you want me to be on topic? fine here i go

Dexus wrote:

This would help players to stop focusing on extremely low and irrelevant pp values. irrelevant to you =/= irrelevant to everyone

Player's total pp amounts would be relative to the #1 player, so in example: Sayo has 8,260pp right now and I have 4,155pp. I would be represented as follows:
(I can't get it to do a half star) [This could be used in the player panels and multiplayer lobbies for a cleaner look.] "look at me look at me hey guys look at me!"

Then with the player's top performances they could be shown as stars relative to the player with the highest pp scored. Rrtyui (from what I can see) has the highest pp scored of 531pp, my top performance currently is 226pp. So in the top scores list it would be shown as:
"are you looking yet?"

weighting would then depreciate the stars to show how relative it is to the player's own top performance. of course.

Next within the scoreboard the player with the number one performance in pp (This works with http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/220119) would get 5 stars, anything relative to that would be depreciated. Your performance would be in relative to their performance. This would help players gauge how well they did comparatively to the top performance on a map. 90% of people arent even going to be competing and are going to be looking at nearly the same damned star comparison. but i guess they're nothing but dust mites to you and need to understand how much they blow so this system works out.

With all of these the actual values wouldn't really change; simply the face value would for better understanding. This would also give some players an easier goal to deal with i.e: reach 4 star performance or 5 star performance. Stars could then be rated by medal color, 5 stars is platinum, 4 stars is gold, 3 stars is silver, 2 stars is bronze, 1 star is ... a grey dim lit star (?) I can't think of anything for it. Easier goal? In what sense is this an easier goal? Absolutely none. It's harder and less rewarding in every conceivable sense.

This could also work in conjunction with the other request I have of integrating the recommended difficulty into the client as well http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3216863/

So shoot me, I used myself as an example. All I'm seeing is you guys getting really upset and distraught over nothing. This is just an idea and I wrote out that you could still see the raw values. ALL VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME IT'S COSMETICS

Dexus wrote:

All I'm seeing is you guys getting really upset and distraught over nothing.

Says the person who thinks a perfectly reasonable, well-defined system needs to made more abstract purely to enforce a competitive mindset, presumably because they feel like their #rank isn't as important to others as it should be.

Dexus wrote:

ALL VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME IT'S COSMETICS

You're conveying less information, in a way that's only useful in relating everything to the top player. Also, it'll make comparing PP between songs a total bitch. Or are you saying PP will still be implicitly visible and this whole thing is a useless farce that doesn't solve any of the problems you claimed it would?

This is unbiased, it compares you to the top player and shows how good you are in comparison. If you show that you're rank #50,000 people really don't know how to react to that since a majority of players DO NOT play consistently. This in itself is still comparing you to the top player: there are 49,999 players better than you including the best. Of course the #1 player would have the best rating because THEY ARE THE BEST. How else would it work? There's no recalculation to this there's no reduction to your rank there's no reducing what you have done, it just shows it in a different way to get away from random number values. Currently the way you get pp is based on the stars of a map and how well you play them. Mods increase the stars and everything is handled afterwards to give you pp. This just would quantify how well you've done. In the original post I was going to write out that the system could have 10 stars, but I felt that was going to be too much too look at. The goal of this is just a quick and simple way to look at and compare player A to player B.

And to clarify the actual rank value wouldn't change. So you'd still be rank #1,000 rank #300, etc what have you, just that total 3,000pp or whatever you have would be shown as stars instead. I think the misconception was with how I wrote the title. Rank # would still be retained; the pp would just use stars instead of numbers and the amount could still be visible. It's just a quick comparison which would be truthful and honest.

Thats really bad idea. In case you dont know, there are lot of people playing for fun (shocking revelation !) or to improve step by step. Not everyone aims for 1st rank so why everyone should be compared to one? My goal ofr now is to reach rank 5000 so why should my scores be compared to rank 1 ? Current system lets me check pp values to know how big is the difference between me and other player. Your idea would make comparing players, lets say, rank 5000 and 5500, nearly impossible. Also, making your rank constantly show how shit you are does not necessarily motivate to keep playing.

EDIT: Same goes for showing my pp (and not rank) as stars. I dont aim for 1st so why should I be compared to 1st? Or other way around, why do you think that showing you scored 3,5/10 stars at some map is better than scoring 35pp when 1st rank has 100pp?

As i stated above imo its easier to see that you have 35pp, guy 500 ranks above you has 50pp and rank 1 has 100pp than 3,5/10 stars vs 5/10stars vs 10/10 stars.

Don't like the idea but would some of you guys please stop getting mad and all personally about stuff?

You guys aren't thinking, rank # still is comparing to the top player. Also I stated that Rank # would stay I'm changing the title so people stop getting this misconception.

People seem to have a hard time reading and understanding things so I tried to clarify it. Seeing as how this thread got shit on I feel like it's not even going to get looked at now. Congratulations, you guys win.

If you're having issues with how you're ranked or how the ranking system works that's completely unrelated to this. Go post in the feedback thread or play/rank more. I can't really help with the fact if some players are lower ranking.

Okay, so as some things got cleared.
How are you gonna display 1 point difference with top score at 500+ pp? 100/500 would make 2 stars but what about 103/500? 2,06 star? Thats silly. It would be just changing numbers without real profit. Players prefer high numbers, it looks better, it motivates better when you score "300" cricles not "3", to score 130 000 000 not 130 000. Thats why all those mmo and hack'n'slash games start with thousands ending with millions instead of thousand times lower values.

With this system when top rank changes then ALL players scores on that map would need to change too. One day you have 8 stars, other day 4 stars because somebody finally scored top with double times or something like this. Can you imagine shitstorm and all those topics? "My stars dropped by half, whats happening", also all your scores gradually declining would not really motivate you to play more, eh?

And remember, slight change in pp algorithm takes 3 days to recalculate, how you want to keep scores up to date with top ranks changing constantly on few thousand maps?

The more you remind players how shit they are, they are less likely to stay (and pay) playing.

PS. How about two 4 star scores. Your system makes you equally shit compared to top rank on both maps. Problem is, if 1st of those scores is 40/100 pp and second 120/300 pp, then you scored three times better than your 1st score but your system doesnt show this.

Adding raw pp next to it/ by hovering over stars fixes nothing.

1 point difference really wouldn't matter, that's the point of this. If you want to play an MMO go play an MMO, this is a rhythm game not ranking simulator 2420.

Of course the value would drop because someone has outdone yours even more, get a better score if you want it to be higher. It would Really show the gravity of how well said player did in comparison.

This wouldn't require recalculations, it would just take your score in pp and compare it to the top player which is quick and could be done locally. The value would be there just in the background. It's a face value change is all; simple division (Your score / Top Score) and then multiplication (by however many stars). People want it to show MAP rank based on pp anyways in that one thread so why not give it a way to look better than show a random number.

I feel the opposite would happen, it would motivate players more to get better. Funny how the first response was thinking I was softening this and now people are thinking it's too blunt. With recommended difficulty it would give you maps to play and challenge yourself to get better without it being ridiculously out of your league.

To be honest the current still is blunt about saying you're shit and you're not good at all. I know I myself suck and I can't seem to pull off scores that other players pull off with ease; this shows that they're clearly better and deserving of higher rank. It's still going through it's changes so I can't help it. Again this is unrelated to how rank is calculated, merely a different way to show it.

>this thread

So aaanywayy. I dont care that 10 extra pp is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and i dont care that me climbing 100ranks dosnt actually mean that there are 100 people less in the world that can beat me at this game.

What i do care about is the fact that when ever i get even 1pp it means that i just did a good score for someone my level. When i get 25pp it means i did a really good score for someone my level. This is also true for anyone playing at any level, because if you do an avrage or bad score for your own level, you wont get any pp.

There has been alot of suggestions in this forum that ask to make following pp even easier when your "THE EXACT PP WOULD STILL BE SHOWN SOMEWHERE" does the opposite.


Now from what i seen in this thread you seem to get rustled pretty easily, so i can only imagine that its a trigger for you or something when you see people thinking that 100 extra pp means they are better than someone else, and the reason you made this thread is that you could shut up those people because they cant argue that 0.05stars makes better. Because that would really be the only benefit from this, because if you want a system that tells you that you are certainly better than someone, that is what the current can do aswell. If you are more than 1500pp ahead the awnser is yes.

Alright.

I'm only getting cross with you guys because of the assumptions and the lack of reading comprehension. The assumptions that I'm out to try to prove myself better than everyone else or that everyone else is shit. Just because I stated the truth that a person in comparison to top players really is unskilled I should be burned at the stake for being a heretic.

This is simple what I'm asking here.
Let me explain it... again... even more simple this time.

Your Total Performance Points is used to determine your RANK.

The way it's determined is everyone one is lined up from HIGHEST pp value to LOWEST pp value.

I propose that stars be used to classify players players from the HIGHEST rank to the LOWEST rank.

Players CURRENT pp value would be compared to the HIGHEST pp value.

It is basically giving you pictures to show what your rank is.

Players with more stars would clearly be better than players with less stars; it's because the stars would relate directly to their rank / Total performance points.

This would give people goals to reach, such as reaching Silver 3 stars (close to #2,000 which is an average skilled player)

Players with lower rankings would want to get more stars because it's appealing.

The problem currently is people are too worried about single pp values which are trivial amounts.

It's like being the guy in an RPG who goes and kills level 1 monsters to level up. IT TAKES FOREVER.

Said players don't know that there are actually pretty easy ways to rank up while still being challenged, instead they wallow in misery wondering why they aren't instantly gratified for doing easy stuff.

That's it for total performance points.
Total Performance points = Rank = Stars

=======================

Now for per beatmap ranking.

It's essentially the same concept

A player is number one for a reason on a map, they've worked the hardest.

Problem is sometimes a player gets into the top 100 of unpopular maps.

This gives a misconception that a player has done really really well when in truth they've just played something that lots of people don't care about.

Here's where the stars come in, it would take your performance based on pp and compare it to the player who achieved the highest pp for the map.

Uh oh, you have a low star rating compared to the top performer of the map, but here's the catch; you jumped up a bunch of ranks and got a bit of star performance!

You see that you could get more stars on that map and try to maximize the amount of ranks you can get, it gives you an idea of how much more you could get out of it.

Now let's say you turn around and do an easy map and get a really high star performance but your rank doesn't even budge.

Now I don't know about you but when I play games I don't stick to the easy stuff when it's clear it doesn't reward anything.

It's similar to players playing an RPG and going and killing a level 1 monster, it eventually will barely give anything. Common sense would say that you just move onto bigger more difficult stuff.

It's not clear cut how it is currently so there really isn't guidance for players; even some top performing players are hazy on what direction they should be going.

===========

Now for the players' individual top performances

These stars would be in comparison to the person who has the highest pp ever scores; again same concept pretty much applies.

Let's say you score a decent performance of 250pp and jump a good bit of ranks.

Problem is everything below it has very little value compared to your top performance.

Let's assume your second performance is 180pp. That would be 171 pp counted to your total performance.

And let's assume every other performance after that is 150pp and under.

Weighting strikes and your total performance isn't really that high!

What do you do? Try to top that super hard 250pp performance? Try to match it?

Simple you play under it to fill up your weighting; you would be able to see that 250pp would be shown as stars (2.4 stars roughly), comparing your second performance to your top performance you can see that you have a very small amount of stars (1.6 stars).

Every rating there after you can clearly see that you don't have stars filling your top performance at all: 1.2 stars, 1.1 stars, 1 star, etc

So what do you do?

You have several choices:
you could check recommended maps to see if they're close to what you can do without being a waste of time,
You could use the method of checking other players near you for performances (clearly stealing something at 1.2 stars wouldn't do much for you)
You try to improve your performances under your #1 (You can see you have room to improve you star performance based on the beatmap rank)
etc
=============================

you guys are probably still going to be confused

I think your just making excuses to yourself on why people dont like your idea.

Also lol at #2000 being avrage skilled player. There are like avrage 10 000 people online at the time. Even if those were only the top 10 000 players of the world, the avrage rating of active people would be #5000. But the thing is that there are more active osu! players by every reasonable definition than there are currently online players, and they are not taking all of the top spots so lets I will shoot a number out of my ass and say that the avrage player is rank #80 000. Atleast my guess is theoretically possible unlike yours so we might aswell consider it as a fact on this thread.
Another math fail you did in that post is saying that the rank #2000 would be close to 3 stars which is a kind of funny fail since you are rank 1370 and even you would be only 2,5stars like you said in the op. Now reaching 3stars could be a nice goal, except that if you knew how to math, you would know that atm it would requiere 4980pp which is rank of #423, which is way unreasonably high. I mean you have played this game for 5 fucking years and still you are not even close of reaching that.

Im not a fan of casual games either, but its fucking ridiculous if you think that people should set their milestones of a videogame for something they reach every 2 years if they are talented or every 4 years if they are not (implying every 1 star is a milestone.)

>inb4 definition of talented is actually top 0,1% and they get 1600pp every month untill 4stars


And how can you even complain that some people dont rank because they stick to the easy maps. Its like do you have any fucking sense of perspective that some maps you consider easy might be actually the hardest maps other people cant pass. Its the exact same thing as if WWW would come to say that you are a fucking idiot if you dont just go check what maps give pp to the top 10 ranked players and play those maps instead, then you get same pp as them.


Instad of insisting that people just dont understand what you are trying to say, how about you just realize that you have a different mindset for this game than literally everyone else i have ever talked to in this game, and you are trying to make the standard system pander to your obscure needs, which seems to be also supported by the thing that your math is literally at the level of a 10year old, even thou your usepage claims you are 22yo.

I can see a 5 star rating system for OVERALL performance being an issue for lower ranking individuals, that's why I said a 10 star system could be used instead to show more progress to the player. I didn't even DO any math to say '3 stars is silver, close to #2k', I just guessed based on my experience dealing with players #2,000 to #1,000 seem pretty average. I knew it was wrong but I had no idea you would focus solely on that instead of looking at the bigger picture. If you really knew me you'd know that I don't play mods for ranking very often, the few times I do use mods I can rank. I just don't find any fun in it. I just go around fixing all the scores I screwed up on in the past 5 years and playing a variety of maps to challenge myself, mostly unranked stuff. It's not that I can't get close to getting to rank 500, it's that I don't try because I'm aware the ranking system is going to change and the cheap gimmicks that some players use to rank up wont work. The pp system was dropped eventually and some got really frustrated over the transition to tom's points; I'd rather not invest a lot of time focusing on my rank but instead focus on becoming a better player. I've seen the transitions from score, to pp, to ppv2, to the current system. The entire community throws a fit so I don't understand why you're so defensive of these meaningless numbers. I honestly don't care how people get pp or how much. You're really not getting the point that this isn't abolishing pp, it's just using it in a more constructive way to display it to the player in a way that it shows they can use the criticism from it to improve themselves. Currently your only grounds for not using this is basically the fact you want large number and don't want a small amount of stars even though both the numbers and the stars would represent the same values. Clearly you're judgment is being clouded by the fact that I basically berated you after your post; since then people have been poised to rebuttal anything I say. I apologize if it offended you by using your performances as an example. I just wanted to make my point across that it was going to be a blunt depiction of the performance points.

Dexus wrote:

I just guessed based on my experience dealing with players #2,000 to #1,000 seem pretty average.

i dont know, theyre pretty under average imo. i think until you get top 200 you should stay under 1 star because those players need to realize how under cookiezi they are. Hell, why stop there, let's just replace rank with a large static image of a turd for anyone under top 10. Top 10 is pretty above average/okay in my opinion so they dont need the constant reminders of how bad they are.

this sounds way too complicated

Dexus wrote:

I knew it was wrong but I had no idea you would focus solely on that instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Yeah my post was literally solely saying that 3star would not be rank #2000...

So anyway you are right about that i do want a "large number". The reason for that is not that bigger numbers are cooler, its that bigger numbers are more accurate, which allows me to see smaller rating changes more clearly in numbers. Yes I know you call small rating changes irrelevant like you said many times this thread, but i rather see myself getting 5pp more every day when i play, than not see any difference at all for months. For most people its motivating to see they make little progress they make gradually, but you just think its motivating to see that "I havent made any progress at all during the last few months, but if i continue to practice for years, then i will be actually better. This means i must practice for years" Or something like that.

If you wanted to say that my last post was focused solely at something, it would be that you have an abnormal mindset and think that everyone else would be more happy if the system pandered to your mindset.


Also bassist vinyl was right about your victim complex about you now ratifying our complains on that people also complained about previous pp changes.

Bassist Vinyl wrote:

Dexus wrote:

I just guessed based on my experience dealing with players #2,000 to #1,000 seem pretty average.

i dont know, theyre pretty under average imo. i think until you get top 200 you should stay under 1 star because those players need to realize how under cookiezi they are. Hell, why stop there, let's just replace rank with a large static image of a turd for anyone under top 10. Top 10 is pretty above average/okay in my opinion so they dont need the constant reminders of how bad they are.

Yeah. This would motivate everyone to play osu untill they are in the top 10. I promise that if this idea was implented that atleast 10 000 players would reach top 10 within a month.
#logic

I read the whole Thread to this point, but i still don't get the appeal of this kind of this "visual change"....

For me it doesn't changes the E-pen drama...

it doesn't changes the valuation of people who care about rankings

and it will just bring more complications,Drama and senseless hate into the community

there are still people out there that play a game for just one simple reason..."to have fun."

I myself played this game for 4years now, and i saw many people go, because the sense of competition,Attention&Expectations.

Just let everyone do it the way that pleases them... there is no sense in letting people thing they're less valuable just because they don't care to be better then someone else

So in other words this will simplify a player's pp statistics by using a star rating?

How about a bar with percentage like the one on profiles for levels instead of stars.

For example a 200pp play is 37.66% compared to rrtyui's remote control,
a 300pp play is 56.5% and 400pp play is 75.33%

SnowWhite's best score is 95.29% to rrtyui's so it doesn't look unbalanced to me
WWW is 96.68% in pp compared to current #1 Sayo.

The only problem with this suggestion in general is that there is almost 2,000pp difference between #1 and #50, Current #100 is %72.22 in pp compared to the best.
I don't have a problem with being compared to the best(Because rankings are FUN) but some people might not like how their numbers are just getting smaller and how bad they are compared to the best.
But when everyone is bad compared to the best I think people would accept low numbers better, But it sucks 50% to Sayo is around #1,300s

I like that idea; could look something like this



(It's not accurate; just a mockup. Yes I'm using myself as an example again. I don't have time to ask someone to give me a screenshot. This is done with paint too)