combo should stop giving extra points after 420
forum
How should score work?
posted
Total Posts
48
Without the foreknowledge from today, probably just something like this:
I would also redesign the Easy and Hard Rock mods to affect higher map settings in a less drastic way.winber1 wrote:
combo should stop giving extra points after 420
E m i
More based on accuracy. With a curve that makes the score more or less skyrocket around 98-99+%.
Less based on the MOMENT you got a 300/50/miss - possibly calculated after setting the score.
Less based on combo.
In the end, directly or indirectly based on PP.
Less based on the MOMENT you got a 300/50/miss - possibly calculated after setting the score.
Less based on combo.
In the end, directly or indirectly based on PP.
This. There should be more options to HR than ar10. ar9.8 is a coincidence, and I'm not counting decimal approach rates.RaneFire wrote:
I would also redesign the Easy and Hard Rock mods to affect higher map settings in a less drastic way.
But decimal approach rates have a massive difference on the playability. There are tons of people that can play ar10, but only a tiny fraction of people can really play ar10.3.
E m i
I'm talking about HR since it never goes above 10, and it stays at 10 from 7.2 to 10.theLiminator wrote:
But decimal approach rates have a massive difference on the playability. There are tons of people that can play ar10, but only a tiny fraction of people can really play ar10.3.
DT is pretty... Balanced? It keeps the same density, at least.
This. I hate it when I see HD+DT 100% get beaten by HD+DT+HR 95%.- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
I feel like score should revolve more around accuracy than combo.
You don't understand the difficulty in AR11 and OD11 clearly.DahplA wrote:
This. I hate it when I see HD+DT 100% get beaten by HD+DT+HR 95%.- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
I feel like score should revolve more around accuracy than combo.
If you're mindlessly spamming, I highly doubt you get 98% accuracy anyway.Insyni wrote:
2. Was the break due to the inability to complete a new pattern without spamming? If they can't do it without spamming that one tiny section, then combo is more important.
Just a quick question. Why is it to late to change the scoring system? Just wipe the online stats and leaderboards clean.
I also agree that it should be less based off of combo and more on accuracy. Not that hard to just plug the current combo length into a logarithmic function so that as the combo gets higher and higher you get more diminishing returns.
Second maybe make the scoring for accuracy scale smoothly from "perfect accuracy' to just enough. ie rather than it jump from 300>100>50 you might get a 295 because you were just barely off or a 1 for really horrible accuracy. This would require a slightly higher accuracy to achieve a 300 and would severely punish people for spamming.
Third maybe give mods a bigger multiplier than the measly 6-12% They definitely make the game a lot harder most of the time.
One last thing not really related to scoring. I would make it so that sliders don't rape your HP for even the slightest mistake.
I also agree that it should be less based off of combo and more on accuracy. Not that hard to just plug the current combo length into a logarithmic function so that as the combo gets higher and higher you get more diminishing returns.
Second maybe make the scoring for accuracy scale smoothly from "perfect accuracy' to just enough. ie rather than it jump from 300>100>50 you might get a 295 because you were just barely off or a 1 for really horrible accuracy. This would require a slightly higher accuracy to achieve a 300 and would severely punish people for spamming.
Third maybe give mods a bigger multiplier than the measly 6-12% They definitely make the game a lot harder most of the time.
One last thing not really related to scoring. I would make it so that sliders don't rape your HP for even the slightest mistake.
E m i
It is not late, but it will come at a price. A lot of scores will be lost, and if this decision will be made, they must change and fix as many things as possible, at once.7djames7 wrote:
Just a quick question. Why is it to late to change the scoring system? Just wipe the online stats and leaderboards clean.
I also agree that it should be less based off of combo and more on accuracy. Not that hard to just plug the current combo length into a logarithmic function so that as the combo gets higher and higher you get more diminishing returns.
Second maybe make the scoring for accuracy scale smoothly from "perfect accuracy' to just enough. ie rather than it jump from 300>100>50 you might get a 295 because you were just barely off or a 1 for really horrible accuracy. This would require a slightly higher accuracy to achieve a 300 and would severely punish people for spamming.
Third maybe give mods a bigger multiplier than the measly 6-12% They definitely make the game a lot harder most of the time.
One last thing not really related to scoring. I would make it so that sliders don't rape your HP for even the slightest mistake.
Your idea on acc is pretty good, the current acc system is based more on consistency.
The mods are planned to be reworked too, so the bonus score reflects pp more.
And yeah, sliders really do rape HP.
- Disconnected HardkoreI agree on most of the parts, except why would you put combo length into a logarithmic function when getting to a certain combo gets harder exponentially? That just makes no sense.7djames7 wrote:
Just a quick question. Why is it to late to change the scoring system? Just wipe the online stats and leaderboards clean.
I also agree that it should be less based off of combo and more on accuracy. Not that hard to just plug the current combo length into a logarithmic function so that as the combo gets higher and higher you get more diminishing returns.
Second maybe make the scoring for accuracy scale smoothly from "perfect accuracy' to just enough. ie rather than it jump from 300>100>50 you might get a 295 because you were just barely off or a 1 for really horrible accuracy. This would require a slightly higher accuracy to achieve a 300 and would severely punish people for spamming.
Third maybe give mods a bigger multiplier than the measly 6-12% They definitely make the game a lot harder most of the time.
One last thing not really related to scoring. I would make it so that sliders don't rape your HP for even the slightest mistake.
Usually you lose combo because you're unable to do a pattern correctly, simply missing happens not very frequently - this at least applies to me. Combo shouldn't have as much of an impact but the exponential function is definitely justified.
On a side note, your general idea on accuracy is good but it comes to the point where it doesn't have anything to do with rhythm anymore. If you get punished for tiny fractions of a second you might as well blame it on your keyboard's input lag instead of on yourself. OD 10 already punishes you for small mistakes and songs have 1000+ notes, so taking the average accuracy out of all of those is already a very good representation of your actual accuracy.
The reason for the logarithmic function is so that for extremely long maps FCing the map becomes less and less rewarding with more of a focus being put on accuracy. If you add a offset based on the length of the map you actually wont notice it for shorter maps. It basically puts more emphasis on being consistent through the entire song rather than getting lucky and happening to get an absurdly long combo. For people who can consistently get long combos they will still be able to edge out others on the leaderboard but you also won't see people ranking higher than they should be as often. Also PP farming is still a thing and this would probably cut down on it.Saphirshroom wrote:
I agree on most of the parts, except why would you put combo length into a logarithmic function when getting to a certain combo gets harder exponentially? That just makes no sense.
Usually you lose combo because you're unable to do a pattern correctly, simply missing happens not very frequently - this at least applies to me. Combo shouldn't have as much of an impact but the exponential function is definitely justified.
On a side note, your general idea on accuracy is good but it comes to the point where it doesn't have anything to do with rhythm anymore. If you get punished for tiny fractions of a second you might as well blame it on your keyboard's input lag instead of on yourself. OD 10 already punishes you for small mistakes and songs have 1000+ notes, so taking the average accuracy out of all of those is already a very good representation of your actual accuracy.
As for the accuracy change most people would actually benefit from it as you would be getting 250-200 points for being slightly off rather than an immediate 100. It would only punish newer players and people that spam through entire sections.
You still get punished for small errors with the system as it currently is. So I don't know what your talking about there. This does however make the scores at the top of the leader board less based on who spun that one spinner the quickest and more who messed up less and by how much.
Edit: Rhythm and accuracy go hand in hand so I don't know how my system discourages good rhythm. Maybe for people that can't sight read? Or maybe for people without a formal education in music? I don't know.
TL;DR : All in the name of competitive gameplay.
Getting an "absurdly long combo" is not possible through sheer luck. And if you want to measure consistency throughout the entire song then just disable the combo feature entirely and measure the ratio of notes missed to the total amount of notes. I still don't know why it would make sense to feed combo length into a logarithmic function. This punishes players who can get a high combo.7djames7 wrote:
It basically puts more emphasis on being consistent through the entire song rather than getting lucky and happening to get an absurdly long combo.
Leader board is irrelevant. Of course it looks cool to be #1 but you don't gain anything other than that. And I'm talking about the fact that small errors already get punished enough, like you said. With your system, even smaller errors would be punished.7djames7 wrote:
You still get punished for small errors with the system as it currently is. So I don't know what your talking about there. This does however make the scores at the top of the leader board less based on who spun that one spinner the quickest and more who messed up less and by how much.
Edit: Rhythm and accuracy go hand in hand so I don't know how my system discourages good rhythm. Maybe for people that can't sight read? Or maybe for people without a formal education in music? I don't know.That's not what I meant. It's more the fact that with such tiny hit errors blaming the equipment becomes a thing. Notice that the hit window for getting a 300 on OD 10 is 18ms. If we, say, make score gain more subtle, for example divide it into steps of 5, realistically we get a window of like 1ms that makes the difference between getting a 300 and a 295. That makes it nigh impossible to get a 300, you could even say it was luck if someone gets a 300. Of course you could adjust the roughness of those values but I don't see the benefit of that compared to how it is now.
Right now you have a certain error margin within which you get a perfect score. The systems looks at your accuracy throughout the entire song and takes the average, there's no need for a finer scale. Like I said, your actual accuracy gets reflected very well by the system. Making in-between score values just adds fake-depth that is not actually relevant for the game.
You realize this literally means throwing out every single score set in the past 7+ years, right? I get that the very roots of the scoring system would have to be changed to get it on the right track, but let's not throw around the idea of a total wipe so lightly.7djames7 wrote:
Just wipe the online stats and leaderboards clean.
This statement is completely backwards. Long combos don't happen by chance.7djames7 wrote:
It basically puts more emphasis on being consistent through the entire song rather than getting lucky and happening to get an absurdly long combo.
This is also totally incorrect. Currently you need an FC just to get on the leaderboard, and after that the deciding factor is accuracy. On really close leaderboards it also matters where your 100s were, but on tougher maps simply having higher accuracy is enough.7djames7 wrote:
This does however make the scores at the top of the leader board less based on who spun that one spinner the quickest and more who messed up less and by how much.
Contrary to your opinion, this system actually does put the most consistent players near the top. The two sources of error are the fact that each note is worth more as the map goes on and the totally arbitrary weightings applied by mods. If those two things were fixed the leaderboards would almost perfectly reflect pp distribution.
The easy solution is to retain that margin and implement scaling outside it. That is to say, you have an 18ms window for a 300, but starting at 19ms the point value will begin to scale smoothly downwards. This margin would have to be smaller than it is now (maybe cut it in half?), and it could be controlled by OD. There's really no downside to this, it would introduce more variation in scores, helping rank spread on heavily saturated leaderboards, and it would essentially introduce OD10+, which is something a lot of players have been asking for.Saphirshroom wrote:
Right now you have a certain error margin within which you get a perfect score.
This is exactly what I was trying to say.Narrill wrote:
The easy solution is to retain that margin and implement scaling outside it. That is to say, you have an 18ms window for a 300, but starting at 19ms the point value will begin to scale smoothly downwards. This margin would have to be smaller than it is now (maybe cut it in half?), and it could be controlled by OD. There's really no downside to this, it would introduce more variation in scores, helping rank spread on heavily saturated leaderboards, and it would essentially introduce OD10+, which is something a lot of players have been asking for.Saphirshroom wrote:
Right now you have a certain error margin within which you get a perfect score.
If the people are as consistent as you seem to think they are the leaderboard should easily sort itself out after a month or two. The only problem with wiping the stats clean is that if done too frequently the leaderboard becomes kinda moot. If anything a wipe every 2 years or so would be good since the PP system still isn't farm proof(its only harder to farm).Narrill wrote:
You realize this literally means throwing out every single score set in the past 7+ years, right? I get that the very roots of the scoring system would have to be changed to get it on the right track, but let's not throw around the idea of a total wipe so lightly.
It was merely a suggestion. Definitely worth a shot to try out. And yes sometimes it is kinda up to luck. Especially if you have trouble jumping or aren't the most consistent person with a mouse. I have scores from a year or two ago that I still can't beat without retrying the map over and over. My first 100% was almost entirely luck. As with any skill based game luck can play a considerable part some times. Even if it isn't all up to a dice roll or something similar.Narrill wrote:
This statement is completely backwards. Long combos don't happen by chance.
I understand this. My point was that they aren't that consistent. Getting some of those scores takes a considerable number of retries even if they already know the beatmap. However I guess that is one of the flaws with having a leaderboard.Narrill wrote:
This is also totally incorrect. Currently you need an FC just to get on the leaderboard, and after that the deciding factor is accuracy. On really close leaderboards it also matters where your 100s were, but on tougher maps simply having higher accuracy is enough.
Contrary to your opinion, this system actually does put the most consistent players near the top. The two sources of error are the fact that each note is worth more as the map goes on and the totally arbitrary weightings applied by mods. If those two things were fixed the leaderboards would almost perfectly reflect pp distribution.
I agree on that completely. There is one small downside, actually: Skinning will get slightly less flexible. You'd have to introduce fonts in every skin so you can portray the numbers according to your score. There are some skins now which use coloured dots as a representation of hit-accuracy which wouldn't be possible anymore. We (read: peppy) could just introduce a toggle to switch between these representations, of course.Narrill wrote:
The easy solution is to retain that margin and implement scaling outside it. That is to say, you have an 18ms window for a 300, but starting at 19ms the point value will begin to scale smoothly downwards. This margin would have to be smaller than it is now (maybe cut it in half?), and it could be controlled by OD. There's really no downside to this, it would introduce more variation in scores, helping rank spread on heavily saturated leaderboards, and it would essentially introduce OD10+, which is something a lot of players have been asking for.
Also,
Never mind my argument against your system then. When you said you'd be getting 295 for just a tiny bit off, I thought you meant a tiny bit off the perfect hit, not a tiny bit off from getting a 300. Sorry about that.7djames7 wrote:
This is exactly what I was trying to say.
I don't really care. It's going to be them with crap accuracy on their profiles.Bauxe wrote:
You don't understand the difficulty in AR11 and OD11 clearly.
I just simply wish combo wasn't as important as it is 
Maybe im just bad at this game, but i wish that accuracy would be valued more than it currently is.
Maybe im just bad at this game, but i wish that accuracy would be valued more than it currently is.
SomeLoli
It has nothing to do with overall rankings. You'd be wiping thousands of legendary scores, many of which were set by players that no longer play.7djames7 wrote:
If the people are as consistent as you seem to think they are the leaderboard should easily sort itself out after a month or two.
Sometimes people have particularly good plays, sure. That's not luck, and claiming that it is reveals a fundamentally misguided understanding of skill application. Monster plays come from the combination of a proper mental state, physical skill, and unwavering concentration, and while the human element introduces some measure of unpredictability, it does an injustice to the player to call it luck.7djames7 wrote:
And yes sometimes it is kinda up to luck.
Variation introduced by the human element increases as the demands increase relative to skill, that's unavoidable. Honestly, I don't even know why a scoring system that attempts to eliminate that variation is even desirable. 99% of maps can be and are FC'd within hours of being qualified.7djames7 wrote:
Getting some of those scores takes a considerable number of retries even if they already know the beatmap. However I guess that is one of the flaws with having a leaderboard.
Then archive the legendary scores. Also it's just a score. Why should it matter when the end result is a better scoring system? That is like saying this building has some awesome memories. We shouldn't tear it down even though it will be replaced by a better building. It's just plain stupid. Also if they no longer play then why should it matter? They are the one who invested their time not us. Do you see how bad that reasoning is?Narrill wrote:
It has nothing to do with overall rankings. You'd be wiping thousands of legendary scores, many of which were set by players that no longer play.
Then what should we call it? Luck seems to be a good term considering the number of elements that have to be just right. And how there are some that are out of your control to a certain extent. Besides you kinda just proved how much luck fits with your own words.Narrill wrote:
Sometimes people have particularly good plays, sure. That's not luck, and claiming that it is reveals a fundamentally misguided understanding of skill application. Monster plays come from the combination of a proper mental state, physical skill, and unwavering concentration, and while the human element introduces some measure of unpredictability, it does an injustice to the player to call it luck.
Kinda sounds like there is in fact a specific probability of doing your theoretical best. Which could be described as luck being a partial factor.Narrill wrote:
while the human element introduces some measure of unpredictability
Just forget it. Neither of us will back down. Your right. I'm wrong. There now get of my damn back.Narrill wrote:
Variation introduced by the human element increases as the demands increase relative to skill, that's unavoidable. Honestly, I don't even know why a scoring system that attempts to eliminate that variation is even desirable. 99% of maps can be and are FC'd within hours of being qualified.
By the way it was a suggestion based on the fact that many of us think combos shouldn't play as big of a part as they currently do. Nothing more. Also it wouldn't eliminate it. It would just lessen the effect a little. But then again I'm probably wrong.
I don't know how my own suggestion would impact the current system. I know nothing. Please teach me a much better way. /s
I don't think you understand the value of persistent leaderboards at all if this reasoning makes sense to you.7djames7 wrote:
That is like saying this building has some awesome memories. We shouldn't tear it down even though it will be replaced by a better building. It's just plain stupid. Also if they no longer play then why should it matter? They are the one who invested their time not us. Do you see how bad that reasoning is?
It's not luck, it's the human element. Do I really need to explain the difference?7djames7 wrote:
Besides you kinda just proved how much luck fits with your own words.
Your sarcasm is noted.7djames7 wrote:
/s
The purpose of score keeping is to see where you are in relation to other people no? And to give a way of measuring ones skill. Not to reminisce. By that logic we can safely wipe a leaderboard every so often. By your logic these scores are in fact some treasure that should keep safe.Narrill wrote:
I don't think you understand the value of persistent leaderboards at all if this reasoning makes sense to you.
I already gave a very good option that would make both of us happy yet you seem to have ignored it. In case you missed it I will repeat it.
WE CAN ALWAYS ARCHIVE THE TOP 50 SCORES FOR ANY CURRENT SONGS. Try not to gloss over it this time.
Of score keeping in general, sure, but leaderboards aren't necessary for that. They're an archive, their purpose is to archive.7djames7 wrote:
The purpose of score keeping is to see where you are in relation to other people no?
"Wiping" implies leaving no remnants. I'm all for introducing different leaderboards for different scoring methods, but the purpose of implementing new leaderboards is to avoid wiping the old ones. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.7djames7 wrote:
WE CAN ALWAYS ARCHIVE THE TOP 50 SCORES FOR ANY CURRENT SONGS. Try not to gloss over it this time.
The reason for suggesting a wipe is for server costs. And is the most optimal solution. The only reason for archiving the top 50 is to appease people like you. The problem with archiving is it will require more storage space which costs money which in turn will cost peppy more money. Remember this game is for the most part free. Where as server costs are annual.Narrill wrote:
Of score keeping in general, sure, but leaderboards aren't necessary for that. They're an archive, their purpose is to archive.7djames7 wrote:
The purpose of score keeping is to see where you are in relation to other people no?"Wiping" implies leaving no remnants. I'm all for introducing different leaderboards for different scoring methods, but the purpose of implementing new leaderboards is to avoid wiping the old ones. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.7djames7 wrote:
WE CAN ALWAYS ARCHIVE THE TOP 50 SCORES FOR ANY CURRENT SONGS. Try not to gloss over it this time.
If archiving is a possibility then by all means. However if it isn't then we will have to wipe the current leaderboards. Just remember that if/when peppy decides to change the scoring system.
I'm sorry, what? The servers were purchased specifically for the purpose of housing archived data like leaderboards, and there hasn't been any indication that their costs are becoming prohibitive. Honestly, a single score can probably be stored with just a handful of numerical entries, so even with 2.8 billion scores I doubt they take up much server space. And this is all beside the point anyways because peppy doesn't have any plans to change the scoring system, nor does tom.7djames7 wrote:
The reason for suggesting a wipe is for server costs. And is the most optimal solution. The only reason for archiving the top 50 is to appease people like you. The problem with archiving is it will require more storage space which costs money which in turn will cost peppy more money. Remember this game is for the most part free. Where as server costs are annual.
If archiving is a possibility then by all means. However if it isn't then we will have to wipe the current leaderboards. Just remember that if/when peppy decides to change the scoring system.
Come back to reality, man.
I can guarantee it is more than a couple of gigabytes as you seem to think. Even if you can use a single byte for each score that is 2.6Gb. To store everything that they keep track of would require kilobytes if not megabytes for every score. Even at one kilobyte that comes out to be 2.6Tb. To archive the current leaderboard and implement a new one would essentially double that. Now imagine what happens to that figure over the course of say a year where the number of users and ranked plays will increase.Narrill wrote:
I'm sorry, what? The servers were purchased specifically for the purpose of housing archived data like leaderboards, and there hasn't been any indication that their costs are becoming prohibitive. Honestly, a single score can probably be stored with just a handful of numerical entries, so even with 2.8 billion scores I doubt they take up much server space. And this is all beside the point anyways because peppy doesn't have any plans to change the scoring system, nor does tom.7djames7 wrote:
The reason for suggesting a wipe is for server costs. And is the most optimal solution. The only reason for archiving the top 50 is to appease people like you. The problem with archiving is it will require more storage space which costs money which in turn will cost peppy more money. Remember this game is for the most part free. Where as server costs are annual.
If archiving is a possibility then by all means. However if it isn't then we will have to wipe the current leaderboards. Just remember that if/when peppy decides to change the scoring system.
Come back to reality, man.
At some point they will need to upgrade and archiving the leaderboards will make that sooner than later.
Like I said: If it is possible then by all means archive the leaderboard. But I wouldn't put my money on it.
Dunno what exactly you want to archive but you require a kilobyte per score at most. Per map it's just a bunch of numbers plus a hash key for the player's name. That's probably less than 50 Bytes which leaves us at 130 GB per leaderboard which you can still compress through means similar to the .zip-format. That does leave us at a couple of GB. Of course server disk space is expensive but it's not like we're reworking the scoring system every year only every 3rd.7djames7 wrote:
I can guarantee it is more than a couple of gigabytes as you seem to think. Even if you can use a single byte for each score that is 2.6Gb. To store everything that they keep track of would require kilobytes if not megabytes for every score. Even at one kilobyte that comes out to be 2.6Tb. To archive the current leaderboard and implement a new one would essentially double that. Now imagine what happens to that figure over the course of say a year where the number of users and ranked plays will increase.
At some point they will need to upgrade and archiving the leaderboards will make that sooner than later.
Like I said: If it is possible then by all means archive the leaderboard. But I wouldn't put my money on it.
edit: Actually checked, you need to save 8 integers (Max Combo, # of 300, # of 100, # of 50, # of misses, # of Katu, # of Geki, accuray represented as int) - 16 Bytes, 1 int64 (for score) - 8 Bytes and one hash key for a player, plus one hash key for a beatmap - probably 8 Bytes for the player, resp. 4 for beatmap because I doubt we'll ever have more than 4 billion beatmaps. Might be wrong though. ~36 Bytes per score.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
edit2: Saving the date and mods used are probably helpful. That's +2 Bytes for date and +2 for mods. 40 Bytes.
I stand corrected I guess. And no we wouldn't rework the scoring system every year. Once if at all.Saphirshroom wrote:
Dunno what exactly you want to archive but you require a kilobyte per score at most. Per map it's just a bunch of floats plus a hash key for the player's name. That's probably less than 50 Bytes which leaves us at 130 GB per leaderboard which you can still compress through means similar to the .zip-format. That does leave us at a couple of GB. Of course server disk space is expensive but it's not like we're reworking the scoring system every year. Oh wait...
I do hope so but finding a system people are satisfied with is really difficult. Haven't been around for long and I'm too lazy to check but how many times did the ranking ladder reset so far? Believe it was 2.
Please don't put words in my mouth, there's no room.7djames7 wrote:
couple of gigabytes
One score consists of a map ID, a player ID, a combo count, a score value, and an accuracy value. A full kilobyte is an overestimation.7djames7 wrote:
To store everything that they keep track of would require kilobytes if not megabytes for every score. Even at one kilobyte that comes out to be 2.6Tb.
EDIT: And counts of each accuracy value I guess. Saphirshroom already covered this.
But wait, did you say 2.6 TB? By gosh by golly, where oh where can we possibly find that much space?! You're absolutely right, the servers must be fit to burst with that much data!
Wrong. There are 2.8 billion total ranked plays, but we only need to archive those on the leaderboards. And even if we did archive all the rest, it would take another few years to accumulate 2.8billion new scores.7djames7 wrote:
To archive the current leaderboard and implement a new one would essentially double that
Just to put this argument in perspective, you're suggesting that we wipe the leaderboards rather than archive them after the implementation of a hypothetical forum-sourced scoring system because it'll save server space.7djames7 wrote:
At some point they will need to upgrade and archiving the leaderboards will make that sooner than later.
Take a minute and let it sink in how ludicrous this entire line of argument is.
ppv1 and ppv2, but it's important to note that the ranking ladder was never actually reset, the evaluation criteria just changed.Saphirshroom wrote:
how many times did the ranking ladder reset so far? Believe it was 2.
You must not read things over fully as you missed my post in response to Saphirshroom as well as the first time I mentioned archiving the leaderboards. Please read all new posts before replying to someone as they might have answered any questions you have or already admitted they were wrong. Just so you know what I am talking about let me quote myself.Narrill wrote:
snip
7djames7 wrote:
I stand corrected I guess. And no we wouldn't rework the scoring system every year. Once if at all.Saphirshroom wrote:
Dunno what exactly you want to archive but you require a kilobyte per score at most. Per map it's just a bunch of floats plus a hash key for the player's name. That's probably less than 50 Bytes which leaves us at 130 GB per leaderboard which you can still compress through means similar to the .zip-format. That does leave us at a couple of GB. Of course server disk space is expensive but it's not like we're reworking the scoring system every year. Oh wait...
I've decided that in the future I'll make every attempt to call you out on arguments you've already altered or ceded for fun. Have a nice night.7djames7 wrote:
Please read all new posts before replying to someone as they might have answered any questions you have or already admitted they were wrong.
OD9 + DT = OD10.3?Narrill wrote:
it would essentially introduce OD10+, which is something a lot of players have been asking for.
Okay, OD11+.
I'd make it so the higher the combo the higher the diminishing returns for the score.
The chance to get at least one miss in a set of notes grows exponentially with the cardinality of that set. So this:Saphirshroom wrote:
I still don't know why it would make sense to feed combo length into a logarithmic function. This punishes players who can get a high combo.
Makes mathematically no sense and also makes no sense for the reason stated above.Aviv552 wrote:
I'd make it so the higher the combo the higher the diminishing returns for the score.