Mania is really chill cause Combo doesnt matter too much and I think 10% > 20% if you do decide to change thigs for the sake of change only
Quoting this because this sums up my main concerns about scorev2, it's not fair to nomod players if folks who have incorporated visual mods into their playstyle get a free boost in score just for having a mod they can't play without active.Bobbias wrote:
As a permanent FL player I disagree with giving vision mods a bonus. Vision mods in mania games are more a playstyle than something to increase difficulty and should be considered this way. I do think it's cool that a bonus would possibly add to the tactics in mwc, but I don't think that outweighs the effect it has on players like myself. Giving players like myself a 6% bonus on score is unfair given that playing flashlight for me is equivalent to playing nomod for most players.
Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.What in the actual FUCK?!?
We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
idk if you are aware, but the people who use those visual mods do it to make reading EASIER. theres a reason why LR2 players use their own custom lane covers, and their own sudden/hidden settings. people dont use those mods to make the game harder. its literally there for their own ability to read. giving those a bonus multiplier would be like giving certain HitPositions a multiplier, or certain scroll speeds a multiplierjuankristal wrote:
About visual mods I think its fine to leave it as 1.06x. We cant deny that playing HD / FL (despite being just personal preference) is something that should be rewarded because it does change the difficulty of reading at least.
oh yeah... demm...projectc1 wrote:
just gonna chill here and wait for v3 score system next drama.
yeah i know, i'm not agree with this too except the LN.-Konner- wrote:
It's not drama. They want feedback and people are giving their feedback. Some people have been way too immature about how they've tried to make their position known but at least they are making people aware of their opinion as a whole. People should not join in with what those people have done but it still shows that people dislike the ideas.
If you don't give any feedback, nothing will change. If you don't give detailed feedback, no *specific* changes will be made. Just make sure to voice your opinions and ideas without filling the thread (or any other thread), with what is basically spam with a small point to make.
I can assure you that hold notes have become more difficult than before (especially in LN heavy charts). The new LN mechanic punishes players for not releasing the note at the end, and will cause a miss no matter what. Currently, if you hold down your key even when the long note ends, you get 200/100, but doing so with the new LN mechanic will cause a full miss. For example, I was getting close to 93% on sisters noise with the current LN mechanics, but I get less than 90% with the new LN changes. I think the 1.5x leniency is a good idea.aphixia wrote:
Hold notes
Personally i am against more leniency, hold note patterns are just another technique players can choose to learn and play, there are people who start from stepmania and hate hold notes simply because their game didn't start with them and so they have to specifically improve in hold notes to reach a point where they can play ln as well as they can play fast patterns. Whilst people learning to acc hold notes may not be too much of an issue, hold note patterns have the potential to use more technique then single note patterns, i however lack the experience to say how much hold notes should be weighted compared to single notes in terms of a pp system as this would require judging how much technique is required for hold notes in any given map via a formula
This is because log(a)x = log(a)b * log(b)x, in other words, picking a different base is equivalent to scaling all values by a constant. And when the maximum total value must be scaled into some constant (in this case, 200k), constant scaling obviously has no effect.Shoegazer wrote:
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
Bottom-paged, so reposting this again.Shoegazer wrote:
Guess I'll post some formulas and some examples here - original post on my thoughts here. Ideas in this post take precedence - since I didn't really work with figures in the post before. The post is there just to give reasoning as to why the scoring system is not really ideal. Extremely long post ahead.
Ciel's post is also another post worth reading, and talks about the general ideas of visual mods and LNs as well.
Link to spreadsheet for reference of what the formulas I'm bringing up, and a more visual view: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Feel free to make a copy of it if you want to fiddle around with it, too.
AccuracySPOILERUse the score v2 (Accuracy) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4). The 3 columns on the right are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is Accuracy^5.
The main reservations I've had is that the exponential magnitude is too steep and that lower accuracy scores might be punished far too severely. The steps to remedy this, is to use a lower exponent, and to gradually lower the exponent as the accuracy gets lower and lower.
So why essentially Accuracy^5, since at very high accuracies the exponent adds up to 5?
This is meant to replicate benchmarks in score v1 (this is also why there is a 1mil score equivalent for reference). This isn't necessarily a 1 to 1 comparison, only 98% scores are about the same - the rest are slightly lower. I've checked around with multiple people and they seem pretty content with the numbers came out for the combo scoring aspect. I don't think there should be that much of a drastic change for things like this for scorev2 - I'd say the only reservation that I had with scorev1 is that there's too little differentiation between a 99% and 100%, but there's too much differentiation with a 98% and 99%. This mitigates that.
So why Accuracy^(1 + Accuracy * 4), then? Or particularly, why the (1 + Accuracy * 4)?
The general idea is that the higher the exponential, the steeper the curve. By lowering the exponential with a lower accuracy, it makes lower accuracy scores noticeably less of a dead-weight. You can technically do something like Accuracy^(Accuracy * 5) for what it's worth, it initially slipped my mind when I did this. The main problem with this however, is that the differentiation in exponent between accuracy might be too insignificant. I'm not sure how you can mitigate this, but there's most likely a way to do it. However, this isn't top priority, this is more of a plus, more than anything else.
The reason why I initially suggested (6 - Accuracy) at first was because I'm retarded and I didn't know how exponentials work at first, so please ignore what I said in that area.
So what are the drawbacks of this?
The main drawback that I can think of is that I'm using scorev1 figures to calculate accuracy. While this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea on paper, I'm not sure how the new LN mechanics will affect accuracy, especially for LN-heavy charts. This is something that needs experimenting, but I think the easy solution for this would be to ask feedback from the general community as to how much lenience does a LN release have. Many people have said that it's considerably harder to release LNs, which makes sense, but considering that it goes hand in hand with accuracy - it's very much something that needs to be under scrutiny. If you want players to be more stringent with their LN releases, you can lighten up the exponential a tiny bit. If you want the accuracy exponent to stay as it is, make LN releases more lenient.
Minor drawbacks include the fact that there's also the fact that the situational exponent might be too insignificant (which is mentioned earlier), and that I only looked at accuracies all the way down to 93.20%, which is generally about what the worst players in tournament semi-finals/finals would be getting on average in the first place. I assume that it wouldn't be very harsh with accuracy lower anyway, but you can always modify the situational exponent if that's not the case. The base exponential (which is 5 at 100%) is most likely fine.
ComboSPOILERUse the score v2 (Combo) sheet for reference. The formula I'm suggesting is HitValue * min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap)). The 3 columns on the left are meant to be a comparison - the formula on the right is HitValue * logx (combo).
This is a lot longer to explain (and probably a lot more complicated), but I'll try to explain it to the best of my ability. The reason why a non-FC hurts so much is because of the fact that the combo score as combo is higher is quadratic (thanks Ciel for the clarification). The most intuitive way of solving this would be to use a logarithmic scaling down for combo. I know there's probably going to create a decent amount of difficulties programming-wise (particularly trying to find the perfect score so you can scale scores down appropriately), as the combo mechanic is designed to produce exact figures - but do read on.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
The scenario I've tried to emulate is a hypothetical situation when there are 2000 notes in a chart. I made 3 scenarios: wa person with 1,000 max combo (1 miss), 500 max combo (3 misses), 250 max combo (7 misses). These are hypothetical situations that emulate the most extreme cases in terms of miss location. Under these scenarios, given that you've hit full 300gs aside from misses, you would lose 10.47%, 20.91% and 31.30% of your potential combo score - about 21K, 42K and 62K respectively. Given, this is not entirely correct, since my calculations assume that the combos are exactly the same, but this is incorrect in reality since the miss also counts as a note and as a result it reduces the combo by 1. (e.g. 1000-999, rather than 1000-1000) This is however, insignificant, considering that the difference is >0.06%.
There's a couple of problems with this, the main problem being the magnitude of penalty. The fact that a person could lose (up to) 20K over a single miss is most likely overkill, considering that 20K can potentially be a game breaker, and almost certainly will be a game breaker if you're in very early stages. It still encourages a no room for error attitude, which just hasn't been adopted in osu!mania just yet.
Since you can't change the logarithm for this, you have to implement something else - a combo cap (which is done through something like min(logx(combo), logx(combo cap))). This means that at a certain point, the log(combo) component cannot go any higher, as log(combo cap) will be lower than log(combo), and the lower value will be taken. I used a combo cap of 400, which reduces the maximum losses to 3.42%, 10.26%, 21.70% (the format is 1 miss, 3 misses and 7 misses). Very noticeable drop for the 1 miss, and is arguably about right. Multiple misses are penalised quite appropriately as well, though it might arguably be too lenient, as this only highlights the extreme cases. You can increase the maximum penalty by increasing the combo cap - for example a combo cap of 500 increases the penalties to 4.16%, 12.47%, 23.97%. This is something that requires experimenting, and is probably one of the more important parts of the scoring formula to tinker around with.
You can also use a relative combo cap (and is probably better), rather than an absolute - I used 20% in my case, but 25% is probably fine as well. The relative combo cap can be truncated or rounded up, but the difference will be borderline negligible.
What are the drawbacks?
The figures used to show total losses are based on extreme cases - as a result, my suggestion for the combo cap might be a bit off. I don't know how the combo cap of 400 will be executed in practicality, but I don't expect the variance in performance to be that significant. Regardless of this, even if the variance does make the results look a bit unfavourable intersubjectively, this can be changed. This is something that requires community inquiry, more than anything else (perhaps it would be better to show combo score as if it's a 1mil equivalent?). You have to experiment around to see how the combo cap should be, but that's about it.
Location of misses still matter a decent amount, probably far more than what the community wants. This doesn't negate the problem entirely, but it does to some extent. Basically, the lower the combo cap, the less the location of misses matter, unless you're missing a lot in a concentrated area.
Another problem might be the fact that 300gs might not be weighted very heavily, since only the combo component of scorev2 looks at 300gs. The only two solutions that come to mind would to either increase the proportion of combo to emphasise more on 300gs, or to embed 300gs into accuracy (since as they are, they are weighted the same as normal 300s). The latter requires a lot more tinkering and probably creates more of a community uproar, so I think the former would be a better approach. Again, another thing that requires community response.
Lastly, there's the rounding problem, which I'm not sure how to do because I don't do programming aside from Python wankery. I assume that an extremely small logarithm should solve the problem - since it would eliminate the problem of rounding.
That should be all. Again, I'm not going to talk about visual mods and LNs, since Ciel (and many others) are more well-versed in those than I am. Hope this is a more tangible way of reshaping the scorev2 system - because I think it has massive potential to be a good scoring system that players widely agree on. If there's any questions/clarifications on what I mean or what each part of the spreadsheet does, I can respond to them.
For anyone who scrolled all the way down to read this, the main takeaways are that LN releases might be a touch too strict so it would be good for players to experiment and find out whether or not it's too stringent and to focus more on the formulas rather than blaming it on the name of the component (e.g. combo) and give constructive feedback as to how the scorev2 system can be improved.
Thanks for the information! The latter snippet makes a good amount of sense to me.Bubbler wrote:
Accuracy ^ (0.5 + 4.5 * Accuracy)
This happens when the minimum power falls below 0.596 = 5 / (e^2+1).
Maybe not too much of concern since playing any map with 20% accuracy will most likely result in a failThis is because log(a)x = log(a)b * log(b)x, in other words, picking a different base is equivalent to scaling all values by a constant. And when the maximum total value must be scaled into some constant (in this case, 200k), constant scaling obviously has no effect.Shoegazer wrote:
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter what logarithm you use to scale down the combo, the end result will be the same. I plugged in a log of 4, 10, 500 and decimals, they all work - except for the ones that don't work normally (e.g. 1, 0, negative numbers). I don't really recall the reason for this exactly, though. If someone knows, let me know because I'm actually pretty curious about this and I'm kinda overwhelmed by all of this information to really find out by myself.
smoogipooo wrote:
You'll be please to know that there are no more hidden multipliers and rounding issues have been eradicated, but that is not all. Let's go through a list of changes in this initial version(congratulation for all the hateposts of people that didn't even read everything *facepalms*):NF/EZ/HT were already here with 0.5x score, DT was here but did nothing special(hopefully it's not as broken as before it was removed), HR was unranked(considered as useless by...uh...who added them in first place), and HD/FI/FL shouldn't give bonus(already been since a shitton of times)
- Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy. If changes like shoegazer suggested are made, and the ridiculous losses on the tiniest error is fixed, I don't see any problem to adding some combo in the score value, but the score going down when you lose accuracy(losing score you already earned is lame (I don't like that system in the standard scorev2, and I don't like it here)
- We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo). Not much to say to say, but 20% is not small
- LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
- Previously LNs considered a joint timing distribution between the start press and end release. This made it unclear as to whether you'd get a MAX after an LN end as you had to take into consideration the LN start. Judging separately should feel more natural, rewarding (as you get instant feedback), and a bit more challenging.
- LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
- LN starts were previously given up to 1.2x timing window lenience and LN ends were given up to 2.4x timing window lenience. This reduces the complexity of releasing an LN whilst you're focusing on pressing other notes.Hum...I don't have enough information to really give an opinion on these, I'd say it doesn't change much except being a bit harder, since it changes 2 hits for a grade(With the first hit being harder and release being easier) to 2 hits with 2 grades(that are equally difficult(which from what I read in the thread can be 2 misses(that both removes HP)))
- If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.Nothing to say about it
- Works similar to the current system depending on when you release the hold, but is lenient enough to feel rewarding even for newer players (consider that ScoreV2 will be used as the normal ranking in the future).That's something to actually test with the "newer players"
- LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes. This makes way more sense
- Feels more natural rather than displaying a useless number.^
- Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
We've had some internal discussions about how LNs should work, but have not reached a definitive conclusion as there are split opinions. We are eager to hear your feedback regarding osu!mania scoring and this new scoring system!You have mine ^^
I'll be adding here a list of changes I will consider. Please remember that we are fully intending to break the game with these changes. We will apply any changes necessary to make things work:
- Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that). Love this
- Increase the bonus of HR or decrease the tightness of the timing windows.Good luck with making HR good to add
Sakura Kyoko wrote:
Just throwing my opinion in here;
4. Score V2
Don't even get me started. So a song I previously had 992k on now gives me 900k, well okay then.
You LOSE points for poor accuracy. THAT is by far the worst idea I've seen in ages. Why would I lose points that I've gained for doing something well? Like, I'm already losing out on the points that I lose by having poor accuracy/misses. Why would I then lose points for stuff I had on 300S before? Dafuq is this?
It's like "yeah look, you had 10 of the 20 questions correct, but instead of giving you 50% of the points, we're giving you none, because fuck you!"
The new system ONLY benefits top-tier players, and even those will struggle to keep their scores where they currently are, except for accuracy-machines like Halogen-.
And the 200k for having a full combo, while only getting 25% of it for A SINGLE MISS OR COMBO BREAK is incredibly counter-intuitive aswell.
Imagine, 100% the entire song, great 300S-rate, boom, you miss the last note. Well good bye PP, because you just lost 150k for a single miss.
You didn't read through the thread(or you went too fast), you'd know that the 150K loss is if the miss is at the exact middle of the map's combo...Also it's only the first version...go ahead and try to make something perfect on your first try -.-I think our current score system isn't even that bad and most people didn't complain about it either. Why would you change a running system? There are MUCH bigger problems that need to be fixed, like that incredibly inaccurate star-rating algorithm.
Tom94 just CAN'T work on it right now, and peppy has Osu!Next to focus on...also you're not asking the right person to work on star-rating. it's not because someone is a dev that he does everything in the game...and the current "running system" isn't flawless, smoogi wants to improve it with help of the community
You're not making sense. You're saying that "playing without score multipliers" is something that no mod players make - that's not the case at all. A no-mod player can go onto HD/FL at free will and choose whether or not they want to play that way in an effort to help them. It's pretty well established that high level mania players can and often will go on HD to alleviate the extreme densities found in high difficulty maps in an effort to mitigate the amount of information they have to process.Kivicat wrote:
In this case, to play without score multipliers is the choice that no-mod-players make. I don't see any problem. Playing with HD/FL is more difficult, not due to SVs only. It demands higher concentration, especially when you try to keep combo.
By your logic, your skin and your scroll speed should count too. Some people play with too high of a scroll speed to do SVs right without memorizing them.Kivicat wrote:
In this case, to play without score multipliers is the choice that no-mod-players make. I don't see any problem. Playing with HD/FL is more difficult, not due to SVs only. It demands higher concentration, especially when you try to keep combo.
You're not making sense. You're saying that "playing without score multipliers" is something that no mod players make - that's not the case at all. A no-mod player can go onto HD/FL at free will and choose whether or not they want to play that way in an effort to help them. It's pretty well established that high level mania players can and often will go on HD to alleviate the extreme densities found in high difficulty maps in an effort to mitigate the amount of information they have to process.Maybe mania will get modspecific mappicks in future tournaments though?