No. It just ruins the meaning of accuracy with the mods giving multipliers, same for the added combo rewarding. No.
Yeah what this makes no sense to me either, something's definitely wonky as was pointed out earlier.Elementaires wrote:
very bad, this isnt how VSRG should be
Why does Musty have the SAME score than Todestrieb with more than 10% less accuracy, more than 100 misses, and less combo?
no sense...
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.rezbit wrote:
Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.
And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
Should I get bonus points for reading slabs, arrows or orbs? Should I get bonus points for playing with background enabled? no. That would be stupid, because that's just a preference, like hd,fi,fl are.smoogipooo wrote:
I don't necessarily find it bad that HD and FI are harder for some players than others. The same rule stands for all other game modes - some players find playing with HD much easier in osu!standard than without it. However if you want to be a perfectionist then you better get practicing reading differently.
smoogipooo wrote:
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.rezbit wrote:
Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.
And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
Also guys, we're not just patching things up. We're aware that HR needs a rework, and we're brainstorming changes right now, do NOT be afraid to suggest us breaking changes - we will consider them.
you dont read on mania like you do in standard, HD in mania forces you to read much faster and allows you to have less objects to process on screen, this is not the case in STD, HD in STD makes you forced to heavily read the circles that appear rather than reading the approach circles to time your hits and it very often makes the circles blend together making it harder to read.FrenzyLi wrote:
like how is mania different in terms of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)
you're reaching a bit here and you know it.Wh1teh wrote:
Should I get bonus points for reading slabs, arrows or orbs? Should I get bonus points for playing with background enabled? no. That would be stupid, because that's just a preference, like hd,fi,fl are.
There are few reasons why I quit std. Unbalanced mods and combo scoring, now they are coming back to haunt me. fmlFrenzyLi wrote:
hey wh1teh i can play standard with different skins too, where HD etc have multipliers
so how should we break this logic? like how is mania different in terms of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)
100% accuracy score, 0% combo score?Reikokaz wrote:
http://www.strawpoll.me/10482380
Just leaving this one here o/
Also if you want to add the DT and HR modifier pls increase it since 0.06 isn't beneficial for any kind of player especially on harder map.
I personally also don't like the scoring system how it is right now, since Mania shouldn't be judged by combo.
Nah not like that, just keep the old system and modify it a bitFrenzyLi wrote:
100% accuracy score, 0% combo score?
It's not fair. It shouldn't give you more score just because you can't read nomod. Very stupud.FrenzyLi wrote:
Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.smoogipooo wrote:
Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking feedback, and we have lots of time to make changes.rezbit wrote:
Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.
And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.
You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never have more score than the guy with 98% acc. I think it's actually logical that missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread through the map. As maps progress anxiety builds up and you become tired, both of those are indications of how good of a player you are, or otherwise, how consistent of a player you are.rezbit wrote:
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.
Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.
Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
rezbit wrote:
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.
Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.
Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
Whether I'm exaggerating or not, combo scoring still undermines accuracy as we've already seen iJinjin get a 501k and an S all because of the new scoring system. I was just illustrating the effect more clearly.smoogipooo wrote:
You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never have more score than the guy with 98% acc. I think it's actually logical that missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread through the map. As maps progress anxiety builds up and you become tired, both of those are indications of how good of a player you are, or otherwise, how consistent of a player you are.rezbit wrote:
Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.
Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.
Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?
Like... OOPS I missed a note and it takes me until the next beat to get back on rhythm, but I play the map flawlessly from there on, whilst the other guy made wrong movements in several parts of the map. Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.
Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.You mean the guy with 70% acc?
It only counts for the purpose of a AAAA, but nothing else. You can AAA with 100% perfects and 0% marvs and receive 100% of the DP% -- meaning it actually does not count for the final grade.Kernaus wrote:
Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania
Halogen- wrote:
It only counts for the purpose of a AAAA, but nothing else. You can AAA with 100% perfects and 0% marvs and receive 100% of the DP% -- meaning it actually does not count for the final grade.Kernaus wrote:
Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania
ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
Literally this.Kernaus wrote:
thescenario that can happen however is, take any map, two players, one gets a shitmiss at the beginning, the other gets a shitmiss near the end what will happen? wont it be the one that missed at the beginning who will win? if that's the case, i dont think this is fair.
[*] Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.[/list]HD/FI/FL shouldn't give score multipliers because of reasons already mentioned in other posts.
I think that combo shouldn't be a factor in score (beyond the notion that high combos are correlated with high scores).
- Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
- We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
Shoegazer wrote:
GODLIKEAlright, really long post incoming.
Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.
I do have reservations with the scoring component however.
This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into account the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.
In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.
I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.
Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.
This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.
I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.
So that's for combo.
Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.
For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.
The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.
So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).
A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.
Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.
That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I admittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.
Completely agree with thisShoegazer wrote:
Long PostAlright, really long post incoming.
Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.
I do have reservations with the scoring component however.
This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:ComboHow does it work currently?
- 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
- 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into account the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.
In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.
I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.
Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.
This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.
I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.
So that's for combo.
Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.
For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.
The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.
So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).
A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.
Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.
That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I admittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.
Khelly wrote:
Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder
That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.
Kernaus wrote:
Khelly wrote:
Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder
That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.
anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure
Players can easily go to HD/FL from no-mod after a few hours of exposure, but those who rely on HD/FL as a reading tool can't go from their norm to no-mod - therefore, it's unfair regardless of what direction you look at it.Kernaus wrote:
Khelly wrote:
Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder
That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.
anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure
qba108 wrote:
score v2 VS score v1
If this doesnt scream "HEY GUYS MAYBE THIS ISNT SUCH A GREAT IDEA AFTER ALL" then I dont know what does.