1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings
  4. osu!taiko
show more
posted
So something that should be pointed out...

Scrolling differences per mod
Nomod = ScoreV2 is faster
DT = ScoreV2 is faster
HR = ScoreV1 is slightly faster?

All three of these should be unchanged from V1 if you based things off 16:9 and rescaled them to 4:3 (to make up for 4:3's smaller width). What we have now with ScoreV2 is Nomod and DT both being harder while HR got easier. Kinda throws the balance of the mods out of whack a little bit.

On the positive side of things... OHGODYESTHANKYOUFORHDHRPLSMAKEAVAILABLEINSCOREV1ASAPKTHX.
posted
So you're saying that scroll speed for HR will be slower in V2?
posted

BrambleClaw wrote:

So you're saying that scroll speed for HR will be slower in V2?
It is slower! Not by much but it's definitely slower.
posted
Interesting I'll need to test out what BPM I can play effectively with HR with new scroll speed change to see "how much slower"
posted
Well I'm all for slightly slower HR, maybe I can finally pass 200 BPM lol. I'm a lot more open to V2 with these changes that were updated, I haven't tried it yet though so I can't really say. I'm really glad we changed how finishers work, just because people's hardware would make the game unplayable (not me personally), so keep up the good work guys! (Still confused about things I mentioned before though)
posted
As for being able to change the scroll speed by changing resolution, the best solution is making the play area proportions standard and constant regardless of resolution (the same way the osu!mania play area scales with resolution with constant skin settings). That way, the scroll speed and time each note is on the screen is constant.

posted
I am really happy to see that you people who make this scorev2, that nobody wants, are still able to listen to others after all.

I still think misses on double notes are stupid, as they make certain maps and playstyles impossible.

also making maps impossible are drum roll´s and spinner´s HP drain and HP drain overally

i dont have any issues with the resolution stuff (because it actually makes sense in comparisson to the mania copies (why would you even make taiko like mania))
posted
I agree with Full Tablet.
posted

Full Tablet wrote:

snip
So I've seen this suggested multiple times now, but this is impossible to achieve. You have one independent variable - the resolution (r), one uncontrolled (but constant) variable - the hitobject time (t), and two dependent variables - the speed of hitobjects (s) and the density of hitobjects per unit time (d).

You cannot control both s and d simultaneously - or at all. The simplest one is speed, which can be modeled as
s = r / t
Where you can see that a change in r results in a change in s, which can only be adjusted by a change in the uncontrolled variable t.

Density likewise can't be controlled, but it can be hand-wavily modeled by:
d = r / s
= r / (r / t)
= t
But t is uncontrolled.

Your "How it currently scales" box controls speed and density by keeping resolution constant.
Your "How it should scale" box is impossible as the change in density requires a change in time.

I've thought about it but the only conclusion I've come up with is to crop the area as ScoreV1 does.
posted
Two painless suggestions:

- Forget all of this resolution nonsense and just add this feature to taiko. Problem solved.

- Also add the note-randomization mod that mania has too :)
posted

k3v227 wrote:

Two painless suggestions:

- Forget all of this resolution nonsense and just add this feature to taiko. Problem solved.

- Also add the note-randomization mod that mania has too :)
I have considered the first suggestion, but concluded that it would break HR forevermore. So that's not happening.

Second one is not a feature request for consideration right now.
posted
You sniped my edit so I'll just respond with it instead :P

smoogipooo wrote:

k3v227 wrote:

Two painless suggestions:

- Forget all of this resolution nonsense and just add this feature to taiko. Problem solved.

- Also add the note-randomization mod that mania has too :)
I have considered the first suggestion, but concluded that it would break HR forevermore. So that's not happening.

Second one is not a feature request for consideration right now.
Disable the ability to Decrease Speed if you use HR to preserve the integrity of the mod.

Also that's fair about the randomization mod, but that seems like a no brainer to a lot of the community.
posted

smoogipooo wrote:

Full Tablet wrote:

snip
So I've seen this suggested multiple times now, but this is impossible to achieve. You have one independent variable - the resolution (r), one uncontrolled (but constant) variable - the hitobject time (t), and two dependent variables - the speed of hitobjects (s) and the density of hitobjects per unit time (d).

You cannot control both s and d simultaneously - or at all. The simplest one is speed, which can be modeled as
s = r / t
Where you can see that a change in r results in a change in s, which can only be adjusted by a change in the uncontrolled variable t.

Density likewise can't be controlled, but it can be hand-wavily modeled by:
d = r / s
= r / (r / t)
= t
But t is uncontrolled.

Your "How it currently scales" box controls speed and density by keeping resolution constant.
Your "How it should scale" box is impossible as the change in density requires a change in time.

I've thought about it but the only conclusion I've come up with is to crop the area as ScoreV1 does.
What I meant was always keeping the proportions of the playfield constant, varying which percentage of the area of the screen is covered by it depending on the screen proportions. This way, density and speed (percentage of the screen covered per second) of the objects is always the same regardless of screen proportions.

Maybe these pictures illustrate what I mean more clearly:
posted
I think a big help would be to make playfield area constant at least for width. Both of the below images are the same width, but the widescreen one is by default scrolling faster right now because the playfield between them is scaling differently.



vs

posted
I think scorev2 should exist under the following circumstances
1. It should only be used on competitive games (since competitives would require mastery and perfection)
2. It should only stay as an option, since the score cap is different it should be implemented as an unranked mod to be played only on competitive or for fun, training, etc.

Contents

!Competitives

1. Talking about the "freemods" on tournaments
Mods should still always retain their rightful bonuses aside of 1m score cap

2. Fail bignote=miss/combo break, this one is allright to be implemented but picking a map for it has become harder as a challenge

3. Sliders and Spinners should stay as they have always been it should stay as bonus

4. I read words about removing the slider ticks. I dont think its a good idea since the bonus is abusable

!Should be applied onto casual plays

1. HDHR changes, since the one we know is really broken and as we have noticed that more players will come to "farm" this 2 mods especially HD players//if you know what I mean. I think it is a good implementation but I think that you will need to re calculate the "numbers" when both of this 2 mods are up

2. The consistency HR's SV on different resolutions

3. Widescreen HD does not revert back to 4:3

Now, wouldn't it be more balanced that way

P.S. not of all that I read it since there were too many posts
posted
It is inappropriate to make scrollspeed fast on widescreen.
It is disadvantage for 16:9 players because notes interval becomes difficult to read.(Well, this is inconsistent with my other post, so I withdraw it.)

Like told by other in here, it is best to change the 4:3 screen layout so that the same time notes as 16:9 is displayed.
posted

_yu68 wrote:

It is inappropriate to make scrollspeed fast on widescreen.
It is disadvantage for 16:9 players because notes interval becomes difficult to read.(Well, this is inconsistent with my other post, so I withdraw it.)

Like told by other in here, it is best to change the 4:3 screen layout so that the same time notes as 16:9 is displayed.
This is what I'm working towards right now, will hopefully be able to push an update in the next few days but it's quite difficult :P
posted

_yu68 wrote:

It is disadvantage for 16:9 players because notes interval becomes difficult to read.

Like told by other in here, it is best to change the 4:3 screen layout so that the same time notes as 16:9 is displayed.
I kinda disagree here for the exact same reason, as a 4:3 player i'm just unable to read anything on widescreen resolution due to the note density on screen. While yu68 and probably all the widescreen users/players coming from TnT can probably easily read 16:9 / 16:10. There are also alot who plays only on 4:3.

The only maps where I feel like widescreen is required to be readable are Converts or Taiko diff (with 1.6 Sv while using DT)

In the end 4:3 or widescreen is a matter of preferences and i don't understand why widescreen should be considered as the "good" resolution.

The actual Scorev2 make the note density on screen lower on widescreen and higher on 4:3. I find it pretty good as it is now but the only problem is that there are now maps that became unreadable at all even if "Mostly converts" and Unranked very high SV maps.
posted
^ same here, as a mostly 4:3 resolution user i would then be disadvantaged.

Why would you unify all résolutions in the first place? The current system seems better. Also a good amount of players (including me) use to swap resolutions depending on the SV of the map.
posted

Tasha wrote:

So something that should be pointed out...

Scrolling differences per mod
Nomod = ScoreV2 is faster
DT = ScoreV2 is faster
HR = ScoreV1 is slightly faster?
I just screened the density of some notes on a map with HR, first time with ScoreV2 and second time without.

To me it seems that HR on ScoreV1 is slightly slower than on ScoreV2. Idk if it is the maps fault or not, so I will test this on some other maps as well.
It's not much, but there is a difference.

EDIT: I tested this on maps with various BPM (140, 180, 215, 240), the change stays as little as on these screenshots.

Open both images in new tabs for the best experience.

show more
Please sign in to reply.