What would would you guys rather have implemented?

News about StepMania Online.

Which do you prefer?

Timing removed, server always calculates as if judge 4.
16
46%
Server has a command like \judge to set higher judge with xp bonus
14
40%
No change from how it is now.
5
14%
 
Total votes: 35

houkouonchi
Site Admin
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 pm

What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby houkouonchi » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:30 pm

So I was thinking of implementing something and I wanted to get our users opinions on what they would prefer.

1) The timing is removed as regardless of what users judge difficulty is set to on the client it will be judged as judge 4 on the server. This means if you play judge 1 after the song ends on the summary screen and you select the user or yourself it will change to have less marv and more perf/good/etc... Or if you were on say judge 7 you will have more marv and less perf/good/etc...

2) A command is added in the server that defaults to judge 4. You will be able to see judgement in the stats on the site and you will get bit of an xp bonus for playing at higher judge difficulties and non 4 judge difficulty will be listed in modifiers like percent is currently done. This means if you set your cleint to judge 7 and then do \judge 7 on the server it will list you as judge 7 and the client/server should show the same (or very close to the same) stats.

3) No change of current behavior.

Vote on this poll so I can decide which to do!

FYI 1) is easier to implement then 2) but 2) is not crazy hard or anything.

Thanks!
StepmaniaOnline.net Administrative Team.

User avatar
blind
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:38 pm
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby blind » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:35 pm

I would like the judge settings, but how would the site know they are actually on J7 when they put /judge7? Because I see people doing /judge7 when they are playing on judge 4.
First to get 1,000,000 xp.
R.I.P. first place. :(

User avatar
Cube
Site Admin
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 am

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Cube » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:36 pm

blind wrote:I would like the judge settings, but how would the site know they are actually on J7 when they put /judge7? Because I see people doing /judge7 when they are playing on judge 4.

The same way we see you are on j4. By checking the offsets.

Personally I like the idea of the site displaying everything in j4. So when you get a AAA on j7 is shows a AAAA on the site. It would be much easier to compare scores and implement into the average rakning system.

houkouonchi
Site Admin
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby houkouonchi » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:39 pm

Cube wrote:
blind wrote:I would like the judge settings, but how would the site know they are actually on J7 when they put /judge7? Because I see people doing /judge7 when they are playing on judge 4.

The same way we see you are on j4. By checking the offsets.


This...

Basically the server would no longer go by what the client says the type of note is hitting. The way timing works now is it looks at how off they were (from 0) on the note and what the client SAYS the note was hit. The server knows what the windows are for j4. When the client says it hit a marv but it exceeded the window in which a marv is considered a marv on J4 then you get the 'TIMING' set on your game.

Now what I am talking about doing would make it so it ignores what the client is saying completely and calculates things only by the offset from 0 so its all server-side.

User avatar
Izzy
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm
Location: Leawood, Kansas
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Izzy » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:50 pm

I'm not a fan of these ideas. The server scores would most likely no longer reflect the score you got in game even when playing on J4.

I think option 1 would be good if the judge setting was sent through the smop or if I can somehow be convinced there is a foolproof way to code this based only on the offsets received for hitting the notes.

3xhale
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby 3xhale » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:54 pm

I vote for 1! thought i do not really mind :D

houkouonchi
Site Admin
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby houkouonchi » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:00 pm

Izzy wrote:I'm not a fan of these ideas. The server scores would most likely no longer reflect the score you got in game even when playing on J4.

I think option 1 would be good if the judge setting was sent through the smop or if I can somehow be convinced there is a foolproof way to code this based only on the offsets received for hitting the notes.


Actually with option 1 if your client is set on judge 4 then stats should be identical to server except in those rare cases where the server gets a 1 or 2 timing count then it would be off for a couple of notes.

User avatar
Izzy
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm
Location: Leawood, Kansas
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Izzy » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:02 pm

houkouonchi wrote:Actually with option 1 if your client is set on judge 4 then stats should be identical to server except in those rare cases where the server gets a 1 or 2 timing count then it would be off for a couple of notes.


But in order for J7 to reflect J4 scores by turning perfects in marvelous and greats in perfects you'd have to apply the same thing to J6,J5 and even J4 scores based on the same calculation using the offset.

There would be a really high chance for pretty much every score to not match up with the score in game.

houkouonchi
Site Admin
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby houkouonchi » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:04 pm

Izzy wrote:
houkouonchi wrote:Actually with option 1 if your client is set on judge 4 then stats should be identical to server except in those rare cases where the server gets a 1 or 2 timing count then it would be off for a couple of notes.


But in order for J7 to reflect J4 scores by turning perfects in marvelous and greats in perfects you'd have to apply the same thing to J6,J5 and even J4 scores based on the same calculation using the offset.

There would be a really high chance for pretty much every score to not match up with the score in game.


If option 1 then if you use judge 4 like most people then the server/client should be pretty agreeable. Yes if you chose a different judgement server/client would disagree.

As for the 2nd option if you used \judge 7 or some other higher judge then the server would be deciding what the notes actually were and if the client is also set to judge level 7 then it should also be very close to what the server is and they should agree. But yes if client is judge 4 and the user does \judge 7 then they would not be the same.

User avatar
Izzy
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm
Location: Leawood, Kansas
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Izzy » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:11 pm

So if you were on J4 and you did /Judge7 it would give you timing counts the same way it does now for Judge 1? I think I see how it could work, you choose your judge setting for the server and it changes the timing windows it checks against for timing.

Ok, I pick option 2 then.

Edit: except, it seems like I'm thinking of a mix between both 1 and 2.

Wouldn't you want the /Judge7 and other judge commands as well as the server translating your scores into J4 scores based on that while keeping timing without an exp bonus and keeping timing.

User avatar
foxfire667
Moderator
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby foxfire667 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:27 pm

Honestly I really love the concept of number one, but I have no idea how this would work for judging difficulties aside from 4 and 7 in terms of a clean conversion (and perhaps judge 1 if it is the opposite). The judging difficulties aside from these numbers don't clearly convert to increasing / decreasing all of the stats because they aren't tight or loose enough to be entirely in the window of another judgement.

Unless there would be a way to properly convert other judging difficulties accurately to J4 without discrepancy, I would really only focus on J7 (or J1 I guess). For the most part people stick on 4 unless they are trying to improve their accuracy and quad, which is when J7 would be chosen.
Image

houkouonchi
Site Admin
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby houkouonchi » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:51 pm

Izzy wrote:So if you were on J4 and you did /Judge7 it would give you timing counts the same way it does now for Judge 1? I think I see how it could work, you choose your judge setting for the server and it changes the timing windows it checks against for timing.


It could be made to be like this. Keep the timing but then you are forcing the client/server to agree. Honestly I don't know how important that is with server-side judgement windows enabled.

Izzy wrote:Ok, I pick option 2 then.

Edit: except, it seems like I'm thinking of a mix between both 1 and 2.

Wouldn't you want the /Judge7 and other judge commands as well as the server translating your scores into J4 scores based on that while keeping timing without an exp bonus and keeping timing.


Well this kind of sounds like 1) when yous ay server translating scores into J4. If scores are translated into J4 then that is basically what option 1 is doing with no xp bonus. Option 2 the server will have a judge difficulty setting and give at least enough xp boost so the xp is about equivelent (or a bit higher) for doing a higher judge difficulty and the server will record scores as judge 7 or 8 or whatever they are as well as the fact it is at that judgement level and the client/server should agree with each other if the client/server are using the same settings. If the client is still J4 and the server is set to higher with the /judge (or whatever it might be) command then the recorded scores on the site/db and end of game screen will differ from what the client initially shows before you select a different user.

User avatar
EvilAngel00
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:28 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby EvilAngel00 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:41 pm

A /judge would be great. Imo, the best way to be able to do decent scores on decent songs (not ridiculous one I mean :p ) is to play some time (couple of months) with a higher judge and then come back to 4. The skill of accuracy just sky rockets without you necessarily noticing :lol:

User avatar
Cube
Site Admin
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 am

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Cube » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:04 pm

EvilAngel00 wrote:A /judge would be great. Imo, the best way to be able to do decent scores on decent songs (not ridiculous one I mean :p ) is to play some time (couple of months) with a higher judge and then come back to 4. The skill of accuracy just sky rockets without you necessarily noticing :lol:

With option 1 though, you would not need to go back to judge 4. The scores on the site would show as if you were playing judge 4, instead of j7 mixed with j4 scores, but your client would still record it as judge 7. So either way you get the advantages of doing back and forth.

User avatar
CuDi
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:18 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby CuDi » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:08 am

Saffy here. Voted for option 2.

I didn't read through the comments but...

I don't see how option 1 would play through at all. Wouldn't this affect the current ranking system per song? I think it'll just make comparing scores, and the scoreboards a mess. Or maybe I am not understanding quite completely.

User avatar
Cube
Site Admin
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 am

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Cube » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:11 pm

CuDi wrote:Saffy here. Voted for option 2.

I didn't read through the comments but...

I don't see how option 1 would play through at all. Wouldn't this affect the current ranking system per song? I think it'll just make comparing scores, and the scoreboards a mess. Or maybe I am not understanding quite completely.


Actually option 1 would make the scoreboard very clean, option 2 would kind of make it a mess.

The server gets the offsets of every note played from the client. This means that the server can have a set judgment and it does not matter what the client has theirs set to. For example is someone was playing on j1, the client would reflect a really good score. The site would show their score as if they played on j4, so it would be much lower. The same thing would work for j7. The client would show a lower score then the server since the site would be going by j4. This means people could play on different judgements and still be ranked the same way on the site with comparable scores.

User avatar
Izzy
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm
Location: Leawood, Kansas
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Izzy » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:33 pm

I'm still not convinced that kind of score translation between judges is even possible based purely on offsets.

Are the timing windows even linear going up and down by 1? I don't know how they would convert other than 4 to 7. Actually I don't even know what evidence there is that J7 scores convert the way they think they do to J4. If it is linear than I would imagine it is actually J8 that converted how we think J7 does. But J8 doesn't actually exist since it jumps right to "justice".

StephenIsFast
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:00 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby StephenIsFast » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:22 pm

I thought option 2 was good for xp boosting, but as I read Cube's post above, it would be a super mess.

So I pick option 1, seems easier for all stepmania online users.

User avatar
Cube
Site Admin
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 am

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Cube » Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:58 pm

Izzy wrote:I'm still not convinced that kind of score translation between judges is even possible based purely on offsets.

Are the timing windows even linear going up and down by 1? I don't know how they would convert other than 4 to 7. Actually I don't even know what evidence there is that J7 scores convert the way they think they do to J4. If it is linear than I would imagine it is actually J8 that converted how we think J7 does. But J8 doesn't actually exist since it jumps right to "justice".


SM5 has j8 and justice. I don't think it would be very hard to test if judging purely by offsets is something we can do. I am almost certain that it will work without any issues.

User avatar
Izzy
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm
Location: Leawood, Kansas
Contact:

Re: What would would you guys rather have implemented?

Postby Izzy » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:47 am

It finally dawned on me how option 1 would actually work. The method I was thinking of extremely convoluted and probably impossible when in fact it is incredibly simple and almost foolproof.

Option 1 is definitely the way to go.


Return to “StepMania Online News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest