Don’t worry, this ranking stated on my request does not compete with the Performance ranking. Kindly please read my documentation about this request below.

=========================================
osu! Star Ranking Documentation
osu! multiplayer dedicated ranking
All stated here are all tentative and subject to change









I am hoping that you'll like my idea that I posted here. It took me a while to brainstorm this one.

Obtaining those stars would be hard, because 100Mp for 1 star ?!
Some players are not playing multiplayer either.

Hi_Hello wrote:

Obtaining those stars would be hard, because 100Mp for 1 star ?!
Some players are not playing multiplayer either.

Whoops... I written that wrong, players start at one star when they have a 10Mp (I also updated the topic). I put a huge number on that way because, just like what I post above, it's my way to invite users to play multiplayer just like how much they play the single player mode.

Also, all that I posted there are subject to change often...

To make it more easier, try this one:
1star: 10-74Mp
2stars: 75-199Mp
3stars: 200-499Mp
4stars: 500-999Mp
5stars: 1000Mp<...

Hi_Hello wrote:

To make it more easier, try this one:
1star: 10-74Mp
2stars: 75-199Mp
3stars: 200-499Mp
4stars: 500-999Mp
5stars: 1000Mp<...

Updated. Thank you for this, I also add a platinum star

sounds like a good idea but being last shouldn't yield any stars

buny wrote:

sounds like a good idea but being last shouldn't yield any stars

I think no gaining of points to the last place player on multiplayer is somewhat unfair (if i understand your idea correctly), especially if his/her score is just closer to the next place

For Example:

5th Place - 1844321 (240x)
6th Place - 1843981 (236x)
7th Place - 1840031 (230x)
8th Place - 1840010 (231x)


Additionally, the only person who cannot gain points on the multiplayer play is the one who fail the map or quit the room while the game is in progress ...

This would lead to people wanting to join rooms where everyone else is worse; and hosts kicking people if they have no chance to beat some players.

The biggest problem I see is that there is no balance mechanism for players of different skill levels. A 3 digit player can be in a room full of 5 digit players and get easy points (although this example is a bit extreme).

There either needs to be a mechanism to pair up players of similar strengths (another request, can't be bothered to look it up right now) or have some sort of "normalisation" to take skill gaps into consideration (which will be similar to leagues/ladder). I've had idea in the past for using osu!tp's 3 categories for determining who's the "favourite" in a mp setup and reward the "underdog" if he beats the "favourite" in a match, but I'll save that for another day.

Either way, once the above mechanism are in place it'll take away the "fun" and emphasise the "competition" side. "Fun" stats imo need to be simple, eg having a set of 3 MP Win Count (and %) displayed in profile:
-Number of Wins Against Higher Ranked Players
-Number of Wins Against Similar Ranked Players
-Number of Wins Against Lower Ranked Players.

Luckily player skills are better presented by ppv2 ranks (at least that's the case for my friends and myself) so a simple win count may work pretty well.

Support, because its a good idea to invite more Singleplayer in Multi, but how Oinari-sama said, there have to be a balance system.

Full Tablet wrote:

This would lead to people wanting to join rooms where everyone else is worse; and hosts kicking people if they have no chance to beat some players.

There could be a rank requirement/limit maybe

Isn't this just a "How much do you play multiplayer"? A thousand games at last place is still 100 points in this system. There has to be a way to lose them for it to have any worth as a metric. (even so, you can just sit in rooms with people playing easies and HD HR everything)

ashketchum1234 wrote:

buny wrote:

sounds like a good idea but being last shouldn't yield any stars

I think no gaining of points to the last place player on multiplayer is somewhat unfair (if i understand your idea correctly), especially if his/her score is just closer to the next place

For Example:

5th Place - 1844321 (240x)
6th Place - 1843981 (236x)
7th Place - 1840031 (230x)
8th Place - 1840010 (231x)


Additionally, the only person who cannot gain points on the multiplayer play is the one who fail the map or quit the room while the game is in progress ...

oh sorry i didn't see that failing gives no points

though the points could be easily farmable by playing the shortest length ranked map (like 30secs iirc)

buny wrote:

oh sorry i didn't see that failing gives no points

though the points could be easily farmable by playing the shortest length ranked map (like 30secs iirc)

As an idea, using the charts as a map pool could breath new life into them while limiting the amount of farm considerably.

I love the idea, though wouldn't it be nicer with more star thingys? Such as maybe 1 Bronze Star, 2 bronze stars. Then you move on to Silver gold platinum Diamond etc etc ? So let's say for each tier upgrade like 5 stars? to move up from bronze star you need to get 5 of them, then you get one Silver

I thank you all of you for your generous feedback.

As for toady, I am now working other conditions/mechanics that can affect the points the player can obtain.
Some of these can somehow solve this following conflicts:
A. Farming Players
B. No Balance System


EDIT: I have now updated the request and added/updated the following area.

This still doesn't address the key issue that the suggested implementation is completely opposed to the objective.

The main objective of this request is to have an accurate multiplayer performance of one player other than their performance points they obtain from the main single game. Other than that, this is my way to invite new and veteran players to play multiplayer for fun and competitive.

This isn't multiplayer performance. This is rank in the same way that it is with osu level, or levels in progression-based FPS's or whatnot. You get points for playing regardless of if you're playing at a high level or a low level. If you beat people who can barely hold a mouse, you get as many points as if you beat rrtyui. (For that matter, if you lose to them, you also get the same amount of points) If there's no way of comparing player skill in this, change the objective. If you want it to be indicative of skill, there has to be the following:
a) No cap in points
b) Point earnings based on point totals of who you beat in multiplayer
And maybe c) initial point seeding based on pp rank.

Oinari-sama wrote:

Either way, once the above mechanism are in place it'll take away the "fun" and emphasise the "competition" side. "Fun" stats imo need to be simple, eg having a set of 3 MP Win Count (and %) displayed in profile:
-Number of Wins Against Higher Ranked Players
-Number of Wins Against Similar Ranked Players
-Number of Wins Against Lower Ranked Players.

*Off Topic: When I read this, it reminded me of the way you train skills on a game called "Mabinogi".*

Also, I support this request, but I do see the problems mentioned above. I would love to have a nice little badge though ;D.

Why only top 8 would get ranked? =(

I just spent like 2-3 hours, playing more than 30 songs in 5.5 stars room.
There were 14-16 people almost all the time, with host rotation, no hijacking, no hosting troll / too easy / too hard songs, people were downloading and clicking [Ready] fast, and even though some of us were often dying, everyone had fun and pleasure



We could say that it's almost perfect case scenario, but even though people sometimes say that it's sometimes hard to find good full room, you can often do it. But, if your system would be implemented like that, it would definitely harm 10-16 people rooms.
Some people would get discouraged by not getting 'Mp' and keep leaving to find some room, where they can be top 8.

I believe that you don't want to normalize multiplayer games to 8 player games? For me, the more people are playing and having fun, the more pleasurable multiplayer game is, especially if there are no problems and things go smoothly.



Also, the system could be abused, like Full_Tablet said:

This would lead to people wanting to join rooms where everyone else is worse; and hosts kicking people if they have no chance to beat some players.

Plus, I agree with Oinari-sama and Ippikiryu that it should reflect our skills better.

Also, what about difficulty decreasing mods? Can you get any Mp for having few hours of fun with Relax turned on?
Likewise, You could keep FC-ing some songs with [No Fail], but get far behind other players because of score penalty. Even though you didn't died and mod was useless. So, if Mp are going to reflext our performance and don't look similar to main ranking, then maybe it should work in a little different manner? ;>


Again, maybe you should think of people that like to play with 8+ players? If not, then I think that your feature will definitely have negative impact in some of multiplayer gaming aspects.

Besides, if I was to FC or almost FC some hard song, along with few other people and don't receive any points for being 9-th and beating almost half of players, while the person before me got 5 points only for spinning little faster and getting like 2k more points, I would definitely feel discouraged and started mumbling to myself that it's not really fair. Maybe you should extend Mp on all the player? Points don't need to be integers

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, as for now, I am against this feature, at least in this form.

In my opinion it could discourage some players or convey mixed/negative feelings, instead providing more fun. Plus, it would harm 8+ players rooms, in which I prefer to play. The more competition, the merrier So, if you improve your system and take all players into account and change the mechanics, then maybe I will support this idea. Maybe. But probably not, unless you do it really good and in non-harmful way.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For me, multiplayer is usually something fun. Of course, I sometimes play for competition and can perform better under the pressure. I will probably try to get some PP in multi, unless it will be playing with many mods and repeating over and over, in other words: until I will like to "farm some PP".

So, I play multi more for fun than competition. I like to play crazy beatmaps with others and improve my skills. Even though my skill jumped by like 1-1.5 stars last 2 weeks, I just ignore PP and keep playing 5-7 stars on mods that won't give me any PP.

Right now, it doesn't matter how good or bad you play. There is no multiplayer ranking, so people are free to play however they want. But implementing idea like this could harm both the fun and overall prosperity of rooms with many players.



.

2years ago room had 8slot max and free mode didn't exist. Not sure i forgot when these features was added