Add accessibility mods to ranked play

[smoogipoo]

See also: ppy/osu-server-spectator#522

Adds accessibility mods (HD, TC, CO, FI) to ranked play. Still called "free mods" to not introduce some new (possibly confusing) naming scheme.

The mods are selected once by the player prior to queueing up, and last for the entire duration of the match. I feel like this is more appropriate to put players on an even playing field, rather than having players effectively cheese their way out of certain mechanics.

To facilitate this,IMultiplayerClient.MatchmakingJoinQueue() has been changed to a method that supports a complex params object that now includes the selected mods.

Queue selection screen:

In the room:

[bdach]

Structural pass on the scoring parts.

[bdach]

Be aware that due to intersecting concerns there may be a friction point with ppy/osu-web#13101 here.

Declaring this as non-nullable long may not fly because if the above PR goes in, then lazer scores without mods will have this set to zero. This matters for the read side, as this structure appears to be used both for reading from API as well as writing to it.

[bdach]

Blocker: As previously discussed, sorting in this leaderboard provider still occurs using TotalScore uniformly.

osu/osu.Game/Screens/Play/Leaderboards/MultiplayerLeaderboardProvider.cs

Lines 190 to 193 in 42d27dc

	var orderedByScore = scores
	.OrderByDescending(i => i.TotalScore.Value)
	.ThenBy(i => i.TotalScoreTiebreaker)
	.ToList();

Thus I am reasonably confident without testing that this will result in invalid sorting of the leaderboard if users in the room have selected mods that result in different multipliers.

In the way I envisioned this working, the sort would be adjusted to sort by GetDisplayScore(). That probably still works here, although it'd weird and non-obvious because GetDisplayScore() is adjusted in the implementation to change behaviour depending on UseTotalScoreWithoutMods from the score processor, but you're also passing in useTotalScoreWithoutMods to the provider directly (which I never really wanted to do).

[pacowoc]

Maybe change it to appear before a map on the map metadata screen so that the mods can be toggle on a per-map basis. The community seems to dislike the locked mod decision a lot because they expect "accessibility" options to provide full player agency instead of being locked in blindly before a match not knowing what maps they are playing on.

This feel like a intentional handicap on a "accessibility option" to them and is against the common consensus on "free mods" since it has always been per map instead of per match both in tournaments and multiplayer lobbies.

This change will be a tradeoff between player agency and strategical depth so both are fine imo, I am just here to share some immediate community feedbacks.

I personally disagree with those opinions but it never hurts to share it regardless.

[pacowoc]

Also, you should consider the interaction of this kind of change with DMR, since HD does affect some maps' difficulty by a lot even for HD mains, there is real potential of this skewing the DMR accuracy.

[Tenexxt]

The pr calls them 'accessibility mods' but they seem to still adjust in game score results rather than use the unmultiplied score values so it makes sense that you should lock it once per match and not again, kinda like in tetrio (except that place also has whole seperate leaderboards for mods). Its just hell to balance something like this and also kinda unfair anyway, no matter how implemented.

[pacowoc]

The pr calls them 'accessibility mods' but they seem to still adjust in game score results rather than use the unmultiplied score values so it makes sense that you should lock it once per match and not again, kinda like in tetrio (except that place also has whole seperate leaderboards for mods). Its just hell to balance something like this and also kinda unfair anyway, no matter how implemented.

The problem with this is that it will practically create two separate queues and two different elo points for one player that can play in both queues, kinda complicating the perception of skill.

[pacowoc]

Also you need to consider traceable players, what about hidden+traceable, how should a "separate lb" work on those given the extremely limited amount of players.

[smoogipoo]

Maybe change it to appear before a map on the map metadata screen so that the mods can be toggle on a per-map basis. The community seems to dislike the locked mod decision a lot because they expect "accessibility" options to provide full player agency instead of being locked in blindly before a match not knowing what maps they are playing on.

Players do not need their own agency. They are expected to compete on a level playing field. I would rather not make this change at all and continue locking players into NM than to take it further as you're suggesting.

This feel like a intentional handicap on a "accessibility option" to them and is against the common consensus on "free mods" since it has always been per map instead of per match both in tournaments and multiplayer lobbies.

Common consensus really does not matter for ranked play, because it's not intending to be a replacement for multiplayer or tournaments. It should be treated as its own system that has its own opinions on how the gameplay loop works.

The pr calls them 'accessibility mods' but they seem to still adjust in game score results rather than use the unmultiplied score values

This is incorrect. Quite a lot of work has been done here and the server to make sure that pre-mod adjusted total scores are used.

The problem with this is that it will practically create two separate queues and two different elo points for one player that can play in both queues, kinda complicating the perception of skill.

Separate queues are not happening.

[smoogipoo]

I'm locking this discussion, because we really don't need a democratic process to this.