By reducing the impact of a miss based on map length you introduce another issue. A long map with a difficulty spike at the end will be overweighted. 3 or 4 misses will cause only a small pp reduction (say, 15%). At the spike, you could ignore some of the notes to easily hit half the notes and receive only a small penalty.
Edgar_Figaro wrote:To amend my previous suggestion, the only part I will agree with the complaints is it being easier to miss more on a long map. The longer a map is the less each miss should hurt the hit objects part of the score. Which would make sense as 4 miss HR score might be considered worse on a short map than the nomod FC but better on a long map. We could change it to some system where each miss is compared against the total number of objects so hitting 99% and missing 1% would give eact same hit objects score every time.
Yeah I worded this badly. What I meant to say is that the length of the map doesn't really change the difficulty to get those 300k acc points, while it does change the difficulty to get the 700k combo points.
Edgar_Figaro wrote:Also I don’t understand how “Accuracy is more important on long maps” regardless of map length it’s 300k Score.
(Basically I am suggesting Taikos score system but with more emphasis on # of misses than Taiko does currently, yes long maps you’ll get more misses on but the length bonus negates them. In fact most of the high PP scores in Taiko are on longer maps. TV size maps only really exist at the lower levels)
The technology will eventually come though, maybe not next year but in 5-10 years it'll definitely be there. The fact that it probably won't be affordable for most people just makes the touchscreen problem even worse because only rich people will be able to abuse touchscreen pp.
[Taiga] wrote:We are talking about present, not the future. I doubt in next few years 1-10ms input lag instead of ~50-100ms like now will be available for customer for decent amount of money which will not be considered waste.
No one cares how many hours you've played. You said yourself that you don't care, so why are you here caring? I care. You clearly care. It's fine to care. I was more pointing out that it's ridiculous that you would even try to argue your point if you don't care. But if you truly don't care, then I don't understand why you're here? Why does your opinion matter if you don't agree with it enough to actually care about it?
[Taiga] wrote:If you didn't notice, I have 779 hours in std and it gives me right to actually speak about it. Cut your childish "you can fuck right off" already, it is amusing in this civilized discussion.
Let me explain something:
Yes, I don't see the problem. If I was 4-digit, I would still not see the problem, same comes to 3-digit, 2-digit, 1-digit. I simply don't really care. If right now someone could develop device which would make CTB way easier than it is now and gain massive amount of pp by it - idc either. Mainly because touchscreen is good at ONE type of maps.
Do you see huge scores on stream maps with touchscreen? No!
Do you see any scores on pure tech maps with touchscreen? No!
Do you see huge scores on marathon maps with touchscreen? No!
So where is the problem? That touchscreen is way better at jump maps? Well.... happens, there will be always pros and cons of each playstyle.
Tablet allows you to use Tap+X playstyle which if properly used enable you to achieve extreme speeds which is impossible only for keyboard (or more like barely possible).
And so on....
You're basically saying that touchscreen is cheating, but only on aim maps, so it's okay. That's absurd. Let's try a different, but similar argument. Auto clicking macros are cheating, but only in streamy maps, so it's okay. Clicking macros make key inputs none 1:1 but you still have to click accurately which makes them essentially as advantageous as touchscreen, which despite not being 1:1, have to aim properly. Why is one cheating and one isn't?
Tap X is completely different because it's still a 1:1 input method. 1 tap, 1 key press. Even if It's "easier" to spam fast, tapx is irrelevant for this discussion because it is 1:1.
Did you read my post? Let me quote myself:
[Taiga] wrote:Not old "it's just da maps" but actual PARTIAL ISSUE. Over end of 2016 and 2017, there was ranked way more short high star maps than anytime before which created clear opportunity for touchscreen players to shine. If you followed GnR, there is a topic created 2 years ago by _Meep_ which list playable touchscreen maps (ref. t/401384&start=0). There isn't many.
But - as I said, this amount drastically increased over last year (where actually topic is not updated by obvious reason).
You want argument why short maps are meta? Here are numbers. Searching criteria - Length = 60s and lower, Minimum difficulty = 4,5*
2017 - 39 maps (and year is not finished yet)
2016 - 35 maps
2015 - 19 maps
2014 - 10 maps
2013 - 3 maps
2012 and down - not found or single maps.
I will not count maps below 2 min which are considered as TV-size once because numbers will be similar for each year. From other way:
Length = above 180s (3 min, full size), Minimal star difficulty = 4,5*
2017 - 249 maps (year not finished yet)
2016 - 271 maps
2015 - 283 maps
2014 - 141 maps
2013 - 99 maps
Length = between 60 and 180 seconds, minimal diff = 4,5*
2017 - 379 maps (and year is not finished yet)
2016 - 430 maps
2015 - 418 maps
2014 - 270 maps
2013 - 194 maps
As you can see, just in 2016/2017 mappers made over twice as much maps below 60s which in majority are perfect for touchscreen players than in other years together. From other way, tendency to create full size and marathon maps is lowering from 2015. Numbers are taken from osusearch.com so this is only view type statistics (I take into consideration that this portal may not see something / bug / whatever).
Opinion about "short maps are meta now" is still valid considering rising amount of mappers and ranked maps each year. Most new mappers tend to focus on easy patterns (mainly jumps) and short maps.
I don't know from where you took 10/90% ratio. To do "abuse worthy" statistic, you need to start from ceretain point which isn't 11 mil. registered accounts but around 150-100k active players in the ranking. At that point, this ratio looks completely different.
How can you argue that short maps are the meta when I went through and checked the top ranks of each player in the top 20 and found the opposite? Not only do you say that my findings are wrong, you also go as far as to say that the opposite is true, yet again without providing any evidence; presumably because none exists. The 10% statistic comes from me looking at the top 20 players and finding that 2 of them seem to play a disproportionate amount of short aim maps.
jesse1412 wrote:#1. Cookiezi - Top ranks don't consist of TV size maps (highest ranked player in the game doesn't do it, but it's apparently the problem). Doesn't rely on short maps.
#2. Rafis - 3 out of his top 20 scores are < 1 min 30 secs. 7 are longer than 4 minutes. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#3. Vaxei - Plays longer, VERY intense aim maps. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#4. filsdelama - Plays mostly long dt aim maps, with a large amount of dthdhr scores. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#5. firebat92 - Basically the same kind of player as rafis. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#6. hvick225 - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#7. _RyuK - Arguably abuses short maps.
#8. Emilia - Plays extreme jump maps. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#9. Mathi - Variety player, does a bit of everything. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#10. Rohulk - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#11. Piggey - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#12. Spare - Plays a mix of dt and nomod. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#13. Bubbleman - Variety player. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#14. Dustice - Variety player. Doesn't rely on short maps.
#15. mcy3 - Hands down abuses short maps.
#16. idke - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#17. Happystick - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#18. Yaong - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#19. bro_gamer72 - Doesn't rely on short maps.
#20. index - Doesn't rely on short maps.
1 of those players clearly abuses short maps. 1 player heavily uses them. At best that's 1/10.
I could keep going, but the trend is the same. Your imaginary problem doesn't exist. Stop making up COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Why do I have to spend my time checking all these players because you've made up an argument that's impossible to refute without wasting time checking? 80%? I'd guess closer to 10%, at which point, is it really abusing? If short maps were SO overrated then why in the world aren't top players relying on them?
We can use your own metrics to show the issue too, but I must stress that the amount of short aim maps doesn't demonstrate the current pp meta. There may be more maps, but that doesn't mean people are getting a larger proportion of their pp from said maps. A "short" map is generally a map <90 seconds long. The difficulty of those maps are usually about 4*+, that's around the difficulty of entry level farm maps.
Length <= 60, stars > 4:
2011 - 120
2012 - 155 (29% increase)
2013 -159 (3% increase)
2014 - 250 (57% increase)
2015 - 371 (48% increase)
2016 - 351 (5% decrease)
2017 - 332 (n/a, year isn't finished)
Length > 60, stars > 4:
2011 - 572
2012 - 664 (16% increase)
2013 - 592 (11% decrease)
2014 - 723 (31% increase)
2015 - 1154 (49% increase)
2016 - 1182 (2% increase)
2017 - 1110 (n/a, year isn't finished)
As you can see, the amount of short vs not short maps getting ranked grow at a similar rate. The only years where shorter maps grew faster than longer maps were 2012 and 2014. 2012 happened before ppv2 was even a thing, so we can ignore that. Of the 4 years since pp became a thing, short maps have only increased in number significantly by a larger percent than long maps during 2014. With that in mind, how can you argue that this is an issue stemming from the fact that modern maps are shorter? Modern maps clearly aren't generally shorter. 2014 was 3 (almost 4) years ago, if the problem was due to short pp maps, why has this only just become a major issue? Why have short maps only started impacting the game now? Those are both rhetorical question, there's no logical answer that agrees with your points.
Let me ask another question. What has changed very recently that has thrown the pp system into disarray? Touchscreens. Touchscreens only became a "common" peripheral in the last 2 years, and since then, with only ~2 years of practice, touchscreen players have achieved the highest rated play in the game. If short, aim intense maps were the issue, tablet/mouse players would have already attained a 900pp score on the same map, but they can't because they use a 1:1 input method.
The issue isn't at the top... YET. It will be eventually though. 800pp plays were proven trivial for the current top touchscreen player, as shown by him setting multiple 800+ pp scores in a row (on a single map). The reason there aren't as many top100 touchscreen players is because there are far less touchscreen players, plus touchscreen players have had less time to train with their peripherals. Touchscreen players are competing with people who have played osu! for 5+ years with their preferred input device, and they're getting higher pp scores already.
[Taiga] wrote:Ranking isn't something where places are capped at certain point to achieve them. There will be always top 100. Only amount of points to achieve it will change. What people call a touchscreen problem is not really at the top where I guess only one or two players can compete but in mid-ranking range where more people play it and can abuse actuall mapping to gain way more pp easier, where "easier" doesn't mean that every single one of them will actually achieve top100 that fast as others (ref. valid proof of each player progressing of its own natural speed).
Please read with understanding - I didn't said OTP are not competitive.
Before "big boom" for short maps with simple jump style patterns and non-existant or rare bursts, OTP were punished for not being efficient in all skillsets.
Right now, OTP are in good position to rank up without much problems.
So, competition should be made in correct rules - to achieve high rank before, you had to be efficient in all skillsets.
Right now you just need to have aim, nothing else.
You call that competitive ranking?
Sorry, I disagree.
Let's assume you're objectively correct and that it shouldn't be possible to rank up by only being skilled in one area. What's your solution to the issue? Make pp fit around rewarding balanced maps?
Stream maps -> low pp.
Jump maps -> low pp.
Acc maps -> low pp.
Balanced maps -> full pp.
FC ascension to heaven doubletime? Nah, unbalanced score, 200pp for you. FC red like roses DT? Nah, unbalanced score, 200pp for you. FC santa san hdhr? Woah that map has streams and jumps and high od, 400pp for you. Clearly this isn't going to work. What's the other solution to the issue? Unrank and outlaw all maps that don't have 1/4 and are less than 60 seconds, even if the song doesn't contain 1/4 and is < 60 seconds? Ridiculous.
You're using short, aim intensive maps as a scapegoat. People in in the past COULD rank up using only 1 skillset. I was top200 using ONLY stream scores when tp was released. I'll say it one last time, the problem isn't aim, or recent maps. It's touchscreen.