forum

Beatmapper rankings? [Added]

posted
Total Posts
38

Beatmapper rankings. Is it a good idea?

Yes, it should be a site feature.
12
80.00%
Yes, but it should be a forum thread to prevent people developing voting strategies for the sake of ratings.
1
6.67%
No, it's kinda pointless/too subjective/will cause people to develop voting strategies for the sake of ratings.
2
13.33%
Total votes: 15
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +0
Topic Starter
Sinistro
I'm not posting this in Feature Requests because I'm not sure myself if this is a good/useful idea, or one that I ask of the site staff to do; I can do it myself, if needed, and post it here instead.

The idea is that, like the Rankings list for players, there's also a list of beatmappers, ordered according to the weighted average of their beatmaps' ratings.

For those who don't know, a weighted average or weighted mean is an average where the numbers added up each have a different degree of influence on the final result. In this case, a rating of 8,00 based on 50 votes should have a greater influence on the average than an equal rating based on 2 votes, because this is a result based on a larger consensus of people. The formula is:

Weighted average = (Rating #1 * its number of votes) + (Rating #2 * its number of votes) etc.../Total number of votes for all maps

On one hand, having rankings for beatmappers as well as players could provide some symmetry for the two sides of osu!. On the other hand, while playing ability depends entirely on the player, a beatmapper's score depends on the votes his maps receive from other people. If such a list existed, in a worst case scenario people could urge their friends to vote high for their own maps or even create sockpuppets, and conversely they could give poor ratings to rival beatmaps. I definitely don't want that to happen.

So...thoughts? I think I'll add a poll. Personally, I think that if this idea proves popular, it should be an unofficial sort of thing, although if it were a site feature it could be updated in real time and calculated automatically instead of me crunching numbers every once in a while.
awp
cool idea I think, however I have maps in the top 40 best as well as the bottom 20 worst beatmaps of all time lol

I think this might encourage competitive people to make their beatmaps better...no harm in that, eh? Sounds pretty good to me actually.
Echo
Should be fairly easy to do since beatmap ranking is cached in the database.

Where do you think it should be displayed? Profile?
peppy
I think he means it would be a new Rankings page under that top heading, with people ranked according to their average rating. There would have to be some weighting given depending on how many maps you have total, as well. I think the scale would not be a fixed one (ie. not /10) for this reason - otherwise we will get people with a single map coming first above all the others with 50 odd maps made (hi eiji).

I like the idea and it should be pretty simple to get going.
Topic Starter
Sinistro

peppy wrote:

I think he means it would be a new Rankings page under that top heading, with people ranked according to their average rating.
Yeah, that's how I originally imagined it.

peppy also wrote:

There would have to be some weighting given depending on how many maps you have total, as well. I think the scale would not be a fixed one (ie. not /10) for this reason - otherwise we will get people with a single map coming first above all the others with 50 odd maps made (hi eiji).
Yes, I suspected that could cause some weirdness, but my math knowledge wasn't enough to suggest a formula to address this.
awp
Stats to the rescue

I don't remember Stats

but then again, who would you rank as a higher beatmapper? Someone with one beatmap at 9.0 or someone with ten beatmaps each at 8.0? Consistent shows of quality should be incorporated somehow. Quantity AND quality.
Topic Starter
Sinistro
Maybe each beatmap after the first gets a (smallish) bonus multiplier to its rating, perhaps one whose value depends on a) the ratings of the beatmaps so far and b) how many beatmaps have been ranked until then? Mediocre ratings will give a tiny boost, while good ratings will give a larger boost. Likewise, having many ranked beatmaps will give larger boosts compared to only having one other ranked beatmap.

...You know, that reminds me a little of how combos in Ouendan, EBA and Osu! work, right? Consistent good playing/beatmapping makes the combo go up, which makes each subsequent beat(map) in the chain worth more. The only differences is that a "300" (a high rating, so to speak) makes the "combo" rise more than a "100" or a "50", and that "Misses" (Ranked beatmaps with, God forbid, rather low ratings) will still raise the combo, but only a tiny little bit. Of course, in the beatmap rankings case, this bonus needs to be really, really, really toned down compared to when playing, as this could go out of control if the formula is unbalanced. ;) Ideally, I think that the formula should still give more weight to the actual ratings for each individual map.
awp
The weighted average of your beatmaps * some quantity multiplier? Sounds pretty good to me.

That way if you have a good score and upload a total garbage beatmap that SOMEHOW gets ranked (I'm thinking sexual favours) your score will still actually suffer from it instead of gain, albeit modestly.
chan

Sinistro wrote:

Maybe each beatmap after the first gets a (smallish) bonus multiplier to its rating...
I can imagine Saturos going beatmap crazy trying to improve his beatmapper ranking.
machol30

chan wrote:

Sinistro wrote:

Maybe each beatmap after the first gets a (smallish) bonus multiplier to its rating...
I can imagine Saturos going beatmap crazy trying to improve his beatmapper ranking.
Yes, I can imagine that too. :lol:

I am thinking that you'd gain more for each ranked map than for each unranked; right?

EDIT: And I really like the idea! :)
Saturos
I can imagine Saturos going beatmap crazy trying to improve his beatmapper ranking.
I can't. ;x
Topic Starter
Sinistro
I was thinking that only ranked beatmaps should be counted towards the beatmapper ranking.

I don't think Saturos would do anything like that. Just because he's the best player doesn't mean he would beatmap like the wind to rise to the top of the beatmapper rankings.
awp

Sinistro wrote:

only ranked beatmaps should be counted towards the beatmapper ranking.
eyup
Looks like this one is on track to be included, so moved to Feature Requests.
Cecilthemos
The only problem I have with this is people giving a bad ranking to your map because it's a song they don't like or if it was too hard (I know we're supposed to make enough difficulties for even beginners, but you don't have to make it so ANYONE can beat it, I doubt a beginner could beat SSAY with Hajime) Other than that this sounds like an awesome idea and it will get more people to create amazing beatmaps.
awp
Yes, but when you have 50 votes on a map, one disgruntled cretin can do little to sway the votes.
Echo
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
James
This ranking is based on a weighted average of all your ranked maps, with a bonus proportional to the number of ranked maps you have.
I still don't get this, is it any related to the star rating? If it is, I should stop putting 10s on any beatmap that needs a rating :)
peppy

James wrote:

I still don't get this, is it any related to the star rating? If it is, I should stop putting 10s on any beatmap that needs a rating :)
Its based mostly on star ratings, yes. So start rating properly >:|
Topic Starter
Sinistro
Is there a hypothetical point where the bonus from one's already ranked beatmaps can surpass the importance of each beatmap's individual star rating? Is there a cap to the bonus, or perhaps does one have to have like 100+ maps ranked before that happens?
peppy
The formula used is:

(sumRatings / numberOfRatings) * (1 + 0.03ish * numberOfMapsRanked)

So at the moment there is no cap, and as it is a linear ratio multipler, should not surpass the importance of stars themselves.
James
Okay, so I should rate songs properly now.
Topic Starter
Sinistro

peppy wrote:

The formula used is:

(sumRatings / numberOfRatings) * (1 + 0.03ish * numberOfMapsRanked)
Wait a moment, that's just the average, right? Isn't the weighted average of the ratings supposed to be the sum of the products of each beatmap's rating times its number of ratings, divided by the total number of ratings, as in:

(Rating for map #1 * map #1's number of votes) + (Rating for map #2 * map #2's number of votes) etc.../Total number of votes for all of the beatmapper's maps?

Although it might be best for me if I shut up, since this will lower my beatmapper rank thanks to J-E-N-O-V-A...
peppy
pretty sure it works out to the exact same number.
Topic Starter
Sinistro

peppy wrote:

pretty sure it works out to the exact same number.
No, it doesn't. With the above formula my score would be about 8,50 instead of 8,57 and awp's about 9,82 instead of 9,99, for example. I'm not sure in which way or by how much other scores would change. I believe weighting by number of votes is needed because I think the more people have voted for a beatmap, the more "consolidated" its rating is, if that makes sense.
Saturos
Nah, that formula will always remain a number between 0-10, based solely on the ratings. I did Aliento's rating using that formula really quick:

[(Rating for map #1 * map #1's number of votes) + (Rating for map #2 * map #2's number of votes) + (Rating for map #3 * map #3's number of votes)] / Sum of Play Counts = Avg weighted rating

[(7.9*120) + (8.3*44) + (8.1*75)] / (120+44+75) = Avg weighted rating

[948 + 365.2 + 607.5] / (120+44+75) = Avg weighted rating

1920.7 / 239 = Avg weighted rating

Avg Weighted Rating = 8.0364

EDIT: Seems Sinistro beat me to the post, but I gotz teh mathz0rz.
Topic Starter
Sinistro

Saturos wrote:

I did Aliento's rating using that formula really quick:

[(Rating for map #1 * map #1's number of votes) + (Rating for map #2 * map #2's number of votes) + (Rating for map #3 * map #3's number of votes)] / Sum of Play counts Votes = Avg weighted rating

[(7.9*120) + (8.3*44) + (8.1*75)] / (120+44+75) = Avg weighted rating

[948 + 365.2 + 607.5] / (120+44+75) = Avg weighted rating

1920.7 / 239 = Avg weighted rating

Avg Weighted Rating = 8.0364

EDIT: Seems Sinistro beat me to the post, but I gotz teh mathz0rz.
Weird...why do I see different ratings and vote totals for Aliento's beatmaps? Specifically, 7.5*145, 7.9*68 and 7.1*52, ultimately resulting in a rating of about 8.2013.

Saturos wrote:

Nah, that formula will always remain a number between 0-10, based solely on the ratings.
Yeah, when I said "with the above formula" earlier I got a little sloppy in my expression; I actually meant the formula of the weighted average I posted with the ranked beatmap bonus multiplier, which I had left off to focus on the formula's first part. To be precise, my proposal for the beatmapper ranking formula is:

[(Rating for map #1 * map #1's number of votes) + (Rating for map #2 * map #2's number of votes) etc.../Total number of votes for all of the beatmapper's maps] * (1 + 0.03ish * numberOfMapsRanked)
awp
While it's true that someone can have an unjustly high ranking because their maps only have a few votes to them, I find it likely that players are going to look at the beatmapper rankings, think "hey this person rules I'll get his/her stuff", play the beatmaps, and thusly vote on them, which should serve to balance it out a bit and result in a more accurate standing over time.
peppy
ah, nevermind what i said earlier. i was in zombie mode at work :P.

i guess doing it based on weighted averages would be more fair, though.
Saturos

Sinistro wrote:

Saturos wrote:

Nah, that formula will always remain a number between 0-10, based solely on the ratings.
Yeah, when I said "with the above formula" earlier I got a little sloppy in my expression; I actually meant the formula of the weighted average I posted with the ranked beatmap bonus multiplier, which I had left off to focus on the formula's first part. To be precise, my proposal for the beatmapper ranking formula is:

[(Rating for map #1 * map #1's number of votes) + (Rating for map #2 * map #2's number of votes) etc.../Total number of votes for all of the beatmapper's maps] * (1 + 0.03ish * numberOfMapsRanked)
Just to be clear, that was directed at peppy, not you. ;x
Echo
The rating data is stored in the database as (total votes * rating) already, therefore "sumRatings" is in fact sum of (total votes * rating), and not sum of (rating).

In other words, the formula is:

SUM(total votes * rating) / SUM(votes) * bonus
peppy
Added to the site menu. Good job echo!
James
Where?
Topic Starter
Sinistro
It's under Rankings. You might need to refresh your page, like I did.

[nitpick] "Player" and "Mod" are in singular, but "Mappers" is in plural. [/nitpick]
Echo
You might have to Ctrl+F5, which forces most browsers to get all the content from the server instead of using local cached ones.
peppy

Sinistro wrote:

It's under Rankings. You might need to refresh your page, like I did.

[nitpick] "Player" and "Mod" are in singular, but "Mappers" is in plural. [/nitpick]
Fixed. I really need to sleep :/.
Topic Starter
Sinistro
Are the ranking scores being updated with each new vote? I think they've stayed the same from when they were first posted.
Echo

Sinistro wrote:

Are the ranking scores being updated with each new vote?
There is no autoupdate code in place (blame me for being lazy)... should be up in a while.

edit: ok, it's up, and *hopefully* should be working as it should... if any ranking mechanism (eg. song page/osu ranking page) fails yell at me on irc please
Please sign in to reply.

New reply