vs. SAYU

I mean, from the ranking criteria:

"Unofficial cut versions of songs must add a (Cut Ver.) marker at the end of the current title. If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Cut Ver.) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial cuts of a song from full length versions. Songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track will not be considered cut."

The last portion of it, "shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions," is basically what the cut I made did, the part I cut was the super repetition intro that did repeat the same sort of stuff for like however much that I cut. I don't think the song has fundamentally changed since: 1) all variations in the intro are included and 2) aside from the intro variations cut everything else in the song is still there.

Anyways maybe I misinterpreted the rule, and if I did then it's entirely mb however the rule as it's worded seems to make it so this wouldn't really be considered to be (Cut Ver.).

link: https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/en/Ranking_Criteria

official being like a tv size or smth you are replicating, just cutting for the sake of cutting isn't replicating anything, it's just shortening the full version of it. so yeah, cut ver is needed ):

hmm i mean i do get that it's shortening but it also seems :thonk: that the part of the rule says "nearly match official versions." while it is cut it's still nearly matching the original version of the song, but i suppose if it is how it is i have more of a problem w/ the misleading wording of the rule itself, since "Songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track will not be considered cut," def sounds more like it would be fine with cases like this while not fine with other cut cases (and it's kinda weird since the Cut Ver. rule was basically made so people don't make TV sizes of everything but that's just me lol), it'd be cool if there's other ppl's opinions on this too

side note: genuinely have not kept up with mapping for like abt 2/3 years so I just wanna know like whether or not cut ver. is a very like black and white sort of thing or if it's more flexible really

"Songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track will not be considered cut."

Since Battle just cut a small portion who is just a repetition of the same rhythm to avoid a repetitive and boring mapping who would not provide anything interesting, we're more than close to the official version than a real cutted ver. The "(cut ver)" is more like at the appreciation to the mapper in this situation, since he's not breaking any rule currently.

see any cut dnb (or pop) song that removes the repeated parts, cut ver is still necessary.

I mean you also have https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/1144152#osu/2388944 as an example of something where outro repetition was cut and cut ver. wasn't added to the title, I feel like it's the same sort of situation, I don't believe it's a distasteful cut because of the fact that it is just dnb repetition without any new variations that haven't already been kept in the current cut atm

I think we should get big bois into this discussion @nat to give a consensus about what the rule is exactly referring to. "shortened in ways that nearly match their official versions" this.

any news on that yet? the map is about to get ranked and the point hasn't been updated in 3 days, so i figured i'd ask.

i understand that it's a very repetitive section and that people might not see much value in mapping it, but at the end of the day it's still a relatively large part of the song (11%) that has been cut from the full length version, and calling it equal to the full length would just be misleading (see initial point).

cuts don't necessarily have to be distasteful or impactful to the gameplay experience either, as seen here or in mao's map that has been linked by battle, but it'd still be important to add the marker for clarity and also to help remove the overwhelmingly negative connotation that the cut ver marker carries at the moment.

I personally think that (Cut Ver.) should be added no matter what even if I find Battle's point valid in a way so would love to hear more voice on that and maybe making it cleaner in criteria

In that case then yeah RCs need to make it more clear, cause technically Battle did not broke any of them. People have just different interpretations of them here. Imo it was more up the mapper to decide if was needed in that situation.

Or force to add (Cut Ver.) for every maps who cut even for 1s, cause once again why some maps who escape that rule and not others.

just map the rest of the song =w=

yes

also resolved cuz just added the cut part back

for reference: #2176747

yes

should b fineee i think? noz thinks its fine as well

tru

o lmao tru

Hello there

also would be cool to add kicks where you have most promient finishes like 03:28:216 (1) - 03:49:550 (1) - etc

did all, for second comment it seemed like those were like the only two where there were finishes that were missing drum hitnormal so i think it should be all cool now(?)

also you can add Funk Fiction, Falk Au Yeong, Andy Tunstall, Digital Mini​-​Soundtrack based on the metadata source linked in the note :3

add all

not here ;w;