[Game] Osu! - Page 256

On April 14 2014 05:53 maru~ wrote:

You're right, but then how do you objectively judge the difficulty of a map? As you said, "what's hard for some people is easy for others, and vice versa.". Also while it's true that you could get a lot of pp by playing certain kind of maps you will still hit a wall at some point because of the weighting.

I was thinking that if you started on a fresh account/smurf, and you had a certain skill level "x," you can sandbag and cluster all your submitted scores around a certain top pp, which would negate the weighing.

On April 14 2014 06:14 scottyyy wrote:
the azer curse is real

On April 14 2014 06:34 Cyro wrote:


But your weaker scores don't drag you down, they only add slightly to your top scores. The new account would have lower rank than the old one with the same high scores plus more

On April 14 2014 06:26 ebacho wrote:


I was thinking that if you started on a fresh account/smurf, and you had a certain skill level "x," you can sandbag and cluster all your submitted scores around a certain top pp, which would negate the weighing. Of course this would take some research into what combination of maps/mods/whatever to ensure that you didn't deviate too far from that pp score and remain easily FCable, you could conceivably get to some pretty high rank without actually being that great.

On April 14 2014 06:26 ebacho wrote:
I do agree on your remark about subjectivity/objectivity of map difficulty - that said, a map with higher bpm, more stacks, streams, jumps, patterns and so forth will generally be harder than one without those map elements.

On April 14 2014 06:41 Cyro wrote:
I fc'd it with 95.5% and it gave me 62pp

dafuq?

I mean it's not great accuracy but seriously?

On April 14 2014 06:47 maru~ wrote:

Not sure what you mean here.


Sure, but it's usually not as clearcut. Is a high bpm map with easy patterns and few jumps harder than a low bpm map with hard patterns etc.


Only 2.64 stars. You'd need really high acc here.

My understanding was that a large gap between your top score and your lower scores would lower the pp you got even more - though I'm not quite sure I get the new system regardless.

If my only three scores were, say, 150/150/150, then there shouldn't be any weighing, right? But if I got something like 250/125/125, the 125 scores would be worth a lot less.

On April 14 2014 06:49 Cyro wrote:


Oh really? It's one of the hardest maps i've ever fc'd lol

i took it from a page where it gave like 140pp

On April 14 2014 06:41 Cyro wrote:
It's counting the top score, even though there is one with better accuracy, and another that's an FC. Can i get it to count those ones, or see how much PP they would give?

On April 14 2014 06:49 swim224 wrote:
I feel really silly for asking this, but where do you find the star counts you guys keep talking about?

On April 14 2014 06:41 Cyro wrote:
I fc'd it with 95.5% and it gave me 65pp

I mean it's not great accuracy but seriously?

On April 14 2014 06:51 scottyyy wrote:


Due to the way the game is programmed, it has to take your #1 score and disregard the rest. Even if that score would give you less pp than your #2 score. The only way around it is to just beat all your scores with a better one.

It sucks, but it's a limitation that peppy is working on

On April 14 2014 06:54 Cyro wrote:


That sounds pretty painful

So i can never overtake my score on Tik Tok with an SS, even if it would give more PP, because it won't calculate it?

Calculating the highest score made sense when the highest score gave the most ranking points. It doesn't any more, so i don't understand why it's still like that. If it is, they should at least give you the ability to wipe scores, even though that's a messy workaround

On April 14 2014 06:45 ebacho wrote:


My understanding was that a large gap between your top score and your lower scores would lower the pp you got even more - though I'm not quite sure I get the new system regardless.

If my only three scores were, say, 150/150/150, then there shouldn't be any weighing, right? But if I got something like 250/125/125, the 125 scores would be worth a lot less.

Fake edit: As I typed the above I think I got what you were trying to say - the effect of the 100% weight 250 would cancel out the effect of the lower weights of the 125/125. The problem I see this having is that it would discourage people from trying to FC maps that are a lot higher than the level they're comfortable at if they had a lot of these lower scores, however.

On April 14 2014 06:58 maru~ wrote:

If your top scores were 150/150/150 there would still be weighting. (100% of the first 150, 95% of the second 150, 90% of the third 150).

I think the pp you get for a score is 0.95^#rank-1 * pp of score.

On April 14 2014 07:00 ebacho wrote:


Ah, that makes more sense. Seems like an ok system for the most part then.

On April 14 2014 07:03 maru~ wrote:

Yeah, it's quite well thought out I think. The only real issue I see is what we discussed earlier (how to rate the difficulty of a map).