Yujin Senpai wrote:

Maybe it is rewarded more in terms of pp , but the effort to FC a longer map is just not worth compared with short maps. Maybe my consistency ist just not good enough yet. Another frustrating thing is to break in the middle of a song, especially if you manage to get 99% acc. Cause in the end you get nothing.

Rayne wrote:

I don't really see a huge flaw in the pp system. It rewards acc, aim, and speed and even gives you a bonus for playing lengthy maps.

Momi wrote:

for years i've been wondering how people manage to say current pp system is ok in its basic aspects
do you not notice how the best aim plays are 700pp and the best speed plays are 400pp?

or do you just think that's how it should be lol

https://osu.ppy.sh/u/XII
>be "speed player"
>top ranks are still aim maps
>if you were as good at aim as you are at speed you would be smashing 700+pp scores
>fair pp system

ManuelOsuPlayer wrote:

My skill will be wors

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

pp isn't broken. It is a reasonable measurement of skill level in terms of raw ability.

Technical map players are rewarded with leader boards.

pp isn't broken.

abraker wrote:

ok we ready for acc based scoring or community still in stone age?

abraker wrote:

ok we ready for acc based scoring or community still in stone age?

xxjesus1412fanx wrote:

if pp is to be taken as gospel the playerbase overall has gotten about 3x better than they were at the start of ppv2 lol just based on how high the barrier to higher ranks has become
and rafis/cookiezi are around 2x better than rrtyui

but we know better

- e - v - b- wrote:

xxjesus1412fanx wrote:

if pp is to be taken as gospel the playerbase overall has gotten about 3x better than they were at the start of ppv2 lol just based on how high the barrier to higher ranks has become
and rafis/cookiezi are around 2x better than rrtyui

but we know better

to be fair, people now are way better than at the start of ppv2 and Rafis/Cookiezi are most definitely a lot better than rrtyui

Momi wrote:

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

pp isn't broken. It is a reasonable measurement of skill level in terms of raw ability.

Technical map players are rewarded with leader boards.

pp isn't broken.

that's pretty funny. "raw ability" is the most easily debunkable one


map 1: 990 easy objects and 10 hard objects (in the ending)
miss 1 hard object... 990~1000 combo yay
map 2: 990 easy objects and 10 hard objects (in the middle)
miss 1 hard object... ~500 combo yay

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Momi wrote:

that's pretty funny. "raw ability" is the most easily debunkable one


map 1: 990 easy objects and 10 hard objects (in the ending)
miss 1 hard object... 990~1000 combo yay
map 2: 990 easy objects and 10 hard objects (in the middle)
miss 1 hard object... ~500 combo yay

We can all play the same maps, no one is excluded from playing map 1.

Therefore we are all assessed to the same standard which is fair.

Momi wrote:

Ok it's fair that sense, totally and undeniably, but it's not fair in the sense that stuff like 500 combo 6xmiss is assessed as having better aim than 990 combo 1xmiss.

Momi wrote:

Disagree with what? I meant 500/1000 combo 6xmiss and 990/1000 combo 1xmiss
500 out of 1000
990 out of 1000

6 times more misses = better aim?

Momi wrote:

That's literally the problem because better aim = less aim pp, duh.

Edgar_Figaro wrote:

Yujin Senpai wrote:

Maybe it is rewarded more in terms of pp , but the effort to FC a longer map is just not worth compared with short maps. Maybe my consistency ist just not good enough yet. Another frustrating thing is to break in the middle of a song, especially if you manage to get 99% acc. Cause in the end you get nothing.

Yeah I agree, Combo based scoring is the problem with OsuStandard imo. While the idea of "Penalizing Misses" is a good idea, the way it's implemented is terrible. Having the location of the miss be the most important factor and not simply "How many times I missed" makes it so that mappers can abuse this quite easily. How many maps have we seen that have the full screen jumps in the last 10 notes of the song to massive inflate the SR? Sure you are very likely to miss on these and it will diminish PP earned, but if we had this same pattern in the middle of the song the choke on these jumps would make your play worthless.

Having Number of Misses Increased in terms of PP reduction and have Combo Removed from calculation would prevent alot of these difficulty spikes abuses. It's even worse when the mapper has the difficulty spike at the beggining of the map as the player can just keep playing this over and over until they FC the beggining and then get the free PP ride all the way to the end of the map.

int d_points == 5
int maxdifficulty == 5 //absolute difficulty doesn't matter, just the relative difficulty within map. you can probably work with absolute and it's easier
int d_map1[d_points] == {2; 3; 5; 3; 2} //array, draws a graph of map difficulty spikes)
int d_map2[d_points] == {2; 3; 2; 3; 5} //these are the difficulty 'maps' of two beatmaps, other with spike in middle other in the end

int combocurve[d_points]

for (i == 1; i <= d_points + 1 ; i++)
	{combocurve[i] == findlowest_d(i, d_map1) //find lowest difficulty partition with length i
	 
you'd get {2, 3, 5, 5, 5} for the first map,
          {2, 3, 3, 3, 5} for the second map and could use it to weight the pp.
the curve maxes out for the one with spike in middle in the middle, so you would get more pp multiplier for 3/5 or 4/5 combo on that map.

problems:
i've not written any c++ in years and i never was any good.

find lowest difficulty function might be very (idk it could be not) computationally heavy, BUT
it's done only once and the result is a curve/array whatever that's easy to use.

jaaakb wrote:

stuffs

def combocurve(diff_curve):
    lowest = 0; result = []
    
    for diff in diff_curve:
        if lowest < diff: lowest = diff
        result.append(lowest)
        
    return result


# Array, draws a graph of map difficulty spikes)
# These are the difficulty 'maps' of two beatmaps, other with spike in middle other in the end
d_map1 = [2, 3, 5, 3, 2]
d_map2 = [2, 3, 2, 3, 5]


# you'd get {2, 3, 5, 5, 5} for the first map,
#           {2, 3, 3, 3, 5} for the second map and could use it to weight the pp.
# The curve maxes out for the one with spike in middle in the middle, so you would get more pp 
# multiplier for 3/5 or 4/5 combo on that map.
print(combocurve(d_map1))
print(combocurve(d_map2))