Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Feature Requests

Ranked map grouped

posted
Total Posts
9
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +0
SerNiX
84 posts
Joined July 2018
Topic Starter
SerNiX
First what we should do is deleting approved because it's not necessary and it's not used for now.

Then we should group ranked maps for

Official [work name] - Maps highly playable.

Approved - Maps that are not that playable like "official", maps that do not meet the currect ranking criteria.

I highly need this
Last edited by SerNiX , edited 2 times in total.
Death
Technical Support Team
20,476 posts
Joined September 2013
Death
What makes a map "highly playable"? That is extremely subjective and I don't think we could ever find a good answer.

The new approved category you are describing is pretty much Loved right now. While a good amount of maps in loved are playable, there are also quite a few maps that are very difficult, and pretty much every map in there does not fit the current ranking criteria (or at least needs some work to get there).
Last edited by Death , edited 3 times in total.
SerNiX
84 posts
Joined July 2018
Topic Starter
SerNiX
I just mean current ranked beatmaps should be grouped, because for example, https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/739262#osu/1559974 is much better and playable than https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/2103#osu/18874 - of course all beatmaps should still give pp.

I also know that is extreme suggestive, but we know that, the 2nd one do not meet current ranking critetia, so I think maps like that should have another category.

I'll do a little visualizaton how it should work tommorow
Last edited by SerNiX , edited 1 time in total.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
Ranking criteria changed over time, but it was ranked in its day. You are prob better off just playing newer maps
xenal
537 posts
Joined August 2017
xenal
Playability is subjective and can't be generalised. Exemple, I play maps from 2012-2014 because they play well for me, in the meantime, I'm killing 3 digits with thoses maps in mp.
An other problem with this is that it doesn't scale with time, for exemple, maps that play well in the past are now consider unplayable

Also, this just smell like a way to isolate pp maps and make them easier to get
Last edited by xenal , edited 1 time in total.
johnnycakecx
2 posts
Joined November 2017
johnnycakecx
Playability, like others have pointed out is VERY subjective. If you say "Oh this map is unplayable" you may be referring to unFC-able(?) where as when I hear unplayable I interpret it as unpassable. How would you designate this task to people? What should the criteria be for approved maps? What makes your version of an approved map different from that of an incomplete map? I'd like to read what you mean and see you go in depth with your terms and how you'd rework their definitions. A change like this would definitely need as much detail as possible or things could become misconstrued.

serners wrote:

I also know that is extreme suggestive, but we know that, the 2nd one do not meet current ranking critetia, so I think maps like that should have another category.

I'll do a little visualizaton how it should work tommorow


Also with this quote. The second map is already ranked. Are you saying that when ranking criteria evolves we need to de-rank all those maps that no longer fit the new criteria? It would be considered extremely unfair as they fit the criteria at the time that they were made and the community would be outraged to say the least. Should there be a "grandfather" rule where they keep their ranked status even if they no longer fit the criteria? I'm sure there are some maps out there right now that fall under that. There are lots of issues and other ideas that need to be considered when talking about a change this big.
Last edited by johnnycakecx , edited 1 time in total.
SerNiX
84 posts
Joined July 2018
Topic Starter
SerNiX
Hmmm. Yep. There is too much unknown and understatement. So I will start from the beggining.

I think the first what we should do is deleting actual "Approved" Status because it's not necessary and Approved were just "Marathon" beatmaps. Now, this status is not used and can be
misunderstood by newer players, so giving them ranked status is good idea. Approved are not different from ranked.

Then, we should get group ranked beatmaps.

First, i suggested separate them by status (for example, maps made from 2016 to now will have "Official" ranked status, older, from beggining to 2015 will have "approved" ranked status)
but i see now that's not the best idea.

Then what about searching by year that beatmap was made/given actual status?
xenal
537 posts
Joined August 2017
xenal

SerNiX wrote:

Approved were just "Marathon" beatmaps. [...] Approved are not different from ranked.

Approved ARE different from ranked. Perfect exemple are the DJPop's tag4 maps. Approved existed to showcase maps and give them leaderboard but didn't count toward ranking, playcount, etc. (just like loved currently). Their cases are special, they aren't meant to be ranked, but now are, while some are not. They are also not just marathons. Marathon exclusive rule came near the end of approved.

SerNiX wrote:

I think the first what we should do is deleting actual "Approved" Status

They carry a legacy which some people do stick to.

SerNiX wrote:

Then what about searching by year that beatmap was made/given actual status?

If this is what this is turning into, it becomes a dupe of https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/61864
abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
Beyond nuking approved and merging maps from there into ranked, I don't think much else needs be done
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 9