Kert wrote:

Any ideas on how to measure the processing time for each note taking overlaps and density into consideration?
I can only think of using objects' fade-in times as a base and altering these somehow depending on the overlap time/percentage

Yeah, that sounds like a decent approach. I would work on developing an algorithm that compares all the visual objects at a particular time position and spits out a composite "noise" rating. Once you have that you can just run that algorithm at each object's time position and use the resulting noise rating to come up with a per-object weighted processing time. Obviously the algorithm itself is the real challenge, and you'll likely have to heavily tweak the factor by which the base time is altered to get the weighted time, but that's how I'd start.

Evaluating the non-visual component is the tougher problem I think.

Edit: Just to spitball some ideas for the algorithm...

The most obvious component is the proximity of all the visual objects. Next to that is probably overlapping cursor paths (e.g., the path between the current note and the next note overlaps the path between two notes later in the pattern). Notes fade in over time, so you'll need some way of determining how much each object has faded in at any given time position, and once you can determine that you could probably use that fade-in percentage as a multiplier for the note and its outgoing cursor path. This would make notes closer to the current time position more heavily weighted, which I think is accurate.

However, you won't just need to evaluate the objects that are actually on-screen, you'll need to look at hot spots as well, meaning areas of the screen that tend to have more notes than other areas (the easiest way to understand why this matters is to think of taking all of a map's patterns and putting them in one corner of the screen - the object density in that corner would skyrocket, making everything happening in that corner tougher to read). I can't think of an efficient way to implement this, but I think an ideal implementation would work very similarly to the noise algorithm, but would be localized to a specific point; that is to say, you pick a point and a time position and the algorithm looks through all the objects that occurred before that time and, for each object, adds some value corresponding to the distance, both in a time and screen position, between that object and the given point/time.

Now that I think about it, those two algorithms could actually be combined. Instead of running one to check for hot spots and one to check noise, just give visual objects a higher weighting than non-visual objects, and have that additional weight correspond to how visual the object is.

If I had any familiarity with osu's file formatting I'd put together a prototype for you, but alas...

What do you guys define as "reading"? In my mind, reading an osu! Chart is seeing the circles and processing what motions you have to do to hit them all correctly. Of course you need fundamentals and knowledge to adapt and read new songs but the concept is the same for all songs.

The problem with this thread is that most top players have their reading skill capped. The key elements to reading seems to be circle density and AR, however both of these things are SUPPOSED to be tailored to the song so it flows correctly and can be ranked. The only thing really left are the patterns themselves. If we are talking about ranked songs, when you play thousands and thousands of songs, you can get to a point where any pattern is readable even if it's too fast/hard for you. There are maybe like 1% of songs that will have a gimmick pattern that's unlike any normal pattern and may trip you up but 2-3 replays later you should still be able to understand and adapt.

So when we are talking about making a value for readability, why does it matter when most people can already read and have trouble playing? I agree that rotating squares are haf and maybe specific patterns should have a say but reading in general is the most basic skill. Also as far as ar and density goes, it'd be better for old maps to get unranked then for an arbitrary value be put on something that's supposed to be correct when the map gets ranked in the first place.

-Rinku- wrote:

The problem with this thread is that most top players have their reading skill capped.

Nope, not even close.

Because the map pool is overwhelmingly populated by simple maps most people don't even consider reading a trainable skill, but the reality is that your ability to decipher the visuals of the beatmap into usable knowledge in a timely fashion is paramount to your ability to actually hit the map's notes, and every extra millisecond you take figuring out what you're looking at is a millisecond you don't get to spend moving your cursor. Good reading skill makes literally everything easier, and I can tell you for a fact that all it takes for a map to go from a full scoreboard of 99%+ HDHR plays to just a handful of HDHR plays is a bit of complexity. Reading is important.

As for why it matters, it's a skill like any other, and people should be rewarded for proficiency. There are tons of skystar/fanzhen/hollow wings/etc. maps out there whose star rating grossly underrates the actual skill required to play the map, and this discrepancy comes entirely from improper handling of complexity and readability. People who manage to FC those maps deserve pp that corresponds to the map's true difficulty.

-Rinku- wrote:

Also as far as ar and density goes, it'd be better for old maps to get unranked then for an arbitrary value be put on something that's supposed to be correct when the map gets ranked in the first place.

I don't know what purpose this sentence is supposed to serve. When did anyone mention old maps? Why are AR and density relevant to the shoddy quality of old maps? What particular shoddy quality are you even referring to?

Narrill wrote:

However, you won't just need to evaluate the objects that are actually on-screen, you'll need to look at hot spots as well, meaning areas of the screen that tend to have more notes than other areas (the easiest way to understand why this matters is to think of taking all of a map's patterns and putting them in one corner of the screen - the object density in that corner would skyrocket, making everything happening in that corner tougher to read).

Are you sure about hot spots? I think object density will skyrocket because new overlaps will appear (overlaps with objects that appear ontop of previous objects / that haven't faded out yet e.t.c). If they are no new overlaps I don't think the same patterns will become any harder (atleast for reading)
Considering proximity is a must, but I am not sure how to measure that.
I am thinking about taking all object positions at a certain time and applying some bonus for those which have a lot of other objects close to them. Basically like a heatmap. Then again I'd have to figure out which are streams, because this won't really apply to them

Your heatmap is basically what I was describing. The idea is that the weighting of each object would be tied to its temporal proximity to the current time, so only objects within the same region and around the same time would have much effect.

The amount of circles on the screen.
The order of which you need to hit the circles.
The layout/pattern of the circles.
The time of which you need to hit the circles.
The AR (Approach Rate) of the map.

Reading doesn't really have a definite definition in osu!, some people think of the term differently than another.However, most say that it is, as -Rinku- said, is seeing the circles and processing what motions you have to do to hit them all correctly.

Stacks and super high AR are a pain in the ass.

What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?

Kert wrote:

What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?

What does this mean? Example?

Kert wrote:

What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?

Depends how long the pattern goes for,
patterns like tornado squares become hard because they require constant "adjusting" to the changing angles

Full


Half

I think full is harder. I've broken a lot of times on maps who do THE FUCKING BULLSHIT of having a fully stacked note at the end of a stream but having a time delay on it to break your combo. Like happy end of the world.

That's a bit different situation. You'd probably broken if it wasn't a full overlap too. Most likely you just stream 1 circle more than needed and since it doesn't have a bigger spacing in the end - it's a surprise

Kert wrote:

That's a bit different situation. You'd probably broken if it wasn't a full overlap too. Most likely you just stream 1 circle more than needed and since it doesn't have a bigger spacing in the end - it's a surprise

Yeah, and I feel that I wouldn't have streamed an extra note if I had known there was a delayed note at the end of the stream rather than assuming the stream had come to an end. Isn't that a misread?

It's a misread but not exactly because of the overlap - because the distance between last stream note and surprise stacked note does not reflect bigger time interval between them

Kert wrote:

What is harder to read: full overlap or let's say.. half-overlap?

Full. A better question is whether it's harder to read a half overlap than it is to read an almost-full overlap.

Initially I wanted to set the peak at 50% overlap and gradually decrease bonus for other values, but that's probably not super important right now

So far I can get this data from maps:
- absolute angles between pairs objects (actually between each trio)
- changes in angles between current and previous object
- object density at any point of time
- overlap percentage of a pair of objects
- reaction time for reading an object. For now it implies that you can read an object only when you fully see it - it's not covered by hitbursts or other objects. Can be easily tweaked
- changes in spacing between current and previous object (I call it chaos value)

Stuff not done:
- slider body overlaps
- object density in a certain area at a certain time

I think it's time to start playing around with the data I got by checking a certain set of maps and comparing / making formulas with these values in order to define a single Reading metric value.

Can anyone compile a list of hard and easy to read maps where the reading difficulty difference is very distinguishable between them?

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/76396
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/93555
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/142086
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/225677
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/41686

Any hard to read maps... Go with Nogard, Skystar, Rin, Broccoly, HanzeR or Hollow Wings maps.

If you're interested, Full Tablet developed a method of evaluating rhythmic complexity a while ago that might be of use to you.

Narrill wrote:

If you're interested, Full Tablet developed a method of evaluating rhythmic complexity a while ago that might be of use to you.

t/257272
I didn't know this thread existed!
We should combine our powers!

oh, how strange nobody says "play more" it looks like people are growing up

-

Nice necropost.

iderekmc wrote:

oh, how strange nobody says "play more" it looks like people are growing up

because this isn't a "how do i improve" thread...

ZenithPhantasm wrote:

Nice necropost.

It's not like the thread reached dead end so

Kert wrote:

ZenithPhantasm wrote:

Nice necropost.

It's not like the thread reached dead end so

Considering no one replied for 5 months I would say its dead. Now peppy will take all of our pp for necroing this thread.

wide jump and short sliders and yeah, skystar and fanzhen

-

Different patterns hold different object densities and challenges, however in general 90°angles do tend to be the hardest because you are not moving in a flowing motion as most movements in the game generally follow. This in mind, the difficulty of moving at an angle doesn't contribute to the difficulty of actually reading the note a super large amount. Patterns that change, however, do hold a larger difficulty in reading, and so it would make sense that patterns that are all 90°and change direction and shape would be the hardest to read.

This isn't with any calculations just a question for what people would think so here goes
Would closer notes that greatly increase object density and fill the screen up more, or would notes far away from each other and require more eye movement to do be harder?

Edit: would slider bodies be considered in how difficult they are to move in, such as fast long sliders being harder to read, or would slower bigger sliders be worse?

derminYagami wrote:

Edit: would slider bodies be considered in how difficult they are to move in, such as fast long sliders being harder to read, or would slower bigger sliders be worse?

A single slider isn't very difficult to read because players can remember it in some retrys. Also only fast sliders or slow sliders are not difficult to read too imo (e.g. fast sliders in the last kiai).
Frequent sv changes and overlapping sliderbodies could be really difficult for reading I guess. e.g. sv changes

omg imoutosan i love you

imoutosan wrote:

derminYagami wrote:

Edit: would slider bodies be considered in how difficult they are to move in, such as fast long sliders being harder to read, or would slower bigger sliders be worse?

A single slider isn't very difficult to read because players can remember it in some retrys. Also only fast sliders or slow sliders are not difficult to read too imo (e.g. fast sliders in the last kiai).
Frequent sv changes and overlapping sliderbodies could be really difficult for reading I guess. e.g. sv changes

Fast sliders very easy to memorize... https://osu.ppy.sh/b/821549 >.> <.<

Also, memorizing is the opposite of reading.

chainpullz wrote:

Fast sliders very easy to memorize... https://osu.ppy.sh/b/821549 >.> <.<

Also, memorizing is the opposite of reading.

I remember I said "A single slider"...
Of course, multiple sliders can be arranged into some really hard patterns (of reading), just like some hw's maps you listed.
And memorizing is the opposite of reading in some respects. But memorizing would affect the scores that players got. Since the topic is about the reading skills in scores, things that could be easily memorized should be somehow eliminated (or recalculated?).

Stacked, temporally unevenly spaced circles on Hidden.

chainpullz wrote:

Also, memorizing is the opposite of reading.

memorizing something is a good way to learn to read it and similiar things you might encounter later

when you know how it goes, brains have a better chance of making something out of the jumble on your screen

For me : AR 11, BPM >250, massive jump, and pattern

Im dyslexic so every map difficult waht !!1!1!!1!??

Hmmm...
1. Amount of elements on screen. The lower AR and/or CS and/or higher BPM the harder it is. (EZDT? This is madness!)
2. Suddenly changing patterns/speeds. Those are really hard to catch, the higher AR and/or bigger spacing the harder it is.
3.

Why you do this

vietnam13231 wrote:

Hmmm...
1. Amount of elements on screen. The lower AR and/or CS and/or higher BPM the harder it is. (EZDT? This is madness!)
2. Suddenly changing patterns/speeds. Those are really hard to catch, the higher AR and/or bigger spacing the harder it is.
3.

Dude, you need to stop necroing threads. Not only once but twice wtf