Since there are alot of ways to make maps, I think even in the far future, it will be incredibly hard to accurate tell for a system how hard a map is without ALOT of variables (ex. you could calculate based on length/speed of jumps like it does now, but instead of large jumps going up-left-down-right or something like that, mappers could discover a way and create the infamous 1-2 maps). I'm not saying that the pp system will ever be near perfection, but it will reach a point where some of the "this map is a bit pp farm" will be too subjective for a system to calculate it.

So I request this:
Have top players (could be by ranking, official tournament winnings, performance, whatever) be able to influence the pp score of maps with 1 vote. For a single person, this can be pushed for an extra .75 vote, or .75 vote less based on "validity" but will be hard to reach such extremes. The pp score of the map will then have a percent influenced based on the result of the votes, in this fashion.

https://imgur.com/cNX6BDb (Urls dont open in new tabs btw)

Well what's to stop one person from ruining it all?

Well, the result will be based on the ratio of upvote/downvote AND the total potential votes. So essentially, a single vote on unknown maps will NOT give it bonus pp. (which in turn means the maximum potential of 2% change will rarely be met). Also, if a person downvotes a map with heavily upvoted results, they will lose some "validity", and vice versa. Of course, they will receive very little penalty (to none at all) if the votes were close to 50/50. Keep in mind this will be based on the total votes, as well, so one person going around downvoting unknown farm maps will more or less do nothing to the score and their "validity", as it is meant to tackle the more extremes of underweighted and overweighted maps, (though even ones on the mild side can be influenced). This also means those on the near extremes could potentially given a badge that signifies that alot of players think this or that of certain map, so you don't have to know a map to know its reputation.

For those needing a quick visual:

https://imgur.com/QBjOhR1 (Urls dont open in new tabs btw)

According to my math, there's going to be ever so increasing inflation/deflation, how will you fix that?

Well, I have an idea for fixing prolonged consequences, but it wouldn't be much better if there was a long periodic reset (every 4 years?). Players that aren't eligible for voting anymore(not by "validity", but by performance, rank, whatever). will be removed from the influencers. The new players will have 1 vote. If the votes aren't back to what they used to be (lets say default was 5000, end of period it was 6000, even after voting roster changed it is 6002), players that were influencers will lose/gain validity based on the situation, and of course based on their current validity (those on the extremes will be less influenced by the force validity shift).

For those needing a quick visual:

https://imgur.com/HtPTRdO (Urls dont open in new tabs btw)

What if everyone trolls and force upvote/downvote everything?

No clue. This is something that heavily relies on a majority of the top performers (I make it top performers only so pewdiepie can't just tell 1mil people to upvote some random map) wanting to add some integrity to performance and rankings, and if the majority doesn't care, then I guess this idea would never work out.


Notes:
So I have to go with the majority to gain "validity"?
Essentially yes, but when a map is genuinely questioned to be overweighted or not, the resulting votes should be close to 40/60 or 60/40, so you're honest opinion here will not affect your "validity". Note the graphics were just example, and going against the majority 10 times wouldn't bring your "validity" to nothing. It should take alot more than that.

What if I farm "validity" to vote all my top plays up?
Keep in mind that only the most participated maps will be influenced, so farming "validity" means you helped the community fix 100s of maps to hopefully band a group of evil doers who also did the same thing, so you can force upvote certain maps, which most likely could bring attention and retaliation . Of course, if you managed to gather a group large enough, then I guess that means the majority didn't care for the integrity anyways.

And if I don't care for voting/in the military now/bedwritten/etc.?
Your vote will always be there, regardless, as long as you are performing. I was considering adding decaying "validity" to this idea, but that's highly debatable.

Why is the % change so low?
Obviously, that decision is not up to me, but the scenario is that the pp system has been really optimized (lets say the year is 2020?), but not optimized enough to bring up some debates. The main goal of this is to encourage debates (whether it be a hot minute and a long day), and help figure out flaws in the pp system, by being able to look at the voted extremes. I guess an indirect consequence would be less farm maps, because no one wants a pp farm badge (actually the badge is probably reason enough but I'm not gonna look into that). The low % change is to prevent abuse, and a forced staff change to a map because a map was unjustly voted for a 9% pp change seems to go against the "players now have influence" idea. The idea is that normally discussed, and one-sided votes to have a 1% change in pp, with a 1% change badge, and the staff able to look at the extremes and compare to their pp system. You could increase the influence to 4% max, if u so wish.

Seems odd that the cap for influence is .75
Again, not for me to decide, but it was my way to re-enforce the idea that when a map is heavily debatable and not one sided, you wouldn't get penalized.

Why just top players?Why not my 5 digit self?
Was my way of limiting the size, and so people have a reason to reach the top (to influence a game they may love EASILY). I've heard tournaments didn't have a lot of influence, despite being a good indication of skill, so I said "performing" instead of rank.

Final Thoughts: I do realize that currently, there is a pp system in the works, but I think it would be great for top players who aren't too nitty gritty with the system to be able to give a quick opinion of maps. A simple vote from Cookiezi could turn that map into a discussion, and whether its left with 50/50 votes, or a 90/10 vote, a general consensus about how a pp system should be will be learned.






tfw ur dumb notes is longer than the actual post

How would this system cover mods on a map?

For instance a certain map might be overweighted with 1 mod but not with a different mod.

Would the voting decrease the entire map or would you vote by mod?

Also by only allowing “top players” to vote, only maps that top player ply would ever get affected. Who cares if that 4* map is overweighted? The top players don’t ever touch it as it’s not worth PP for them

How would this system cover mods on a map?
Would the voting decrease the entire map or would you vote by mod?

Perhaps when a certain mod combination (including nomod) gets enough plays on the leaderboards, it becomes a option for vote?

Also by only allowing “top players” to vote, only maps that top player ply would ever get affected. Who cares if that 4* map is overweighted? The top players don’t ever touch it as it’s not worth PP for them

Most competitive scenes generally do only balance around the top players, so I don't think it's all too necessarily to directly address this.

(It's a possibility that the idea will in turn encourage low rank players to ask top players to check if a certain low sr map is over/underweighted. Of course, this does not automatically mean one player can change it all, but one player can raise a quick discussion on a low sr map. Though I do realize that most "top players" will ignore these anyways, lower rank players are the masses, so I believe their influence could potentially reach the "top players", like you may see in games like League.)

1. TL;DR of bold text: Though it's irrelevant to competitive, when it's way too exploitative in casual, it will reach the ones with influence.

What I predict will happen under this system:

1) Newer players will be voting such that they get most pp they can
2) Farmers and twitch players influencing voting via friends and audience
3) Map comment sections will be set on fire as the masses riot and apocalyptic doom dawns
4) Many of the more respectable players quit now that pp is subjective and less stable
5) osu! becomes an even bigger joke

Definitely a bad idea. pp is pp. pp is a system. People can't change how PP works just because of one map. PP just need to calculate better aim values so it doesn't get overused. With this maps will give the deserved pp.

The voting should rarely actually influence the pp. It'll be once in a blue moon for the votes to reach 100%, a.k.a. an influence of 2% pp change. Not saying this was a good idea, but the counter argument of the votes actually making an impact is debatable. You could even lower the influence to 1% pp change, so it's main purpose can be even clearer: get a general idea of what people think the pp system should be.

And ya, this idea does relay HEAVILY on the community, but if people want to send the message of, "lol we only cared about pp cx", then I guess lol. It's to sort of give perspective on what a general population thinks, not "hey if you're good at this game, you can pp farm even harder cx", which can't even be done, because one vote will not do shit to a map, would be something minimal like 0.001% because of how it's based around max potential votes. And pp was always subjective from the start because the formula IS made somewhat subjectively (okay I guess it's unfair to say that, it's more underdeveloped) hence why pp can be exploited.




And uhhh I don't recall letting new players vote cx.

What if. There was no pp change? Just a way for people to tell if a map is easier or harder than it's star rating suggests? this would help the devs.

?

to -Aku, yes. The main goal is to get real data on what is hard and what is not, which can ultimately either polish the current pp system, or change it a significant amount. Instead of having a couple of ideas thrown around by a couple of people on what is good or not in the pp system, when we have millions of millions of submitted plays, I think it would be nice to get some data.
Of course, the current pp system is fine. But is it optimized? Not so much, and I think it would be nice to see that. And of course, the opinions on the current pp system are great. But is it opinionated? Yes. And it would be nice to tweak the numbers influenced by opinions thru some real data.

Personally, I think this idea has some potential, I'd like to expand on this idea in a later bump if I ever get around to it(if its not a bump, prob will end up on github or something).