randomized and with untimed occurrences. And they're not a "feature" of mania. Mania's feature is simulating playing songs, not tapping random notes to the song's BPM. It's also not a question of difficulty at this point.

Almost everyone I know in mania quit, new players I've introduced and old players I've met. This plague of sub par material was the biggest reason. I've had many new player literally laugh at how what they were playing doesn't match the song. I've offered converts from other songs that only pushed them to move to that game in question. The only people that actually like the auto converts from my own personal experiences are people coming from the standard mode. And I'm sorry, mania isn't standard. If things keep getting compared to it, mania will for ever be nothing mode than a side-mode and it will never flourish.

MwarriorHiei wrote:

you need to recognize that difficulty is relative. speed is extremely difficult for new players. the patterns found in auto-converted maps, while easy to you, are also extremely difficult for new players. instead of seeing this from your current skill level, you need to see it from the perspective of a new player. osu!mania features gameplay requiring skills that are not typically used or trained. having a way for new players to practice the mode using familiar and enjoyable songs while at the same time allowing them a way to participate in ladder play is a great thing.

Yeah, speed is ONLY ONE dimension to a maps difficulty. And easy maps can be found on mania specifics. What are you even trying to prove here?
We're talking about an accurate rating system here. You want this to be a question of who can play fast junk? Even if the difficulty rating rates difficulty accurately, the amount of autos out there outnumbers mania maps to the point that all other dimension's to a map's difficulty will be ignored anyways.

MwarriorHiei wrote:

from what i've been seeing, you are making arguments only from the perspective of a high-level player. you need to also think about the low-level players. the osu!mania ladder should not be some exclusive club open only to the skilled and experienced.

Nothing I said was opinions, it was flat facts about what creates difficulty on map. It was about why autos cannot determine skill accurately. And you're talking about new players as if they'd rather autos over mania-specifics when I seen the exact opposite. Also what's up with this lie about mania specifics being impossible for new players?

aka nothing relevant said

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MandyJS wrote:

[...]

This whole post resolves around the assumption that mania-specifics are hard. When I'm saying a mania map has multiple dimensions to their difficulty, I'm not saying they are harder by default. In fact, because of this multi-dimensional difficulty it's actually much easier to make easier mania specific maps.

New players can still participate in the rankings, there are maps clearable by complete first timers ranked right now and more to come. No the mania song library isn't too small, plus there's much more to come. And for an accurate ranking system, think about this with me.

Auto converts sole difficulty dimensions are speed and density. You won't be seeing tricky patterns, yet there's many fields of tricky patterns a player can specialize in. We got jackhammer pros, long note pros, chord streaming pros, burst pros, layering pros, accuracy pros, survival pros etc etc. And a pro most the time is not a pro in more than 2 or 3 fields. So since autoconvert on got speed and density to decide their difficulty, that means the speed-oriented pros, like chordstreamers and bursters, and accuracy pros, will have the upper hand. There's over 30'000 autoconvert difficulties. Unless autos aren't removed or rendered useless, how are pros specializing in other fields supposed to show their stuff?

If only mania maps count towards PP, every type of pros will have their chance, new players will have their chance, and the overall quality of the song library will be much better. I know what I said was harsh, but the proper counter arguments that should be made here is proving why the game is better off with ranked autos. And the only points I'm seeing about this resolves around stuff about beginner players that is completely wrong.

I was one of these beginners that mania-spec maps supposedly was too hard for. How come I never felt that it was too hard? I worked my way up by almost only playing mania-spec and o2jam converted charts and can now pass MX:s. And that's after half a years practice with one months break every second month (due to school etc.)

There are plenty of mania-spec maps for beginners and they are NOT too hard, both for 4k and 7k players.

Actually me, along with woc and some other people, have osu!mania "TP" project before.

But finally, woc decided to terminate this project (and switch the project into another feasible solution).

What we found is that, using a universal number to calculate for difficulty, is not feasible for osu!mania because people are having too diverse ability, which means the same pattern may be too easy for one player but too hard for another one, vice versa, despite of they having nearly the same skill level. In one word, to accurately calculate the difficulty of the map using only the patterns with one universal numbers is not fair at all, and to sum up multiple numbers doesn't make sense.

TBH our temporary solution include human work (a lot of them), and use player's past performance data other than patterns itself to determine the difficulty.

So far my suggestion is to make this as SIMPLE as possible. It doesn't need to be accurate at all, but being simple is OK. Even star difficulty along with some slight modifier on patterns is OK - because you may find it even harder than osu!tp to keep balance with these patterns.

xxbidiao wrote:

In one word, to accurately calculate the difficulty of the map using only the patterns with one universal numbers is not fair at all, and to sum up multiple numbers doesn't make sense.
TBH our temporary solution include human work (a lot of them), and use player's past performance data other than patterns itself to determine the difficulty.

Interesting. I know that it really depends on what the player spends his time on training, but we also use single diff levels for o2 and BMS right? Same problem there, but I do think the general difficulty is reflected by the level. Also for a ranking system, the difficulty shouldn't be relative to the player, but relative to all players (or one could say objective).

I do still not get why people are debating so much about AC. In my humble opinion, if Tom is doing it right, and i am sure he will, even if the AC will be counted into the ranking, it won't change much because of the simple reasons Drace stated in page 6, even if for the other side. You guys are assuming stuff that has yet to happen. It will not harm anyone, anytime. Letting people that are new to all of this stuff play autoconverts will them provide some sort of nice first steps into the world of mania. It will not hurt the mania community. People being serious about Mania will automatically switch to real Maniadiffs after some time (+ they will see they won't get any pp anymore from AC.)

Please give me one, proper reason why AC shouldnt be included into ranking. They won't do any harm at higher levels. I would understand why they are bad in the old PP system, but the new one will literally crush those trying to get highrank with autoconverts. So where is the real problem?

Just let Tom do his thing before we talk about anything. I bet your worries won't get confirmed in the first place.

Or atleast thats my opinion. If i may be wrong, please tell me.

One reason is that ACs are very different from mania spec maps so it might lead to newer players thinking that the game isn't as fun since more seem to enjoy these mania spec first timer diffs? I do not know if this is true, but if it is it might be something we want to talk about because the instream of new, fresh casual players is quite important for the health of a game, and I feel like the mania scene really needs it atm. Other than that I pretty much agree with what you said.

There are several kind of players, some of which try to play the Maniadiffs right away, and some of which are trying to get into mania playing AC. In my opinion, the only thing to do is to have a FAQ for mania or something in which simple stuff like this is explained, and why AC are not as good as real Maniamaps. But still, its their choice, not ours.

Yeah, FAQ would be good.
I just hope mania mode will grow with a fresh instream of newer players.
The previous game I played, Bloodline Champions, died because of this (or one could said it had just never seen any growth). It was the most fun pvp experience I ever had in my life and I tried a lot of pvp games. But casual players just didn't think the game was fun, they didn't understand the game and they were just cannonfodder once they were matched up with players that sort of knew what they were doing. I think hope is lost for BLC now, but mania can still grow

(About BLC, i never understood how people couldnt understand the game, it really is fun oo) Yes indeed, that is also the one thing i am really concerned about. Mania shall and hopefully will get plenty of new players.

Hmm just wanting to list all the points stated by the "sides" in this thread and the reasoning for these points.
I want this post to be as neutral as possible, and to make it a tl;dr for the entire debate. It'll be easier to see the points brought
up in a single post. If I interpreted some of the points brought up wrong, feel free to tell me and i'll edit it ASAP.

What the debate is about: The judging of the difficulty of beatmaps.

There are two "sides",
1.Eliminating/reducing autoconverts worth to pp and rank, only mania specifics should contribute to rankings. NOT to unrank autos.
2.Letting autoconverts contribute to pp

These are the reasons (that i've heard) to which why players want AC's (autoconverts) to not contribute or barely contribute to pp.

- The quality of AC's
-AC's throws patterns at the player that don't make much sense, and are badly timed. Randomised, untimed patterns.
-The nature of multi-keyed rhythm games is to play multiple sounds at once, AC's only focus on one thing at a time.
-Many other points, but these are the main ones.


-AC's are heavily oriented towards accuracy/speed heavy players.


-Judging skill level is clearer with mania maps.
-Specific maps use patterns specifically tailored for o!m, whereas AC's are just randomly generated.

Here are the reasons in this thread to which why AC's should still count towards rank


- There aren't enough mania specific beatmaps.
-There are 80ish o!m maps, as opposed to 30k+ AC's.
Counter argument from the other side - 80 is enough, and there will be more coming in the future.

- It gives new players a chance to get ranked.
-New players can't even finish the easy o!m difficulties, AC's can at least give them a rank.
Counter argument - Why would new players care about their ranks if they know they're not good enough? They can also earn rank from easy mania specifics, too.

-The mania community has bad standards when it comes to mapping easy difficulties.
-People have started to find AC's more approachable and are more fun, because easy difficulties "suck".


Here is another other point I'd like to bring up
-The use of "slider leniency" in many standard maps aren't just fit for mania.
-The releases for notes are too early, or notes are too late in many AC's.

Let's have an actual proper post on how to measure difficulty.
This exact numerical system is obviously slightly off (a chord of two notes worth more than 2 parallel LNs), but that's a matter of scaling note diff vs LN diff. My goal was not to give an algorithm, but try to explain how mania players read patterns. The lists of base patterns and LN examples obviously aren't exhaustive.
And one other thing, it might be a good idea to count left and right hand strain separately. A section where objects are spread out evenly between all columns is easier than a section with the same amount of objects where they're all played by the same hand (columns 123 / 567).
This post's examples use 7K but most of this should be applicable to other keymodes.
I hope this post will be useful .-.

Xcrypt wrote:

xxbidiao wrote:

In one word, to accurately calculate the difficulty of the map using only the patterns with one universal numbers is not fair at all, and to sum up multiple numbers doesn't make sense.
TBH our temporary solution include human work (a lot of them), and use player's past performance data other than patterns itself to determine the difficulty.

Interesting. I know that it really depends on what the player spends his time on training, but we also use single diff levels for o2 and BMS right? Same problem there, but I do think the general difficulty is reflected by the level. Also for a ranking system, the difficulty shouldn't be relative to the player, but relative to all players (or one could say objective).

O2 official use nearly the same algorithm as current star difficulty (density based).
And BMS doesn't have an universal difficulty measurement at all!

And yeah, what exactly I was said, is what you have commented: The subjective trap. Which led to the termination of my project.

Answer these simple question, and you will find what subjective trap is.

1. 4K or 7K, which one is harder? (How do you weight 4k/7k?)
2. Maps which is full of hits or maps which is full of holds, which one is harder? (How do you weight holds?)
3. Stairs or random hits, which is harder?
4. What is the definition of "Hard", anyway?

These question actually fires out a war when my project was announced for feedback in Chinese community.

Just take the third as example (which is mentioned in Tear's post).
When osu!mania was on beta, woc ask me this question. I answered random hits, just like what Tear said without any consideration. And this, along with many other feedbacks, are why stairs are so common in ACs "to prevent the map becoming too hard". But after thousands of PC I found myself wrong - I am far better at random hits than stairs. When I discuss this with many players, I found not everyone is like me - some of them is better at stairs, some of them is not. So how do you determine which one is harder? By polling? With a determined factor on this pattern, there would always be some players that benefits most and some players cry out loud, making it unreliable.

And yeah, too many things are just like stairs and random hits. To "balancing" them is pointless.

This is why I say things should be Simple.

We are playing osu!mania for fun, yeah? So why don't we make the calculation fun?
Instead of making tens of patterns having different weight making things hard to understand and isn't reliable at all, why don't we try to point out a way to calculate difficulty easily, like osu!tp, which can be described in 1~2 pages of paper? Actually fairness is not a must, even with TP every one of us have something like "weight" map which is relative easier to just oneself.

xxbidiao wrote:

1. 4K or 7K, which one is harder? (How do you weight 4k/7k?)
2. Maps which is full of hits or maps which is full of holds, which one is harder? (How do you weight holds?)
3. Stairs or random hits, which is harder?
4. What is the definition of "Hard", anyway?

1. That's not a big concern of the ranking system. The default mode of a particular map is to be weighted the most. If the amount of hitobjects (and also type, holds and normals that is) stays the same, then they might even be able to get equal treatment.
2. I plan on using per-hand strain values with per-finger strainvalues on top of those. Anyone not familiar with the concept of strain values can check out how tp does it for standard currently. While holds are active other button presses with the same hand give more strain, fingers directly next to the hold even more.
3. I'd say random hits are harder to read while stairs are harder to execute due to the used fingers often being near to each other. But since I'm not a very good mania player that's probably not a very valid opinion.
4. Subjective as fuck, but there is always a way to satisfy most people. If it comes to which maps are the hardest you all pretty much agree, don't you? An algorithm simply needs to find the same maps in about the same order.

These plans don't involve any patterns (yet).

I'm aware, that what I'm proposing might not work out very well (or at all), but as soon as I have something done I'll present you with results. You can then proceed to tell me how good / bad the whole thing is.

Stairs are naturally easier, there's reasoning behind it. If you're worse at stairs, you practiced them much less than everything else.

Yeah I agree xxbidiao, to some extent.
With the example of stairs vs random hits. It really depends on the player, I am mainly a RD user so patterns like stairs are not my best thing.
But if we calculate it according to the average of all players, I think this is the best we can do. Ofcourse, we'll have to guess a bit here and there, but let's say stairs vs random hits, they weigh exactly the same? For example.
Maybe only weigh things that are clearly harder for the majority of the playerbase, like density, LN, jacks etc.

In all honesty this is painful guesswork right now. We'll just have to see at the first release of the new scoring system and then we will be able to pinpoint some flaws I think.

Stairs are easy to execute, but hard to accurately play.
Random hits are easy to accurately play, but hard to execute. (depending on pattern)

At least from my experience.

Xcrypt wrote:

Yeah I agree xxbidiao, to some extent.
With the example of stairs vs random hits. It really depends on the player, I am mainly a RD user so patterns like stairs are not my best thing.
But if we calculate it according to the average of all players, I think this is the best we can do. Ofcourse, we'll have to guess a bit here and there, but let's say stairs vs random hits, they weigh exactly the same? For example.
Maybe only weigh things that are clearly harder for the majority of the playerbase, like density, LN, jacks etc.

In all honesty this is painful guesswork right now. We'll just have to see at the first release of the new scoring system and then we will be able to pinpoint some flaws I think.

Yes, exactly. We would have a hard time upon initial release... Maybe on many other issues

And all players average? That doesn't work either, because players of osu!mania is not all the humankind.

Just use 4key vs 7key as example.
We all know that 4key and 7key are difficult to play in different ways. 4K players play 4K insane maps and say 4key is hard; 7K players play 7k insane maps and say 7key is hard. (Please reference to earlier posts on 4key and 7key discussions.)
If you try to average all players, you will most probably get the answer that 7key is harder, because there are more 7key players than 4key ones (Edit: on osu!mania, who can play at least 4k/7k expert maps). But is that the truth?

My point is that don't hope that the ranking system would be 100% accurate (or to say, reliable) - even 10% accurate is nearly impossible to guarantee.
(Edit: Instead of making a complex system that is hard to understand), It would be a good idea to make the algorithm simple and quick enough, even possible to completely substitute star difficulty, regardless of its reliability. Everyone just want to know that 10 star map is harder than 7 star map, doesn't it?
(Actually, woc had considered improvements on star difficulty, but he gave up when finding osu! just lost its response for tens of seconds just calculating every map's SD)

What can I say, I suck at stairs, but they're fun when you can accidentally pass them. I personally get secretly excited and jump with happiness.

Oh, right, on-topic and all: I can't (or shouldn't) complain much since 99,9999% of the maps I played were auto-converts (and hell did they give me pp!) but are there that many mania-specific maps to "cover" all the auto-converted ones? 'Was just wondering that.

how about rank of osu!mania separate become 4 (4k player only,5k,6k and 7k) ?
and every player can only choose 1 or 2 of them

Karuta-Roromiya wrote:

how about rank of osu!mania separate become 4 (4k player only,5k,6k and 7k) ?
and every player can only choose 1 or 2 of them

Already been suggested and heavily denied. But I cant help but ask, why one or two? If a player is good enough to rank high in all keymodes I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to :/

And like xxbidiao is saying, since difficulty is so subjectional, its impossible to make a completely accurate scale. But that doesn't stop us for making a basic scale to give players an idea about what theyre about to play. So the difference between stair and random should probably nonexistent. The algorithm might be better off focusing more on the bigger factors.

Also @tom, checking for single finger strain simply covers for jacks and hand strain is pretty much irrelevant. I mean there's so many different playstyles out there. I personally play 4k with one hand. In 7k some people use left thumb, some right, some both and some none. I don't think a variable that depends on playstyle would be a smart thing to do. And it all depends on the patterns anyways, the value would be pretty irrelevant anyways.

Drace wrote:

Also @tom, checking for single finger strain simply covers for jacks and hand strain is pretty much irrelevant. I mean there's so many different playstyles out there. I personally play 4k with one hand. In 7k some people use left thumb, some right, some both and some none. I don't think a variable that depends on playstyle would be a smart thing to do. And it all depends on the patterns anyways, the value would be pretty irrelevant anyways.

Limiting yourself to one hand if you can use both should not be considered by such a system imho. That's like assuming people would use one finger, even for streams, in standard, thus giving people who actually use both an unrealistic bonus.
Sure, algorithm should be as much as possible independent of playstyle, but it should orient itself at the most successful ones. As for space-bar jacks in 7K - it should be common sense to use both thumbs at least in that case.

The algorithm is supposed to automatically determine pattern difficulty, I don't understand why it would be irrelevant. :p

Karuta-Roromiya wrote:

how about rank of osu!mania separate become 4 (4k player only,5k,6k and 7k) ?
and every player can only choose 1 or 2 of them

That's the stupidest idea ever. I play all K's and I want to keep playing all of them without having "to choose" any in particular.

Tom94 wrote:

Limiting yourself to one hand if you can use both should not be considered by such a system imho. That's like assuming people would use one finger, even for streams, in standard, thus giving people who actually use both an unrealistic bonus.
Sure, algorithm should be as much as possible independent of playstyle, but it should orient itself at the most successful ones. As for space-bar jacks in 7K - it should be common sense to use both thumbs at least in that case.

how is that different from jacks on any other column? nobody is stopping you from using two fingers or even more for other keys, in fact I've seen people who specifically learn to play certain charts like that with the iidx controller.

you should assume by default all columns are even. this is not djmax

what about a ranking system like EZ2ON? I think it would be good.

For those who don't know how EZ2ON ranking works i'll try to explain. In EZ2ON u have two kind of level, one is the level we use to know (with the exp) and the other one is your "clear level" that increase when u clear a song (for example if u clear a song which has difficulty level 5 ur clear level will be 5 and it will get higher once u clear a harder difficulty level song, which mean that u can skip from lv 1 to 10 if u're just able to clear a lv 10 difficulty song), and the clear level could be used to block the more skilled people from farming pp in easy maps by not giving pp if they clear a song which has a lower difficulty than 10 (just to make the ranking fair, that's my point of view).

Please don't hate me for this post

Or we can just play osu!mania and talk about mania without constantly bringing o2jam, synthesia, whatever games that aren't mania; since not everyone played those in the past before coming here.

I also think you should assume all columns are even.

Tom94 wrote:

Limiting yourself to one hand if you can use both should not be considered by such a system imho.

I'm not limiting myself at all, I actually play better that way due to my 8K background. It's an example to how per hand strain values aren't ideal for determining map difficulty. Actually, one of the best 4k players in the world plays with 3 keys one hand and one key on the other (7k+1 background I suppose).

Tom94 wrote:

The algorithm is supposed to automatically determine pattern difficulty, I don't understand why it would be irrelevant. :p

Sorry I believe you misunderstood, what i was referring to as irrelevant is per-hand strain, since it all depends on the pattern difficulties anyways.

Aqo wrote:

how is that different from jacks on any other column? nobody is stopping you from using two fingers or even more for other keys, in fact I've seen people who specifically learn to play certain charts like that with the iidx controller.

you should assume by default all columns are even. this is not djmax

I completely agree. Far too many people play with different styles. An algorithm forged around one specific style would be unfair.

Tom94 wrote:

Limiting yourself to one hand if you can use both should not be considered by such a system imho. That's like assuming people would use one finger, even for streams, in standard, thus giving people who actually use both an unrealistic bonus.
Sure, algorithm should be as much as possible independent of playstyle, but it should orient itself at the most successful ones. As for space-bar jacks in 7K - it should be common sense to use both thumbs at least in that case.

The algorithm is supposed to automatically determine pattern difficulty, I don't understand why it would be irrelevant. :p

I believe like Drace said, you have misunderstood something, or you actually have your words contradict each other within your post!

You say you can automatically determines pattern difficulty, right?
It seems TP is automatically generated. Yes, I have actually read your TP algorithm publicized- and there are experimental values inside the model, right?
This is where subjective things come in.

You have also said that it should orient itself at the most successful ones. But what is the most successful ones? This is completely a subjective matter.
Just use the space key problem as an example. Does using both thumbs hitting space making things better?
Unlike in osu!, actually the space key hits are requiring more coordination than hand speed. So using both thumbs to play space key may cause severe early hits to happen, making people using both thumbs not having identical scores on every map.

And there are actually more examples, listed in my previous post, that it's not a good idea to put "one style" into the "better" assumption, making the other playing style have underestimated power. If you are trying to do things like "this map is hard for people using left thumb for space, so I should raise PP for people using right thumb to get better score." I don't think this is relevant - I bet you also don't.

So what I want to say here is clear. "There are 50% maps which player with left space can play better, 40% maps which right will do better, 10% with both thumbs, so I will award PP for these who use left thumbs, and subtract PP from these who use both thumb as space hitter, because left thumb space hitter get more #1 than both thumb space hitters. And because people having higher rating tend to play better, maps they have played great should be higher weighted." It DO make sense because these 50% players have better play records which means they should be higher rated, but coming to the difficulty calculation - this do nothing at all with difficulty. It is just a statistical reference to the maps, which means it is irrelevant.
This actually DO happens in star difficulty calculation, where 4 Key weighting is dramatically decreased. And star difficulty is another automatically determined difficulty calculator, right?

I gotta give in. After reading the arguments of you guys, I agree, that it'd make more sense to treat each key individuallly. Will still show experimental results with the additional strain measures just for consideration and comparison.

Tom94 wrote:

I gotta give in. After reading the arguments of you guys, I agree, that it'd make more sense to treat each key individuallly. Will still show experimental results with the additional strain measures just for consideration and comparison.

waa, i can't wait for the changes..! xD
keep up the good work...

Something quick and dirty I made that reflects my personal view on how such a system should deal with accuracy.
This is only on a per diff/map basis and it assumes an average experienced player's 300/300G distribution.
There are 96 points to be gained. More points mean better performance, this is what the vertical axis represents. The horizontal axis represents the end % result of the play.
Anything below 50% is worth 0 points, just because this can be often be achieved by spamming the fingers in some random pattern.

While this may look steep, I'm pretty sure it's far less steep than what is implemented in standard or what o!m currently has.
I'm basically saying someone who can get SS on a song deserves twice as much score as one who can A it. While in reality, the person who can SS is probably more than two times as good but like I said, stressing this too much leads to accuracy becoming 'the only viable playstyle' while I aimed to seek some kind of balance here between the different playstyles.

rate and flame! :p

The timing windows in o!m are fairly huge, so an exponential accuracy rating seems fair. Even on some difficult maps, 98% can be considered pretty low. I also agree about super low acc scores like 50% not getting calculated, mainly so mashing gets discouraged.

Also, a few posts back I remember seeing some plans to make HR mod count towards your acc score. Does this mean it's becoming a rankable mod? : o

I've always found ranked mods to be ridiculous. There are enough of different playstyles and mapping styles to keep everyone on a equal footing and the game entertaining. HR for example would be far too much of an advantage for accuracy-style players.

but that's just my opinion

Pyakura, the way mods work in standard is basically they don't help your scoring at all unless the map is too easy for you. (I'm not really experienced in std but this is what it seemed like to me: the difficulty of the mods far outweigh the score bonuses unless you already mastered the map)
HR would be great for accuracy players to which the map is too easy, and DT for hard clearers for whom the map is too ez.
So I don't think it's such a bad idea tbh. It's not necessary per se for overall rankings assuming that we have enough ranked maps hard enough for the best players, but for per map rankings it can certainly be cool.

Except at the moment we don't have a ranked HR mod, so the only way to get that boost is to do DT which mutilates the song.

Accuracy shouldn't be looked at at all. Use score.

I tested on many maps now and it seems like score is FAR more credible for how well you can play a map than accuracy% (honestly accuracies are completely random, who doesn't have a million stories of beating an A with a B and so on); it's also pretty much immune to mapper-selected OD values which is cool.

Below 500,000 score = pure mash

500-600 = controlled mashing
600-700 = playing maps just outside of your reading limits. this is the main thing that should give performance.
700-800 = playing maps on the border of your reading limits. this is usually where you start to get S rank.
800-900 = the map is easy for you
900-999 = farming accuracy

Beating an A with a B is almost always because of the 300/300g distribution varied, which is not considered in my quick and dirty calculation. So yes, score may be more accurate. I just wanted to give more or less an approximation for a relation that tries to balance the performance gained for all playstyles.
'the map is too easy for you' on 800-900 that really depends on the player. Most accuracy players won't agree, but since most of the experienced players come from o2jam here that seems pretty accurate for me and probably most others lol.

To be completely honest, the Acc% is a good way too gauge just in WHICH category the player is on this map, being those categories the ones Aqo posted.

Just to be a lil' bit more precise on the matter, S ranking starts at 95,0001 acc% (YES 95 is an A) A goes from 95 to 90,0001 (the same applies to any other rank) and then from this point on it decreases in values of 10, so B is 90-80, C is 80-70 and D is -70.

With this in mind let's get into the scores, this is a lil' bit ambiguous since the factor that decides the Rank is the ACC ONLY so... yeh, pretty much a guide to just know how much you need to get in a Medium note density map, not too much, not too little. Going into the too much the scores tend to get lower, meaning that the more notes you get the more are your chances to increase ACC even if you have a shitty score (Already confirmed it with an autoconvert of 30 mins.... Trust me.... a nightmare to get a decent score while trying to get a 95% acc or so to speak A just barely missing the S) and for the lower note density it just goes the other way around you tend to need higher scores for getting a higher rank.

So, Aqo pretty much did the job on this part but i'll put it again with a more accurate value (on mid-density maps I repeat)

D: Pretty much everything that oscilates into 0 and 400K

C: +400K pressing on the 515K mark (This is pretty much an estimate since its difficult to get a C on pourpose, at least for me XD)

B: +540K is definetily a B, then it kinda stops to fade out in the early 600

A: +600K and it kinda stops at 740K

S: +750K until 980K And I'm pretty sure its quite accurate, there are exceptions of course, but its pretty difficult to find an S in the 985K mark and impossible to see one on the 990's

SS: from 980K onwards..... not much to say here.

Having these data in mind I think that's better making an estimation of quality play on the Point department, but for minor adjustments on the point giving use the ACC % factor as a second option, in other words weight more the actual Score, but for scores pretty similar (tends to happen a lot) Value the ones that have more ACC%

I mean, come on, I've seen cases like of an S having (not really but something like this) 985.575 and an SS having 985.475 And man I'm sure that's just cause the guy who SS'ed couldn't get the timing good and failed at MAXing everything It is painful to have a perfect ACC and just be beaten because of the random point giving from the 300/300g as xcrypt said.

Also, I think that the Density of the map in mania affects a lot these aspects.... ACC and scores tend to be thrown off gaphics by HYPER density maps.... its just silly XDD

PS: Just trying to put some more numbers in there and also try to get the ACC and Score on the same post just to compare them more easily

Aqo wrote:

Accuracy shouldn't be looked at at all. Use score.

I tested on many maps now and it seems like score is FAR more credible for how well you can play a map than accuracy% (honestly accuracies are completely random, who doesn't have a million stories of beating an A with a B and so on); it's also pretty much immune to mapper-selected OD values which is cool.

Below 500,000 score = pure mash

500-600 = controlled mashing
600-700 = playing maps just outside of your reading limits. this is the main thing that should give performance.
700-800 = playing maps on the border of your reading limits. this is usually where you start to get S rank.
800-900 = the map is easy for you
900-999 = farming accuracy

I would change that by lowering the first two by 100K and putting a replacement 500-600 as 'know what you're meant to be doing (so not mashing) but just not able to pull it off properly'. 'Controlled mashing' will usually end up giving a score in the mid-high 400ks.

Oh and A ranks of 800k+ are actually rather common in my experience (and usually mean you completely screwed up on one part of the map, but played the rest well).

>700k B rank: http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/1302389

Score and rank really don't correlate all that well.