I agree with that idea it's awesome !!!

Community
Forum

posted

Total Posts

56

And it is also almost the same as the Multiplayer.

And yet.

I dunno if Peppy add something as like another thing he already has.

So, It can be something just for supporters or something like this.

Topic Starter

The design is similar, yes... Don't know future design of osu!next so...## Ppus wrote:

I Agree too but you do not think you have something similar?

And it is also almost the same as the Multiplayer.

And yet.

I dunno if Peppy add something as like another thing he already has.

So, It can be something just for supporters or something like this.

Yes it's a multiplayer, but all the players dont have to connect simultaneous to play for his team..

dunno what Peppy need or want so I only propose a system quite different of the multiplayer actual system

Before I start, let me mention that I have a similar request which is asking for a team based scoring system. The only difference is that it allows teams of any level to be matched. The formulas in that request need some work and is likely not to receive the same attention as this request. If you decide to allow teams of any level to be matched, then I can let the mods kill that request. I will have to figure out the formula that allows to compare plays by lower ranking player to higher ranking player on an equal level.

Now let's get down to the formulas:

**Team level = (Average stars of the 100 best performance of player 1, added to player2, 3, n)/n**

This formula has 2 issues

- You are taking the top 100 best performances of some player. If you look at players' top performance section, you will notice that performance quickly degrades as you go down. The 100th performance would be anywhere between 7/8 to 1/2 of the top 1 performance. Moreover, what if a player has several 200pp performances and the rest 100pp performances and lower? Should that player drag the team lvl down because of it even if that player can do much higher difficulty than what you formula says? I suggest taking the top 20 or top 10 performances to provide better results of what the player is capable of.
- You are going by the stars, which is map difficulty for the top performances. Suppose a player has a top of 20pp D ranks on 5* maps. So the formula will justify that player can do 5* maps? You might as well get rekt.
**TP = ( 1000+sqrt( Team score 2 [winning team] - Team score 2 [losing team]) )/100**

This formula really is this:

TP = 10 + sqrt(avg(winning team) - avg(losing team])/100

This has several problems:

This is SOOOO farmable. The loosing team can just be losing combo on purpose, giving any team they get matched with points. And they wouldn't even get penalized for it. Brilliant!

There is unfairness if the teams are imbalanced. Suppose it's 1 vs 4. The one player get 3M and the four players get 1M each. According to your formula, the team of four wins. Where is the fairness in that? The team of four players have an advantage in quantity. It's more impressive that the one player manages to get a score much higher than any of the team of four individually.

Now to solve the problems:

**Team level**

This is the core of the formula you see. It equals to 1. That means what ever it is multiplied by would be equal to the value you multiply this by. The ratio you see in the formula is the ratio between the achieved score for the map divided by the max possible score achievable for the map, taking mod multipliers into account. According to this formula, a play of 750,000 out of 1,000,000 on a 5.2* map would be equivalent to a 3.55* play. The equivalent star diff goes up exponentially as the ratio approaches 1:1 until it reaches the difficulty of the map. You can play with the number here. This would be calculated for every play in the suggested top 20 or top 10 and then averaged to come up with the player's star level. Then this will be done for every player and that will be averaged together. So the formula would be this:**Team points**

This one is more complicated. This can be done 2 ways depending on what you think is more fun to see. Would you rather see players getting more points the wider the score gap or more points the closer the score gap? If you think about it, the one with the closer score gap sounds counter-intuitive. How can a play of 1,000,000 to 999,999 be worth much more than a play of 1,000,000 to 100,000? With the current intuition, the team with 1M points should get much more points if the other team scored 100,000 than if the other team scored 999,999. But what would you rather see? An extremely close match which raises the stakes into a hype level as high as cookiezi's 700pp play, or just another looser vs winner match? In my opinion the points should be counted based on what kind of performance it gives to whoever is spectating, not for the teams.

I'll give you formulas for both ways, then you decide what will be more fun to see: a 1,000 team points extremely close call or a 1,000 team points overpowered winner vs looser.**More points for wide score gap:**

This formula doesn't care who is winner and who is looser. The looser and winner is determined by the formula just by plugging in the results. The winner will receive a positive score result, and the loser will have a negative score result. Why negative? To penalize for loosing, as stated as one of the problems. Yes, there will have to be teams with negative team points. They should try harder to get those back

Also notice how it's a ratio of means. That means (no pun intended) that the players on the team will need to dependent on each other more. One player can't simply carry the team. One player with a score of 1M defeats four players all with scores of 999,999. This will make it fair for both sides and both sides shouldn't worry about being outnumbered. If a player fails, that would count as a 0 and the player should not be able to recover. If a player disconnects, then it will should also count as a 0 to prevent players disconnecting on purposes to boost the team's score if the disconnected player has a low score. Nothing can be done with accidental disconnects, not that anything has been done about it in the past.

Due to the relation between the two formulas, it can be simplified to Team A = -Team B or Team B = -Team A. This formula is based on the perception of gap between 2 values. The closer the gap, the more insignificant it is and vice-versa. I used scores from OWC 2015 to see what results this will give under score v2, and I suggest score v1 to be used for this formula. You can see the results here. As for mania, I suggest you multiply by 100 instead of 10.**More points for smaller score gap:**

The formula for this would be:

Like last time, in this case Team A = -Team B. You can play around with the numbers here.

How I think players will behave to this kind of system makes things interesting. I see a lot of players bailing as soon as they think they can't make to the low score gap or will loose a good amount of points because they are lagging behind by some 10 points or so. However, the ones that go all the way through at achieve the low score gap will result in a rare event. A score ratio of 1,000,000 : 999,999 produces a huge amount of team points (230k), but this is very unlikely using score v1. If the ratio is 1,000,000 : 999,000 then it produces about 231 team points. Those 999 points would be worth a lot if targeted correctly, and that would be very impressive to see.

There are several minor problem with this formula. One is the event of a tie. That has to be a case to be handled separately. In in this event, I think it's fair to give both team an equal amount of team points equivalent to sqrt(score) or something similar to this.

Another one is that it is easier to reach a smaller score gap on easier map. In that case I suggest to multiply by star_diff.

Last but not least, players targeting the small score gap can make it easy by breaking combo a lot. It would be possible to get a lot of points for low scores in some edge cases. To fix this, I suggest multiplying by accuracy, where accuracy is a value from 0.0 to 1.0.

To make the formula more sensitive to difficulty and accuracy, I squared those.

The final formulas after fixing the problems are the following and you can play around with them here

Well that's all. I'll wait for response/criticism/etc.

Topic Starter

Team level = (Average stars of the 100 best performance of player 1, added to player2, 3, n)/nTotally ok, u rekt me ;w;

This formula has 2 issues

You are taking the top 100 best performances of some player. If you look at players' top performance section, you will notice that performance quickly degrades as you go down. The 100th performance would be anywhere between 7/8 to 1/2 of the top 1 performance. Moreover, what if a player has several 200pp performances and the rest 100pp performances and lower? Should that player drag the team lvl down because of it even if that player can do much higher difficulty than what you formula says? I suggest taking the top 20 or top 10 performances to provide better results of what the player is capable of.

You are going by the stars, which is map difficulty for the top performances. Suppose a player has a top of 20pp D ranks on 5* maps. So the formula will justify that player can do 5* maps? You might as well get rekt.

TP = ( 1000+sqrt( Team score 2 [winning team] - Team score 2 [losing team]) )/100Yes it's farmable :< But when I wrote this i didn't think it will be teams with guys breaking their combos

This formula really is this:

TP = 10 + sqrt(avg(winning team) - avg(losing team])/100

This has several problems:

This is SOOOO farmable. The loosing team can just be losing combo on purpose, giving any team they get matched with points. And they wouldn't even get penalized for it. Brilliant!

There is unfairness if the teams are imbalanced. Suppose it's 1 vs 4. The one player get 3M and the four players get 1M each. According to your formula, the team of four wins. Where is the fairness in that? The team of four players have an advantage in quantity. It's more impressive that the one player manages to get a score much higher than any of the team of four individually.

Suppose it's 1 vs 4 -> At first I was thinking about matchs with teams with the same number of players...

If 1v4 is possible, average score v2 is more worth it than score v1 yup

My formula rekted

After, I test all your formulas and I have like them all but :

Team level is average of LVL(x) so?

I don't know what to chose between a wide or small score gap

But I think the small score gap option is the best because if guys break their combos intentionnaly with a system of "more points for wide score gap" will again be farmable : 900000 for 100000 will give a lot of TP^^

I really like all your formulas, thanks!

Can I use your formulas so and replace in the first post?

I just noticed a small mistake with Lvl(x). x is supposed to be the ratio, and the function has to be Lvl(diff, ratio), and not just Lvl(ratio). I'll fix that when I get on the computer later on

You take the average of Lvl(diff, ratio) for the top10 or 20 scores to get player's average level. Then you take all of the players' level averages to get the team's level average.## Arrcival wrote:

Team level is average of LVL(x) so?

Topic Starter

But

More points for wide score gap

or

More points for smaller score gap?

If a team win 850000/845000, so he win a lot of TP ok.

If a team win because they were very good at this match 950000/400000, they should win many TP too...

So I propose :

Final TP = big gap + small gap ?

I have other questions or problems about, don't want to write something false (bcz i'm french xd) so u can send me a pm website/ingame

More points for wide score gap

or

More points for smaller score gap?

If a team win 850000/845000, so he win a lot of TP ok.

If a team win because they were very good at this match 950000/400000, they should win many TP too...

So I propose :

Final TP = big gap + small gap ?

I have other questions or problems about, don't want to write something false (bcz i'm french xd) so u can send me a pm website/ingame

Looks interesting. In this case, the winning team will receive the minimum points possible when the score ratio is 1.259. That minimum score can vary due to map difficulty as well as average accuracy achieved among players' plays. The team winning an SS on a 4 star map guarantees the team will get at least 32 team points, and a linear increase to a minimum 72 team points on a 6 star map. This might solve a minor problem where the points are insignificantly small in some cases. This might work.## Arrcival wrote:

So I propose :

Final TP = big gap + small gap ?

I noticed another minor problem concerning the small gap. For lower star maps, the slope as too steep, and it becomes easy to land thousands of team points. The only way I can think of to fix this is to apply a horizontal shift towards the left, breaking the symmetry how Team A/Team B translates to negative amount of points for Team B/Team A. To fix this, a piece wise function will have to be made. So the result is this:

And the graph which you can play around here looks like:

Here is the fixed formula for player level:

Sure, send me a pm if you want. I'll try my best to answer it.## Arrcival wrote:

I have other questions or problems about, don't want to write something false (bcz i'm french xd) so u can send me a pm website/ingame

It's definitely something I would enjoy, even as a casual player.

I support this all the way!

I support this all the way!

Really well thought out and developed. Hopefully teams in osu!next will follow along the same lines!

For now, have my star

already been posted, but this one seems more useful i guess.

t/29780

t/29780

well whatever it is, it's a good idea(not that i read it all xD) so +4## abraker wrote:

Dont confuse this request with that one. That request only applies making clans, while this request applies to multiplayer, independent of whether clans are a thing or not

e^ln2 is the same thing as multiplying by 2.

Can you just put in diff * (2e^ratio - 1).

Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.

Topic Starter

Yeah yeah, i didn't make the formulas but i know xD## Minsoo wrote:

I hope you know

e^ln2 is the same thing as multiplying by 2.

Can you just put in diff * (2e^ratio - 1).

I listen you## Minsoo wrote:

Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.

Can you explain the key points of what makes this bad? I provided 2 versions of the formula in the earlier posts and OP decided to mend them together. What kind of behavior are you expecting due to the results of a team match?## Minsoo wrote:

Edit: Not gonna lie, this formula is terrible. The math behind calculating fair scoring needs to be revised.

The reasoning behind the formulas can be found in the earlier post: p/4921364

Great idea! Would be really happy to see it in future updates :3