unless the mappers in question didn't want to submit the collab map, then it leaves the one who did less work to submit it and with this guideline it just gridlocks him. I think if anything it should be taken case by case some mappers might help more on a song they aren't willing to submit.
forum
[Guideline] Map Accountability
posted
Total Posts
112
why submit something a mapper doesn't want to submit anyway? if two mapper worked for a collab, and one isn't willing to submit at the time...? You could say the one submitting is right?
As a matter of principle, the uploader should make a substantial contribution to the map. Their name has been put on the map, so it's only logical that they're featured prominently.ztrot wrote:
unless the mappers in question didn't want to submit the collab map, then it leaves the one who did less work to submit it and with this guideline it just gridlocks him.
In a similar vein, I believe that the uploader of a map should usually be the one to make the hardest difficulty. In the case of my [Insane] for Jarby's 'Symmetry' map, I simply did that because I insisted that an Insane map could be made and I wanted to prove it. It turned into me going ahead and doing the rest of the map. Of course, I also like Jarby very much and would use any excuse to do him a favour. Otherwise, the hardest difficulty of a map is effectively the uploader's showstage--it fleshes out all of the mapset's ideas and shows us everything that the mapper is capable of in a difficulty.
If nothing else, it's nothing more than laziness. To me, requests for guest Hards or Insanes say,"I've mapped all of the easier difficulties. Could you pour a load of effort into the most flashy map, which pretty much everybody will play when they look at the map, so that I can take the credit by attaining a ranking?"
The phrase "start as you mean to go on" comes to mind. One might as well show some willing by mapping the difficulty which requires the most effort.
If you have a collab map, you shouldn't have to map fully one diff... I know of multiple maps where the mapper did not map one full diff and everything turned out fine. I also don't think it's necessary for the mapper to map a part in every diff.
I think that the mapper should have to map at least one diff, across all diffs. Example: the mapper maps 50% of hard, 50% of insane and none of normal. This situation would be acceptable IMO.
I also think that a guest mapper can be allowed to have more diffs in the map than the mapper as long as the guest mapper says it's OK... (because then there's no problem)
I think that the mapper should have to map at least one diff, across all diffs. Example: the mapper maps 50% of hard, 50% of insane and none of normal. This situation would be acceptable IMO.
I also think that a guest mapper can be allowed to have more diffs in the map than the mapper as long as the guest mapper says it's OK... (because then there's no problem)
if two mapper collab for three difficulty it's right, actually.
But making a collab and letting others map full difficulty, can't logically means you are the submitter.
The submitter should at least the same work done by any other mapper... or a "bit less", he's taking into account map preparation, mod searching and similiar.
But making a collab and letting others map full difficulty, can't logically means you are the submitter.
The submitter should at least the same work done by any other mapper... or a "bit less", he's taking into account map preparation, mod searching and similiar.
Two mappers collab a map
Mapper A contributes 70%
Mapper B contributes 30%
Mapper A has no available slots for uploading
Mapper B has 1 abailable slot.
Would Mapper B be allowed to upload the map? Also, I guess it's fine if it is agreed upon by both mappers that the one who contributed the less is uploading it?
Mapper A contributes 70%
Mapper B contributes 30%
Mapper A has no available slots for uploading
Mapper B has 1 abailable slot.
Would Mapper B be allowed to upload the map? Also, I guess it's fine if it is agreed upon by both mappers that the one who contributed the less is uploading it?
Topic Starter
CXu: i highly, highly disagree. The entire reason i suggested this is so that mappers are accountable for what they've started or done - Mapper A can wait until he gets enough upload slots.
Just going to bring this old topic from the grave. I'll bring up a scenario as I'm not a great writter.
Player B mapped a map set and Player A mapped a guest diff for the set. However, Player B figured he can no longer upload his map (there is absolutly no way to upload except to have someone else to log in to his account somewhere else). Player B even had more then enough slot to upload the beat map. This is a trouble, but Player A kindly offered his remaining map slot (yay!). Unfortunately, this map got nuked because it violated the Map Accountability Rule. However, because of this unique case, there was a BAT discussion over this issue. It was never revealed as the solution they came up with was to lock the thread of the map and make Player B to erase all his name on the beatmap or let it graved.
You can follow up the (revealed) case on this link
Points to be considered:
Personally, I don't see how this could possibly threaten the gameplay itself. All what Player B wanted to have was his name shown on the difficulty name. Most BAT's first reactions (who have posted on the thread atleast) were in disagreement. Why would that be? The rule must be based on common sense since Map Accountability isn't much of a technical issue. You could tell there is clearly something wrong when BATs can't agree on such issue. However I'll leave the past behind since it's pointless now. All I want is the discussion and the conclusion BATs had to be revealed. It would definately help to bring an inprovement to this rule.
P.S. Why did I give up last time? Because I didn't want ouran and DxS's effort to end up in the graveyard. Personally did not minded having this map graved.
Player B mapped a map set and Player A mapped a guest diff for the set. However, Player B figured he can no longer upload his map (there is absolutly no way to upload except to have someone else to log in to his account somewhere else). Player B even had more then enough slot to upload the beat map. This is a trouble, but Player A kindly offered his remaining map slot (yay!). Unfortunately, this map got nuked because it violated the Map Accountability Rule. However, because of this unique case, there was a BAT discussion over this issue. It was never revealed as the solution they came up with was to lock the thread of the map and make Player B to erase all his name on the beatmap or let it graved.
You can follow up the (revealed) case on this link
Points to be considered:
- Player B had 2 slots to upload, but could no upload the beatmap due to restriction on his Internet
Player A did not mind giving up his slot
The diff spread was 3 diff from Player B and a diff from Player A (75% > 25%)
Personally, I don't see how this could possibly threaten the gameplay itself. All what Player B wanted to have was his name shown on the difficulty name. Most BAT's first reactions (who have posted on the thread atleast) were in disagreement. Why would that be? The rule must be based on common sense since Map Accountability isn't much of a technical issue. You could tell there is clearly something wrong when BATs can't agree on such issue. However I'll leave the past behind since it's pointless now. All I want is the discussion and the conclusion BATs had to be revealed. It would definately help to bring an inprovement to this rule.
P.S. Why did I give up last time? Because I didn't want ouran and DxS's effort to end up in the graveyard. Personally did not minded having this map graved.
Topic Starter
All rules have exceptions - this is no exception to that rule.
This rule i am suggesting is more to prevent mappers from being blatantly lazy and underachievers with their maps than mutual agreements.
This rule i am suggesting is more to prevent mappers from being blatantly lazy and underachievers with their maps than mutual agreements.
Question:
Are Taiko diffs treated like other standard difficulties for accountability?
Are Taiko diffs treated like other standard difficulties for accountability?
I dont see why notbmin11 wrote:
Question:
Are Taiko diffs treated like other standard difficulties for accountability?
Why does it even matter? If I like having guest diffs in my maps and people are actually willing to contribute to my map, am I just going to tell them "No, I can't because people will think I'm lazy" Fuck, this is no good.Shiirn wrote:
I wanted to throw in something about "Consistently mapping only one difficulty of each of your ranked maps means you're a lazy smut" but couldn't figure out how to word it politely.
There's no way you could tell them that unless it's going for approval/grave, in which case who the fuck cares.Natteke wrote:
Why does it even matter? If I like having guest diffs in my maps and people are actually willing to contribute to my map, am I just going to tell them "No, I can't because people will think I'm lazy" Fuck, this is no good.
Shiirn's only asking that you make beatmap sets like that every once in a while.
But no, this doesn't matter, other than the fact that if you put forth minimal effort into the beatmap, why should you be the one who gets it ranked?
Oh dear, are you really this close minded?ziin wrote:
But no, this doesn't matter, other than the fact that if you put forth minimal effort into the beatmap, why should you be the one who gets it ranked?
Because no one else started a mapset with the song in question.
Because people have their pending slots full.
Because people wanted to contribute to the map with their guest diffs.
Because mapper asked other mappers for a guest diff.
Because someone has already submitted a map and you can just make a guest diff instead of making a new mapset.
etc etc etc
It's not like you get something from ranking. It would be understandable if mapper got paid for ranked maps and guest mappers didn't get anything, but things don't work this way.
a.k.a Lazyness.Natteke wrote:
Because mapper asked other mappers for a guest diff.
Anyways, the point is that if there's a guest mapper with more diffs than the main mapper, the guest one should be the one submitting the set, i really have no problem is there's equal ammount of diffs from each mapper.
I could point out all your maps that are full of guest diffs but I won't. My point is that it shouldn't matter how many guest diffs there are in a map and who made these guest diffs.Sakura Hana wrote:
a.k.a Lazyness.Natteke wrote:
Because mapper asked other mappers for a guest diff.
The 1st one, Krisom requested the Insane since i started mapping it, it wasnt me asking him to map it.
The 2nd one, i made the Insane? wth xD, tho this was a collaboration mapset and maaaany people asked me for guest diff i had to even turn down 2 of them (and Lily coz he was late).
The 3rd one i wasn't good at making Insanes yet, plus it was a collaboration mapset
The 2nd one, i made the Insane? wth xD, tho this was a collaboration mapset and maaaany people asked me for guest diff i had to even turn down 2 of them (and Lily coz he was late).
The 3rd one i wasn't good at making Insanes yet, plus it was a collaboration mapset
Depends on the map, plus i said:
Sakura hana wrote:
i really have no problem is there's equal ammount of diffs from each mapper.
Asking others to map diffs for your map IS lazyness, it's a different story if they request it themselves, remember Natteke said:
I do agree that if people ask you to let them add their guest difficulties it isnt really laziness, it's only called lazyness when you ask them to map for your own maps.
I'm not going to say i'm not lazy, because i am, but that doesn't mean i can't tell others to not be lazy, and myself im trying to fix the lazy part of me.
It would be ironic if you ask them to map a diff for your map then later tell them no because they'll think your lazy, a.k.a Natteke was talking about diffs that people actually requested him to include.Natteke wrote:
people are actually willing to contribute to my map, am I just going to tell them "No, I can't because people will think I'm lazy" Fuck, this is no good.
I do agree that if people ask you to let them add their guest difficulties it isnt really laziness, it's only called lazyness when you ask them to map for your own maps.
I'm not going to say i'm not lazy, because i am, but that doesn't mean i can't tell others to not be lazy, and myself im trying to fix the lazy part of me.
Lolwhat, Sakura, I love some mappers and their styles and I'd obviously want to see their diffs in my mapsets. You gonna call me "lazy" for that? Sort out your views.
Yes i will, anyways it's impossible to tell from the map itself who requested their diff to be in there, and who got requested their diff to be in there, nevertheless it's pointless to have a map where X mapper made 2 guest diffs, and you the beatmap creator made 1, from that point of view looks to me like the one who should've been the beatmap creator was X mapper instead of yourself.
So i support this guideline.
So i support this guideline.
Er, what if X mapper doesn't want to submit his own mapset and thinks it's easier to map guest diffs for another mapper? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's something bad.
It's a guideline anyways. Just make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, and generally adhere to having whoever did the most work upload the beatmap. Spending time to think of specific corner cases seems counterproductive.
Actually i'd like it since i'm lazy too, but as i said, it makes no senseNatteke wrote:
Er, what if X mapper doesn't want to submit his own mapset and thinks it's easier to map guest diffs for another mapper? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's something bad.
Um, why? What makes a map where someone contributed more than the uploader less suitable for the end goal, the players? I understand we want to deter laziness but in the end there is no practical difference.
Sakura Hana wrote:
Actually i'd like it since i'm lazy too, but as i said, it makes no senseNatteke wrote:
Er, what if X mapper doesn't want to submit his own mapset and thinks it's easier to map guest diffs for another mapper? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's something bad.
What makes no sense? Carrying out a more logical task instead of an illogical one?
Aaaah this argument is so pointless. "Laziness" is also relative to effort/time per difficulty, specific circumstances of the map, consistency of a mapper across their maps, etc. It's not like you can just add up all the difficulties of a map, put them into a formula and find out how lazy the mapper is :<
I'd support a guideline that encourages the greatest contributor to a map to be it's uploader because it just makes more sense, but getting into petty debates about what laziness is is just silly
I'd support a guideline that encourages the greatest contributor to a map to be it's uploader because it just makes more sense, but getting into petty debates about what laziness is is just silly
QFTRandomJibberish wrote:
but getting into petty debates about what laziness is is just silly
Which is why i stopped coming from that point of view.
I thought this was more of a point to stop people from bypassing the upload restriction, not the laziness.
^
This rule should forbid nothing. (Nothing!) All it tells us is who should upload a map, not what goes inside it.
Special cases like bmin's can be sorted out by the BAT. I think it would be okay if he could find a cybercafe to upload from just once, then subsequent uploads can be done by someone with haxsubmit rights. Once osz2 is out, it will become easier for us to change a mapset's owner, so we could change the owner to him as we're about to rank.
This rule should forbid nothing. (Nothing!) All it tells us is who should upload a map, not what goes inside it.
Special cases like bmin's can be sorted out by the BAT. I think it would be okay if he could find a cybercafe to upload from just once, then subsequent uploads can be done by someone with haxsubmit rights. Once osz2 is out, it will become easier for us to change a mapset's owner, so we could change the owner to him as we're about to rank.
The other mapper could upload a mapset and the initial mapper could have their difficulty added. I also don't see what's so hard about including one or two guests and then making another difficulty (preferably Insane) yourself. Even as a collab, one could still map one map and part of a collab Insane (even better if it's a collab Insane on top of their own Insane).Natteke wrote:
Er, what if X mapper doesn't want to submit his own mapset and thinks it's easier to map guest diffs for another mapper? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's something bad.
Either way, if a mapper has clearly made a minimal contribution to "their" mapset, then it's obviously a cause for annoyance. Obviously, intentional and labelled collaborations are not a problem, because then it's a case of, "Hey guys, let's make a mapset together!" It's a far cry from "Hey guys, I started this, but I didn't have the foresight to realise that I'd be a lazy arse about it. Do my work for me please."
Lol and the original mapset would will stay pending for another month taking mapper's map space and will eventually die. Just because people like you are hatin' for no apparent reason. Sounds stupid to me. And it's always the same shit you know, people who sucks at both mapping and playing are coming up with the most retarded ideas. Probably to fill the empty space where skill could be placed? Idk. It keeps going in circles for a while. The same people complain about "people being lazy" - it's none of your business, in my opinion, if you get your butt hurt on people who have guest diffs in their maps, that's your problem.
Natteke wrote:
Lol and the original mapset would will stay pending for another month taking mapper's map space and will eventually die. Just because people like you are hatin' for no apparent reason. Sounds stupid to me. And it's always the same shit you know, people who sucks at both mapping and playing are coming up with the most retarded ideas. Probably to fill the empty space where skill could be placed? Idk. It keeps going in circles for a while. The same people complain about "people being lazy" - it's none of your business, in my opinion, if you get your butt hurt on people who have guest diffs in their maps, that's your problem.
It's to prevent people from bypassing the submission system and to promote people getting their own maps ranked/finished and playable. This also improves the quality of all maps, or at least deters people from quitting a map after they submit it, resulting in less server load/storage space from folks submitting map after map only to have it graved. You can't submit someone else's map. If someone else mapped more than you in your map, it's not your map anymore, unless they give the difficulties to you.
Has nothing to do with being lazy, though that is a popular opinion.
The rule as I read it like a week ago just said that whoever submits it has to have greater than or equal to the number of beatmaps of each individual guest mapper. EG a map with 5 difficulties and 5 mappers each mapping one difficulty each would mean any of them can submit it, though whoever mapped the hardest/longest difficulty should probably submit it.
You sure are getting bent out of shape over a guideline that makes perfect sense to me, even if the end result is "who the fuck cares?". This only affects a few maps anyway, is a guideline, and prevents exploitation of the system.
Has nothing to do with being lazy, though that is a popular opinion.
The rule as I read it like a week ago just said that whoever submits it has to have greater than or equal to the number of beatmaps of each individual guest mapper. EG a map with 5 difficulties and 5 mappers each mapping one difficulty each would mean any of them can submit it, though whoever mapped the hardest/longest difficulty should probably submit it.
You sure are getting bent out of shape over a guideline that makes perfect sense to me, even if the end result is "who the fuck cares?". This only affects a few maps anyway, is a guideline, and prevents exploitation of the system.
The only time this bothers me (albeit only a little) is when the uploader doesn't even map an insane or a hard.
Still, who cares.
Still, who cares.
A map will still take server space whether you have it ranked or graved. Having only your own diffs won't make your map any more or less playable nor it will decrease or increase its quality. If someone else mapped more than me it's still a map that can be played by others just as fine as if it didn't have any guest diffs.ziin wrote:
It's to prevent people from bypassing the submission system and to promote people getting their own maps ranked/finished and playable. This also improves the quality of all maps, or at least deters people from quitting a map after they submit it, resulting in less server load/storage space from folks submitting map after map only to have it graved. You can't submit someone else's map. If someone else mapped more than you in your map, it's not your map anymore, unless they give the difficulties to you.
Come on, why is it important who has done more and who has done less, reminds me of some kinda kinder garden fight over a toy.
Not if you don't submit it.Natteke wrote:
A map will still take server space whether you have it ranked or graved.
To prevent people from bypassing the submission system. Haven't we already gone over this?Natteke wrote:
Come on, why is it important who has done more and who has done less
Huh, bypassing submission system? This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread so far. People make diffs for other people, how is this a bypassing?...ziin wrote:
To prevent people from bypassing the submission system. Haven't we already gone over this?Natteke wrote:
Come on, why is it important who has done more and who has done less
The one having the most ammount of diffs in the mapset should be the one submitting the whole mapset, that's pretty much what ziin's been wanting to tell you
Er, look, a mapper has started a mapset, did all the timing etc, submitted it, after some time he gets guest difficulties, some people are willing to make more than 1 guest diff, take Alace's taiko + Hyper diffs. Most of the time the mapper couldn't foresee oh how many diffs there will be and how many of them will be guest difficulties. Dropping your mapset and making other mapper submit it is a waste of time and space. I don't see any problems with having more guest diffs, it doesn't make my map worse.
Ah sandpig's map, where the original mapper made 3 difficulties while Alace made 2? that one's fine.Natteke wrote:
Er, look, a mapper has started a mapset, did all the timing etc, submitted it, after some time he gets guest difficulties, some people are willing to make more than 1 guest diff, take Alace's taiko + Hyper diffs. Most of the time the mapper couldn't foresee oh how many diffs there will be and how many of them will be guest difficulties. Dropping your mapset and making other mapper submit it is a waste of time and space. I don't see any problems with having more guest diffs, it doesn't make my map worse.
fixed that for you.Natteke wrote:
Er, look, a mapper has started a mapset, did all the timing etc, submitted it, after some time he gets guest difficulties, some people are willing to make more than 1 guest diff, take Alace's taiko + Hyper diffs. Most of the time the mapper couldn't foresee oh how many diffs there will be and how many of them will be guest difficulties. Dropping yourmapsetone difficulty and making other mapper submit it is a waste of time and space. I don't see any problems with having more guest diffs, it doesn't make my map worse.
While you clearly don't have a problem with submitting one difficulty and having, say, tieff make 5 guest difficulties, I do. Tieff made most of the map (he did 400% more than you did) so he should be the one to submit the map. It's should be his name on the beatmap listing, not yours. Why does this matter? If tieff doesn't submit it, he now has one extra slot to upload in.
It doesn't matter that these sorts of things are so few and far between. A guideline must be there to prevent it from happening ever, and encourage people not to do this.
It also discourages one person from making 3 guest difficulties for a single map. With 3 guest diffs, it would be very easy to submit on your own, and you should in that case.
Please no more personal attacks, Natteke. A mapper's "ability" is a subject of personal opinion and has no bearing on their ability to sort out logistical rules of this kind.
I don't think so it's a good idea, since people does Collab with making same parts in each difficulty = the whole mapset is a collab. not a single diff. But i can't disagree to this. i'll be indifferent for this.
inb4someone always talked about this but i give just my opinion and i'm bored and i didn't read the whole thread.
inb4someone always talked about this but i give just my opinion and i'm bored and i didn't read the whole thread.
You should be sure the mapper have done about the same work anyway ( " about " it's more precise than anything), if you you mapped 40% and the other mapped 60%, you can still upload the mapset as you'll give your slot, some of your time manging the map, controlling and requesting mods ayway but if you mapped the 25% and the other mappaed the 75% ... well the other should logically be the submitter.
You are not getting it. The person would try to bypass the submission system if he has no upload slots remaining. You know, each players can only submit certain number of maps. People who aren't patient enough to wait until the map goes to the graveyard, or motivated enough to rank a map may try to upload the map via other's map slot, which is bypassing the restriction. In that case, the mapper would have done everything from timing to mapping. On the uploaders side, all that person would have done is submitting it, or mapping a difficulty at most.Natteke wrote:
Huh, bypassing submission system? This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread so far. People make diffs for other people, how is this a bypassing?...
I understand that would be a rare case, since most mappers are patient or motivated enough with their maps, but there are people who attempted to ( including myself) and that is the reason why map accountability has become on issue.
But as Natteke said, the number of difficulties each person made may not be a good measurement towards map accountability. The uploader may have started everything, but gave others a chance to map what they want and provided a space for their difficulties. This doesn't necessarily means the person who provided the difficulty is bypassing the submission system. We could force that person (guest mapper) to upload it one it's own slot, but this could result in some troubles, such as the person may prefers to keep the collaboration with the others, or the one who started the map may want the recognition (ranked under his account).
By the way, this has nothing to do with helping the server. Actually, maybe worse since this rule could force people to divide their map into two separate sets, which is the opposite from helping the server.
If they're very close, it shouldn't matter who uploads it. There are enough imponderables like time spent timing, skinning, or coordinating the collaboration, to offset any minor difference in mapping contribution.
It won't. I will oppose anything like this to the end. It's plain stupid to force removal of anything for a reason like this.bmin11 wrote:
Actually, maybe worse since this rule could force people to divide their map into two separate sets
This post is full of a lot of presumption and ad hominem attacks, as well as a general lack of a point. You seem to be barely capable of even attempting to make a flimsy point, without trying to cloud its lack of substance by being an abrasive cunthole.Natteke wrote:
Lol and the original mapset would will stay pending for another month taking mapper's map space and will eventually die. Just because people like you are hatin' for no apparent reason. Sounds stupid to me. And it's always the same shit you know, people who sucks at both mapping and playing are coming up with the most retarded ideas. Probably to fill the empty space where skill could be placed? Idk. It keeps going in circles for a while. The same people complain about "people being lazy" - it's none of your business, in my opinion, if you get your butt hurt on people who have guest diffs in their maps, that's your problem.
The sentiment against laziness is legitimate, because the map of the uploader is not theirs if they do not do enough to call it so with a straight face. It is very easy to turn down guest requests for another time--in particular, you should have no problem with cranking out another map(set). Yes, I get annoyed when I actually try to make something myself and yet lazy people can get by quite easily. It is a matter of principle, but it is also a matter of a mapset being wildly inconsistent. It is fair to say that a collab between people with similar styles will not have this problem, but this does not happen often.
Regardless of all of this, think of the player. If I was to download a map by a specific mapper, then I would want to see their work in the form of enough of their content to make me want to play their map. That is simply a personal thing, but it also means that, for all of the effort that the guest(s) themselves put into their maps, all of the credit (play count and rating and general recognition) goes to the lazy uploader.
There is nothing technically wrong with this, which is why this a guideline instead of a rule. However, it is just unnecessary, because it does not take a massive amount of time to make one mapset--certainly, with pacing, it should not get in the way of one's life. The only people who seem to justify this are the people who can't be bothered to make an effort. I would prefer a mapset to die if the mapper could not be bothered to complete it. People who are lazy come up with the most retarded excuses. They could fill in the empty spaces. by actually doing something by themselves. Things like this go in circles because silly people refuse to stop doing silly things. Perhaps, these people should stop being so "butthurt" (stop using crappy buzzwords and "lol" in a serious discsussion) and making terrible excuses.
All that I ask is that people actually put their name on a mapset, especially with the hardest difficulties. It is not much to ask.
I don't know about you, but I would still play a map regardless of who and how much contributed to a map. I can't know if the map is good or not without playing it, and we are different here. Not willing to play a map because there's "not enough of their content" is a bullshit prejudice.
And here we go, people go on with the "laziness" thing. Why are you so sure it's laziness? There are people who make 1 difficulty and it's awesome. There are people who map whole mapsets that suck and they can't get better.
Actually, can you show me a mapset where mapper has contributed less? Just so that I know that we are talking about an existing issue and not made up shit. Thanks HakuNoKaemi, although that's a tiny amount of mapsets with such spread.
lol lol lol serious discussion u mad brah
And here we go, people go on with the "laziness" thing. Why are you so sure it's laziness? There are people who make 1 difficulty and it's awesome. There are people who map whole mapsets that suck and they can't get better.
And this is where you are completely wrong. Guest mappers are credited in both diff names and creator's comments. Is this not enough for you? I love a lot of mapsets because of the guest diffs they have included, and my regards go not to the person who has submitted the map, but to the guest diff creator. I'm sure many people feel the same. Having a mapset submitted doesn't mean that it's completely yours. After all you've used a song not made by you (except when you're mapping your own song), you included guest diffs not made by you. A mapset is a collective bundle of efforts.D33d wrote:
That is simply a personal thing, but it also means that, for all of the effort that the guest(s) themselves put into their maps, all of the credit (play count and rating and general recognition) goes to the lazy uploader.
lol lol lol serious discussion u mad brah
read the discussion before answering...
Ouran done 1 difficulty, bmin 3 and lepidon 1(but as written before, it's because bmin didn't want to give a slot to it)
there are other example in the discussion, but I should go
Ouran done 1 difficulty, bmin 3 and lepidon 1(but as written before, it's because bmin didn't want to give a slot to it)
there are other example in the discussion, but I should go
I could have, but I couldn't bother to drive for an hour just to upload a beatmap ._.;;HakuNoKaemi wrote:
it's because bmin didn't want to give a slot to it
Quote of the thread thank you very much.Natteke wrote:
A mapset is a collective bundle of efforts
Exactly what is the problem anyways? Obviously everyone that is contributing to the mapset is fine with it or they simply wouldn't contribute. Alternatively we could keep this guideline and have every modder double check the amount of notes mapped by each mapper in a mapset so we could decide who ultimately deserves credit, it would be a good use of ones time.
Bypassing the submission system.Xafnia wrote:
Exactly what is the problem anyways?
It's not an "effort-related" thing. It's a logic-related one.
It's logical to map 4/5 of a map and not be the uploader?
Yes? Then you just have the troll logic.
Nope? You're a logical thinker.
So this is good for a guideline (still not as a rule), as it's not "imposing", it's just saying that YOU as the uploader, should put more effort than others in the map(not "have to").
It's logical to map 4/5 of a map and not be the uploader?
Yes? Then you just have the troll logic.
Nope? You're a logical thinker.
So this is good for a guideline (still not as a rule), as it's not "imposing", it's just saying that YOU as the uploader, should put more effort than others in the map(not "have to").
If anything, I would rather add this as a rule. And I would rather word it this way:
What do you think of this wording ? Also should Taiko difficulties be included in this ? I'd personnally think that they should, as they are difficulties, and required time and effort to be made.
The uploader of a mapset must have made as many or more difficulties as any of the guest mappers.This will not disallow guest diff bundles, as everyone has one diff, but would disallow cases like what HakuNoKaemi pointed out, and thus limiting the upload limit bypassing.
What do you think of this wording ? Also should Taiko difficulties be included in this ? I'd personnally think that they should, as they are difficulties, and required time and effort to be made.
Just to be clear, Shiirn's suggestion is Submitter > highest guest diff count.
Currently and what I think should stay a guideline is Submitter >= highest guest diff count.
Thus if 8 people map 1 difficulty each, anyone can submit (they will automatically have the "most" influence on the map due to organization). If one person maps 2 difficulties, that person has to submit.
In a collab effort, if there is only one map, it's fine. This should stay as a guideline however, as some maps are initially made as a single collab difficulty (for approval of course). The uploader might not want to make a 2nd map. If a guest difficulty comes along, the uploader would have to turn it down, as they have already submitted it in their name, and the guest mapper would have contributed the most to the map. I would also support the fact that it is for approval that it's easy to ignore this guideline. I'm pretty sure this is one of the problems Natteke is worried about. Since it's for approval and score doesn't count, however, it would be better to combine the 2 maps into their own single beatmap rather than get 2 separate beatmaps, 2 separate downloads, and 2 separate places to store the map. Of course the same could be achieved by dropping the guest difficulty as an unranked diff.
I'm fine for breaking this guideline under approval under those circumstances, but for 99% of the time it should be applied.
Currently and what I think should stay a guideline is Submitter >= highest guest diff count.
Thus if 8 people map 1 difficulty each, anyone can submit (they will automatically have the "most" influence on the map due to organization). If one person maps 2 difficulties, that person has to submit.
In a collab effort, if there is only one map, it's fine. This should stay as a guideline however, as some maps are initially made as a single collab difficulty (for approval of course). The uploader might not want to make a 2nd map. If a guest difficulty comes along, the uploader would have to turn it down, as they have already submitted it in their name, and the guest mapper would have contributed the most to the map. I would also support the fact that it is for approval that it's easy to ignore this guideline. I'm pretty sure this is one of the problems Natteke is worried about. Since it's for approval and score doesn't count, however, it would be better to combine the 2 maps into their own single beatmap rather than get 2 separate beatmaps, 2 separate downloads, and 2 separate places to store the map. Of course the same could be achieved by dropping the guest difficulty as an unranked diff.
I'm fine for breaking this guideline under approval under those circumstances, but for 99% of the time it should be applied.
So in short, you agree with my wording, except you would add an exception for approval maps ?
yes, and guideline it (as originally intended). This is the current rule anyway, it's just never been in writing that I remember.Odaril wrote:
So in short, you agree with my wording, except you would add an exception for approval maps ?
I'm waiting for more opinions. Honestly, I disagree with making this a guideline, and making an exception for approval. I think I've explained why earlier.
Having it as a rule should be okay as long as it's open for exceptions.
Uhh Rule means No Exception, Guideline means can only be broken if it makes the map more fun and it makes sense.bmin11 wrote:
Having it as a rule should be okay as long as it's open for exceptions.
I still think this should be added as a guideline
This should be a guideline by any means making it a rule would harm far to many great collab sets and in the end do more bad than good.
Ya, I saw that coming. This should atleast have a space open for an exception. I support as a guideline.
The collaborative difficulty thing is a fair exception.
Situations like bmin's should be thought of as technical rather than to do with rules, and they can figure out a way with the BAT and support staff to get things uploaded.
Situations like bmin's should be thought of as technical rather than to do with rules, and they can figure out a way with the BAT and support staff to get things uploaded.
Accountability really isn't a major problem at the moment from what I can see, and there are all sorts of weird cases like bmin's where it might be vaguely ok, so I'd say a guideline is probably the best idea.
The uploader of a mapset should be the creator of as many or more difficulties than any single guest mapper.I would equally support a rule similar to Odaril's, though.
Skinning and Storyboarding is an Effort too and so has to be counted in.
More as "the one who worked more" than "the one who mapped equally or more"
More as "the one who worked more" than "the one who mapped equally or more"
Can you suggest how much those would be weighed compare to a difficulty? If there is a clear measurement for it, it should be added. If not, then it's hard to be a rule or a guideline.
Number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs, Collaboration maps are excempt from this.
How about that.
It doesn't unless we say it does, and for the sake of simplicity, it doesn't.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
Skinning and Storyboarding is an Effort too and so has to be counted in.
More as "the one who worked more" than "the one who mapped equally or more"
Perfect as a guideline.Sakura Hana wrote:
Number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs, Collaboration maps are excempt from this.
How about that.
The number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs; collaboration maps are exempt from this.
fixed some grammars. Since taiko is not mentioned, it's counted.
Since it's a guideline, I wouldn't mind having a 1 collab diff, 1 guest diff mapset for approval, even though technically the "guest" mapper did more work.
In front of "number of maps" you can say "overall contribution by any guest" and say "that can't exceed the total contribution of the uploader"
Working on a Medium-Full Skin, a Simple SB simply and two diff is more than working on three difficulties.
A Full Skin just isn't used on a map, and Complex SB are still rare.
Working on a Medium-Full Skin, a Simple SB simply and two diff is more than working on three difficulties.
A Full Skin just isn't used on a map, and Complex SB are still rare.
Can you describe what on simply, medium, full SB would be like and the difference between each stages? We might as well consider these before we add it on the rule or the guideline so there won't be any confusions.
I would rather see that as a rule. I doesn't prevent guest diff mapsets.
I agree that guest mappers having ranked difficulties is a good way of getting their word out (just making pretty [Easy] difficulties has got me more attention than I would've otherwise). Of course an uploader is almost never going to own everything that goes into a mapset, but they effectively own their maps. It's not a prejudice thing if I'm disappointed at a mapset which has almost nothing done by the uploader--if they've only uploaded one difficulty of their own which isn't even supposed to be a collab map, then they're effectively gaining success from other people's work.Natteke wrote:
And this is where you are completely wrong. Guest mappers are credited in both diff names and creator's comments. Is this not enough for you? I love a lot of mapsets because of the guest diffs they have included, and my regards go not to the person who has submitted the map, but to the guest diff creator. I'm sure many people feel the same. Having a mapset submitted doesn't mean that it's completely yours. After all you've used a song not made by you (except when you're mapping your own song), you included guest diffs not made by you. A mapset is a collective bundle of efforts.D33d wrote:
That is simply a personal thing, but it also means that, for all of the effort that the guest(s) themselves put into their maps, all of the credit (play count and rating and general recognition) goes to the lazy uploader.
Really, if I enjoy a guest difficulty, then I'd still want to play it regardless of how much the uploader has done, but it's bothersome when the mapset's uploaded under somebody's name and yet I'm not even playing any of their stuff. In this instance, if the uploader has made at least one decent map themselves, then I at least appreciate that they've put the effort into that.
Call me "prejudiced" all that you like, but all that I want is to see more uploaders providing their own content. Again, it's not much to ask, especially when the people who do this are experienced mappers who can push everything out within days, and in many cases, can get their crap speedranked.
ziin wrote:
The number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs; collaboration maps are exempt from this.
I think this wording is enough, and should be a rule. This doesn't prevent collab maps, as it's an exception in the rule itself, doesn't prevent guest diff bundles either, but does prevent cases like ouranhshc's mapset in which bmin owned most of the diffs.
It should be a rule because, as D33d stated, the uploader owns the mapset.
Actually i got another idea, collaboration maps should count as 0 contribution from any mapper in it (or 1/2?) just to avoid the Main mapper mapping a collab diff, and the rest being guest diffs. Collaboration mapsets would still be a exception from this guideline.
I still want it as a guideline for this reason:
Approval collab map with 6+ people on one diff is submitted. 7th person makes a guest difficulty. Having a 2nd difficulty improves the map spread significantly, and forcing the guest diff to submit his own map is stupid, as is making the original uploader deny the guest difficulty because he or she doesn't want to make another difficulty.
Also, rules should be absolute, and I find way too much wiggle room in this. We'll be adding too many special cases, and if it is a guideline we can figure it out in a case by case basis. You still have to have a really good reason to break a guideline.
Approval collab map with 6+ people on one diff is submitted. 7th person makes a guest difficulty. Having a 2nd difficulty improves the map spread significantly, and forcing the guest diff to submit his own map is stupid, as is making the original uploader deny the guest difficulty because he or she doesn't want to make another difficulty.
Also, rules should be absolute, and I find way too much wiggle room in this. We'll be adding too many special cases, and if it is a guideline we can figure it out in a case by case basis. You still have to have a really good reason to break a guideline.
Guidelines are pretty much like rules that can be broken in special cases, while rules cant be broken in any case no matter what, which is why im pushing this for a guideline instead, as there are a few case by case exceptions that can be made (like bmin's case)
I didn't think of it that way, ziin, you're right. Let's make it a guideline then, but we'll need to hunt down for cases like bmin's. Not that I think anything like this would happen again.
Waiting for a few more opinions before amending.
Waiting for a few more opinions before amending.
Simple. If the SBer is required more Work in Coding and Image-Editing it can count as more effort. If, for example, the mapper has done 2 Difficulty, but has worked throughly for an SB and/or a Skin, he did put equally or more effort than the guest mapper who did 3 difficulty.bmin11 wrote:
Can you describe what on simply, medium, full SB would be like and the difference between each stages? We might as well consider these before we add it on the rule or the guideline so there won't be any confusions.
That's why borderline cases should be accepted unconditionally.
I think changing "Number Of Maps" with "Effort based on overall work" as a meter can be better-intended.It will discourage the case this rule is intended, while not suggesting neither discouraging bordelines directly.
This is not a meter as it is mostly subjective. I think the wording I gave is good enough, keeping in mind that this is still a guideline, and not a hard rule.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
"Effort based on overall work"
Except mapper only credits SBer/Skinner in creator's words, the end result given to the players is in the difficulties, regardless of the effort put into skins and SBs, what the players play is a bunch of hitobjects, the eye candy can't be viewed without them.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
I think changing "Number Of Maps" with "Effort based on overall work" as a meter can be better-intended.It will discourage the case this rule is intended, while not suggesting neither discouraging bordelines directly.
I still think Effort based on Number of difficulties made for the mapper is better.
I certainly don't think that this should be an explicit rule, because there are far too many caveats in the statement. The only thing that needs to happen is that mappers should respect this guideline and ensure that every one of their mapsets is to their highest standard.
As a sidenote in the opposite case, it amuses me somewhat when somebody makes a mapset, to which they have contributed the most, and the only guest difficulty shits all over their work. This tends to occur when the guest makes a [Hard] or [Insane], which is generally why I would encourage mappers to make the hardest difficulty on their own as a thorough showcase of their mapping ability.
As a sidenote in the opposite case, it amuses me somewhat when somebody makes a mapset, to which they have contributed the most, and the only guest difficulty shits all over their work. This tends to occur when the guest makes a [Hard] or [Insane], which is generally why I would encourage mappers to make the hardest difficulty on their own as a thorough showcase of their mapping ability.
Quality of content is irrelevant to this discussion. It only discusses its owner.
There was a rule about that in the draft, you can directly substitute it...
SPOILER
You must fully map at least one difficulty of a mapset if you are the person who is uploading it. For collaborated beatmap sets, the uploader must be a part of every difficulty. Also, no guest mapper should have more content in the mapset than the creator. It makes no sense to upload a map if you barely contributed to it.
HakuNoKaemi wrote:
There was a rule about that in the draft, you can directly substitute it...SPOILERYou must fully map at least one difficulty of a mapset if you are the person who is uploading it. For collaborated beatmap sets, the uploader must be a part of every difficulty. Also, no guest mapper should have more content in the mapset than the creator. It makes no sense to upload a map if you barely contributed to it.
The number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs; collaboration maps are exempt from this.And this is the guideline suggested by this forum.
shorter wording, use of semi-colon, awesome guideline, put it in.
Looks fine to me. Maybe add a note to talk to the BAT if you have upload troubles.
This. Looks good to me.ziin wrote:
shorter wording, use of semi-colon, awesome guideline, put it in.
I know--I had only mentioned quality as an aside, but I also wanted to encourage people to make the hardest difficulties by themselves. I don't have any beef with that, but I think that it looks a lot better when they do so.Odaril wrote:
Quality of content is irrelevant to this discussion. It only discusses its owner.
The number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs; collaboration maps are exempt from this. Ask a BAT if you're unsure of who should upload the mapset.
Well, seeing there was no response for three weeks, I'm amending this.
Yeah I'm not going to treat this as a rule seeing as you clearly stated it as a guideline, Example I make two standard diffs I get 2 guest diffs there is a gap, another friend fills in a gap for that then I get a guest taiko because it just happens. that brings up my guest count to 4 different mappers working on one map and what is wrong with that exactly If they are contempt with letting there work go with another why stop it? sorry for bring this up but I haven't been around much. but it seems like this is only hurting the map Creation process not making it better if you can get a good map set from a combined number of mappers then why stop it?
Topic Starter
The example you provided is perfectly fine under the wording of this guideline.
This is perfectly fine if the friend and taiko mappers aren't the same mapper as the one who did two diffs.ztrot wrote:
Yeah I'm not going to treat this as a rule seeing as you clearly stated it as a guideline, Example I make two standard diffs I get 2 guest diffs there is a gap, another friend fills in a gap for that then I get a guest taiko because it just happens. that brings up my guest count to 4 different mappers working on one map and what is wrong with that exactly If they are contempt with letting there work go with another why stop it? sorry for bring this up but I haven't been around much. but it seems like this is only hurting the map Creation process not making it better if you can get a good map set from a combined number of mappers then why stop it?