osu!mania ScoreV2 live!

posted
Total Posts
476
show more
LastExceed

Full Tablet wrote:

It's a good thing that non-shiny 300s do not give 100% accuracy. When they give 100%, the acc% value becomes an imprecise measure of accuracy at high accuracy levels (for example, there is a big difference between a SS with 1:3 300:300g ratio, and a SS with 1:10 300:300g ratio).

A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.
Thats true. Time to bring the SSS rank here
Superluminal

LastExceed wrote:

FI + HD =/= FL
The big differences are the the fact that FL doesn't scale and that it covers the entire screen while the FI/HD shadow only covers the stage.

Redon wrote:

FI is a stupid idea and needs to be removed completely
FL and HD need to simply not influence score or pp at all because they are purely a question of player preference.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
There, I solved it all for you.
being the FI guy I feel like its my duty to say this: "DUN DELET FAD-EN!1!!11one!"
no srsly FI can be really fun, there's no reason to remove it.
I don't think you really understood either post very well, what I meant is that if you enabled both mods it should function the way FL does at the moment, and Redon specified that
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
LastExceed

Tachyon wrote:

I don't think you really understood either post very well, what I meant is that if you enabled both mods it should function the way FL does at the moment, and Redon specified that
oh ok yeah that makes more sense.
HD should be changed into a customizable lane cover that can either be static or grow in either direction, replacing both HD and FI.
lane covers can already be skinned, there wouldn't be a need for a mod at all anymore. Also there are some people (like me) who actually like the fact that the shadow scales with combo, it just needs to be fixed so that the shadow size adapts to scrollspeed (or bpm if you play bpm scale)
Veracion
Wowow guys we're getting off-topic here, how did we get from "improve scorev2" to "SSS" and "remove FI" ?

How about we don't remove FI, why remove features when we already got so few. I'd rather see new mods instead.
And I think we already agreed that the 3 visual mods shouldn't give score rewards, because it wouldn't make any sense to do so.
Further on, if we are clear about them being only preferential, It would make sense to even enable them for Nomod maps in tournaments, even if it sounds a bit weird.

Now to the idea of an SSS, uhmm no.
This is still osu so the ranks should be the same for all modes.
changing the requirements for an SS
seems to be the best solution here.
Now there are two ways to go about this.
- either say that an SS isn't 100% anymore, and you can only have a certain percentage of normal 300s or something like that
- or make normal 300s be 100% again, which is like starting out from the old system again.
But yeah otherwise rip accuracy players, only gonna see SS on 1-2* maps then.
LastExceed
SS requirement should be "only 300 and 300r" just like it is right now
Veracion
or that ^
DarkDevil34
Why not just including a SSS for people who gets a perfect score a much better reward and the fact that the 300 now drop the accuracy is a bit of a problem cause it'll be a lot harder for players to have a decent accuracy
johnmedina999

Full Tablet wrote:

A better solution for the problem of SSs being too rare, is changing the requirements for a SS.
This. In DDR, you get an AAA (SS) for getting a score of 990,000 (or 99% accuracy). You get this score if you get all perfects (non-shiny 300s) but no marvelous (rainbow 300s). I know the system here isn't exactly like the one in DDR, as getting all non-shiny 300s will net you a 98.36%, but we should lower the SS requirement to something similar. As previously stated, maybe add an SSS for a perfect 100%.
Veracion
As i already said, it's highly unlikely that there will be an SSS added, since there is no equivalent in the other game modes.

But yes the SS criterias should be lowered, it's too difficult to get all max 300s. But what should the ratio required for an SS be ?
How about only 300s but a 1:5 300s to max ratio ? Does that sound rational ?
Cuber
Why are the grades even based on accuracy at all? If score is a measurement of performance in a map, obviously the grading should be based on that and that alone! All grades do in my mind anyways is provide goals that feel more real than reaching an arbitrary number. On this train of thought, PP should also be entirely based on song difficulty and score.

But this thread is about scorev2 lol. Personally, I think that scorev2 taking into account combo is bad (controversial I know). I much prefer the way that scorev1 tries to reward consistency: with a bonus score that fluctuates depending on how you're doing. I'd love to see that incorporated into scorev2. Personally, I think the best possible scoring system is a scoring system that has notes worth less or more, depending on how hard the map is at that point. This is probably unrealistic since this would need a good way to measure difficulty, and star rating has proven itself to not be very good, especially at harder maps. Still could be interesting to try IDK.
LastExceed
Grades in mania are based on acc because mania IS all about acc. And yes, adding combo to the score calculation is indeed a bad idea especially during tournaments where you only have 1 try. It's way too luck based.

I really understand the idea of rewarding consistency and i support it, but you simply can't do it map by map. It would only make pp farming frustrating like in standard...
abraker

Veracion wrote:

As i already said, it's highly unlikely that there will be an SSS added, since there is no equivalent in the other game modes.
Unless you know, I dev like me submits a pull request for it and there is a backing to support the idea.

Cuber wrote:

Why are the grades even based on accuracy at all? If score is a measurement of performance in a map, obviously the grading should be based on that and that alone! All grades do in my mind anyways is provide goals that feel more real than reaching an arbitrary number. On this train of thought, PP should also be entirely based on song difficulty and score.
Make score = acc. Score is arbitrary anyway, so it can be anything. Since it can be anything, make it accuracy. Problem solved.

LastExceed wrote:

. And yes, adding combo to the score calculation is indeed a bad idea especially during tournaments where you only have 1 try. It's way too luck based.
They added combo to tournaments because the results were to close for their comfort back in 2016. Their line of thought was to intensify any discrete imperfections a player may have in a play and to prevent a decided result mid map for better spectating experience. They failed to realize they needed to at least adjust the scale (zoom into a score range) so that more experienced player's scores had further distance between them rather than cherry pick misses. They also failed to realize that they cannot artificially create an undecided result mid map and have the score mirror the skill a player has. That is not skill but randomness.

The best way to go is how SM's new score system works, which is the system I proposed in my OD thread a while back. Have non discrete, continuous acc-score following a bell curve related to hit timing.

Ofc there is an argument about 65% FC VS 98% with a high miss-hit ratio, but there is no clear cut answer to which is more impressive.
Adri
I think that an SS is deserved when you don't get 200s AND that you have a proper ratio between 300 and 300g, like 1:10 or 1:8. Ah full 300g already has a value : 1 000 000 score and first rank. We don't need to put SS on top of it.

S < SS < 1 000 000
LastExceed

Adri wrote:

S < SS < 1 000 000
this part is obvious

Adri wrote:

I think that an SS is deserved when you don't get 200s AND that you have a proper ratio between 300 and 300g, like 1:10 or 1:8.
i disagree with that part, all 300 is hard enough imo
Adri
All 300 is hard but an SS should be the exception, a really good play. It doesn't have to be impossible tho, that is why we should have a ratio.
Cuber

LastExceed wrote:

Grades in mania are based on acc because mania IS all about acc. And yes, adding combo to the score calculation is indeed a bad idea especially during tournaments where you only have 1 try. It's way too luck based.

I really understand the idea of rewarding consistency and i support it, but you simply can't do it map by map. It would only make pp farming frustrating like in standard...
IMO mania is about being good at mania, and being good at mania should be represented by score. (I mention below why pure acc isn't a good representation of performance.)

Thinking about tournaments specifically doesn't really make sense to me. Why would a measure of performance differ on the situation around the play? I, like any reasonable person, am against a scoring system like standard for mania, that gravely punishes players for 1 mess up. The ideal scoring system (other than the unreasonable idea I mentioned in my earlier post) is a system that rewards consistency, but less than accuracy.

I'm confused by what you mean of figuring out consistency map by map. Could you please clarify?

abraker wrote:

Cuber wrote:

Why are the grades even based on accuracy at all? If score is a measurement of performance in a map, obviously the grading should be based on that and that alone! All grades do in my mind anyways is provide goals that feel more real than reaching an arbitrary number. On this train of thought, PP should also be entirely based on song difficulty and score.
Make score = acc. Score is arbitrary anyway, so it can be anything. Since it can be anything, make it accuracy. Problem solved.
Pure accuracy is not a good scoring system, because it does not reward consistency, which is an important part of skill. For example, an otherwise SS play with 2 misses at the same time is more impressive than an otherwise SS play with 2 misses spread out in the map. Obviously, in this example, the difference isn't huge, but still, score should represent performance on a map, and I stand with my position that pure accuracy is not the way to do this.



While writing this, I came up with a (probably stupid) idea. The reason I'm not a fan of using combo for consistency is because it is possible to mash through hard patterns and keep combo. Also, I don't think that 1 miss should affect score too much. I mentioned that I like the system of using bonus score. Why don't we make the worth of a note (at least in the consistency portion of score) equal (scaled appropiately obviously) to your current health? Obviously, changes to health would need to be done, to punish any judgement less than a 300. However, maybe with a bunch of tuning, this might work. I'm probably just an idiot tho lol
abraker

Cuber wrote:

Pure accuracy is not a good scoring system, because it does not reward consistency, which is an important part of skill. For example, an otherwise SS play with 2 misses at the same time is more impressive than an otherwise SS play with 2 misses spread out in the map. Obviously, in this example, the difference isn't huge, but still, score should represent performance on a map, and I stand with my position that pure accuracy is not the way to do this.

abraker wrote:

Ofc there is an argument about 65% FC VS 98% with a high miss-hit ratio, but there is no clear cut answer to which is more impressive

Cuber wrote:

While writing this, I came up with a (probably stupid) idea. The reason I'm not a fan of using combo for consistency is because it is possible to mash through hard patterns and keep combo. Also, I don't think that 1 miss should affect score too much. I mentioned that I like the system of using bonus score. Why don't we make the worth of a note (at least in the consistency portion of score) equal (scaled appropiately obviously) to your current health? Obviously, changes to health would need to be done, to punish any judgement less than a 300. However, maybe with a bunch of tuning, this might work. I'm probably just an idiot tho lol
Jeez that's just adding onto like frankenstein. This can be mitigated if the acc curve were a bit steeper such that a 99% would be considered as hard as the combo+acc equivalent you have in mind. By making the acc curve steeper, you are intensifying areas where the player is likely to do poor on or miss, much like combo without the shit combo based scoring comes with. And there is no need to adjust miss windows unless you think current ones need adjusting.
johnmedina999
By "making the accuracy curve steeper", do you mean we should lose more accuracy for a miss/50/100/200, or do you mean that we should lose more accuracy for a miss as we miss more (e.g., the second miss is more hurtful than the first)?
abraker

johnmedina999 wrote:

By "making the accuracy curve steeper", do you mean we should lose more accuracy for a miss/50/100/200, or do you mean that we should lose more accuracy for a miss as we miss more (e.g., the second miss is more hurtful than the first)?
lose more accuracy for a miss/50/100/200. And berfore anyone cries, while it's like HR/higher OD, this adjustment should be independent of what the miss window is (don't change miss window when adjusting this).

If you convert acc to score out of 1M as it is right now, 960,000 and 990,000 (96% and 99%) will be a very small gap and is also where most decent plays fall to. Transforming that same gap to 650,000 and 990,000 would allow to highlight skill more clearly. Yes anyone who gets less than an S gets wrecked, but then again you shouldn't be surprised at such results when you play maps out of your skill range.
Veracion

abraker wrote:

Veracion wrote:

As i already said, it's highly unlikely that there will be an SSS added, since there is no equivalent in the other game modes.
Unless you know, I dev like me submits a pull request for it and there is a backing to support the idea.
Uhm sorry, but I still doubt they would even consider it.


abraker wrote:

If you convert acc to score out of 1M as it is right now, 960,000 and 990,000 (96% and 99%) will be a very small gap and is also where most decent plays fall to. Transforming that same gap to 650,000 and 990,000 would allow to highlight skill more clearly. Yes anyone who gets less than an S gets wrecked, but then again you shouldn't be surprised at such results when you play maps out of your skill range.
Interesting suggestion, that doesn't seem too bad cause it'd cause people to learn patterns better. Seems to be getting in the direction of bms / stepmania, where accuracy is more important than osu!mania's current system.
Maybe the scoring shouldn't be to that extend, but it doesn't seem to be a bad direction. Maybe then less people would complain about smashing maps on an A.
Would time to get used to it though.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply