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.

Aqo wrote:

Nobody complains about overmapping on maps where it's fun.

Good point

Thinking about locking this thread up, seems it has run its course. Lots are strongly for/against, and maybe case by case will have to be continued again.

Charles445 wrote:

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.

Have you not read my posts properly? I actually enjoy some overmapping, but it needs to be tasteful. The compromise would be, "Don't overmap unless it really adds something." How is that not encompassing both takes on it?

Having something in the rules to discourage it would make it easier to explain why a bubble was popped for this reason. In the case of lots of people hating the overmapping, then one could hit them with the "don't overdo it rule" and say, "Hey, you: The rules say to be tasteful and you're annoying a lot of players. Get rid of it."

I seriously fail to see what's so hard to understand.

D33d wrote:

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.

This is all nicely put and would work in theory, but you just can't take away permission to map from anyone. Come on man, that's just beyond silly. I can understand your viewpoint, but the world is very big, and if you think that everyone who maps know something about music on a more technical level, then I believe you are very wrong.
You don't have to know jack shit about music to make a map, but you will struggle through the modding process a lot.

As for "don't put shit that isn't there unless you really have to" and "common sense", just browse map threads and people's reactions. We should rename common sense to uncommon sense, because that's what it is lol.
There are vast majority of people who absolutely decline any suggestions about changing their rhythm patterns because they are unfitting, just because they want them to be like that. Not many people even care about the quality of their map, they just want their shit ranked. Rankable? Rank pls.

D33d wrote:

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.

That's the entire point I was trying to make. It's not a bad thing to pop bubbles for such reasons. The only shady thing here is to what degree can you do this without causing a major uproar based on a more personalcriteria (note: you absolutely cannot have anything personal as a rule or a guideline, which is the whole reason why I don't like this whole idea at all), because some people, as Charles already mentioned, will always be on the overmap side not giving a fuck about the other people.
Also I will repeat, you cannot objectively define the threshold where overmap stops making sense. It's all down to the individual (musical knowledge helps a ton, however read my first part about that). This thing alone destroys any idea of a rule or a guideline on this matter.

Charles445 wrote:

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

I will repeat, a compromise cannot be reached until a common ground has been found. It will not be. It's impossible to find it unless you have every single individual giving their input, and then making a decision in a democratic way.

I still fail to see why you just can't say NO to things you don't agree with. Now this is common sense, right?

It should be a guideline. Let's stop trying to phrase it like a rule. It can never be a rule with this many exceptions.

Edit: I believe there is common ground. we all know what we do not want. it's just a matter of putting what we don't want into words in a way that doesn't affect what we do want and agree with. D33d was very, very close. I'm still in agreeance with that definition, because there are other similar phrased guidelines. take the time distance equality guideline for example. That has very similar qualities to it.

lolcubes wrote:

D33d wrote:

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.

This is all nicely put and would work in theory, but you just can't take away permission to map from anyone. Come on man, that's just beyond silly. I can understand your viewpoint, but the world is very big, and if you think that everyone who maps know something about music on a more technical level, then I believe you are very wrong.
You don't have to know jack shit about music to make a map, but you will struggle through the modding process a lot.

As for "don't put shit that isn't there unless you really have to" and "common sense", just browse map threads and people's reactions. We should rename common sense to uncommon sense, because that's what it is lol.
There are vast majority of people who absolutely decline any suggestions about changing their rhythm patterns because they are unfitting, just because they want them to be like that. Not many people even care about the quality of their map, they just want their shit ranked. Rankable ? Rank pls.

D33d wrote:

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.

That's the entire point I was trying to make. It's not a bad thing to pop bubbles for such reasons. The only shady thing here is to what degree can you do this without causing a major uproar based on a more personalcriteria (note: you absolutely cannot have anything personal as a rule or a guideline, which is the whole reason why I don't like this whole idea at all), because some people, as Charles already mentioned, will always be on the overmap side not giving a fuck about the other people.
Also I will repeat, you cannot objectively define the threshold where overmap stops making sense. It's all down to the individual (musical knowledge helps a ton, however read my first part about that). This thing alone destroys any idea of a rule or a guideline on this matter.

Charles445 wrote:

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

I will repeat, a compromise cannot be reached until a common ground has been found. It will not be. It's impossible to find it unless you have every single individual giving their input, and then making a decision in a democratic way.

I still fail to see why you just can't say NO to things you don't agree with. Now this is common sense, right?

You seem to be missing the basic point. It's not about basing opinions entirely upon subjectivity and it's not about excluding certain people. It's about getting people to learn how to work with music properly, how to embellish it properly and how to make maps which make sense. It's not that people with little musicality should never map--it's that they shouldn't be treated as special flowers or whatever, just because they're trying their best in spite of their shortcomings. For those without such ability, it is only common sense that they should stick to what is more likely to work, instead of trying to do fancy things in cumbersome ways.

About popping bubbles, I was concentrating on nold, who still doesn't seem to get it. The way to define something objectively is either to say, "Omitting this wouldn't have a negative impact on musical expression" or, "Lots of people dislike this and you can't really justify this." Setting obvious boundaries like this is exactly what is needed in lieu of common sense, as those threads show that it is as rare as hens' teeth.

Can we not merely focus on something that satisfies some sort of basic criteria? If you're going to dig up the argument about subjectivity, then we might as well say that maps don't need to be timed perfectly, because different people have different senses of time and OD can compensate for some things which are out of time. However, that's a different story entirely and was mentioned strictly for the sake of comparison.

There is no feasible way of writing the rules to please everybody--there will always be somebody who complains. The entire point of the rules and guidelines is to provide a basic framework to prevent obnoxious trends from creeping in. We need something to set boundaries, otherwise we might as well let every upload be ranked by default and then we can swim in a horrible mess until peppy gives up on osu! entirely.

A rule with wiggle room for some special cases is not an unreasonable thing to suggest. We have, "Don't overuse kiai time" and "The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties." Hello? Add, "Don't overmapping" and/or, "Cases of overmapping must demonstrate some logical thought" or something. Hell, just say "Don't abuse overmapping." Everybody should be able to agree on that.

As for "Don't overuse kiai time," AImod told me that my Coldplay map used it too often. However, it fits and nobody ever complained about it. Perhaps we should scrap the Kiai rule as well?

DEEDIT: Think of it this way: When people study musical performance and soloing is involved, people are taught how to phrase things properly and how to remain true to the music--this means refraining from wanking over the changes with semiquaver triplets of arpeggios for thirty minutes. Creativity is encouraged, but there are still rules to hold it in place. Ultimately, the punishment for breaking these sensibilities ends up with the audience wanting to boot the player off the stage and scrap their instrument. Putting objects to music is more or less like this, as it requires an ability to not shit all over the music and provide an experience that's enjoyable to the consumer. Making a horrible pile of wank makes people want to boot the mapper off the stage (i.e. stop mapping) and scrap their instrument (their mouse/tablet/monitor/computer/hands/life).

This is kind of going off the point, but think about it. Plenty of people detest flagrant overmapping and it's enough to cause maps to be unranked/popped. Why overdo it? There is a countless number of approaches to one song, so it seems outrageous that people should feel like they have the right to disregard the song that they chose to map.

Addendum: In regards to those who only care about getting maps ranked for attention, they will never improve and they will probably be stuck with a self-important mindset for the rest of their lives. They might as well link their maps in their profile, share them with other people and never bother with the ranking system. Rena effectively does that now and she doesn't seem to be worse off for it. However, at least she doesn't do that for the above reasons. She just creates her idea of a perfect beatmap, so she actually strives towards some degree of quality. Of course, the desire to strive for quality and the desire to push maps for ranking are what move this game forward, which is facilitated by setting limitations. Not everybody will enjoy the limitations, but they'd assure consistence and quality.

I changed the phrasing to be more like a Guideline that contains a rule rather than a rule that contains a guideline. If you want to turn it back, please use 'cannot be used' instead of the way you phrased it.

D33d wrote:

How about this:

Proposal wrote:

Overmapping should only be done if it is absolutely necessary and it does not detract 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.

What you map needs to have a relation to the music. D33d's second line makes this very clear. Line 3 clarifies specifically the 'guideline' part of the rule. I agree with the take in moderation approach to this. The Easy clause is well designed and specific. It's hard to find fault in this.

TheVileOne wrote:

I changed the phrasing to be more like a Guideline that contains a rule rather than a rule that contains a guideline.
What you map needs to have a relation to the music. D33d's second line makes this very clear. Line 3 clarifies specifically the 'guideline' part of the rule. I agree with the take in moderation approach to this. The Easy clause is well designed and specific. It's hard to find fault in this.

I'd be happy for this to become a guideline, as long as it doesn't dilute its importance. Specifying it as a rule would merely make it easier to tell the mapper that what they're doing is unreasonable, because certain mappers only agree with absolutes.

If specifying this as a guideline of highest importance is what it takes to establish a middleground, then I'm all for it.

In addition to this, I'd like to see a lesser guideline about the subtext of overmapping--that is, cluttering a map with rhythms which are either barely present in the music or which otherwise detract from the emotional contour of the music. I think that something like this would be easy enough to assert lightly, without stepping on too many toes. Thoughts?