@Okorin
Nice.
@ProfessionalBox
I understand your thoughts, but even though we can't do anything against the PP-system right now, I still think an incentive to push those mappers who want to create something different into the right direction is not worthless. The mentorship is the perfect example of helping mappers improve their maps even with the PP-system in place. However, the mentorship program only works for the people who take part of it, which usually means a huge effort (either mentoring or menteeing for a cycle) so I still prefer to do something besides that, even just a simple queue like I mentioned.
@Shiirn
Changing how the qualified section works is a good idea. We should suggest this to the staff and developers after the currently pending changes are being pushed through. Though changing this will still require getting mappers to change their mind afterwards. It's always the easiest to continue in the way one's always done.
@Pachiru
You can't really forbid people to map a song that's already ranked. Also, there has been various examples where the same song has been mapped totally different by different people, in fact, with less similarities than some maps of different songs made by the same mapper. Meme maps are always going to happen, but unlike samey generic maps, they only make up a small percentage of ranked maps. Increasing the minimum song length won't really help either, there's no real difference between having 30s or 45s as a lower border. Whatever the lower border is will always be considered lame by people, because it's much shorter than the average ranked map.
@Xanandra
What you are saying is mostly true. I can ensure you there are a good number of BNs who are able to understand many different concepts of mapping, but it's true that a lot of them are narrow-minded. I think the BN test is not really a reason for this, since the example issues it uses are never issues like "this pattern / whatever would not be acceptable under any circumstance" except for blatantly unrankables, and, if someone would have pointed it out like that, the answer wouldn't have been accepted by the responsible QATs (atleast when I took part in that). However, I think the real reason for this mindset is the limited mindset of most QAT-members in around 2015, when we used to be very picky with maps to work against the trend of PP-jump maps. But I can also ensure you the mindset in the QAT has changed since - However, since QATs only disqualify on reports now, it's not noticeable in the community, sadly.
So basically the mindset of QAT has already changed heavily during the past years and giving them more responsibility again would work perfectly, in my opinion. A huge part of the BNs still need to be worked with, but that is up to the QATs now - I believe with proper dialogue they can be pushed in the right direction.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions! So far nothing really speaks against my initial idea so I'm going to try that out in the next few weeks and if people are interested I'll try to expand it by including more people into the project.
Nice.
@ProfessionalBox
I understand your thoughts, but even though we can't do anything against the PP-system right now, I still think an incentive to push those mappers who want to create something different into the right direction is not worthless. The mentorship is the perfect example of helping mappers improve their maps even with the PP-system in place. However, the mentorship program only works for the people who take part of it, which usually means a huge effort (either mentoring or menteeing for a cycle) so I still prefer to do something besides that, even just a simple queue like I mentioned.
@Shiirn
Changing how the qualified section works is a good idea. We should suggest this to the staff and developers after the currently pending changes are being pushed through. Though changing this will still require getting mappers to change their mind afterwards. It's always the easiest to continue in the way one's always done.
@Pachiru
You can't really forbid people to map a song that's already ranked. Also, there has been various examples where the same song has been mapped totally different by different people, in fact, with less similarities than some maps of different songs made by the same mapper. Meme maps are always going to happen, but unlike samey generic maps, they only make up a small percentage of ranked maps. Increasing the minimum song length won't really help either, there's no real difference between having 30s or 45s as a lower border. Whatever the lower border is will always be considered lame by people, because it's much shorter than the average ranked map.
@Xanandra
What you are saying is mostly true. I can ensure you there are a good number of BNs who are able to understand many different concepts of mapping, but it's true that a lot of them are narrow-minded. I think the BN test is not really a reason for this, since the example issues it uses are never issues like "this pattern / whatever would not be acceptable under any circumstance" except for blatantly unrankables, and, if someone would have pointed it out like that, the answer wouldn't have been accepted by the responsible QATs (atleast when I took part in that). However, I think the real reason for this mindset is the limited mindset of most QAT-members in around 2015, when we used to be very picky with maps to work against the trend of PP-jump maps. But I can also ensure you the mindset in the QAT has changed since - However, since QATs only disqualify on reports now, it's not noticeable in the community, sadly.
So basically the mindset of QAT has already changed heavily during the past years and giving them more responsibility again would work perfectly, in my opinion. A huge part of the BNs still need to be worked with, but that is up to the QATs now - I believe with proper dialogue they can be pushed in the right direction.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions! So far nothing really speaks against my initial idea so I'm going to try that out in the next few weeks and if people are interested I'll try to expand it by including more people into the project.