But that's not the point. It will only shift focus to rank other maps with higher priority, while older is already a given.xsrsbsns wrote:
It will only shift your focus to rank older maps.
But that's not the point. It will only shift focus to rank other maps with higher priority, while older is already a given.xsrsbsns wrote:
It will only shift your focus to rank older maps.
like thats ever going to happenthose wrote:
But that's not the point. It will only shift focus to rank other maps with higher priority, while older is already a given.xsrsbsns wrote:
It will only shift your focus to rank older maps.
Actually, it would just cause the people in question to wait until the day the time limit's up to ask a MAT to check their map. It really wouldn't change much.xsrsbsns wrote:
It will only shift your focus to rank older maps.Sakura wrote:
No, setting a time limit will just slow the whole process down and is counter productive.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not about the productivity. This is about the quality of the maps.Sakura wrote:
No, setting a time limit will just slow the whole process down and is counter productive.
Not really, i have 2 maps in the graveyard that i mapped 2 years ago, if i revived them, would you say that their quality is higher than a 2 week old map?Kurokami wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not about the productivity. This is about the quality of the maps.Sakura wrote:
No, setting a time limit will just slow the whole process down and is counter productive.
This is a good idea. Additionally to the minimum required time, there should be a minimum number of mods required before a map can be bubbled.TheVileOne wrote:
I agree on most of this.
I doubt that two weeks is enough time for the proper modders to suggest alterations to a beatmap. Remember there are patterns that aren't technically flawed, but just not as good as other patterns. If there isn't enough time for modders who actually know how to make a good suggestion to post and reply, then that beatmap could very well go through the ranking process with patterns that could be better than they are.
We are trusting that a MAT, and a single BAT have the knowledge and expertise at critiquing that they can safely say that a beatmap could not be made any better. We cannot guarantee that stars are any indication that the beatmap has been properly modded, so rushing through the ranking process should be even more of a non-option. I know that even XATs make mistakes and I know some MATs don't speak their mind as much as they should. I don't think a map should be bubbled unless it has been properly checked over by a minimum number of people that have experience in modding maps. Or we should at least limit being able to bubble unless x number of unique players have stared the map, so that self-priroritizing will have less of an pronounced effect on actual priority based on quality.
It's still a flawed system though.
Those maps aren't finished, so they wouldn't even qualify. A map needs to be completed and in pending for the new rule to apply.Sakura wrote:
Not really, i have 2 maps in the graveyard that i mapped 2 years ago, if i revived them, would you say that their quality is higher than a 2 week old map?
If you mean these 2Sakura wrote:
Not really, i have 2 maps in the graveyard that i mapped 2 years ago, if i revived them, would you say that their quality is higher than a 2 week old map?
those and Ekaru have already explained why this wont work, a mapper could very well sit 2 weeks doing nothing and there wouldnt be any difference than looking for mods since day 1 and getting it ranked in less than 2 weeks.
Well, it would be problematic if you have a lying mapper at your hands. I for one, only put my maps into the Pending forum if they're 100% complete.Sakura wrote:
And how do you tell?
Edit: How do you tell since when it was completed and in pending i mean, if the thread is revived, there would be no evidence of it ever going to the graveyard.
I have some experience with this and now i don't want to say anything about it.Gabi wrote:
Setting a "time-limit" for maps to get ranked is silly, what's the point in keeping a map in pending if it's already finished/modded and ready to get ranked?
That's quite true, but you're not looking at the big picture. The point is, there are tons of other such old maps in pending that aren't given attention. So why?Gabi wrote:
Setting a "time-limit" for maps to get ranked is silly, what's the point in keeping a map in pending if it's already finished/modded and ready to get ranked?
Wishful thinking, but very few people randomly mod maps that nobody is asking to be modded.xsrsbsns wrote:
That said, a map is never considered 'finished modding' anyway since there will always be room for improvement. The increase in pending time would allow for more chances of modding.
These maps will not get attention even if they would introduce a time limit, so what exactly will we achieve by doing this? BATs rarely mod maps by star prior, let alone random maps.xsrsbsns wrote:
That's quite true, but you're not looking at the big picture. The point is, there are tons of other such old maps in pending that aren't given attention. So why?
SpeedRankStarrodkirby86 wrote:
What's the importance of a speedrank? Does it matter to one that a map must get ranked? A map is remembered for its quality, not for how fast it goes in and out of Pending.
Agree with this one.Tenshi-nyan wrote:
With the latest introduction to maps that they now automatically get a star upon receiving a mod (which I heard about just today), I have a new idea.
When we reform the star priority system so that only the amount of mods a map has received is going to count, it is going to make the kuduso system obsolete.
why would people mod then?Tenshi-nyan wrote:
With the latest introduction to maps that they now automatically get a star upon receiving a mod (which I heard about just today), I have a new idea.
When we reform the star priority system so that only the amount of mods a map has received is going to count, it is going to make the kuduso system obsolete.
This, this, and this.Kurokami wrote:
I just hate when one map is get ranked, I play it, get fc below 5 tries, then the map is become unranked, because someone find problems with it. I think it better if these problems are actually be corrected before the ranked status, not after. If the modders are really able to speedrank a map, then they are must find these kind of mistakes.
I don't care about the speedrank thingy as long as the map is stay ranked after it became ranked.
highly disagree with this, the relevance of the same mappers maps again and again isn't higher than the relevance of little gems.Dangaard wrote:
Ranking is not a process to please an individual mapper for his work and pat his shoulder. Ranking bears relevance to the whole community and is partially driven by it, maps with more relevance (higher priority) should be ranked first, since they got a larger effect on the community than a map that maybe only pleases the mapper him-/herself.
We know what we are doing and this wont happen, if you see the first page of ranked maps, all creators are different.Tanzklaue wrote:
long story short: the community doesn't want the map with the highest SP, it wants the highest variety of maps from different mappers possible. this cannot be accomplished by following only the SP, because the same people will receive all the mods, while others doon't receive a single one.
that doesn't change the fact that one person can throw so many SP at one map, so it still only represents the opinion of one person, though it is a person who knows what he/she does.Loctav wrote:
Don't forget that the SP isn't coming from nowhere and that the kds are not earned by being famous.
They contributed mods to other maps in order to earn them, so their SP is an outcome of what they contributed to other people's work
This was actually the original intent of the kudosu and SP systems. 'Course, as Gabi said it all went to hell after like a week because some error-filled maps screwed up the system because they kept on getting modded due to priority but couldn't get ranked due to being filled with problems.Loctav wrote:
well, I see nothing wrong to reward the people who actually pay effords to mod other people's work with giving their own work more attention.
iMercurial wrote:
Usually, speedranks don't have too many stars to say "Yeah, mod me and rank me".
2 Examples.
t/84715
t/83025
Yeah
The problem with a time limit is that these mappers aren't necessarily going to put unnecessary effort into getting more mods just because they have to wait longer. They are much more likely to just wait until the time limit's up after they feel that their map's ready for ranking.D33d wrote:
I haven't read this whole thread, but I agree that there should be at least a hard limit of maybe two weeks. Furthermore, unless my memory fails me (it probably has), a lot of speedranks don't appear to have the necessary star priority. Really, I think that it'd be better if a map was at least given a substantial amount of time for scrutiny. Just because one or a few MATs/BATs think that something's good enough to be ranked, it doesn't mean that somebody else could find something that could be changed.
A time limit as suggested is actually useless in my eyes since if a map is ready then it is ready, if not then not. Anyway I don't see a problem with a time limit. I mean waiting 2 weeks for your map to get ranked isn't hard. Useless but not harmful rule so to speak.Tenshi-nyan wrote:
Also, in order to increase the priority of old, bubbled maps, a bubbled map will receive a star (or two) for every week it has the bubble icon.