1. Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
   
   1. We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).
2. LN starts and ends are now judged separately.
   
   1. Previously LNs considered a t timing distribution between the start press and end release. This made it unclear as to whether you'd get a MAX after an LN end as you had to take into consideration the LN start. Judging separately should feel more natural, rewarding (as you get instant ), and a bit more challenging.
3. LN ends are given a 1.5x lenience to the hit windows.
   
   1. LN starts were previously given up to 1.2x timing window lenience and LN ends were given up to 2.4x timing window lenience. This reduces the complexity of releasing an LN whilst you're focusing on pressing other notes.
4. If an LN is broken but re-pressed, the LN end will not award more than 50 points.
   
   1. Works similar to the current system depending on when you release the hold, but is lenient enough to feel rewarding even for newer players (consider that ScoreV2 will be used as the normal ranking in the future).
5. LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes.
   
   1. Feels more natural rather than displaying a useless number.
6. Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.

1. Make DT adjust to 100%/110%/.../150% with score bonus increments of 0.05x (or something like that).
2. Increase the bonus of HR or decrease the tightness of the timing windows.

Cutting Edge has been updated with changes to ScoreV2 that were proposed by Shoegazer here. I want to stress that the changes are not final and we are still tweaking the system to properly represent a player's skill in a competitive setting.

Please note that HD/FI/FL mod multipliers have not yet been removed. These are slated to be removed in the next iteration of changes.

Edit: Posting this because I've explained it on reddit:

There are two components to the score.
- Accuracy
Essentially as accuracy increases we want you to gain more and more score while ing for the difficulty of maintaining a 99%+ accuracy over 90%. To do this accuracy is exponentiated so that it is not quite a linear multiplier. In the previous iteration it was raised to the 10th power, in the new iteration it is raised to a factor of the accuracy.
This has the effect of causing lower accuracies to not be so much of dead weight as they were previously, while still providing a steep curve towards 100% accuracy as seen in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/sykzM

- Combo
Combo is the harder one to talk about. We want to award holding combo, but at the same time not punish holding 4000 combo and missing once too much. To achieve this your individual hit scores are weighted by the combo you have after hitting the note. In the previous iteration this was a linear relationship, which resulted in punishing for missing after holding 4000 combo. In the new iteration it is logarithmic, with a cap at log_4(400) (meaning combo > 400 will be weighed as if your combo was 400), as shown in this graph (red = old, blue = new): https://u-gi.me/oJ6sa

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

LNs do not give combo ticks any more - only one combo tick for the start and end notes.

1. Feels more natural rather than displaying a useless number.

Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.

coursaunt wrote: 592a1g

Will current scores be changed when this is released?

coursaunt wrote: 592a1g

Will current scores be changed when this is released?

Halogen- wrote: 6k4366

He might still be on v1 scoring. Everyone has to make the change and it's probably not directly applied in the room's MP.

Elementaires wrote: 42e4

Halogen- wrote: 6k4366

He might still be on v1 scoring. Everyone has to make the change and it's probably not directly applied in the room's MP.

I asked him and told me he made the changes (for the test)
and everyone in the room did

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

[*] Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.

Elementaires wrote: 42e4

very bad, this isnt how VSRG should be



Why does Musty have the SAME score than Todestrieb with more than 10% less accuracy, more than 100 misses, and less combo?

no sense...

1. do not give visual mod multiplier
2. enable fixed HD lane cover (or as separate mod which gives no visual mod bonus)
3. stepmania-like rate system (not just 150% and 75% but also 140% 130% 120%... and respective multiplier) and pp
4. wonky score (? _ ?)

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

I don't necessarily find it bad that HD and FI are harder for some players than others. The same rule stands for all other game modes - some players find playing with HD much easier in osu!standard than without it. However if you want to be a perfectionist then you better get practicing reading differently.

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.

Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking , and we have lots of time to make changes.

Also guys, we're not just patching things up. We're aware that HR needs a rework, and we're brainstorming changes right now, do NOT be afraid to suggest us breaking changes - we will consider them.

FrenzyLi wrote: 4z6m8

like how is mania different in of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)

Wh1teh wrote: 44431e

Should I get bonus points for reading slabs, arrows or orbs? Should I get bonus points for playing with background enabled? no. That would be stupid, because that's just a preference, like hd,fi,fl are.

FrenzyLi wrote: 4z6m8

hey wh1teh i can play standard with different skins too, where HD etc have multipliers
so how should we break this logic? like how is mania different in of visual mods? (Don't get me wrong I'm thinking too)

Reikokaz wrote: 3u314d

http://www.strawpoll.me/10482380
Just leaving this one here o/
Also if you want to add the DT and HR modifier pls increase it since 0.06 isn't beneficial for any kind of player especially on harder map.
I personally also don't like the scoring system how it is right now, since Mania shouldn't be judged by combo.

lpddemon wrote: 4o2317

good news for me

FrenzyLi wrote: 4z6m8

100% accuracy score, 0% combo score?

FrenzyLi wrote: 4z6m8

Vygatron, you play FL. What's your opinion on FL bonus multiplier. Is it good or stupud?

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Considering HD/FI is a preference, this is a terrible change. It would be like giving a score multiplier to higher rates.

And its been explained time and time again why combo based scoring is dangerously flawed. There are better ways to accomplish the same exact thing.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if lots of players quit because of this awful change.

Explain what the "better ways" are? As I mentioned in the OP we are taking , and we have lots of time to make changes.

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

rezbit wrote: 4b2c2l

Combo scoring is arbitrary as fuck. With combo scoring, its not about how many misses you get, its where you missed.

Missing at the beginning becomes way less penalizing than missing anywhere else for no good reason. Missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread throughout the chart for no good reason. It also does a shitty job of favoring consistency considering it undermines accuracy by a large margin.

Two guys playing a 10 minute marathon. The one who gets an FC with 70% acc has a better score than the other more consistent guy with 98% with shitmisses here and there. Does that sound logical to you?

You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never have more score than the guy with 98% acc. I think it's actually logical that missing five notes in a row is less penalizing than missing five notes evenly spread through the map. As maps progress anxiety builds up and you become tired, both of those are indications of how good of a player you are, or otherwise, how consistent of a player you are.

Like... OOPS I missed a note and it takes me until the next beat to get back on rhythm, but I play the map flawlessly from there on, whilst the other guy made wrong movements in several parts of the map. Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.

Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.

Kernaus wrote: 5b2q3r

Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania

Halogen- wrote: 6k4366

Kernaus wrote: 5b2q3r

Also i mentionned it already but please, PLEASE, make the MAX ratio count on the final grade of the play, it has an effect in stepmania, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania

It only counts for the purpose of a AAAA, but nothing else. You can AAA with 100% perfects and 0% marvs and receive 100% of the DP% -- meaning it actually does not count for the final grade.

Vygatron wrote: 5g2z3l

lpddemon wrote: 4o2317

good news for me

stupud

How does it work currently? 2v1fw

1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.

SPOILER

SPOILER

Kernaus wrote: 5b2q3r

thescenario that can happen however is, take any map, two players, one gets a shitmiss at the beginning, the other gets a shitmiss near the end what will happen? wont it be the one that missed at the beginning who will win? if that's the case, i dont think this is fair.

[*] Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.[/list]

1. Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy.
   
   1. We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).

Shoegazer wrote: 174g4x

GODLIKE

Alright, really long post incoming.

Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.

I do have reservations with the scoring component however.

This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:

How does it work currently? 2v1fw

1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.

Combo
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.

In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.

I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.

Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.

This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.

I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.

So that's for combo.

Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.

SPOILER

For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.

The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.

So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).

SPOILER

A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.

Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.

That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I ittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.

1. I like the LN changes, they feel good, and now they don't inflate combo like crazy
2. 1 miss in the middle of a song feels way too punishing. With good accuracy one miss mean 150k less score, which feels like way too much for a small mistake. Mania and taiko are the only modes where one miss doesn't completely destroy your score, lets keep it that way.
3. Getting 95% but only half the possible score feels really bad.
   
4. I don't think HD and FL should give a score bonus. Some players, myself included, find it easier to read with these mods, I don't see why they should get a score bonus for playing the way they find easier.

Shoegazer wrote: 174g4x

Long Post

Alright, really long post incoming.

Not going to say much about the mod thing because I don't really have a constructive enough opinion to say anything. LNs seem fine.

I do have reservations with the scoring component however.

This is how osu!mania ScoreV2 currently works:

How does it work currently? 2v1fw

1. 20% of the 1m is (combo / 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.
2. 80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.

Combo
The combo component is probably easier to talk about because it shows a decent amount of effect overall - there are a few problems with a combo-based proportion, mainly the fact that it does not take into the frequency of misses (though this is for more extreme) AND the position of misses in a given chart.

In a chart with consistent difficulty (i.e. the chance of missing is the same throughout the entire chart) - which are common, there's a good chance where you can miss right in the middle and if you fully SSS (all 300g) the chart otherwise, you'd only get 25% of the combo score if you SSS'd the entire chart. That is the equivalent of 150K, which is almost certainly a decisive victory for the other team. Of course, this is the most extreme case, but the fact that you can take that much damage from just a single mistake in the chart is very much overkill. This tends to have similar effects even if you don't miss right in the middle, too.

I think a combo-based mechanic is fine if it's done properly, and changing the proportions to make combo even smaller is more of a band-aid, rather than a fix. I think the problem lies in the fact that combo is not scaled in something similar to a logarithmic scale (obviously not to that magnitude, but you get the idea). Dividing combo by 10 doesn't solve the problem, so I think it would be fine to get rid of the "/ 10" thing. I'm not sure what exponent you can use to scale down larger combos and make smaller combos matter relatively more, but I think it would be a good start to use something like that to scale it down.

Having a exponential to scale down larger combos will also help with the location of misses too, it makes the location of misses matter less, and it also punishes players who miss consistently in harder areas (which is the general case) against players who can smash through harder areas but missed one note in a much easier area.

This current combo component is good if you're trying to strongly enforce consistency/FCs, but the metagame has not shifted enough for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance, unlike osu! standard. Even if you scale larger combos down with an exponential, it would still make FCs important, but at least the round is still salvageable.

I don't have any practical examples on hand, but judging from most people's screenshots, it seems to be a very extreme direction that not many people like. Again though, I think a combo-based mechanic would work fine if done properly, so it just needs some tweaking.

So that's for combo.

Accuracy
While accuracy^10 didn't seem like much on paper, but the difference was really substantial when I looked at the numbers. This is what the accuracy component would look like - there's also a 1mil equivalent for easier comparison.

SPOILER

For a comparison, a 96% on score v1 is about 850K on average (it's 664K with scorev2, scaled). You can argue that v1 and v2 are not strictly comparable, but it's moreso to show how much of a drop in score scorev2 could potentially bring with just a 4% drop.

The problem with this is that the exponent used is far too strong of an exponential to use. It might be fine for earlier tournament rounds (forces players to be a lot more consistent and accurate with charts that they should be very much comfortable with), but the exponential is most definitely too great for something like semi-finals/finals, where there is a massive variance in performance across multiple teams. A player who can't get 94%+ on any of the maps in the finals/semi-finals mappool (which is very much viable given the diversity of the mappools) would essentially be dead-weight and would more than likely lose the round unless he has very strong teammates to back him up - players who'd get about 98.8% on average against three players with 97%. That difference is massive and it makes for more blowouts and less variance, which goes against what score v2 is mainly implemented for.

So the main problem is the magnitude of the exponential - but you also want to make the gaps between a 95% and 96% noticeable enough to be noticeably larger than a 99% and 100%. I guess a mediatory point would be something like accuracy^(n-accuracy)? This is what it looks like for accuracy^(6-accuracy).

SPOILER

A 96% with that looks more similar to the one in scorev1, and the drop seems more reasonable, too. The main drawback is that the difference is pretty minute compared to accuracy^5, but I think using a base like that would be a good start. You could do something like accuracy^(7-(2 * accuracy)), etc. as well.

Again, this current system would be fine if you really want players to be deadly consistent and all-rounders, but I think encouraging people to do it to that much of a magnitude is far too much and is too much of a shift compared to the current meta. I think a subtler magnitude is more applicable and will create a finesse that creates more variance and excitement than frustration and blowouts.

That should be all. I'm sorry if not many of my thoughts are coherent, but I have a really bad headache as I'm typing this and I ittedly didn't plan on writing this much to begin with. Hope you can put these thoughts into consideration.

Khelly wrote: 2d3o3y

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

Kernaus wrote: 5b2q3r

Khelly wrote: 2d3o3y

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure

Kernaus wrote: 5b2q3r

Khelly wrote: 2d3o3y

Some players find hd/fl harder to play with - I think they should get a score bonus for playing with something that they find harder


That's what I don't like against your hd/fl statement is that I can reverse it easily like that and still make the same type of point as you.

anybody can easily play HD/FL after a few hours of exposure

qba108 wrote: 5u195n

score v2 VS score v1
If this doesnt scream "HEY GUYS MAYBE THIS ISNT SUCH A GREAT IDEA AFTER ALL" then I dont know what does.

FelipeLink wrote: 713v3t

Guys, can we not break my favorite game? please?
Thanks

Score multipliers = No pls

1M is the gap, and its fair enough

110%/120%/130%/140% mods would be the best change ever btw

But PLEASE NO SCORE MULTIPLIERS!

Thanks!

Vygatron wrote: 5g2z3l

JUST FUCK MY ASS WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS COMBO SHIT

Halogen- wrote: 6k4366

Vygatron wrote: 5g2z3l

JUST FUCK MY ASS WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS COMBO SHIT

Gekido- wrote: 4kj5l

I have an idea, let's give 2x 3x and 4x multipliers at 20 30 and 40 combo and then double the multipliers by adding "Brain Power" notes, where if you hit the entire string of brain power notes you add adrenaline to your overdrive meter! So 2x 3x and 4x would be 4x 6x and 8x!

Oh wait wrong game.

Knit wrote: 24o6b

there are people who want combo based scoring in a vsrg?

smoogipooo wrote: 2z7152

1. Mods are back! NF/EZ/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT/HR/HD/FI/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.

FrenzyLi wrote: 4z6m8

How about if for any x0.1 speedup of the music/beatmap, you get extra x0.05 multiplier? That way DT/NC are x1.25 by current standards.

If the engine allows x1.2 speedup that means i can submit scores on x1.10 multiplier and get new pp calculation if the score exceeds previous submitted scores.