{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n rezbit<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed November 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n rezbit<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:31:29+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n smoogipooo wrote:<\/h4>rezbit wrote:<\/h4>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?<\/blockquote>You're exaggerating a bit. A 70% acc will never<\/em> 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<\/em> 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.<\/blockquote>Whether I'm exaggerating or not, combo scoring still undermines accuracy as we've already seen iJinjin get a 501k and an S all because of the new scoring system. I was just illustrating the effect more clearly.Chokes happen with or without combo scoring, this isn't good reasoning. It's better to favor overall consistency rather than combo consistency, and this new system clearly favors the latter.Seems more intuitive that the first guy should get more score than the second.<\/blockquote>You mean the guy with 70% acc?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Halogen-<\/a>\n\n \n Former osu!mania 4K Champion: 2015\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 574 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed September 2009<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Halogen-<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:36:50+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Kernaus wrote:<\/h4>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<\/strong>, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania<\/blockquote>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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \nTwitter - random stuff, etc<\/a><\/strong> | YouTube - various rhythm game videos<\/a><\/strong><\/center><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Kernaus<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 112 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2012<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Kernaus<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:39:00+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Halogen- wrote:<\/h4>Kernaus wrote:<\/h4>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<\/strong>, it has an effect in LR2, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case in osu!mania<\/blockquote>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.<\/blockquote>oh, well thanks for the correction, i always thought that the MA actually counted in the DP%<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n tkk<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 24 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n tkk<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:41:06+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Vygatron wrote:<\/h4>lpddemon wrote:<\/h4>good news for me <\/blockquote>stupud<\/blockquote>hey<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Shoegazer<\/a>\n\n \n osu!mania Paragon\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 528 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed April 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Shoegazer<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:42:11+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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?<\/h2>20% of the 1m is (combo \/ 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.<\/li>80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.<\/li><\/ol><\/blockquote>Combo<\/strong><\/span>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<\/strong> for FCs to be taken as absolute absolute importance<\/strong>, 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<\/strong><\/span>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.<\/span>SPOILER<\/a><\/div><\/div>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).<\/span>SPOILER<\/a><\/div><\/div>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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Asthmatic Magic<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 15 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Asthmatic Magic<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:43:43+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Kernaus wrote:<\/h4>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.<\/blockquote>Literally this. There is something to be said for consistency, yes, but basing it off combo is just fundamentally flawed because of that one reason. The better player will be more consistent regardless.Also visual mods having an impact on score is silly as it was already explained in the thread.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Full Tablet<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 2,544 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed September 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Full Tablet<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:46:39+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n [*] Mods are back! NF\/EZ\/HT give 0.5x score multipliers and DT\/HR\/HD\/FI\/FL give 1.06x score multipliers.[\/list]<\/blockquote>HD\/FI\/FL shouldn't give score multipliers because of reasons already mentioned in other posts.Playing a map with DT\/HT is basically playing another map. The ideal solution would be having different leaderboards for those mods. Applying score multipliers to those mods is a sub-optimal solution, that doesn't solve some issues (for example, a player might lose pp from mashing through a map when they had a HT score, or it might be hard for a player to beat his no-mod score with DT).EZ\/HR should be balanced in a way so the expected score doesn't vary from using them (a score with certain timing errors should be expected to have the same score regardless of timing window mods or OD) . A way to do this is described later in this post.NF shouldn't have a score multiplier in my opinion. If a certain play was done in a way there wasn't any fail, the score should be the same regardless of NF or not; if the play was poor enough to have a fail, the score should reflect how poor the play was (without needing the mod multiplier). Score is made up of 20% combo and 80% accuracy. We want to value the more accurate players (accuracy) whilst applying a small reward for consistency (combo).<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/blockquote>I think that combo shouldn't be a factor in score (beyond the notion that high combos are correlated with high scores).Combo is not a robust or reliable way to measure consistency. For example, if a player is expected to miss one note in a beatmap with near constant difficulty through it, the place the miss is has a considerable effect on score even though it is random. The same player in several plays is expected to have the same score (as long as he doesn't improve each play), but the variance of the results is quite high because of the combo system.Also, a combo system gives more importance to the middle parts of the beatmaps (since there is the greatest loss with a single miss), though, usually, that is not the most interesting part of a map.To give more importance to consistency, just giving more weight to the amount of misses is a better idea (amount of misses is more robust than combo). There are infinitely many ways to do this, something as simple as giving a multiplier based on the rate of misses could be done. For example, using a score multiplier of (1-miss_ratio)^5, so if the ratio of misses is 1%, there is a ~4.9% score penalty, with 5% misses there is a 22.6% score penalty, etc...About the accuracy portion of the score, I think a system that uses the distribution of the judgments (considering their timing windows) is better than just asg static values to the judgments regardless of OD and timing window mods (HR\/EZ). Given the distribution of the judgments and their timing windows, you can calculate the Normal Distribution (with error centered a 0) that fits the distribution the best (misses are considered as hitting the note outside the 50 timing window)The less standard deviation the curve has, the more accurate the score is, and more \"accuracy score\" the score should have.The fact that EZ and HR change the timing window of the hardest judgment makes things a bit more complex. The difficulty of achieving the maximum score is different based on those mods (and perfection in No-mod\/EZ\/HR are all fitted with a curve with standard deviation->0), because of that, the amount of notes also has to be considered to for the probability of getting a fluke result (in a form that is analogous as when measuring how loaded a coin is throwing it 5 times, instead of saying it is 100% loaded with 5 heads, it is ~87% loaded since at that percentage there is a chance of 50% of getting 5 heads or more throwing it 5 times). The result could be scaled so perfection on No-mod has a score of 1 million (so HR can get higher than that, and EZ can get lower).As for the timing windows of LNs, they should be calibrated so the difficulty of accurately playing each of their judgments is similar to the difficulty of accurately playing regular notes. Giving 50% more leniency to LN ends, and considering their judgments the same way as the other judgments, might work well in this case.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Full Tablet<\/a> 2016-06-14T15:13:01+00:00<\/time>, edited 2 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Yuudachi-kun<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 5,434 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed August 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Yuudachi-kun<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:49:01+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I like using nf for not overwriting ht scores<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Kernaus<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 112 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2012<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Kernaus<\/a>\n\n \n 2016-06-14T14:50:21+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Shoegazer wrote:<\/h4><\/span>GODLIKE<\/a>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?<\/h2>20% of the 1m is (combo \/ 10 + 1) * base_hit_values.<\/li>80% of the 1m is accuracy ^ 10.<\/li><\/ol><\/blockquote> 1p602c