nic3 Idea support

Timekiller wrote:

I'm referring to the large space that the diamond inside a circle takes up, regardless of whether it's shown by default :3 where diamond shows 4 stats, you can place 6-7 bar graphs plus some additional info like pass rate, actual bpm spread per song time and whatever else.

Well it is a bar graph at its heart but adding more arms/legs doesn't take up anymore room. Theoretically its limitless but whether or not its discernible is another question XD...

The whole point of using one is being able to associate shapes with a maps difficulty attributes and bar graphs cant do this, well they can but its going to take a little more thought to get the association than you would with a shape and bar graphs tend to make you look at each individual bar rather than looking at it as a whole while a perceptual map allows you to do both.

As stated by bwross the mock up is well a mock up... The main issue is coming up with value sets that actually mean something to you and relate accurately to the map.

All that aside a graph is a graph is a graph... I don't see any reason not to slap a button on that page that will display these value sets in any applicable graphing format you wish after all it is just numbers with eyecandy

Well we just need to compile 4-5 different stats that house all the things you would want to know before you go into a map. Cursor speed/jumps should be one, hit density should be another, and approach rate/overall difficulty should be in there too.

RBRat3 wrote:

All that aside a graph is a graph is a graph... I don't see any reason not to slap a button on that page that will display these value sets in any applicable graphing format you wish after all it is just numbers with eyecandy

I always seem to forget that most things can be made configurable If choosing between diamond/bars/something else would be an option, I support. Here, have my precious star

As for speed and density what about averaging the amount of notes in 1 second slots or per deci-minute (1/10th of a minute / 6 sec)...?

AKA average notes per second or average notes per deciminute....

This would factor bpm changes although it would be averaged but it greatly influences the outcome being in 1 sec slots this way, If bpm changes shouldn't be averaged then average the notes per second in the bpm time sections keeping them separate....

You've got my support for this. This would make it easier for players of all skill levels (I know I still get taken by surprise by AR9-10 maps) in being able to tell exactly why a map is difficult before playing it without having to look at it through editor beforehand. Have you thought up of a comprehensive list of potential factors to be included in your graph?

I know there is talk already about BPM but I don't see why it should be included if the BPM of the song is already shown on the top-left of the song selection screen. If anything, if your Star Perceptual graph isn't a feasible feature in terms of how to fit it on or make a new tab for it, I can see the text stats of it being posted under where the current BPM and Objects text is displayed.

I would like to see these particular stats listed though overall so support+!

Yea, awesome idea. Spending my last vote for this.

I spended my one and only vote too...

it is a nice Idea.
why not make this configurable, choose you arms, your shape, or that you want bars...

You forgot something: Some old maps do have Circle Size below 3 and above 7 being set. This is one of Ranked example with Circle Size 0, and this is another Ranked example with Circle Size 8.

I haven't see anyone setting the map with Circle Size above 8 (maximum is 10) though, but it's possible to force-set it.

I think this is a great idea, however just out of curiosity, which one of these screen shots will be the final design because if it's going to partially cover up your own score, like the first picture, I'd be better off without it. I think the one under alternate looks best. It's a nice size and it looks like it is almost proportional to the scoreboard underneath and I like the fact that the black BG is as transparent as the scoreboard. This will really make it blend well. So.... In my opinion... Support!!

Kuro wrote:

I think this is a great idea, however just out of curiosity, which one of these screen shots will be the final design because if it's going to partially cover up your own score, like the first picture, I'd be better off without it. I think the one under alternate looks best. It's a nice size and it looks like it is almost proportional to the scoreboard underneath and I like the fact that the black BG is as transparent as the scoreboard. This will really make it blend well. So.... In my opinion... Support!!

None of them are a final design they're just concept... Im sure peppy would do his own take on the look.

yes but skinnable pls...

why is this even popular. it hardly displays all the necessary information you need.

I want my difficulty rating to be displayed as numbers, not visually like this. This takes up a lot of space.

t/92485
That is how we should display difficulty.

theowest wrote:

why is this even popular. it hardly displays all the necessary information you need.

I want my difficulty rating to be displayed as numbers, not visually like this. This takes up a lot of space.

t/92485
That is how we should display difficulty.

Because you failed to read high points, This can do both at the same time and it only takes the space of a 16px square.

Support. It should scale with for example HR and DT so when you add those mods the graph changes. No need for the difficulty changes the mod makes to be seen the entire time. If you add DT the graph for AR and Over all diff should just go up by it's respective values. It should also have numbers on it.
The hardest approved maps could have an average og 15-20 in over all diff value, while normal insanes could be 10-15 etc.

hmm

maybe up here

too small up there I Like the scoreboard option, coz I dont need it anyway...

My1 wrote:

too small up there I Like the scoreboard option, coz I dont need it anyway...

it should be small.

well, what are settings for...

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

HakuNoKaemi wrote:

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

i prefer that. but hey, they are going to upgrade the difficulty setting.

stamina would be cool to see too.

It shall be based on notes concentration and lenght?
Like an Endless 1/2 or a Deathstream producing higher Stamina and so?

the more notes after each other, the higher stamina. less stamina if there are more breaks, sliders, spinners, etc. less time between the notes (higher bpm) will increase the stamina difficulty.

It should be counted in ms instead of BPM. It all matters how you map after all.
Also, spinners (especially long ones) uses up stamina as well.

Btw RBRat3, I love your graphics


And of course, I fully support this

Idea looks nice! Support!

deadbeat wrote:

also if hard rock will play a factor in the star map, can i suggest having the cap at 11 instead of 10?

what cap do you mean with that? AR?

Saten wrote:

It should be counted in ms instead of BPM. It all matters how you map after all.
Also, spinners (especially long ones) uses up stamina as well.

very good point there. it should be taken into account

Stamina is what all the talk about object density is about. Breaks, sliders, spinners are areas with low density... areas with less time between notes are high density. However, if you're looking for information on how long and fast bursts are, that would be the realm of streaminess. It's best to keep things in the stats used as independent as possible... having stats that always move together means that you've screwed up and should have combined them into a single stat.

HakuNoKaemi wrote:

Instead of the Difficulty Setting, why not use something like

Drain ( 0 - 10 ) - HP Drain Rate
Precision ( 0 - 10 ) Mix of OD and CS (since higher CS means higher aiming precision and higher OD means higher clicking Precision)
Stream ( 0 - 10 ) - How Fast and Long are the Streams? How many are present?
Jumps ( 0 - 10 ) - How Long are the Jumps? How many Jumps?
Speed ( 0 -10 ) - Depending on Average Notes Distance and Approach Rate

could be a way to upgrade the Difficulty rating system too.

Things like Drain, OD, and CS shouldn't be part of a secondary chart. They're too important... they're not stats that tell you what the map is like, they're parameters that tell you the rules you'll be playing under. Besides, combining OD and CS is silly... the precision that affects OD isn't spacial, it's temporal. CS affects jumps and movement rate stats, because there the size of the target affects how difficult it is to hit. With OD, the change to timing windows means potential more 100s, and with a high DR, that can kill if you're not careful. But that's not important to combine... these are parameters that tell the player the rules of the game, they should be up front with the object and length information, always in sight, regardless of whether the player has up global/local scores or a star map. And that request has been made elsewhere.

Stream and Jump are pretty much universally consented. They're definitely important and what people want. The thing is that they refer to the burst rates of their domains (time for Stream and space for Jump)... they don't give a picture outside of that. Which is why there should be a measure of the base time and space rates as well. Base time is object density, stamina, effective BPM (which is to say, not the BPM of the song, but the BPM experienced in the map). Base space is a measure of the movement of a map, it's velocity, beat spacing, and slider speeds. Stream and Jump are the extremes that those go to.

Chaos has also been brought up a lot, but nobody seems to have presented a picture of what it would be. Well, if chaos is a measure of the entropy of a map, we need to consider what entropy is. Entropy is essentially a measure of the number of states of a system. Consider a glass, it's solid and has a certain shape. The way it's atoms can be arranged in that glass is large, but it's miniscule compared to the number of states if you throw the glass on the ground and break it... where the number of pieces and their shapes and there positions relative to each other adds a nigh infinite number of new positions. And so the glass has gained a lot of entropy by being broken.

What does that mean for osu!... well, consider a stream of 12 overlapping circles in straight line. When such a thing comes up in a map, it registers essentially as one object... it's like a slider, but you need to hit notes instead of holding them. From a stamina point of view, that adds something, but from a mental chaos point of view, it's the same, the stream can be processed as one thing. Now consider replacing one of the circles with a repeating slider. It has a different length than the rest, is a different type of object, and can had a variety of lengths (depending on the number of repeats), and could occur in any of the twelve spots... suddenly the processing has become more than one thing, it's gained some entropy. Take those twelve circles and have them bouncing around in a pattern, and you can get more entropy yet. Add a complex rhythm and you add more possibilities and entropy... add some emphatic spacing for that rhythm (ie jumps, changes in beat spacing) and you add even more.

So what I'm thinking for a way to measure entropy, is that you need to look at adjacent intervals between objects (under various size windows... I'd consider using combo groups as a width for windows (ie 1 group, 2 groups, 3 groups), because they should delineate patterns in the map to some degree). If they represent different notes or have different beat spacing, then entropy is definitely higher than a map of 1/2 beats that trudges around the map at the same beat spacing. Pattern entropy is a harder thing to measure. A simple way that might be worth looking into, is to consider changes in angle between intervals. A straight line is just 0, 0, 0... (note that we're talking change in angle (delta) so the exact direction doesn't really matter, only that each circle heads in the same direction). A slightly curved line might not be more complicated... say, 5, 5, 5 (degrees). Regular polygons (and polygrams) would also register as simple recognizable patters (ie squares would be sequences of 90s). Jumping back and forth from a series of radial points adds a bit more complexity: a 180 to get back to the center, alternated with the angle to the next poiint... as would a zig-zag. Random jumping around would be random. There are a number of ways to potentially analyze such things... one would be to look for cycles and other patterns, but a simpler way might just be to look at the numbers within a window and see if there are one or two dominant values. In the end, a lot of experimentation with real map data will be needed in any case to work out what the weights of any of the factors should be (and how they might combine... ie a sudden change in direction combined with a note of a different duration than anything around it combined with a change in beat spacing). Although, you could also try to apply machine learning to working out the factors... although, then you'd still need reliable expert opinion on what the values should be to teach it.

Anyways, there's a brain dump on "Chaos" as a stat for you.

I'm a derp

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

OMG BUUUUMMPPPPP

what have you done...

Well, since this has now been bumped, I suppose i'll contribute by saying that I think the important thing is to just keep the information shown in the chart fairly simple just to get it implemented. If it needs to be fine-tuned over time then great, but what i mostly wanna see is a more accurate representation of difficulty besides the .5-5 star rating, because lets be honest, the star difficulty rating should really go up to like 15.


tl;dr I support.

JeMhUnTeR wrote:

I'm a derp

how dare you edit my post >.<

Zamura wrote:

the star difficulty rating should really go up to like 15.

Why not scale that 15 down to 5, you will see that isn't the problem

my point was simply that the 1-5 star scale is not exactly a good indicator of a maps difficulty once you reach the 5 star level, which is why i support this idea. It gives a clearer idea of how difficult the map is relative to others, at a glance.

I'd love to see some more detailed info on maps. The star system isn't doing it for me anymore because there are definitely maps that are harder than 5 stars and should be categorized higher like 6 or 7 stars yet can't because it's limited. I feel that this would also let you practice style specific maps. so you want to practice faster AR gradually? this would help. Not only informational, but I can see this as a great tool.

The difficulty rating needs a redesign, and this is a great suggestion because different people find different things hard. Also this seems obvious and someone probably mentioned this in the thread, but it would make the effects of mods like HR and DT visible and obvious, for example as a differently-colored layer behind the base difficulty.
Star~ of course

Oh yeah this request, I almost forgot it.
Seriously, this is a great idea.
Try to merge it with Tom's difficulty calculator in a way and we have a as-perfect-as-possible-map-difficulty-display-...thingy

I prefer to compare difficulties with numbers, not with visual indications which might be hard to differentiate.

The suggestion already has it only brought up on demand. If you don't want to see it, don't hit the button and it won't replace the scoreboard.

Oh wow how did I miss this thread?! Support!

This radar chart will also come in handy in multiplayer game. I sometimes play with beginner friends and I don't know if the circle size in some maps are big enough for HR for them to survive. A radar chart will make the decision a lot easier!

_tear wrote:

The difficulty rating needs a redesign, and this is a great suggestion because different people find different things hard. Also this seems obvious and someone probably mentioned this in the thread, but it would make the effects of mods like HR and DT visible and obvious, for example as a differently-colored layer behind the base difficulty.
Star~ of course

Yes its possible, Was already discussed.

Oinari-sama wrote:

Oh wow how did I miss this thread?! Support!

Simple it sat here got old and grew a beard.

theowest wrote:

I prefer to compare difficulties with numbers, not with visual indications which might be hard to differentiate.

You might need reading glasses, The thing only has 10 notches plus it was already discussed along with different graphing options...

Still, I prefer one number rather than multiple difficulty wings (those that spread out)

bwross wrote:

The suggestion already has it only brought up on demand. If you don't want to see it, don't hit the button and it won't replace the scoreboard.

^^

yay nice bump ppl. i want this.

Aaaaaghhh bump!!! >A<

Support support support support >////A////<''''''''
Also, I agree it would be good to include some more 'complex' difficulty parameters :3


.... Also I will come back to read the rest of this thread later...... :3

This was my idea too. I was actually about to post it until I saw this..

Anyways, you have my support. I'd like to be able to have a bit of an idea what the map will be like before playing it (if there's a lot of jumps, streams, bpm changes, overlapping notes, etc).

Nice Idea, I thought of this too! It would be a great way to see the map overall difficulty, as the stars doesn't tell you that much...
You have my support.

Great idea, full support.

If you could find a way to fit the perceptual map into the song selection as well as have the the numerical identification for AR, HP, CS, and OD in there somewhere too I could see this feature being very well liked (if ever implemented). Space is definitely an issue with how much clutter there is to begin with. Perhaps it could be like a small option beside the 5-star rating that you could click and it would bring up this small, faded-out version of the perceptual map in the middle of the screen which you then scroll over to expand it.

Really cool idea! Big fan ^w^

I Really loved the idea! I really want this =D

Not sure if suggested, but if we were to style it roughly to the size of the DDR like, we could always suggest it in this area of the UI without needing to have a button active:



Extend the black area out roughly an extra 10-15% more, and place it in there.

I have another concept. It's more for the webiste probably though.

For example the stars ring can have a different color depending on the difficulty of the map (more difficult - stronger red color)
I am not a designer, I can't draw cool professional stuff sorry. Excel mad skillz
Maybe speed and aim values can be put here somehow too, but I have no more ideas right now

UPD: And if that's in the game you could make these sectors clickable to let osu! find maps with certain parameters
UPD2: Another variant but with an indicator for high difficulty (I'd say 9, 10 are high for AR, OD and > 5 is high for CS)

No progress on this ? I would really like to see this. The idea should still work with the new difficulty system.