Just for the record, but that statistic is probably skewed. You can only rate a beatmap if you pass it, and with only one difficulty on marathons, most people won't be able to pass it. People who will play the map with nofail to pass it are more likely to like the map than dislike it, since those who dislike it wouldn't bother playing through the map with nofail just to rate it.dsco wrote:
I do not believe any person is being offended should this happen, and the community nets another marathon map which are the most well-liked and respected types of maps in the game. 37 of the 40 maps with the highest user rating in the game are marathons.
forum
[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft
posted
Total Posts
259
closing this for revision then i guess we have more than enough content to go from
Topic Starter
after an unnecessarily long wait, the draft is now up for revision once again! over the next two weeks (until August 31st), feel free to discuss anything concerning about the proposed subsection of the ranking criteria on the first post of this thread!
---
there were quite a few changes from the last round of revision, but here's the stuff most of you care about:
---
there were quite a few changes from the last round of revision, but here's the stuff most of you care about:
- rules stating "The lowest difficulty must be at least x" have been changed to "The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than x". there was a lot of confusion about how to interpret these, especially for hybrid mapset rules. hopefully it's understandable now
- the "Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time" rule has been removed. while exploiting songs/maps to reach 5 minutes is still a problem, we've come to the conclusion that there's no practical way to enforce this rule and breaking it is often unnoticable. excluding it entirely seemed like the most realistic choice
- the "Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode" rule has been removed. there are reasons for this rule, which is why it's been proposed on two occassions now, but mapping community members find it to be a problem. the 16 pages of discussion here explain why most people consider its benefits minor and its downsides substantial, so the rule is now gone
individual responses
quotes are paraphrased
>Hydria: calling key counts different modes is weird
according to mania players, this isn't too unusual apparently
>everyone: “At least” doesn’t work wording-wise. Applies to all of its uses
adjusted to "cannot be harder than x"
>Sieg: Shouldn’t the “which complies with their respective mode’s difficulty specific ranking criteria” line be the same in these following rules?
yes, applied
>Haskorion: Mention that E/N or N/H are minimum required spread
should be implied already since rule says "must include 2 difficulties" and "one cannot be harder than a normal"
>mangomizer: “The lowest difficulty [of each mode] must…”
yes
>Shad0w1and: Make # of difficulties required scale with length more smoothly t/432739
while it sounds cool in theory, setting time limits will likely cause more concern than the current marathon rule already does. the rule about modifying songs to reach approval limit is gone, but we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload
>ruruchewy: make marathon time limit lower
needs to be a line set somewhere, and 5 minutes is going to be that. (has been discussed in like 5 other threads in ranking criteria archive, so details kind of redundant)
>everyone: the rule about modifying songs to reach minimum drain time has too many holes
rule is now gone
>everyone: 8 difficulties is unnecessarily limiting
rule is now gone
>Hydria: Top difficulty of a mapset should allow any name
current rule only forbids misleading stuff, like calling an extra diff "easy." if that wasn't clear, it should be now
>everyone: "Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding." has a typo
typo was fixed, then sentence was removed beacuse people will lie about drain time if they're breaking the rule anyway
>UndeadCapulet: If guest difficulty creators are okay without mapset host credit, it should be okay
point was discussed a lot, though it ended up not changing. regardless of whether or not a mapset host is okay with it, the mapset will still be labeled as theirs on listings/profiles etc so they need to have some level of accountability, and drain time is the method we've agreed is most fair for that (despite it still sucking)
>Phantomhive: Shouldn’t accountability be calculated with object count instead of drain time?
Endaris explained this already, but different object types make that impractical
>Natsu: is “Pantsu” diffname ok?
yes!
>Hydria: "A mapset’s hardest difficulty may use free naming, but clear and appropriate relation to its song is recommended." is redundant
yes, removed sentence from second guideline
>Hydria: What about name changes?
they are a valid reason to break the third guideline
>UndeadCapulet: If mapper doesn’t care about credit, it shouldn’t matter.
point is to avoid misleading/unnecessary name stuff, since it makes actual names have less meaning. added clarification in second sentence of guideline
>Yuii-: Just make unicode guideline a rule if it can break the game
as is with in-game chat, excessive unicode is the problem, so there's times where unicode is/is not ok
>Xexxar: Difficulty naming for Extras is arbitrary. should use free naming
oko addressed this in the thread you wrote about this actually
>Cyclohexane: Make wide spreads acceptable, here are pictures
your concern is more of a mode-specific thing. rules here don't define what's acceptable for easy/normal/hard etc, sorry:(
also:
difficulty names are italicized for easier reading
glossary entires mostly start with "A"
extremely minor wording adjustments
>Hydria: calling key counts different modes is weird
according to mania players, this isn't too unusual apparently
>everyone: “At least” doesn’t work wording-wise. Applies to all of its uses
adjusted to "cannot be harder than x"
>Sieg: Shouldn’t the “which complies with their respective mode’s difficulty specific ranking criteria” line be the same in these following rules?
yes, applied
>Haskorion: Mention that E/N or N/H are minimum required spread
should be implied already since rule says "must include 2 difficulties" and "one cannot be harder than a normal"
>mangomizer: “The lowest difficulty [of each mode] must…”
yes
>Shad0w1and: Make # of difficulties required scale with length more smoothly t/432739
while it sounds cool in theory, setting time limits will likely cause more concern than the current marathon rule already does. the rule about modifying songs to reach approval limit is gone, but we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload
>ruruchewy: make marathon time limit lower
needs to be a line set somewhere, and 5 minutes is going to be that. (has been discussed in like 5 other threads in ranking criteria archive, so details kind of redundant)
>everyone: the rule about modifying songs to reach minimum drain time has too many holes
rule is now gone
>everyone: 8 difficulties is unnecessarily limiting
rule is now gone
>Hydria: Top difficulty of a mapset should allow any name
current rule only forbids misleading stuff, like calling an extra diff "easy." if that wasn't clear, it should be now
>everyone: "Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding." has a typo
typo was fixed, then sentence was removed beacuse people will lie about drain time if they're breaking the rule anyway
>UndeadCapulet: If guest difficulty creators are okay without mapset host credit, it should be okay
point was discussed a lot, though it ended up not changing. regardless of whether or not a mapset host is okay with it, the mapset will still be labeled as theirs on listings/profiles etc so they need to have some level of accountability, and drain time is the method we've agreed is most fair for that (despite it still sucking)
>Phantomhive: Shouldn’t accountability be calculated with object count instead of drain time?
Endaris explained this already, but different object types make that impractical
>Natsu: is “Pantsu” diffname ok?
yes!
>Hydria: "A mapset’s hardest difficulty may use free naming, but clear and appropriate relation to its song is recommended." is redundant
yes, removed sentence from second guideline
>Hydria: What about name changes?
they are a valid reason to break the third guideline
>UndeadCapulet: If mapper doesn’t care about credit, it shouldn’t matter.
point is to avoid misleading/unnecessary name stuff, since it makes actual names have less meaning. added clarification in second sentence of guideline
>Yuii-: Just make unicode guideline a rule if it can break the game
as is with in-game chat, excessive unicode is the problem, so there's times where unicode is/is not ok
>Xexxar: Difficulty naming for Extras is arbitrary. should use free naming
oko addressed this in the thread you wrote about this actually
>Cyclohexane: Make wide spreads acceptable, here are pictures
your concern is more of a mode-specific thing. rules here don't define what's acceptable for easy/normal/hard etc, sorry:(
also:
difficulty names are italicized for easier reading
glossary entires mostly start with "A"
extremely minor wording adjustments
what happened to the top diff doesnt need to follow spread thing =( that was more or less completely separate from the 8 diff thing, is it still being considered?
So nothing done on cumulative effort needed to rank 3-4minute maps being unreasonably larger and strict 5minute rule still in place? neat.
There are some rules associated with that too, like there still having to be a spread. You can't have a E N H spread and then a 9.0 star diff slapped on the end. The discussion basically resulted in the "minimum" difficulty being an Extra (E N H I X >--- Ultra) but we rarely will see something like this anyways because not many people are actually capable of mapping difficulties so much higher than 5.25 that they actually "skip" a spread tier", and even fewer are capable of ranking.Naotoshi wrote:
what happened to the top diff doesnt need to follow spread thing =( that was more or less completely separate from the 8 diff thing, is it still being considered?
5.25 > 6.75 can still be seen as a reasonable spread. so you should really only see the rule (if we had included it) being used for a 5.25 > 8 star spread or something.
I think somewhere in the discussion we just decided it wasnt a bad idea but not really something we'd see. It doesn't allow 7-9 star diffs to become any more rankable than they were. You wouldn't be able to quote it and say "well this rule says I can rank my 9 star diff". It just allowed a diff in between to be skipped, but the highest diff still goes through normal nomination procedures and doesn't receive exemption
thread seems to be way less active than before because no one is aware of it .-.
Another thing, regarding the second half of that, it really doesn't make sense that something like this is technically rankable
In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
I also still think the current situation for maps that are 3-4.99 minutes long is really bad. I don't see why a normal or hard diff can't be skipped on longer sets, since by now there are more than enough low diffs for any new player to play on. If low diff was only required on 3> minutes, TV size is popular enough that they'd still bring enough low diffs for new players
then again this second part was added after the qat had their meeting so I probably didn't really add anything ;-;
This would imply that there's a maximum of two taiko/mania diffs and only one ctb allowed. "One or more ctb diffs may be included" is finepishifat wrote:
- Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Hard.
- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than an Insane.
Another thing, regarding the second half of that, it really doesn't make sense that something like this is technically rankable
In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
I also still think the current situation for maps that are 3-4.99 minutes long is really bad. I don't see why a normal or hard diff can't be skipped on longer sets, since by now there are more than enough low diffs for any new player to play on. If low diff was only required on 3> minutes, TV size is popular enough that they'd still bring enough low diffs for new players
then again this second part was added after the qat had their meeting so I probably didn't really add anything ;-;
>Shad0w1and: Make # of difficulties required scale with length more smoothly t/432739Can someone clarify why exactly this will "likely cause more concern" than current rule for flat time limit? I mean "we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload" makes it sound like it was best among the worst.
while it sounds cool in theory, setting time limits will likely cause more concern than the current marathon rule already does. the rule about modifying songs to reach approval limit is gone, but we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload
Is this convention going to be listed somewhere for reference? Since:Monstrata wrote:
There are some rules associated with that too, like there still having to be a spread. You can't have a E N H spread and then a 9.0 star diff slapped on the end. The discussion basically resulted in the "minimum" difficulty being an Extra (E N H I X >--- Ultra) but we rarely will see something like this anyways because not many people are actually capable of mapping difficulties so much higher than 5.25 that they actually "skip" a spread tier", and even fewer are capable of ranking.Naotoshi wrote:
what happened to the top diff doesnt need to follow spread thing =( that was more or less completely separate from the 8 diff thing, is it still being considered?
5.25 > 6.75 can still be seen as a reasonable spread. so you should really only see the rule (if we had included it) being used for a 5.25 > 8 star spread or something.
I think somewhere in the discussion we just decided it wasnt a bad idea but not really something we'd see. It doesn't allow 7-9 star diffs to become any more rankable than they were. You wouldn't be able to quote it and say "well this rule says I can rank my 9 star diff". It just allowed a diff in between to be skipped, but the highest diff still goes through normal nomination procedures and doesn't receive exemption
Reasonable Spread: A mapset without drastically large differences between difficulties as dictated by difficulty-specific rules and guidelines.Leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation.
I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
i meanVacuous wrote:
I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
they can still just not bubble it
yeah but there are those annoying people that don't understand BNs can just choose not too and complain because of something that most people would agree with the BN onUndeadCapulet wrote:
i meanVacuous wrote:
I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
they can still just not bubble it
I'm pleasantly half surprised that you guys actually listened and removed the shitty 8 difficulty limit rule.
Topic Starter
august 31st was 3 days ago wasnt it
Topic Starter
we're back! this draft will be open for one more week of revision, ending on September 24th!
---
little feedback this time, so only a couple changes:
other feedback is addressed in the box here:
if no major changes pop up in the next week, we'll transfer this draft to the wiki!
---
little feedback this time, so only a couple changes:
- added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
- clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule
other feedback is addressed in the box here:
SPOILER
quotes are paraphrased
Sinnoh: In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
>this rule already exists. it's the second thing under "If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties..."
Naotoshi: what happened to top diff spread gap?
>Monstrata explained on the thread
Amaikai: can we have lower spread requirements for 3-4 minute maps in the same vein as marathons? why were they rejected from previous round of revision?
>people exploit 5 minute limit to make songs/maps pass threshold, setting similar things for 3-4 minutes makes that happen more in different situations
Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)
Vacuous: can we make editing songs a guideline?
>not really practical when the quality of an edited song has so many variables/is not easily detectible. the example you gave would never be ranked regardless of a rule/guideline being in place, so i don't think that's much to worry about
quotes are paraphrased
Sinnoh: In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
>this rule already exists. it's the second thing under "If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties..."
Naotoshi: what happened to top diff spread gap?
>Monstrata explained on the thread
Amaikai: can we have lower spread requirements for 3-4 minute maps in the same vein as marathons? why were they rejected from previous round of revision?
>people exploit 5 minute limit to make songs/maps pass threshold, setting similar things for 3-4 minutes makes that happen more in different situations
Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)
Vacuous: can we make editing songs a guideline?
>not really practical when the quality of an edited song has so many variables/is not easily detectible. the example you gave would never be ranked regardless of a rule/guideline being in place, so i don't think that's much to worry about
if no major changes pop up in the next week, we'll transfer this draft to the wiki!
Hi
Regarding the diffname - username thing (diffname cannot be related to username)
Can we please clarify if this is applying to any and all diffname or just ones in which that diffname would be illogical. I ask this because this rule was implemented to stop people just putting their username as the top diff and calling it a day (lots of older Chinese mappers did this). However I believe that it should be allowed to use a username-esque diffname if the diffname would be allowed if it weren't related to a username - aka, on a guilty kiss map diffname "kisses" would be fine, a musaigen no phantom world map diffname "shadow land" would be allowed, etc etc. Atm it seems unnecessarily restrictive for no real reason.
My suggestion is to change the rule to say that, while the top diff does not need to use a difficulty level, it must be related to the song in some way.
Regarding the diffname - username thing (diffname cannot be related to username)
Can we please clarify if this is applying to any and all diffname or just ones in which that diffname would be illogical. I ask this because this rule was implemented to stop people just putting their username as the top diff and calling it a day (lots of older Chinese mappers did this). However I believe that it should be allowed to use a username-esque diffname if the diffname would be allowed if it weren't related to a username - aka, on a guilty kiss map diffname "kisses" would be fine, a musaigen no phantom world map diffname "shadow land" would be allowed, etc etc. Atm it seems unnecessarily restrictive for no real reason.
My suggestion is to change the rule to say that, while the top diff does not need to use a difficulty level, it must be related to the song in some way.
I don't see any changes on the draft.. ??pishifat wrote:
we're back! this draft will be open for one more week of revision, ending on September 24th!
---
little feedback this time, so only a couple changes:other feedback is addressed in the box here:
- added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
- clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule
SPOILERquotes are paraphrased
Sinnoh: In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
>this rule already exists. it's the second thing under "If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties..."
Naotoshi: what happened to top diff spread gap?
>Monstrata explained on the thread
Amaikai: can we have lower spread requirements for 3-4 minute maps in the same vein as marathons? why were they rejected from previous round of revision?
>people exploit 5 minute limit to make songs/maps pass threshold, setting similar things for 3-4 minutes makes that happen more in different situations
Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)
Vacuous: can we make editing songs a guideline?
>not really practical when the quality of an edited song has so many variables/is not easily detectible. the example you gave would never be ranked regardless of a rule/guideline being in place, so i don't think that's much to worry about
if no major changes pop up in the next week, we'll transfer this draft to the wiki!
Topic Starter
tatatat wrote:
I don't see any changes on the draft.. ??
oops, should be good now
Naotoshi wrote:
My suggestion is to change the rule to say that, while the top diff does not need to use a difficulty level, it must be related to the song in some way.
yeah, we'll discuss that
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.Does this also include collaboration marathon maps? I had a discussion on Spaghetti's Boogie map about a year ago (p/5243137) concerning this issue where he mapped less drain time than one of the guest collaborators, justifying it with the fact that he was managing the whole project. Maybe some clarification on that part would be nice.
A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.Shouldn't there be a minimum waiting time included before the host is allowed to make changes to the map? Unless it's very clear that the guest mapper is inactive (e.g. offline since a year ago) I think there should be.
Just my two cents.
[quote=Pishifat]
Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)
[/quote]
Weight was on "drastically large differences" not what each specific difficulty is supposed to contain. Wording used isn't objective and I wouldn't know if (easy),(normal),(hard),(insane)5, 6.5, 8 spread is okay just by reading the rule. So let me ask with different wording:
Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai".
As for spread:
I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable.
There were also other alternatives suggested on thread, why would, for example, why these be no good on fundamental level?
Reference table
Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)
[/quote]
Weight was on "drastically large differences" not what each specific difficulty is supposed to contain. Wording used isn't objective and I wouldn't know if (easy),(normal),(hard),(insane)5, 6.5, 8 spread is okay just by reading the rule. So let me ask with different wording:
Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai".
As for spread:
I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable.
There were also other alternatives suggested on thread, why would, for example, why these be no good on fundamental level?
Reference table
Difference between lowest and highest difficulty in star rating is calculated.
This difference and song length is matched on 2 dimensional table to see number of required difficulties.
Mapper maps that amount of difficulties with linear/gradual spread.
Reference table is absolute, it's up to mapper if he wants to extend the mp3 or nerf highest difficulty to map 1 difficulty less.
Number of difficulties within specific range on ranked mapsets are counted
When there is oversupply of specific difficulty range, new mapsets can exclude that difficulty range from their set
When there is undersupply of specific difficulty range, bonus incentives to map specific difficulty range.
Bonus: You can append difficulties to already created sets later on to fill in the gaps.
Beg peppy to allow different songs in same mapset
Concept is to have set with multiple different songs in it
Set has difficulties which are around same range
Packs can be for beginner, advanced, insane, extra, ultra
Only X amount of sets for Y range can be ranked each month
Exceptional sets can go to loved if they don't get ranked
(Get some BN collaboration to decide which packs get ranked)
Have contest to map single song.
Make spread for mapset from entries, pick argueably best for each range
Rank it, exceptional single difficulties go to loved
In case of extremely popular song, make 2 sets from the map pool
(Get some BN to handle this)
Gonna go through your suggestions on these and state at least why I wouldn't want them. My answers are in red.
i'll get to the rest later
Amaikai wrote:
Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai". The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing!
I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.
i'll get to the rest later
1. Read what I wrote again with thought. I claimed keeping current 5minute rule is based on gut feeling.[ Space ] wrote:
Gonna go through your suggestions on these and state at least why I wouldn't want them. My answers are in red.
Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai".
The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing![/Quote]
You are missing the point. Bns are diverse bunch and each have their own tastes, I agree with that. But doesn't change how there are too many unsaid things NOT listed on guidelines or rules that you need to figure out on your own.
I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.
2. Also why it should be "tough luck" if you want to map 3-4 min map? Thats flatout encouraging people to map shorter or longer.
i'll get to the rest later[/quote]
Don't bother and just read appendum.
As appendum: I don't expect the 5 min rule to change this late in the rule draft proposal and i'm mainly pointing out my frustration about sticking to same old "working" method of doing things and ignoring / not providing reasons why alternatives weren't viable. Hoping 3-4 minute maps get some love later on in next rule revision or in form of getting ranked by more flexible means.
Topic Starter
aaaand closed again
Topic Starter
i can't bubble threads on the new forum, but i'm here to announce that this draft will be amended soon!
in response to the last short round of revision, we clarified naotoshi's and pho's concerns in their respective rules. the additions are in bold:
considering these were both minor changes, we'll be moving this over to the wiki rather than going through another round of revision. for future changes to this subsection of the ranking criteria, check out this thread: https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/644446
in response to the last short round of revision, we clarified naotoshi's and pho's concerns in their respective rules. the additions are in bold:
- A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane). Words that happen to be usernames are acceptable within difficulty names as long as they relate to the song.
- A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted for a month, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.
considering these were both minor changes, we'll be moving this over to the wiki rather than going through another round of revision. for future changes to this subsection of the ranking criteria, check out this thread: https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/644446
lmao the topic was still locked, unlocked topic
couple quick things:
current wording of this disallows gd'ers from mapping intros/outros/break that the set owner didnt map if the set owner only mapped one difficulty. theres no real reason to disallow this kind of thing, since it just boils down to different song interpretations.rc wrote:
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.
i think this was just carryover from how the pending section functioned? thats been patched tho, and this seems an unneeded restriction. there is a not-insignificant portion of mappers that like mapping rly slow songs, who have been required to add an excessively easy difficulty to their mapset just so they can rank their lowdiffbased set. i think its better to just say "the lowest diff of a set must be Normal". theres no reason to force a set to have two easyicon difficulties like we're doing rnrc wrote:
Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Normal and it must comply with its respective mode’s difficulty-specific ranking criteria.
I agree with UC's opinion, everyone has different perception about a song, some might prefer to map a part that other don't. I think that the rule about the amount of diff made by the mapper compared to the GDers is enough in my opinion. No need to restrict mappers creativity by keeping a rule that is not really important in my opinion.UndeadCapulet wrote:
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.
current wording of this disallows gd'ers from mapping intros/outros/break that the set owner didnt map if the set owner only mapped one difficulty. theres no real reason to disallow this kind of thing, since it just boils down to different song interpretations.
rc wrote:
Additionally, a mapset host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty’s name. (e.g. Mapset Host’s Insane). Metadata conflicts caused by mapping a song multiple times are the only exception.
"Metadata conflicts caused by mapping a song multiple times are the only exception."
I find this sentence a bit vague and potentially misleading from the perspective of someone who hasn't been beforehand aware of the issue/bug referred to here. Maybe reword it to something like "Metadata conflicts caused by a mapset host mapping multiple mapsets of the same song with identical difficulty names are the only exception." for the sake of clarity.
they can just map one more diff or swap hosts with someone that has more mapped than they do, if they truly dont care about putting that much effort into their thing i dont know man
as for the metadata conflict thing, fair enough
as for the metadata conflict thing, fair enough
Topic Starter
thread moved because finalized amendment