Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

Set Contribution

posted
Total Posts
58
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
so set contribution things are handled badly imo. this is because the only metric it uses is drain time. this is not really an accurate metric alone, and it's also a restrictive one in some ways.

why inaccurate?
- set host has to find mods, bns, coordinate the thing, find hitsounds/SB/blah blah
- making an extra takes way more effort than a normal (in 99% of cases)

why restrictive?
- set host cannot use breaks if a gder also doesn't > leads to conflicts where set host either has to delete a gder's drain time or map part of the song they want a break over

while i'm sure plenty of people will complain if i propose something like "the set host must map a diff at most one difficulty level below the top diff" (so extra top diff > set host has to map insane, insane top diff > hard etc) i would like to at least deal with the second issue.

Contribution to a set can be counted in terms of full diffs. A full diff would be defined as at least 80% of the maximum drain time of any diff on the set. (the 80% number comes from the low diff thing in the spread rules)
BNs can use their judgement in collab situations, so strict 50%+ does not need to be enforced; something like 45/55 split would also be acceptable, 35/65 not so much.
With these changes it would make it much less irritating to deal with situations where you don't want to map a part of a song but your gder went ahead and mapped it so you're obligated to, or having to carefully count parts of a collab where you switch off every section or something and make sure that you have more than half.
anna apple
1,245 posts
Joined March 2014
anna apple
I think if participants are consenting someone with 0% drain time should be able to host a set

plus that stuff sort of happens with people like puxtu making only mania diffs and getting all std gds so its easier to rank his stuff, but yeah its also different since he mapped some the mania diffs (?)

but yeah its really silly that hitsounds aren't considered part of contribution to a set since its unrankable to have no hitsounds.. .

overall, no reason to not push for this since ya its super inaccurate and restrictive
Last edited by anna apple , edited 3 times in total.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
i don't think we need to be so finicky with what counts as a full difficulty, but i agree that at the very least the rule should be changed so people dont need to worry about drain time discrepancies across diffs

that fix wrote:

A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
i do agree w/ bor tho that there really is no reason to care about the set owner being the biggest contributor to a set. the only people that should care about "not getting credit" are the people involved in the set. if they are all ok with the set owner doing literally nothing for their own set, why should any of us care either? we already have a rule requiring all participants be included in the tags, we don't need anything more than that.

uhhhhhhhhh so yeah w/ enough support i think we should just remove the set contribution rule altogether
Kyuunex
99 posts
Joined November 2016
Kyuunex
set host cannot use breaks if a gder also doesn't > leads to conflicts where set host either has to delete a gder's drain time or map part of the song they want a break over

not sure why it took this long but i agree this should change
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
yes
Smokeman
463 posts
Joined November 2012
Smokeman
Tbh allow GDer's to resolve mods as well at some point while you at it. Like the set owner or admins can give users (in this case GDers) the ability to resolve in the threads.

its the logical next step after this imo
Doormat
2,049 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat
I think a large part of why this has remained unchanged for so long is because everything to do with contribution is subjective and qualitative, with drain time really being the only quantitative measure.

How do you prove that someone spent more time making a higher difficulty than somebody who made a lower difficulty? What happens when we have two conflicting accounts on who contributed more to the set? If a guest mapper helped contribute to finding mods/feedback, how do you quantify who found more? Is it fair if the host mapper found more modders with less detailed mods than the guest mapper, who found fewer but more detailed mods? I can go on and on, but that’s not the point I want to make here.

The point I want to make is that because this is such a qualitative and subjective area, it’s hard to quantify it, which has traditionally been what we used to determine set contribution. I agree that Set Contribution needs to be overhauled, but perhaps we’re looking at it under the wrong lens.
Last edited by Doormat , edited 4 times in total.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
yeah so lets not do it at all and let any set design be legal regardless of contribution
raechel
68 posts
Joined August 2015
raechel
While I do agree that there is a lot of extra effort that isn't shown by the rules, like you guys mentioned with hitsounding, resolving and all the behind the scenes jazz, and that the rule is way too restrictive and pretty much meaningless... I still feel like the host would at least need one diff (or at least take part in one of the diffs in the set).

I don't even mean it in the sense of the effort behind it. More of a symbol that they are indeed part of the map and not just "the guy handling stuff bts". They are collaborating on a set of beatmaps, after all.

That said, that's more of a personal feeling than an actual, full fledged opinion, and I do still agree that the full "at least half the drain time" rule is way too heavy and should be removed.
Pachiru
osu! Alumni
2,957 posts
Joined June 2013
Pachiru

Mordred wrote:

yes
tatatat
905 posts
Joined March 2015
tatatat
I think set hosts should map at least double the drain time anyone other guest mapper maps. GDing is lazy. Laziness should be eliminated.
Teky
359 posts
Joined July 2017
Teky

tatatat wrote:

I think set hosts should map at least double the drain time anyone other guest mapper maps. GDing is lazy. Laziness should be eliminated.

There is so much wrong with this man; People don't just get gd's because 'they are lazy', people sometimes get gd's as a sign of collaborating on a mapset with their friends or other mappers, to fit room for variated and different styles between difficulties, to make a project where everyone interested in a song can map without having to make a set, etc...

Even then, getting gd's because you don't have time, or because you are looking for a decent quality of a certain difficulty (hard for example), is never 'lazy', what you're suggesting is too overboard, and kills collab single diffs, or sets where two mappers are sharing difficulties in a set (I.E a set with a normal and insane of the same gd'er, hard and extra from the host.)

The idea of mapsets itself is that it's a spread of difficulties of a map of a song; I agree with removing set limitations like that entirely, while it'd be awkward seeing a mapper do literally nothing for their own mapset and seeing it ranked but it's only the contributers, modders, and beatmap nominators involved who are supposed to be comfortable/uncomfortable with that.
Last edited by Teky , edited 2 times in total.
Serizawa Haruki
1,658 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki
I agree that drain time alone shouldn't be taken into consideration for the reasons Nao explained. For example if the mapset host has 10 seconds less drain time than a GDer that shouldn't be prohibited. However, I think the mapset host needs to map at least 1 difficulty or if it's a single collab diff they should map more or less half of it. Mapping significantly less than everyone else as the mapset host wouldn't make sense because in-game it says "mapped by..." and if that person didn't map anything at all or just very little, I don't see a reason for that person to host the set in the first place. Like, if someone creates a mapset, they are expected to be somewhat interested in it and map the song etc. Of course getting mods, hitsounding and all the other stuff are a lot of work too but that's just part of mapping.
Basically, change the drain time rule to amount of diffs (like some people mentioned before)
Last edited by Serizawa Haruki , edited 1 time in total.
tatatat
905 posts
Joined March 2015
tatatat
I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
Aiseca

tatatat wrote:

I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.



Hmm... Think this first.
>If you have made a collaboration or a GD on a specific song, then both you and the host's has a duty for to meet a consensus or guidelines before entering such contract. You making a GD or a collaboration on someone's map is not possible unless you or the other agreed to it. If you agreed to a collaboration or a GD without knowing the rules/ guidelines/ or mapping stuff that needs to be clearly stated before you've accepted it, only ending up in an opposing manner on how to tackle the map (e.a. host did a full map; GD made a break or GD map is longer than the host map.),then you cannot blame the host for misunderstandings on several cases.

Making GD or collab without any cooperation coming from the respective host itself (like even not asking for a few things to consider when you are mapping your chosen difficulty to guest with) is a complete no no. It is like you're entering a loan at a bank without knowing at the contract you've signed.


Collaboration and GD were a cooperation, and teamwork thing, simply put (as silly as it may sound). These two were established at the game for it to be more proactive towards building/making/completing a map project things up together as a group in a community.

-------------------------------------------

About contribution stuff, I would like to call it as a cr*pload of a burden to the hosts' side [A.K.A "unbalanced" than call it "inaccurate"] when you as the host (when your mapset sprinkled with 4-5 GD) has to find these essentials alone and those who made a GD just passed their homework on you then flew off the office never to return.

And restriction should be enforced to the GD or Collaborators and NOT on the Host itself. Host must have the absolute power to decide on his or her own mapset and not the outside forces. Suggestions however isn't restricted if it can enhance or improve the map for good (like modding)

About making Extra mode.... hmmm... I would like to guess that the most part that eats time the most is mapping it the edgiest way possible :) (besides making it rankable)
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
i don't think allowing people to rank sets that they didn't map anything for is a good idea. not gonna bother explaining why because my argument is self evident.

@doormat, how many sets have you been in or hosted where the gders find modders and/or bns? aside from hybrids, probably 0. the responsibility for ranking the thing is the host's - that's why he's the host. but that isn't that important since my point is, as you mentioned, contribution is qualitative and not quantitative, so using a hard set quantitative rule is not a great way to judge it.

as such i still think the best way to do this is just based on full diffs, and whether a diff is a full diff or not can be judged by the nominating bns.
Doormat
2,049 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat

tatatat wrote:

I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.
This is quite ironic seeing as how your latest ranked map from August has a guest difficulty in there.

Nao Tomori wrote:

@doormat, how many sets have you been in or hosted where the gders find modders and/or bns? aside from hybrids, probably 0. the responsibility for ranking the thing is the host's - that's why he's the host. but that isn't that important since my point is, as you mentioned, contribution is qualitative and not quantitative, so using a hard set quantitative rule is not a great way to judge it.

as such i still think the best way to do this is just based on full diffs, and whether a diff is a full diff or not can be judged by the nominating bns.
Actually, Kencho helped contribute to finding modders for my Hitorigoto set, so the answer is definitely not 0. There have also been other times where individual mappers have asked for my opinion/feedback on a guest/collab difficulty of theirs: the most recent example I can think of was when Ascendance asked me for feedback on a collab diff he made with Ayyri, with Ayyri being the set host. Getting back to my point, what I was trying to get at with my original post was maybe we should look towards other ideas of determining set contribution, rather than relying on a quantitative measurement.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,802 posts
Joined August 2013
pishifat

bor wrote:

I think if participants are consenting someone with 0% drain time should be able to host a set

to clear this up: a mapset host not mapping anything will not be allowed so long as sets are marked as "mapped by user" on all site listings/profiles

Doormat wrote:

Getting back to my point, what I was trying to get at with my original post was maybe we should look towards other ideas of determining set contribution, rather than relying on a quantitative measurement.


what other ideas do you/others have in mind for determining set contribution? i agree that they could be worth talking about, but discussion is stuck until those alternatives are brought up
Doormat
2,049 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat

pishifat wrote:

what other ideas do you/others have in mind for determining set contribution? i agree that they could be worth talking about, but discussion is stuck until those alternatives are brought up
This is what I’m unsure of, but based off what people in favour of changing set contribution requirements seem to want, I assume these are some more of the general ideas we should consider:

  1. Drain Time: currently the only method we use to determine “majority set contribution.” It’s the easiest form factor, since we’re looking at an objective measurement that can be quantified, but people argue that forcing host mappers to be required to map to at least equal drain to a guest mapper may compromise on their vision of the map they originally wanted to create, and forcing guest mappers to map to equal or less than the host mapper will have the same effect. The counterargument “the host can just make another difficulty” can also prove to be problematic as well, as they may not be confident or lack experience in making other difficulty levels. Setting a maximum threshold like Nao suggested (for example, a guest mapper cannot map more than 5% of what the host mapped) could possibly work, but could just as easily be abused so that host mappers only need to provide the least amount of drain time required and then use this rule as justification for mapping the objectively least amount of song length. It will also vary considerably depending on the song length.
  2. Hitsounding: it takes time to hitsound a map, and they can easily be copied to other difficulties through third party programs like Hitsound Copier, so there’s an argument that if the map host did the hitsounding, it should count towards set contribution. However, this is under the assumption that the host is the only hitsounder; what do we do if hitsounding is outsourced to another person, or if a guest mapper decides to hitsound their own difficulty? These definitely make it harder to use hitsounding as a measurement.
  3. Mods: people argue that finding modders takes time, and I agree that they take up a large chunk of time and effort to find people willing to provide feedback so that maps can be improved. However, as I previously mentioned, there are too many variables to make this a viable measurement as well: how do we determine the value of mods if guest mappers help contribute to finding mods? How do we measure who contributed more if the host found shorter, but more plentiful mods, but a guest mapper found more substantial, but fewer mods?
  4. Consent: this has been waved around the discussion here a bit, so I figured it might be worth including here. Guest mappers consenting to a host would definitely eliminate all the problems associated with “needing to provide a majority of contribution to the set,” but then I think the rule would need to be reworked as well. Using what you posted as an example, a host shouldn’t be able to get away with hosting a set without providing any tangible contribution that can be attributed to them. I can see this becoming more of a grey-area in certain regards though: for example, if the host didn’t provide any difficulties but did contribute in the form of hitsounding or storyboarding, should they still be allowed to host the set, even if they get consent from all guest mappers?
There are definitely positives to each point I listed, but I think we need to factor in the negatives as well. If anyone wants to list more ideas/suggestions, that would be great for discussion as well.
lazygirl
506 posts
Joined February 2016
lazygirl
For hitsounds, it could make sense to just count every hitsounded and non copied diff as a drain time of its own (e.g. half the drain time hitsounded or smth). Would make it easily quantifiable. As for mods/finding bn's, I know that in most sets I've gd'd for I have looked for and found mods as well as bn's, so this is probably the hardest part to quantify as such.

If all gd'ers consent to the host, as long as the host has done any work on the set (would probably make sense to leave the decision as to if that's enough or not to the bn's) I don't see the issue.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 58