@FelipeLink: Have you tried making a simple map of few notes and testing? I have and the HP looks almost exactly the same. The difference is that LNs have two judgements now instead of one, so the punishment is doubled for missing a complete LN. It is also slightly harder to achieve perfect scoring on LNs due to both the reduced leniency of LNs and that they have two judgements.I believe his main concern was the fact that the HP recovery while holding on to LNs in v1 was far more lenient than what it currently is in v2.
All according to plan in my opinion?
Its hard to talk about this, but like on score v1, a map with HP 9, if you KEEP missing and hitting your hp will be like dropping a little and recovering FAST.From what he told me, the HP drain of LNs in v2 was reasonable, he was talking about the HP recovery itself that is too harsh (regenerates too slowly) and causes him to fail much more easily than on v1. Maybe that's intended?
On scorev2 a map on HP 8.5, if you keep missing and hitting or even missing a little and start combo'ing the DRAIN is pretty big and the recovery is super small. i even stopped played for like 2secs on v1 and still got my hp to recover in like 1~2secs, on v2 if i rush any ln pattern my hp will be drained so much and the recovery is super small i cant even reach max hp
Also reposting this I guess, because the overemphasis on 200s is still a major problem and this would fix the problem:
Shoegazer wrote:320s are very much underweighted because the only component of the scoring system that takes into account 320 accuracy is the combo component, which only has a 20% prominence. Add on to the fact that the difference between a 300 and 320 is so small and that the absolute difference between juan and Hudo's 320 count isn't that significant, it would make sense that 320s are really underweighted at the moment.I initially wanted to increase the rainbow judgement weightage without embedding rainbows into accuracy, but no matter how much I changed it, the difference is very minor (~600-1,200 points) and a 200 will almost always be too powerful compared to a rainbow 300. So I scrapped that idea and thought that embedding rainbows into accuracy with a reasonable weightage and maybe making the curve more lenient would be the best idea.
You could mitigate this by including 300gs into accuracy, but from what I've experimented it might create too much emphasis on MAX accuracy with charts that players have issues getting 96%+ on (and as a result would not be an accurate assessment of skill).
Alternatively, you can avoid including MAXes in the accuracy component and just increase the importance of MAXes to like 360 to increase the emphasis of it by a noticeable but not overpowering amount in the combo component, but that requires a bit more experimentation.
I've been experimenting with weightages and discussing with people about how much a 200 should be worth compared to a 300. I initially thought that 310 would be fine (and a 200 would be worth 11 300s), but when it came to matches like this, if accuracy was the only factor, Argentina would win by 21,000 points. I do think that Argentina should win and it's a step in the right direction, but 21,000 seems extremely overwhelming since it undermines the fact that Poland had overall, noticeably less 200s. I tried it with harder charts too and they seem to favour rainbow accuracy a little too much for my liking - especially since when it comes to harder charts (where players struggle with), good rainbow accuracy is usually caused by variance rather than a higher skill level. 200s and worse judgements should determine performance for that.
I wanted to use 307 afterwards, but it still gave a bit too much emphasis for my liking, about 12,500 points for that Argentina/Poland match. I went down to 305, and the difference is about 6,800. I think that's ultimately the most reasonable assessment, and others I've talked to seem to agree with the prenotion that a 200 is about 21 normal 300s. Ignoring the bad judgements (since those values are pretty much set in stone at this point), this is probably (part of) the ideal solution. This does mean that only full rainbow scores are SSs, but I don't see that as a problem as frames of reference can be shifted.
Getting rid of the difference between a rainbow and a normal 300 in the combo scoring component is probably ideal too, since that should be in the accuracy component, not the combo component. If rainbows are included into accuracy, the combo component does not need a rainbow component.
I also wanted to soften the exponential curve a tiny bit when it comes to including rainbows, mainly because at a certain point extremely good accuracy is more caused by variance rather than a very high skill level - unless the performance is consistently done, which is not measurable with just one match and one attempt. The exponential I had in mind was Accuracy^(2 + 2 * Accuracy), but it's essentially Accuracy^4 - so 1 power down.
tl;dr: Embed rainbows into accuracy with a weightage of 305 instead of 320, change the accuracy curve to Accuracy^(2 + Accuracy * 2), remove the differentiation between rainbows and normal 300s in the combo component (both of them should have a HitValue of 30).