Shoegazer wrote:
abraker wrote:
A step in the right direction, but tripped over its own feet and needs to get up. We also saw this bump from a mile away when we asked for this on the Feature Request subforum. Obviously the next step is to fix SR, but I don't that will come soon enough. Imo, the quick fix to this is to just make the score to pp curve steeper for now. While it won't fix underrated/overrated maps, it should fix players getting huge pp with unacceptable acc.
This leads to the following question(s):
Around what score/% would it be reasonable to achieve about 3/4 or of max pp on a map and 9/10 of max pp on a map?
Definitely a step in the right direction, though I think reducing the exponential curve of SR is also integral to band-aiding the PP formula for now. I feel that 850K should achieve about 75% of the maximum StrainBase (not directly PP, but it's a very major component of it anyway) and 925K for 90%.
(I'm currently fiddling with some numbers to properly scale StrainBase vs. SR and also StrainBase% and score, it looks fine for now but I probably need some practical tests first too)
StrainBase% vs Score formula should be dependent on the map.
For example:
Map A: A Marathon map that is relatively easy for the most part, except for 4 hard sections that have about 10% of the notes in total.
Map B: A cut of the previous map, only taking one of the hard sections.
Because most of Map A is easy, it's easy to get a relatively high score (~900k), but getting more than that requires much more skill, since it requires playing the hard parts properly; getting a near-perfect score is very hard.
In Map B, getting 900K requires considerably more skill than in map A (no easy parts to get easy score on), but getting a near-perfect score is slightly easier than in Map A. Getting a very low score shouldn't be rated high, since the map is so short it's likely to hit a relatively big portion of the notes by lucky mashing.
The score vs pp curve of the maps could look like this: