oh I never know we have this kind of power, thanks for reminding ;3
which thread mentioned this btw?

wmfchris wrote:

D33d wrote:

Map to fit the song. Always. Mapping is not composing--it is creating an experience based on the music. The first and third "styles" are flat-out wrong if the mapper's only considering it like that. Imposing "creativity" where it doesn't fit tends to end up being garbage. This is what mm meant about maps not being art projects. osu! is a game and one's creativity shouldn't detract from the gameplay/what it's supposed to follow.

This falls under my only personal absolute: "Don't be stupid." The most simple solution is not to overmap at all. If you feel too restricted by the music, then drop it and use a different song or learn to map within more constraints.

Nope. Map to fit the song does not imply that mapping in terms of the first and third ways are not correct. The 'creating experience' stuff is already a remixing process --- feel the message brought by the song and enforce it in your map. The style itself is not necessarily lead to overmapping and the only problem you should ask yourself when in doubt if it's overmapped is 'are your arrangement enforcing the message brought by the song?' If yes then hv a go, otherwise think about other possibilities.

What I mean is that, the mapping shouldn't take liberties and add something just because it sounded cool in the mapper's head. Expressing one's interpretation of the music is fine, as long as it actually fits the music and is executed with the music in mind. However, doing so with complete disregard of the feel of the music... It's kind of common sense. This shouldn't need to be debated too heavily.

Seriously, all that I'm trying to say is, "Be tasteful when adding to the music, otherwise don't add anything at all."

*grabs popcorn* Read through the thread, but I won't have the time to write up a "real" response until Tuesday. The discussion so far is very... interesting... though.

*grabs popcorn* how did you discuss this seriously on april 1st..

really interesting 0,0

In regards to easier difficulties, following strong and key musical points is important. It doesn't matter if the rhythm is in 1/3 or 3/4, represent it correctly. Of course it will prove a challenge to the player, but that's just the nature of the song. Don't flat out ignore a prominent vocal 3/4 if you were consistent up until it appeared, because it will very much confuse people. Breaking consistency to support simple patterning actually backfires in some (if not, all) cases. You need to think about how the player will interpret the song. The dominant layer in the music is the thing you need to take note of. It may prove a problem if the song has multiple layers that lattice back and forth. It takes true skill from a mapper to be able to properly represent this through his/her mapping: to these players, sub-layers or other miscellaneous background sounds will usually go unnoticed. Referring back to Aqo's post and his concern with the Sweet Rain osu!mania map, the synth in the background catches the player off-guard because it's not as prominent as the vocals are in that section. That is a case of how choosing a different instrument to represent the song is a poor decision. Alternatively, vocals would've been a better choice. Sticking to the dominant sounds in a selection of music is actually much easier, no matter the presented rhythm, if used correctly, consistently and with conviction. Take rock/metal music for example. Many of the vocals start on red ticks (or offbeats) before downbeats. Sliders that pass through these have a tendency to prioritize strong vocal accents as opposed to drum beats (dully noting that drum beats are sometimes weak on these downbeats, so this option is better).

I have to agree with both TheVileOne and D33d on their contributions to this discussion. For the former, he had mentioned the clarity of this declaration. We need a better way of instating this rule/guideline (honestly this can't be turned into a rule; I agree with previous arguments) so that users can have some ability and say in modding other user's maps. Leaving the opinions in the hands of the XATs will add more stress to the seemingly overfilled load of their work. Give users something to follow so that they can help enforce these rules, too. This is sort of a reminder of how there's always this struggle between user/user modding since some users add value to XAT mods or undermine the modding abilities of another because they lack a title. They refuse to listen, and then make the grave mistake of actually passing over a potentially good mod. Users have the same right and reason to mod and be able to point out things, just XATs have more authority in enforcing their own judgment, etc etc but that's really far off-topic.

With what D33d has been saying, maps need to fit the song. To create a masterpiece, a map needs to embody both: a map that respects the music and one that, through aesthetics, captures the idea of what the song is intending. The musical part of mapping is purely technical, while aesthetics is purely inspirational. You can't be on one side of the spectrum to create a truly recognizable map, especially with a community so polarized. The only people who would enjoy your maps are those on the same side. What musically inclined people in this discussion fail to see is that sometimes following the strict rhythm of a song can make a map more confusing than it needs to be. Constantly changing rhythms isn't totally enjoyable unless the first layer of a song is suggesting it. This goes back to lolcubes' variance argument and someone else's (I think a few people mentioned this but I can't pinpoint who brought this up) 'mapping to all instruments at one given time' argument. If a map's drum beat only constitutes of a consistent 1/2 rhythm, how fun would that be? Of course this is an extreme example, but my point is it lacks variety. Dynamics are completely lost and the impression of the map falls apart. Sometimes you need to take a step back and think about how to best represent the song. A map that represents every single instrument all at once ends up as a giant clusterfuck of confusion. Everything being equal in terms of which is stronger in sound is disregarded and makes the map messy. Now, what aesthetically inclined people in this discussion fail to see is that creativity can be expanded upon without sacrificing all of its properties in order to keep the map playable. It's not wrong to be creative in your ways; that's what sets apart one mapper from another. There are things that these people need to realize, though. A map made for its sheer art lacks the musical qualities that make the map for the song. As many people have been saying, you might as well "map without an mp3". It's harsh, but it's true. While art cannot merely be defined because its context varies by person, it has some limitations, that of which is gameplay. Mappers are free to create what they wish, but they are constrained the boundaries of what the song is allowing. Be reasonable with what you are creating. If your aesthetic creations do not embody the rhythm which is given by the song, then the art represents nothing. Adding rhythms that compliment the song in its own way is a form of art some people choose to use. As Sync had mentioned, good mapping won't feel like overmapping. If it goes unnoticed (as backed up by RLC and Nyquill), then there's obviously nothing wrong with it and is just a gimmick that helps convey the impression of the map from the mapper to player better. I may be overestimating the understanding and reasoning of the majority of the community around the seemingly stigmatized "overmapping" debate, however if used correctly, it can actually bring out the best in a song.

In the end, there needs to be a balance of both. Gameplay takes the absolute highest of priority because it's a combination of both divided aspects. Art and music can be one, it's just many at a time fail to accept one and blindly side with the other. Likewise, it is possible to create maps that cater to both parties: a map that clearly adheres to the music's set rhythm with appropriate settings and use of notes/sliders while exhibiting a certain feel or impression. Both are tools that must be used to make a map enjoyable, no? This can be done with no overmapping, or with a small addition that adds to the dynamic of the song. People are afraid of losing their ability to map freely and having their creativity limited, thinking that differences in a map will become less and less apparent. There's so many ways to make yourself stand out as a mapper, and it's through how you represent the combination of both. If people understand their own disposition and the situation more, it's not hard to see that it is possible to have both hand in hand.

So why can't we have both? Both sides of the spectrum just need to be willing to sacrifice a bit of their pride in order to accommodate the other. Musicality can be sacrificed to add dynamic and variance, while aesthetics can be sacrificed for playability and comfort. A map that incorporates both is definitely commendable.

Also just a clear up for some people since I see some misunderstandings, a lot of non-native speakers (namely, those from the Asian regions) use the term "funny" when they mean "fun".

Longest post 2013!

Xakyrie wrote:

What musically inclined people in this discussion fail to see is that sometimes following the strict rhythm of a song can make a map more confusing than it needs to be. Constantly changing rhythms isn't totally enjoyable unless the first layer of a song is suggesting it.

As a musician, part of what I do when mapping is identifying when different lines flow into each other logically. The bigger problem that plagues certain maps is that too much is followed at once--it's about providing variance by switching between different lines and emphasising notable parts of the music, without compromising the overall feel of a section. To me, it seems that the biggest offenders are usually those who think about mapping in a more technical way, worrying about how many rhythms are being filled instead of how impactful the patterns are.

If anything, it's usually the musically-inclined who can pick apart the music and exploit many different rhythms in consistent ways--I suppose that they're also less likely to resort to overmapping because of this, as they know what works that's already in the music. Additionally, musical people would probably have a better idea of what to "overmap" when simplifying patterns. Sometimes, simplification works out better if it feels steady enough.

Ultimately, the most assured way to gauge how fittingness of overmapping is simply to play the map.

irritatingly funny how people think your map is overmapped yet you're only making notes follow sounds without having to force sliders there >.>
Taiko btw, just saying my content \o

D33d wrote:

As a musician, part of what I do when mapping is identifying when different lines flow into each other logically. The bigger problem that plagues certain maps is that too much is followed at once--it's about providing variance by switching between different lines and emphasising notable parts of the music, without compromising the overall feel of a section. To me, it seems that the biggest offenders are usually those who think about mapping in a more technical way, worrying about how many rhythms are being filled instead of how impactful the patterns are.

If anything, it's usually the musically-inclined who can pick apart the music and exploit many different rhythms in consistent ways--I suppose that they're also less likely to resort to overmapping because of this, as they know what works that's already in the music. Additionally, musical people would probably have a better idea of what to "overmap" when simplifying patterns. Sometimes, simplification works out better if it feels steady enough.

Ultimately, the most assured way to gauge how fittingness of overmapping is simply to play the map.

I believe I mentioned this in my post. Regardless, I agree. When it comes to musically representing a song, it's about choosing the appropriate instruments to emphasize. This helps the player understand the map with the use of consistency and the appropriate transition techniques (switching between different instruments). Though don't forget the musical aspect of mapping is more technical than anything (this excludes analytical mappers who actually interpret slider direction, flow, techniques, etc). As long as mappers can distinguish how to pick and choose between dominant and sub-dominant instruments/layers, the creativity awaits.

In any case, those who are more artistically inclined need to learn a bit of the ways of musically inclined people. Learn from how they pick apart maps. Vice versa to learn from each other and all mutually benefit. Fittingness can really only be judged on a person by person basis, meaning to judge the map one must play it as you said. The judgment should be valued no matter what title the user has, however. Of course, XATs have the final ruling as they may, and I say this with delicate care, know more than regular users. I just hope that with this amendment, more people open up to equal user's ideas, judgment and opinions.

those wrote:

Both have elements, CXu P:

I'm kinda curious, for the music, my map is more like undermapped (I'm very sure with this! For example, 00:18:741 (1,2) - before you call this random 1/4,m you'd better know i could spam 1/4 there and they fit the music perfectly). Also though i don't like to put such words.... if you don't like, try map a better one.



People, aka, well, players.

Maybe apply this rule to all currently ranked and approved maps and see which one you would have to unrank because of this rule.

I imagine there'd be a lot fan favourite maps gone now.

Maybe you should reconsider.

Guys guys let us remember here what Charles wanted in the first place.

Charles wants what the definitive meaning is of overmapping to be more lenient. He is not, per se, trying to say that overmapping is bad yada yada, but rather trying to get both sides of the argument to come to terms. This is because unranking of maps recently for reasons outside of ranking criteria has occured really frequently.

We're not here to try to argue with each other about mapping ideals.

...

But still

NatsumeRin wrote:

People, aka, well, players.

MAP 80 BPM WITH 1/16 DEATH STREAMS

Seems no one saw it so I post again

Charles' position:Overmap is not allowed in any time.(Overmap's definition is any slider start/end/circle/spinner end not touch any sound in music even it's a 1/2 or 1/1)

Community's position:Overmap is okay if it is
1.an Insane diff
2.Fun/Fit(subjective thing)

Seems that alomst (I am not dare to say exactly) no one agrees with charles' rule which doesn't allow mappers do any overmap.

nold_1702 wrote:

Seems no one saw it so I post again

Charles' position:Overmap is not allowed in any time.(Overmap's definition is any slider start/end/circle/spinner end not touch any sound in music even it's a 1/2 or 1/1)

Community's position:Overmap is okay if it is
1.an Insane diff
2.Fun/Fit(subjective thing)

Seems that alomst (I am not dare to say exactly) no one agrees with charles' rule which doesn't allow mappers do any overmap.

Charles simply proposed a solution which we can make contributions to. And, I will say again, this is merely to address recent unranks surrounding overmapping and to open discussion. I think you need to read more into the problem at hand.

As a matter of fact, Charles himself doesn't believe overmapping should be strictly abolished. Far from it.

Nyquill wrote:

Guys guys let us remember here what Charles wanted in the first place.

Charles wants what the definitive meaning is of overmapping to be more lenient. He is not, per se, trying to say that overmapping is bad yada yada, but rather trying to get both sides of the argument to come to terms. This is because unranking of maps recently for reasons outside of ranking criteria has occured really frequently.

We're not here to try to argue with each other about mapping ideals.

Overmapping constitutes part of a person's mapping ideals, so it's only natural that it would be part of the discussion. The two opposing sides you are claiming to exist actually have two very different "mapping ideals", so again this was important to make clear.
In any case, overmapping is already such a broad term. You mean to say we are looking for a highly detailed description of what overmapping could be, so we can enforce it as a rule. It is hard to place a thumb on exactly what it is you want, but your best bet if you are aiming for a general community consensus would be to take the two and smack them together. Overmapping should be allowed within a degree. This degree needs to be worked out from both sides. Take the basic idea that describes each disposition and figure out where there are opposing values. Evaluate each side and let people discuss the pros and cons (as reasonable human beings) of each argument brought upon the table.

Musicality says we shall strictly map to the music. People want more freedom to use more notes because abiding by the clear guidelines of the song and Charles' current request of a rule is too limited. Not trying to label anyone here but most aesthetically based mappers completely disregard the rhythm of the song they are mapping to in order to express their interpretation of the song through art. There needs to be a guideline that insists the constant following of music, but still allow for the ability to create some additive rhythms. The main problem that has been addressed is how do we determine this? Conclusion so far: it's something that can only be figured out on a person by person basis. It's not something that will be completely solid. Test plays will be needed to figure out if something is overmapped or not. Because different people have different thoughts of what "overmapping" really is, you will get tons of opposing ideas still because not all XATs share the same views. They never will. I still believe a guideline is the only possibility. This will never become a rule. The moment it becomes a rule, there will be a lot of moping.

Yes thank you for telling me what I already knew in two very long paragraphs.

Which is why I said "LENIENT".

We're trying to set down a rule/guideline which sets bounds that are lenient enough for everyone to follow and not be disappointed.

Make sense?

Just thought you should be reminded that you are repeating yourself.

You aren't exactly helping the progress of this amendment by just instigating what needs to be done. By now I think people get it. The actual discussion of such things just needs to be carried on. Post something that's actually relevant to the topic if you're going to comment on other things in the meanwhile. You are saying that a rule/guideline that is lenient enough to support all types of mappers is being set in place. Do you have any idea of how this can even be achieved? A start maybe would be helpful? People have already insisted on several ideas, but it seems it's not getting through.

This leniency you speak of can only be achieved once all possible sides of the debate have spoken and brought up every potential issue. Only then can we really formulate a proper rule/guideline that is hard to break and is understandable by all.

I think in this way shortly.

osu! has the auto modding program that detects and automatically deletes the notes, where the music itself isn't audiable.
And then everything will become like the nazi and creativity will be limited.
The maps can't be harder due to not being allowed additional notes anymore so that people, who want to make it harder, tend to add ridiculous jumps instead for the sake of difficulty.
The program neither detect this rhythmetical overmapping nor ridiculous jumps since these jumps are subjective and supposed to be judged by human's sense.
Because some 8.0x jump can fit in song A but can't fit in song B.

now, some XATs (which I think people know who are) are acting like this program.

as NTR said, XAT exists because XAT has common sense but this program doesn't have.
So I don't really know if XAT wants to act like a robot or something which I think it's ridiculous.

Map songs that can justify the amount of density you want, don't force it on a song that can't provide it.
That sounds like common sense, eh?

Now I'm not against a few triplets here and there or maybe a 5 note stream for flavor. But when it gets so extreme and to the point where you aren't mapping the actual song anymore, there is a problem. And no this is not subjective or a "feeling", IT'S FACT. A song is created the way it is created, you can't twist or shape it into your own rhythm. Once you do that, you are not mapping the song anymore.

Btw I didn't read this thread at all, I'm just throwing my view out there.

Frostmourne wrote:

creativity will be limited.

Creativity is and should only be limited by the song choice.

As much as I'd like to see some codification on the subject (I'm no fan of rhythm getting smoothed into mere beat just to maintain a steady flow), I think it's problematic to define. For one thing, you kind of need to look at things from an "effective" object standpoint, not just a pure object one. This is most clearly seen in taiko mapping, where single notes in the music are often represented by the various 1/4 triples (or longer)... and it's perfectly natural, because those are effectively single duration-type objects representing differently coloured tones (high, low, rising, falling, etc). With standard, similar things can be done... example, using a stream run for a caterwauling note has been mentioned above.

I find those overmap too
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/55537


[Duelist]

BAD OVERMAP

00:02:001 (5) - Slider end overmapped
00:02:379 (6,7) - Slide end overmapped
00:52:567 (8) - Slider end overmapped

01:03:322 (4,5,6) - Random triplet
00:43:888 (1,2,3) - Random triplet

etc



http://osu.ppy.sh/s/59936

[and those roll the best]

seriously overmapped

00:02:434 (2) - Slider end overmapped
00:12:934 (4) - No any sound in the music
00:21:684 (4) - No any sound in the music

etc



BAD OVERMAP THOSE UNRANK THEM

Frostmourne wrote:

The maps can't be harder due to not being allowed additional notes anymore so that people, who want to make it harder, tend to add ridiculous jumps instead for the sake of difficulty.
The program neither detect this rhythmetical overmapping nor ridiculous jumps since these jumps are subjective and supposed to be judged by human's sense.

But you're committing a mistake there. I don't think that mapping is oriented to making insane maps, mapping is oriented to represent a song well. So if you have a song that allows insane stuff, so be it. But if you're mapping a quiet lullaby then there's no need to add odd things, do you see what I mean?

As long as the song allows for hard things to be done such as streams, nig jumps, etc, then it should be fine - but it's also part of our ability and skill as staff members to effectively recognize that, and inform it or not depending on the case.

Also a map isn't "boring" because it isn't overmapped, just to clear up...

Didn't read the thread, but...

Creativity will be limited

What the hell are you talking about? It's up to mappers. I mean, there're tons of overmapped songs which plays as well, seems as well, hears as well, flows as well. Just a fact: a big percent of new ranked maps seems dull for me and not only for me. For now creativity isn't limited by ranking criterias. It's limited by general mapping style and MATs\BATs. But I still see some kind of creativity in some maps. Please, don't try to limit`em all.
Sorry for bad language.

Alright, I think we've gotten enough of a sample of opinions over the course of 10 pages here. It's quite apparent that the proposed solution in the first post is a no-go due to flow and style concerns, and a zero-tolerance eliminates many viable avenues of mapping.

The thing is that for a compromise to happen, it's going to have to be give and lose a little on each side. Where can we draw the lines where overmapping has gone too far? Perhaps a suggestion for a cutoff is mapping to absolute silence such as a purposeful pause in a song? A statement that if you choose to use overmapping, then it needs to be consistently used and not just be an improv solo for 3 minutes?

Let's work towards getting some actual guidelines written up instead of just going in circles now.

Also nold: stop trolling. Thanks.

No need for rule/guideline for this. Common sense is what is needed; yet we cannot give people that.

GladiOol wrote:

No need for rule/guideline for this. Common sense is what is needed; yet we cannot give people that.

The problem is that "common sense" isn't enough of a reason for some mappers. Of course, if they're clearly being stupid, then their map can be nuked on the spot.

How about this:

Proposal wrote:

No overmapping which isn't necessary or detracts from the feel of the music. Overmapping refers to the placement of objects which do not coincide with anything in the song. Occasionally, some extra rhythms can add to the overall gameplay experience, but an overuse of these will feel out of place.

In easier maps, some rhythms may also need to be simplified, e.g. for when complicated patterns do not resolve to the beat intuitively. In general, overmapping should be regarded case-by-case, as its proper use depends on the music.

GladiOol wrote:

No need for rule/guideline for this. Common sense is what is needed; yet we cannot give people that.

sadly common sense is not a thing you can expect to be confronted with when talking to mappers/modders.

GladiOol wrote:

No need for rule/guideline for this. Common sense is what is needed; yet we cannot give people that.

Totally agreed. This rule cant fit every song on this planet, it depends. This limit is just noncense.

I think overmapping is a tool to enhance the map, like Xakyrie had mentioned before,
and it should be used to enhance the map, i.e. players find it more interesting.
Experienced mappers and players that have a better sense of rhythm can overmap in a better way.
It is hard for new mappers especially those that are new to osu! and lack the sense of music to do overmapping
(though there maybe exceptional cases)

Overmapping is an advanced techniques and it is not so easy to master,
it can make a map stands out, but on the other hand it can ruin a map.
So, maybe the guideline should also mention that overmapping is not recommended to new mappers,
unless they know what they are doing?

I believe that the words, "overmapping which isn't necessary or detracts from the feel of the music," ought to cover that. A vehement recommendation against it should be enough to deter those who aren't as sure of what they're doing, while still suggesting that it can be good on occasion.

Also, nold, we don't need you to target specific maps. I'm sure that many of us would have a field day with yours. Pointing fingers won't do any good--we only need to establish some kind of regulation from preventing this nonsense from getting further out of hand.

overmapping is never good, and it is disrespectful for the artist of the song.
map a different song if you want to have a specific rhythm in your map.

sure, it limits creativity, but making something awesome with that limitation is even more creative.
random patterns that don't make sense to the song is not creative.

happy30 wrote:

overmapping is never good, and it is disrespectful for the artist of the song.
map a different song if you want to have a specific rhythm in your map.

sure, it limits creativity, but making something awesome with that limitation is even more creative.
random patterns that don't make sense to the song is not creative.

As has already been discussed to death, I think that we could certainly allow for sporadic cases of overmapping. Just, you know, not letting it become thematic of 2013 mapping.

I like D33d's definition. If the equence is not necessary and useful for the integrity of the map, then it is senseless overmapping and should not be allowed. It's a decent interpretation of what bad overmapping is.

D33d wrote:

How about this:

Proposal wrote:

No overmapping which isn't necessary or detracts from the feel of the music. Overmapping refers to the placement of objects which do not coincide with anything in the song. Occasionally, some extra rhythms can add to the overall gameplay experience, but an overuse of these will feel out of place.

In easier maps, some rhythms may also need to be simplified, e.g. for when complicated patterns do not resolve to the beat intuitively. In general, overmapping should be regarded case-by-case, as its proper use depends on the music.

People who know nothing of music and if their rhythm sense is not developed, they can feel pretty much anything. You absolutely cannot have anything that may be ambiguous when creating a rule or a guideline. Everything here is pretty much opened to interpretation or abuse.

GladiOol wrote:

No need for rule/guideline for this. Common sense is what is needed; yet we cannot give people that.

This is quite true.
But what can happen is that staff may refuse to rank/approve of such maps. No matter what happens, staff still has a final decision. It was always like that and I dunno why people are afraid to just refuse of approving something that's beyond derp quality?

No guidelines or rules can be crafted on this subject because the area of it is way too big, and just to craft it in a good manner would be one really huge wall of text of includes and excludes. This is not good when it comes to rules and/or guidelines.

A thread on this subject just cannot have a definite conclusion. It's natural that a topic like this will run into circles. The only option to end this is to either magically gather all the people in the community for a vote (which has to be honest, no multis, etc) of yes/no for overmap, which is obviously an impossible task; or to just leave it be and deal with it as it was done until now, with just more sense. That's just my opinion though.

Since I can't really bring anything constructive to this thread anymore, I'm gonna take my leave.

Some staff members (especially someone whose Id is start with C),loves to pop bubble because of overmapping.
In this dicussion we have
1:overmap can be both good or bad
2:but good or bad overmapping=subjective(definition of overmap=objective)
3.A rule which limit overmap doesnt work but a gulideline is okay

lolcubes wrote:

People who know nothing of music and if their rhythm sense is not developed, they can feel pretty much anything. You absolutely cannot have anything that may be ambiguous when creating a rule or a guideline. Everything here is pretty much opened to interpretation or abuse.

The entire point of putting tactile patterns to music is to know how music works. If the mapper can't get to grips with that, then they've fallen at the first hurdle. I was simply wording it like, "Don't put shit that isn't there, unless you really have to." It's common sense. Not everybody has to map and not everybody has the prior knowledge to make it easy immediately.

If the mapper hasn't developed their ability to make a decent map, then their map won't be ranked very soon. That's the entire point of the mod process. Make newer mappers learn to pick apart the music and not get into ridiculous habits. It's bad enough that I see that from those with experience.

Why is it a bad thing to pop bubbles over flagrant violations of the feel of a song? If something feels out of place and doesn't have a real reason for existing (for the nth time, "I'm just expressing my artistic interpretation of the song" is not an excuse), it should be fixed. My proposed rule says, "No overmapping which isn't necessary," which says immediately that one should not go overboard, or at least think long and hard before taking artistic liberties. The fact that this point needs to be reiterated constantly is annoying to me.

Problem I see is there are two main sides, one side only allowing beats in music, and one side allowing beats not to the music.

The idea behind the thread was to potentially mix the two and perhaps make a rule that'd at least keep both sides okay. That was the idea with slider ends and spinners not requiring beats in the music.

150 posts later and it's still both sides sticking to their own refusing to cooperate.

Discuss potential ways to compromise - mapping isn't going to get anywhere without proper mixing of ideals. No one side is right.

So far the only thing I liked in the entire thread is "let players decide".
If something is fun for many people to play, let it be. If something isn't fun, then it's bad. Nobody complains about overmapping on maps where it's fun. People only hate overmapping when it's done in a way that makes the overmapping feel.