forum

osu!mania ScoreV2 live!

posted
Total Posts
481
show more
Franc[e]sco
I completely suppport this and I feel like mania needed a scoring system like this for a LONG time.

>Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
The fully accuracy-based scoring was a huge problem with maps that had diff spikes, so this should fix the problem. On fully accuracy based scoring you could get free pp off maps that had a short difficulty spike even if you couldn't play the hard part at all.

>LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
>LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
>If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.
>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).
Awww yes LNs were my major problem with mania coming from stepmania. LN releases were way too strict, to the point that it wasn't even fun. And it's not even about being accurate, since lots of maps don't even map LN releases to beats.

>Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
I think DT should at least give a higher multiplier than the other mods, but other than that it's all good!
Bubbler
So far, considering many suggestions on the score system (mere complaints do not count here guys...) Shoegazer's approach seems most attractive to me - I like the variation of accuracy^5 thing and log scaling for combos.

And more math ahead (Please skip this if you're not so math tolerant):
I found out that picking 1 as the minimum power on accuracy was actually a lucky choice, since too low minimum power actually makes the function slightly decreasing around accuracy = 0.2!

Accuracy ^ (1 + 4 * Accuracy)


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 fail :D

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.
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.
trexex55

KatayokuNoTori wrote:

nerf ht pp gain :(((
support
tkk
great moves loctav, keep it up, proud of you!
Shoegazer

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.

Accuracy
Use 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.

Combo
Use 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.
Bottom-paged, so reposting this again.

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 fail :D

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.
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.
Thanks for the information! The latter snippet makes a good amount of sense to me.
Bad Apple
Just throwing my opinion in here;

1. Vision Mods
Now, I think vision mods shouldn't give any bonus at all. They are mostly personal preference, there's more than a bunch of players that couldn't even pass things WITHOUT Hidden, so I don't see why that should give bonus points. One might argue, that this applies to standard aswell, but I don't think Mania and Standard are comparable in that aspect.

2. DT and NC

1.06x is WAY too little of a score-boost. Example; a regular 4* song that you might have 950k score on will easily become a 5,5* song that you might barely pass or get like 700k on (especially because the starrating is broken and DT makes for some really stupid starratings, but thats something for a different thread). How is it fair that you then get like what, 1.06x the 700k but no other benefits? Except for the best of the best players, that can play songs on DT with almost the same scores, this benefits literally noone. Especially if it won't give you bonus PP for the increased starrating.

3. The new LN Mechanic

I really think this is quite nice. I like the dynamic of the new LNs, and I also think that giving 1 combo per LN is a good move. Overall, I'm really happy with the new LNs.

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.

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.


5. Conclusion
While I really appreciate the time, effort and the attention mania FINALLY gets, I really think we're heading the completely wrong way. Instead of looking what other games do well (SM with rates, o2JAM LN mechanics), we desperately try to do stuff "our own way", which ends up hurting Mania more than it helps. Give a fair PP bonus for DT or give none at all, don't give bonus points for visual preference and for the love of god, don't subtract points for poor accuracy.

Sometimes, it's better to look at other, long-standing rhythm games and copy what people like about them. They're not popular for no reason. If we keep heading that way (that way being Score V2, 1.06x score multiplier for DT and visuals, lol), mania will never be taken seriously.

P.S.: I really love osu!mania, I'm not hating on the game in any shape or form, but I'm loving it how it CURRENTLY is. And I still think we should just copy things that other games (that were created long before osu! even existed) do way better.

EDIT: After I've been corrected and many of my missconceptions have been clarified, I want to excuse myself if I sounded too harsh here. As mentioned, I appreciate the time and effort the staff is putting into osu!mania this year, I've just been wrong with some assumptions and misinformed by fellow players. Sorry!
Pazzaz
Many people have already written my concerns with this system but I'll write it anyway so that the staff understands how big of a problem it is.

  1. Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
    1. We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).


This is a horrible system for mania. Consistency is already awarded by getting a high accuracy. Why do you need to punish someone just because they missed in the middle of the map more than if they missed in the end? It makes no sense. If two people are of different skill (hit the notes worse/better) than the better one should always get the better score. Missing in some arbitrary part of the map doesn't make someone worse, missing at all does. It shouldn't matter where. This new score would also make the act of improving a score less fun. If I come back to a map three months after I played it, I often want to try and get a better score on it. If I don't manage to get a better score I know that I didn't get better. If certain parts of the map decide the score more I would be able to say "Oh, if only I hadn't missed at that part" disregarding the beginning/end of the map and not knowing if I really did get better.


  1. LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
  2. LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
  3. If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.
  4. LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes.

These seem good, can't really comment on them yet but LNs not giving combo ticks are good even if combo doesn't make a difference.


  1. Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.

Raw score multipliers are really stupid for all kinds of mods but I don't really know a better way to do it. (Vision mods should do nothing though, many people use it for comfort; It's not really harder.)

Overall I think that this is too inspired by standard. Many people say that combo is a necessity in standard to promote better aim but it makes no sense in mania as you don't need to aim.
Yuudachi-kun
I like the multipliers for nf/ht as if you get a good ht score on a map you would find it really hard to overweite with nomod and if you want to pass the map then you could play it nf so you dont overwrite a high ht score with a shitty B.
EYA-
Holla Holla pp is comming
Remyria

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*):

  1. 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)
    1. 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
  2. LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
    1. 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.
  3. LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
    1. 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)))
  4. If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.Nothing to say about it
    1. 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"
  5. LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes. This makes way more sense
    1. Feels more natural rather than displaying a useless number.^
  6. Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.
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)

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:
  1. Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that). Love this
  2. 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
Kivicat
Why no one think that SVs are unfair since they're hard to play for HD/FL players? Those guys meet some essential troubles that normal players may not even notice. They deserve a little reward, dont they?
Halogen-
SVs are not controlled by players. Maps are created with the intent of being played without modification -- content creators usually don't make SV maps with the thought "oh, this isn't the best for FL/HD/FI players" because they're playing with a visual modifier to aid their play. FL/HD/FI is a choice players make, but map structure is not a choice that players have control over. It is up to them to overcome the issues they have with SV maps.
Kivicat
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.
Halogen-

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.

And well, here's what I think of your HD/FL point:


I can coherently play just about everything that I do off of HD on HD, with a marginal increase on 300 counts -- I am not by any means a hidden main, but it just kinda drives the point home that visual mods really hold no purpose as having score multipliers. Even those who are visual mod mains are saying the same thing too. When you have HD/FL native players indicating that the scoreboost shouldn't happen, it... probably means it shouldn't happen, lol

EDIT: I would be willing to bet that a lot of mania players have a focal point on screen that is relatively close to the hidden threshold at least at combo start and could probably adjust themselves on demand when needed. The challenge in HD truly is in the ability to handle SVs.
Hinpoppo

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.
Endaris
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?
juankristal
I still dont get why people is talking about PP in this thread... This is for scoreV2 only and its aiming for the MWC not to the pp system or the score system. For now it will be just for World Cups (afaik). We all do know that the PP formula or whatever is bad and that noone should really care about it (same thing for SR) so can we just leave that out of discus?

Related to what you say Apple:

Sakura Kyoko wrote:

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?

I dont know I understand what you are talking about here... IF you have poor accuracy of course you should drop your score...

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!"

What if you have the 10 easy questions correct? Does that mean you deserve 50% of the score? Even with that, I still dont understasnd what you mean. If you miss 10 times and you have 100 notes then you just should lost 10% of the points? (100k).

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-.

They favour players that can handle difficulty at a certain level. Of course, thats how a scoring system should work. If you arent good enought to beat a map with a decent performance then it doesnt matter which score system you have. Or at least thats what I think

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.


I am too sure that you didnt even test this... How about giving it a shot before complaining like this? And again, dont look at PP for god sake...

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.


Because tournament enviorment is really boring to watch most of the times for mania. Mostly because consistency is a thing that mania players do have (a lot of that) and its really acc-based. If you add combo to the table and mods multipliers then it becomes something 100% different, more exciting and of course as a benefit for those who play good, but a huge drop if you miss just once in a close battle.

5. Conclusion
While I really appreciate the time, effort and the attention mania FINALLY gets, I really think we're heading the completely wrong way. Instead of looking what other games do well (SM with rates, o2JAM LN mechanics), we desperately try to do stuff "our own way", which ends up hurting Mania more than it helps. Give a fair PP bonus for DT or give none at all, don't give bonus points for visual preference and for the love of god, don't subtract points for poor accuracy.

We do have problems, indeed. All mania players know that. But it is 100% needed to have rates? It surely doesnt. Would be a cool add for sure, same thing for a scoring system for tournaments. Now that we have the attention that we "deserve" then we have to clear this topic so then we can try something else like SM rates or whatever (you can always go to SM to play your songs at 1.1x if you want tho)

Sometimes, it's better to look at other, long-standing rhythm games and copy what people like about them. They're not popular for no reason. If we keep heading that way (that way being Score V2, 1.06x score multiplier for DT and visuals, lol), mania will never be taken seriously.

You know... Using "lol" after the multiplier "suggestion" is not helping at all. If you really love osu!mania then take this seriously and dont take everyones effort as it was a joke. Does mania really deserves the attention you pointed out? I am not to sure with this way that we behave sometimes. Like this one. Once that we get noticed at least in something we shouldnt just say those kind of stuff. At least thats my opinion

P.S.: I really love osu!mania, I'm not hating on the game in any shape or form, but I'm loving it how it CURRENTLY is. And I still think we should just copy things that other games (that were created long before osu! even existed) do way better.
Dont get me wrong tho, I hope you understand my point of view and the one from all the people that are trying to help here.


Huge thanks for Shoegazer, Halogen, Ciel, smogi, and everyone that is helping here and sorry once again for not being able to help too much with this :(


EDIT: Lets be honest... HD/FL/FI shouldnt give score boost just for the reason that you can just change your skin to make it look as you play with those mods. If we ever get mod brackets that would be unfair for the nomod players.
Halogen-

Endaris wrote:

Maybe mania will get modspecific mappicks in future tournaments though?
I do believe this is the case, actually. The initial OP of this thread indicated that there would be mods in MWC, though the extent of what those mods are has yet to be seen.
Starry-
As most others have said here, I strongly disagree with visual mods giving a score multiplier. The only hard thing about them at a jist is they create artificial difficulty for those who are not used to playing with the mods or if it's their first time trying it. Eventually it makes the map actually easier to read in the sense that it reduces the information the user has to process at a given time, so it can be used in order to do better on maps with high densities (slightly similar to a new player having to adjust to higher density maps as they improve by increasing their scroll speed); Halogen- explained this well in one of his previous posts.

It's similar to using a lane cover in other rhythm games - it's a visual modifier and should be treated as a preference rather than something to increase your score with. I also wouldn't like to see hypothetically someone using Hidden with 99.5% accuracy beating someone using nomod with max 300g, and the player who was beaten being having to be forced to overwrite their score with a visual mod because of it. It adds a dynamic in (mainly lower rated) ranked maps which I don't think should be implemented.

Because of this same reason I really wouldn't want to see visual mod brackets in the osu!mania world cup, either. Although this is going a bit offtopic in regard to the osu!mania ScoreV2, I just feel it would also cause complications to those who already rely on a visual modifier when playing in nomod brackets. (However, HR brackets could work if absolutely needed, and DT should be fine too. With the addition of rates I feel the MWC map selection could be a lot more diverse, although it's a long way off and probably not relevant to talk about in regard to the upcoming MWCs.)

However, I like the changes to the other mods. HR should probably see a bit more of an increase in multiplier since the difference in timing window is quite large. I would absolutely love to see the proposed change in adding rates, too (although I feel it's a long way off yet, it's still something most people have been hoping to happen for a very long time).

The LN changes seem fine to me (letting go of an LN and pressing it again used to give 200s IIRC, which didn't really make any sense).

I don't really have much to input about the combo change. I feel if pulled off correctly it could work; I haven't had the chance to test this out on cutting edge just yet.

Overall, I like the look of things and I'm glad that finally osu!mania is getting a few changes. The only thing I really disagree with, like many others, is the visual mod score modifiers.
yetii
Since it's basicly only for MWC(for now), I don't think having a combo is that bad. It might give the 'underdogs' a higher chance to get a point here and there against some crazy players. It should add some 'spectator value' aswell, since one player can kinda carry his team by holding combo if evrybody else breaks.

However this can turn out to have the exact opposite effect as in players that are naturally unable to hold combo or break more often (especially on dense maps that keep on going like there is no tomorrow) will get punished very hard and will get stomped pretty hard if the opponents can hold combo much better but have for example 2% less accuracy.

I think adding combo for TOURNAMENTS might be a good thing to do so, but the values need to be reconsiderd and definetly needs alot of playtesting to find the right numbers.
Knit

Yetified wrote:

Since it's basicly only for MWC(for now), I don't think having a combo is that bad. It might give the 'underdogs' a higher chance to get a point here and there against some crazy players. It should add some 'spectator value' aswell, since one player can kinda carry his team by holding combo if evrybody else breaks.
yeah, let's just make it easier for a worse player to luck their way to victory. sounds great!
Waltrusizer
yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters
Yuudachi-kun

Waltrusizer wrote:

yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters
I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournament
Ayaya

Khelly wrote:

Waltrusizer wrote:

yeah lets make the scoring shit for tournaments, the only place it actually matters
I don't like how it would be decided to change the system for the entire game because of wanting to improve one tournament
Yea I kinda think it's a bit dumb that the only reason the score system is being change just to make MWC look "interesting" by making it combo base and more toward visual mods.
Yabuki Nako
How the fuck combo based is more interesting to watch than accuracy based ?

I don't even watch STD tournaments because it's combo based.
Yuudachi-kun
Std is a completely different game and should not be paid attention to when talking about mania.
chistoefur

Khelly wrote:

Std is a completely different game and should not be paid attention to when talking about mania.
Exactly, so why is it that they are trying to implement std features into an entirely different game?

Acc > Combo, always.
Jinjin
Just before anyone thinks that the new LN changes would make long notes easier... you're very mistaken.

Before I begin, I still stick to my words about supporting the new LN changes because it will make LNs less "mashy" and people would need more skills to hit them accurately, but I think the leniency timing could be increased a bit more.

Smoogipooo's post about LNs getting a 1.5x timing leniency is kinda misleading, because it makes it look like the timing window for long notes have become loose compared to what we had before.
However, the current system for LN releases actually works as follows (edit: this is actually slightly incorrect, check out Shoegazer's and Full Tablet's correction to how the LN timing mechanics works):
2.4x timing leniency for Rainbow 300s
2.2x timing leniency for 300
2.0x timing leniency for everything else


The current proposal decreases that LN leniency to 1.5x. If you guys are supporting the new LN changes on the belief that hitting LNs accurately would be a lot easier, then you probably would want to disagree with the new changes instead.

In addition, the current system allows you to hold the key down even when the LN is over and will not cause a miss. Instead, it will just decrease the judgement that you get from the LN (200, 100, 50). However, the new system will give you a miss on the release if you don't time it correctly. This means that if you were the type of person that didn't really pay attention to LN endings and release them too early or too late (or usually get 200 or below on LNs), you're going to be hurt a lot by this new change.

Therefore, I strongly suggest you mania players to look again (and even try it out yourselves) into the LN changes, and see if you guys are satisfied with it.
dennischan
I am against any kind of multiplier for visual mods, and too large of a combo scoring. I think that o!maina's scoring is fine as it is, but LN changes are definitely welcome. The main reason that I prefer playing mania over standard was because combo didnt count in score, and I'd like to keep it like that since acc is much more important than combo.
Thanks for your attention.
Shoegazer

iJinjin wrote:

Just before anyone thinks that the new LN changes would make long notes easier... you're very mistaken.

Before I begin, I still stick to my words about supporting the new LN changes because it will make LNs less "mashy" and people would need more skills to hit them accurately, but I think the leniency timing could be increased a bit more.

Smoogipooo's post about LNs getting a 1.5x timing leniency is kinda misleading, because it makes it look like the timing window for long notes have become loose compared to what we had before.
However, the current system for LN releases actually works as follows:
2.4x timing leniency for Rainbow 300s
2.2x timing leniency for 300
2.0x timing leniency for everything else


The current proposal decreases that LN leniency to 1.5x. If you guys are supporting the new LN changes on the belief that hitting LNs accurately would be a lot easier, then you probably would want to disagree with the new changes instead.

In addition, the current system allows you to hold the key down even when the LN is over and will not cause a miss. Instead, it will just decrease the judgement that you get from the LN (200, 100, 50). However, the new system will give you a miss on the release if you don't time it correctly. This means that if you were the type of person that didn't really pay attention to LN endings and release them too early or too late (or usually get 200 or below on LNs), you're going to be hurt a lot by this new change.

Therefore, I strongly suggest you mania players to look again (and even try it out yourselves) into the LN changes, and see if you guys are satisfied with it.
This is incorrect - or rather how you described LNs in score v1 is incorrect. Your message is still correct, however - I would recommend people to try out the LN changes.

LNs in score v1 are based on two criteria - the gap between last LN head hit and the LN head (let's say, LNStart), and the combined time of the difference between the last LN head hit and the LN head (LNStart) and the difference between the LN release and when you're supposed to release the LN (LNEnd).

If you release a LN too early and you repress the LN, that repress would be considered your last LN head hit.

Here are the timing windows for OD8 (I assume timing values are truncated), for the first criterion (LNStart):
300g: 19ms (16ms * 1.2 rounded down)
300: 44ms (40ms * 1.1)
200: 73ms
100: 103ms
50: 127ms


Basically, if the last LN head hit is 20ms from the LN head, you will never get a 300g. If your last LN head hit is 14ms, as long as it meets the second criterion, you will get a 300g.

The second criterion works like this, keep in mind this accounts for the combined time of LNStart and LNEnd.
300g: 38ms (16ms * 2.4 rounded down)
300: 88ms (40ms * 2.2)
200: 146ms (73ms * 2)
100: 206ms (103ms * 2)
50s: 254ms (127ms * 2)

If your LNStart is 14ms, you have a release window of 24ms for a 300g, a 74ms release window for a normal 300, 132ms window for a 200, and so on. If this was scorev2, your release windows will be 24ms/66ms/104ms. Not necessarily a change with rainbows, but it greatly affects 200s and lower judgements.

How LN releases can potentially be 2.4x as lenient as normal hits is when you have a perfect LNStart (0ms) and you hit a rainbow 300. Same deal with normal 300s, except it's 2.2x as lenient based on the table above.

What iJinjin has said about requiring community input about LNs is definitely necessary, because the 1.5x lenience is a complete mislead as the LN mechanics are not explicitly listed anywhere on the forums. Play through LN heavy charts that you have issues FCing or getting 96%+, and let smoogi (and post your thoughts in this thread) know so we know whether or not we should make LNs more lenient. I personally want LN releases to be 1.75x as lenient rather than 1.5x, but again - this is something that requires experimenting.
Full Tablet

iJinjin wrote:

However, the current system for LN releases actually works as follows:
2.4x timing leniency for Rainbow 300s
2.2x timing leniency for 300
2.0x timing leniency for everything else
Actually, it's slightly different from that.

To get a Rainbow 300:
- You must hit the start within a timing window that is 1.2x the size of the timing window of a Rainbow in a regular note.
- AND, the average of the error in the start and the release must be within a timing window that is 1.2x the size of a Rainbow in a regular note.
(the 2.4x actually represents the sum of the error in press and error in release).
- AND, the error in release must be within the timing error of a 50 judgment.
- AND, there must be no hold breaks.

To get a 300: Same as rainbow, but with timing windows that are 1.1x the size (and you must have missed the conditions to get a Rainbow, of course).

To get a 200 or 100: Same as before, but with timing windows that are 1.0x the size, and the condition of not breaking the hold is removed.

To get a 50: The only condition is releasing the note within the time window of a 50 in a regular note.
FrenzyLi


proposing a combo v2 formula that does not need combo cap.
Topic Starter
smoogipoo
Hey all,

Cutting Edge has been updated with changes to ScoreV2 that were proposed by Shoegazer here. I want to stress that the changes are not final and we are still tweaking the system to properly represent a player's skill in a competitive setting.

Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.

Edit: Posting this because I've explained it on reddit:

There are two components to the score.
- Accuracy
Essentially as accuracy increases we want you to gain more and more score while accounting for the difficulty of maintaining a 99%+ accuracy over 90%. To do this accuracy is exponentiated so that it is not quite a linear multiplier. In the previous iteration it was raised to the 10th power, in the new iteration it is raised to a factor of the accuracy.
This has the effect of causing lower accuracies to not be so much of dead weight as they were previously, while still providing a steep curve towards 100% accuracy as seen in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/sykzM

- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6sa
Einzvern

smoogipooo wrote:

Hey all,

Cutting Edge has been updated with changes to ScoreV2 that were proposed by Shoegazer here. I want to stress that the changes are not final and we are still tweaking the system to properly represent a player's skill in a competitive setting.

Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.
Idk what to say '-'
ikzune
Personally i think that being able to hold 400 combo really depends on the song, some songs will have this being easily achievable despite the songs overall difficulty due quiet sections with lighter patterns, at least in 4key i would suggest raising this or having the system account for how hard it is to hold combo in a certain song overall and change judgement slightly based on that however that may just be me ._.

edit* i feel for 7keys 400 seems about right but maybe its because im at a low level and far less consistent
robby250
Here are my irrelevant opinions, I'll keep it short:

Combo: score v1 is fine, Shoegazer's suggestion might make it very slightly better than that.

Accuracy: same as above

LN timings: should be made more lenient than score v1, not tighter. There's a reason LN spam maps are made lower OD by mappers.

Mod multipliers: the only thing actually worth adding, finding the right multiplier for each mod so that pp for mods can be added until per-mod leaderboards get implemented.

EDIT: and yeah visual mods shouldn't have multipliers but that's already sorted.

My verdict: score v1 is probably the smallest of problems in osu!mania, other than adding mod multipliers for DT pp this is a waste of time.
den0saur
So, i suppose, no changes will EVER come to Stable Fallback and no Score v2 to mania?
Topic Starter
smoogipoo
Changes will not be coming to Stable Fallback.
Arras

robby250 wrote:

Here are my irrelevant opinions, I'll keep it short:

Combo: score v1 is fine, Shoegazer's suggestion might make it very slightly better than that.

Accuracy: same as above

LN timings: should be made more lenient than score v1, not tighter. There's a reason LN spam maps are made lower OD by mappers.

Mod multipliers: the only thing actually worth adding, finding the right multiplier for each mod so that pp for mods can be added until per-mod leaderboards get implemented.

EDIT: and yeah visual mods shouldn't have multipliers but that's already sorted.

My verdict: score v1 is probably the smallest of problems in osu!mania, other than adding mod multipliers for DT pp this is a waste of time.
I disagree. Scorev1 frequently has me beating my old scores where the old score has a higher accuracy and a similar combo. Hopefully this can mitigate that sort of thing, as it's really annoying when it happens. While I can't say anything about the release timing leniency as I haven't tried scorev2 (and I assume I can't, since cutting edge can't do multiplayer without supporter), the fact that LNs are split into two notes is a fantastic change imo. This gives the player much better feedback for how well they did on the start of an LN, and you can no longer cheese LN stuff by just holding everything and taking the 200s.
If anything, I'd say the game feeling good to play is far more important than "pp".
Mechanizen
You might make a poll to know how much peoples are playing each mode so you can adjust multipliers properly...
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply