Cumulative rank

posted
Total Posts
153
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +1,188
show more
Edgar_Figaro

Swerro wrote:

About balances: The individual gamemodes, and so also this cumulative ranking, will never be perfectly balanced, however, everyone has access to all gamemodes, all beatmaps, so the phrase: "I don't play ctb and it's much easier to get pp in ctb than in std" is very invalid, as >"I don't play ctb" and >"caring about their cumulative ranking" is contradicting. Which is also the reason why I now think that pp scalers are unecessary and too subjective/difficult to implement regarding the 'early pp is free' discussion. (then take the easier early pp if you find your allmode rank matters!)

Ignore spelling/grammar mistakes
I still think balancing should be done in some sort of regard so that it recognizes actual all-mode players over 1 mode players. With the most recent change to mania PP, Jhlee currently has more PP in mania than the combined PP of the #1 player in any other 2 modes. If you look at the dawn glare Osu website he is currently in 4th place on cumulative despite having 0PP in the other 3 modes. (seriously hoping they balance mania PP as it's currently over double of the other modes which makes cumulative ranking extremely skewed to heavily favor the mania players)
Swerro
[quote=Edgar_Figaro]

I still think balancing should be done in some sort of regard so that it recognizes actual all-mode players over 1 mode players. With the most recent change to mania PP, Jhlee currently has more PP in mania than the combined PP of the #1 player in any other 2 modes. If you look at the dawn glare Osu website he is currently in 4th place on cumulative despite having 0PP in the other 3 modes. (seriously hoping they balance mania PP as it's currently over double of the other modes which makes cumulative ranking extremely skewed to heavily favor the mania players)[/quote]

Yes I definitely agree with you on that. If the osumania pp get rescaled (this is already on peppy's to-do-list), if all 4 gamemodes should give about the same amounts of pp (13k for top players). That'd be perfect. Balanced enough for me.
I do want to point out to people that std ranking, taiko ranking, ctb ranking, mania ranking are and will always be at least somewhat imbalanced. The same thing for cumulative ranking.

I dislike the thought: "well it's not completely balanced so we won't implement this yet".
I'm strongly convinced (and you too probably) that this feature will bring way more good than bad
Edgar_Figaro

Swerro wrote:

I dislike the thought: "well it's not completely balanced so we won't implement this yet".
I'm strongly convinced (and you too probably) that this feature will bring way more good than bad
Oh definitely I am a major proponent for this feature being implemented. I have put many stars into this request. I think out of all the feature requests this is the one I want implemented the most.

I am more adding my thoughts here to kinda point out issues to possibly be discussed and worked on if this feature does get implemented. I am kinda curious if there is any way of knowing how likely/unlikely a feature is to get added. Like I know this request has over 900 star priority which is good but not by any stretch the highest. But I am not sure how much star priority a feature would need before it would be seriously considered being added. Obviously some requests will never be added no matter how much people want them due to technical, legal, or against the purpose of the game.
Tanomoshii Nekojou
I think this will be a bad idea for 1-2 mode players... But still a good idea for showing who's the best for all of the gamemodes... :D
Scarlet Evans

Tanomoshii Nekojou wrote:

I think this will be a bad idea for 1-2 mode players... But still a good idea for showing who's the best for all of the gamemodes... :D
I think it's kind of the opposite - this will be motivating for players to play other mods too! :) Main division into ranking systems depending on the game mode will remain anyway, so I think that there are no real upsides from having it and it would definitely benefit community and players!

But after you said that, I think that Ranking boards could be even more improved, to please 2-3 mode players too, i.e. aside of the Total (Cumultative) Rank, there should be an option to simply "filter" Ranking Boards with some criteria, where the most basic ones we can think of are: game modes.

What I mean here is allowing to choose which modes exactly we want to see, so someone could check top ranks from mania+CTB, taiko+CTB+mania, std+mania etc. Of course, you would be able to check your own rank too.

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

When I get some stars in future, I need to put them here :3
bsf
Good idea!
Tanomoshii Nekojou

Scarlet Evans wrote:

But after you said that, I think that Ranking boards could be even more improved, to please 2-3 mode players too, i.e. aside of the Total (Cumultative) Rank, there should be an option to simply "filter" Ranking Boards with some criteria, where the most basic ones we can think of are: game modes.

What I mean here is allowing to choose which modes exactly we want to see, so someone could check top ranks from mania+CTB, taiko+CTB+mania, std+mania etc. Of course, you would be able to check your own rank too.
Wow. This one is also a good idea... :D
Edgar_Figaro
So I've been thinking about this whole cumulative rank a lot and also the complaints of people that don't want it showing (don't know why it would bother them but OK) Rather than just doing a straight up addition (which puts all Mania players on top) or doing it by rank in gamemode (give huge advantage to CTB & Taiko which have less players) I propose the following calculation formula.

(Standard PP + Taiko PP + CTB PP + Mania PP) - (standard deviation * 2) = Cumulative PP ranking

Basically by doing it this way it helps to mitigate some of the imbalance in each of the modes PP calculations from one another. It also has the benefit of making so 1 mode players never get ranked as if you have 100% PP in a single mode the 2* Deviation brings you exactly to 0PP. Moment you get PP in a 2nd mode you'd get added to the cumulative rank leaderboard.

This would encourage players to play all modes to increase their cumulative rank (best way to improve it is by playing the mode you have the least PP in)
While still allowing 2 & 3 modes players to be ranked and increase in cumulative ranking but just having a penalty for not playing all the modes.

Let me know what everyone thinks of this suggestion.
Tomodoki
It sounds interresting
Edgar_Figaro
Just to give Some Sample Numbers for Comparison with my suggestion for calculation.

Player A: Standard 1000PP, Taiko 1000PP, CTB 1000PP, Mania 1000PP = 4000PP Total - 2(0 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 4000PP
Player B: Standard 2000PP, Taiko 0PP, CTB 0PP, Mania 2000PP = 4000PP Total - 2(1154.7 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 1690.6PP
Player C: Standard 3000PP, Taiko 500PP, CTB 500PP, Mania 0PP = 4000PP Total - 2(1354 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 1292PP
Player D: Standard 1500PP, Taiko 1000PP, CTB 1500PP, Mania 0PP = 4000PP Total - 2(707.1 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 2585.8PP
Player E: Standard 3000PP, Taiko 3000PP, CTB 0PP, Mania 2000PP = 8000PP Total - 2(1414.2 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 5171.6PP
Player F: Standard 10000PP, Taiko 0PP, CTB 0PP, Mania, 0PP = 10000PP Total - 2(5000 PP Deviation) = Cumulative 0 PP
Emerold
being a little bit late a have to support this idea ^^
This might give "allround" players a little bit of recognition, however there might be a problem with balancing of pp numbers. With modes like mania going crazy there might be a unfair advantage for mode veterans of some kind. However, still supporting this idea. A average rank would be really cool to see.
Tanomoshii Nekojou

Edgar_Figaro wrote:

(Standard PP + Taiko PP + CTB PP + Mania PP) - (standard deviation * 2) = Cumulative PP ranking
Nice. :):):)
Edgar_Figaro
btw if anyone wants to see how this formula plays out as an example, I made a page t/566349 that implements this formula to figure out the top 50 all-modes players. Obviously I can't do a Cumulative rank for the entirety of Osu but would definitely be possible for Cumulative rank to be implemented with this being the way of deciding cumulative rank.
Adri
You can find a leaderboard of best users with all pp combined, doesn't mean much but it's always that.

https://osudaily.net/ranking.php
Edgar_Figaro

Adri wrote:

You can find a leaderboard of best users with all pp combined, doesn't mean much but it's always that.

https://osudaily.net/ranking.php
Odd that list seems to be missing many people that are listed on http://osu.dawnglare.com/?p=totalpp&n=1
Naimae
You could implement the method of opting into a cumulative ranking leaderboard in a similar way that opting into the leaderboard of any other game mode is done.

Before I begin, I would like to mention that I'm going to call this proposed mode osu!omnithlon, combining the prefix omni- and the suffix -thlon. Omnithlon is chosen over quadrathlon to support future game modes.

The current way to get counted into the leaderboard of any game mode is to just play enough of that game mode. The same can hold true of osu!omnithlon. This can be done by either changing the game mode to omnithlon, and only players that want to be part of this cumulative would have a ranking for this mode displayed on their profile.

Thinking about this mode further, I've come across the following realizations. Walls of text lay ahead.

1. pp between game modes is not equivalent.
If we take a glance at the top player of osu!standard, his top play as of writing this post is worth 817pp. Currently, scores exceeding 800pp are extremely rare and, as far as I'm aware, the only other play that rewards at least 800pp is held by the same player.

If we look at ctb, finding plays that exceed 800pp are not hard to find amongst the players at the top of the leaderboard.

Because of this, osu!omnithlon, if implemented, should have some kind of pp equivalency rate, where pp rewards are somehow made roughly equivalent based on skill level. This can be done by finding an average of pp score ratios between modes, but there will without a doubt be countless debates on what amount of skill in one game mode is equivalent to what amount of skill in another game mode. With the implementation of this kind of system, this debate is unavoidable. Not balancing pp would lead to the omnithlon leaderboards being dominated by players of just one mode or people will play just one mode to get higher on the leaderboards, defeating the purpose of omnithlon.

The problem with pp balancing through some kind of equivalency rate is that suddenly, if all modes are worth the same, then why not just play the mode you're already used to most? This also defeats the point of omnithlon.

The solution is then to weigh a player's total pp not just per play, but per game mode as well. For example, let's say a particular player has five 100pp plays in standard, five 100pp plays in taiko, five 100pp plays in ctb, and five 100pp plays in mania for his or her omnithlon top plays. The standard scores would then be weighted normally, the taiko scores would then be weighted normally and as if the standard scores didn't exist (so, from 100%), and the other mode scores would be done the same way. This means that if an omnithlon player plays a single mode for his or her omnithlon score, the player would only be able to get so far. However, if the player then starts playing another game mode to add onto their omnithlon pp, then the new scores from that game mode would be weighted from 100% and added on top of their current pp.

I think this would really encourage variety play, since that would be the only way you could maximize pp in this game mode. Playing a single mode in omnithlon would leave you at around 1/4th pp of omnithlon players who play all four game modes.

2. Players may want to make a particular play count for their osu!omnithlon score when they don't have the mode switched on.
The way this is handled is ultimately up to peppy, but I think it just comes down to two options.

The first option is to, instead of make omnithlon a mode you have to select, just make it an option somewhere that you want to make this score count for your omnithlon score. This would let people who play the game more casually not get frustrated by having to FC the map twice, and I like this option best as it avoids other possible frustrations the players might get if the second option is chosen.

The second option is to stick to the idea of how NF is handled, and give the user a penalty for submitting a score for omnithlon while having a different game mode selected, but give them the option anyway at the score screen. You could go to the extreme with this and just prevent the score for counting for omnithlon if that mode isn't selected, but then you would have to FC a map twice if you like to polish both your main ranking and your omnithlon ranking.

I think this is a good place to start when trying to figure out how to deal with players not wanting to have every score they play be submitted and also deal with pp imbalances between game modes. It does not address the problem of players wanting to play omnithlon but only play one or two modes as opposed to all four, but I think that defeats the purpose of omnithlon anyway. It should have the best all-around players at the top of the leaderboards after all, so they would have to be proficient in all four game modes.
Edgar_Figaro

Citremi wrote:

The first option is to, instead of make omnithlon a mode you have to select, just make it an option somewhere that you want to make this score count for your omnithlon score. This would let people who play the game more casually not get frustrated by having to FC the map twice, and I like this option best as it avoids other possible frustrations the players might get if the second option is chosen.

The second option is to stick to the idea of how NF is handled, and give the user a penalty for submitting a score for omnithlon while having a different game mode selected, but give them the option anyway at the score screen. You could go to the extreme with this and just prevent the score for counting for omnithlon if that mode isn't selected, but then you would have to FC a map twice if you like to polish both your main ranking and your omnithlon ranking.
I don't get why this is necessary to make cumulative ranking work. I guess I can understand making "omnithlon" active on their account so people who don't want to see it don't have to (don't really get why it's a problem but OK) but I don't get why people would need to select it each time they play, FC maps twice, or have a penalty like NF. I completely agree PP needs to be normalized or weighted in some way as the whole point of this would be to showcase players who are good in multiple modes and not just having a ton of PP in a mode that awards alot more than the others (<cough>Mania<cough>)

I personally think anyone who has active rank in 2+ modes should be added to the cumulative ranking and it should be normalized in a way so an extremely skilled player in Taiko & Standard is equal to an extremely skilled player in CTB & Mania. I will admit the method I made using standard deviation is still not a perfect system as it doesn't account for difficulty to achieve certain PP values, but it is alot better than a straight addition as it prevents single mode players from being extremely highly ranked.
Naimae

Edgar_Figaro wrote:

I personally think anyone who has active rank in 2+ modes should be added to the cumulative ranking and it should be normalized in a way so an extremely skilled player in Taiko & Standard is equal to an extremely skilled player in CTB & Mania. I will admit the method I made using standard deviation is still not a perfect system as it doesn't account for difficulty to achieve certain PP values, but it is alot better than a straight addition as it prevents single mode players from being extremely highly ranked.
Oh, I didn't think about just having active rank in multiple game modes. I guess that is another way to handle it.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply