1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings
show more
posted
1. Renard - Rainbow Dash Likes Girls (Stay Gay Pony Girl) (ztrot) [Holy Shit! It's Rainbow Dash!!] 220bpm full screen jumps

2. The Quick Brown Fox - The Big Black (Blue Dragon) [WHO'S AFRAID OF THE BIG BLACK] Tornado sliders, spaced stream at end

3. Team Nekokan - Can't Defeat Airman (Blue Dragon) [Holy Shit! It's Airman!!] 200bpm full screen jumps

4. Black Hole - Pluto (7odoa) [Challenge]

5. Yousei Teikoku - Senketsu no Chikai (Saten) [Insanity]

6. JO*STARS ~TOMMY, Coda, JIN~ - JoJo Sono Chi no Kioku~end of THE WORLD~ (Atsuro) [STAR PLATINUM]

7. Maffalda - pensamento tipico de esquerda caviar (Blue Dragon) [Gangsta]
posted
I don't know if it's possible for me to give these an accurate ranking because maps like rainbow dash and senketsu no chikai are ar9. Should the reading aspect of them being ar9 and not 9.5+ affect how hard they are to aim?
posted

Khelly wrote:

I don't know if it's possible for me to give these an accurate ranking because maps like rainbow dash and senketsu no chikai are ar9. Should the reading aspect of them being ar9 and not 9.5+ affect how hard they are to aim?
Of course it affects the playability. But the plan is to split raw aim difficulty and reading difficulty into 2 different things.
I chose these maps because they are mostly okayish to read, so the main difficulty goes from distance or speed(time interval between 2 objects) of the jumps.
Atama wasn't included since it has those lovely square patterns and currently no one knows how to rate them since the distance is usually smaller then say... airman jumps but the pattern is still harder. Though the difficulty of the squares there may come from the fact that circles overlap each other during that section. Who knows
posted
For fun, I tried all 6 maps I rated with DT EZ RX
Worst play (in accuracy) was (as expected) Rainbow Dash (±57%)
Then came Pluto (±60%)
Big Black (±62%)
Airman (±71%) (So high O.o)
Maffalda (±74%)
Senketsu (±79%) (Probably so high because of the streams which are insta 300)

I'll do them later with just RX, but I though this could be a nice addition :)
posted
1. Renard - Rainbow Dash Likes Girls (Stay Gay Pony Girl) (ztrot)
2. The Quick Brown Fox - The Big Black (Blue Dragon)
3. Black Hole - Pluto (7odoa)
4. Team Nekokan - Can't Defeat Airman (Blue Dragon)
5. JO*STARS ~TOMMY, Coda, JIN~ - JoJo Sono Chi no Kioku~end of THE WORLD~ (Atsuro)
6. Yousei Teikoku - Senketsu no Chikai (Saten)
7. Maffalda - pensamento tipico de esquerda caviar (Blue Dragon)
I think the only two groups up for debate with me are between #1 #2 and #3 #4.

I decided to put pluto > Airman because of the bpm changes and how much it speeds up.
posted
1. Renard - Rainbow Dash Likes Girls (Stay Gay Pony Girl) (ztrot)
2. Black Hole - Pluto (7odoa)
3. Team Nekokan - Can't Defeat Airman (Blue Dragon)
4. The Quick Brown Fox - The Big Black (Blue Dragon)
5. JO*STARS ~TOMMY, Coda, JIN~ - JoJo Sono Chi no Kioku~end of THE WORLD~ (Atsuro)
6. Yousei Teikoku - Senketsu no Chikai (Saten)
7. Maffalda - pensamento tipico de esquerda caviar (Blue Dragon)
pretty simple, seems everyone has generally the same consensus.

it would have been a bit more interesting if gangsta was rated with DT and have senketsu no chikai replaced with something like atama no taisou.
posted
Okay here's what chart I managed to do with my program with a bit larger set of maps

Circle size is considered only a little, because I want small circle difficulty to be a separate thing. So please ignore this
Reading difficulty isn't considered too
Comments? Suggestions?
posted
Hanairo isn't that bad for aiming until the difficulty spike towards the end imo. Idk, maybe that's enough to justify it's score on this. The spacing and curvature of a lot of the streams is pretty simple to follow. Just my 2 cents.

Edit: I guess food for thought - Is a map with a largely uniform difficulty easier or harder than a map with a large difficulty spike?
posted
infinite of nuclear fusion, the ultimate farm map.
posted
But circle size doesn't become a separate thing just because you want it to.
Better make a spread of maps with similar circle size to circumvent this problem.
posted
Edit: I guess food for thought - Is a map with a largely uniform difficulty easier or harder than a map with a large difficulty spike?
That largely depends. There are 2 ways ways I can think of to rate such maps correctly:
  • 1) Separate ratings by how difficult it is to get the letter ranking
    2) Average the maps' difficulty peaks based on a weighting system pp uses.


I have already tried doing it the 2nd way, and yielded results similar to this:
posted

abraker wrote:

Edit: I guess food for thought - Is a map with a largely uniform difficulty easier or harder than a map with a large difficulty spike?
That largely depends. There are 2 ways ways I can think of to rate such maps correctly:
  • 1) Separate ratings by how difficult it is to get the letter ranking
    2) Average the maps' difficulty peaks based on a weighting system pp uses.


I have already tried doing it the 2nd way, and yielded results similar to this:
Letter rankings are irrelevant. You can get an A with non-trivial misses on most maps if you're an accurate player. Evaluation would likely have to be done piecewise with a nonlinear weighting for difficulty if we are to work under the assumption that uniform difficulty and easier difficulty with spikes are actually of 2 different difficulties despite mapping to the same average difficulty neighborhood.
posted
I don't know how players do it. The hardest map on there that I can fc is only lagomorphic v_v
posted

chainpullz wrote:

Letter rankings are irrelevant.
Score based then?
posted

abraker wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

Letter rankings are irrelevant.
Score based then?
Score isn't uniform across all maps.
posted

chainpullz wrote:

Score isn't uniform across all maps.
Then it will have to be measured in terms of how hard it is to get to point t, where t is a point in time on the map. That means that my second approach by averaging weights is more reasonable.
posted

abraker wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

Score isn't uniform across all maps.
Then it will have to be measured in terms of how hard it is to get to point t, where t is a point in time on the map. That means that my second approach by averaging weights is more reasonable.
Let A be a long easy to aim section, and B a short difficulty spike. Is it just as easy to "get to the end of" AB as it is BA? Personally I think there is a subtle difference even in this simple unrealistic example. Better yet, consider ABC vs BAD where C and D are just arbitrary song endings and we are only talking about "getting to the end of" the A/B combinations. There are a lot of psychological triggers that are hard to really account for since they vary from person to person.
posted

chainpullz wrote:

There are a lot of psychological triggers that are hard to really account for since they vary from person to person.
Quite right, in fact difficulty only accounts a perfect play. That is, it doesn't account random chokes. While I agree that method doesn't provide the complete picture, it's still better than what we can come up with, and be all means please come up with something better. The difficulty of a map is just an index, and that index can be interpreted as a probability to do poorly on a map. However, that conversion from difficulty rating to chance of doing poorly is very subjective and up to the player to decide. Difficulty makes a lot more sense when viewed from a collective of players instead of the individual. When viewed from a collective, we can universally agree on stuff such as which map is harder (this thread's point).
posted
This is redundant. You can't measure the 'pure aim' value of maps because terms like 'aim' and 'reading' and 'speed' are all vague concepts, interconnected and without any clear definitions. If you want to measure the aiming difficult of maps minus 'reading' difficult and difficulty from hard patterns then all you need to do is look at the star rating.
posted

B1rd wrote:

This is redundant. You can't measure the 'pure aim' value of maps because terms like 'aim' and 'reading' and 'speed' are all vague concepts, interconnected and without any clear definitions. If you want to measure the aiming difficult of maps minus 'reading' difficult and difficulty from hard patterns then all you need to do is look at the star rating.
Not quite. Star rating also takes streams and everything tap related too.
Correct me in case I didn't understand the point of your post right
show more
Please sign in to reply.