Hello.

The current discussion will be about the difficulty rating (That is, LV. XX difficulty naming) as difficulty names. It's a branch of the custom difficulty names problem discussed a while ago.

Some maps are using [Lv. 7] as whole difficulty rating (Lv. 7 is an example) and thus mean nothing. As an experienced 4K mapper outside of the game I can tell the difficulty rating as a number means nothing as I've seen Lv. 3 expert and Lv. 5 easy difficulties due to the density.

For example : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/90270
Lv. 9, Lv. 16 and so on means so many things to experienced players but what does that mean to a newcomer ? Is a Lv. 9 an easy ? A normal ? A lighter hard ? Difficulty rating is not objective at all, it fluctuates greatly. Just try to rate my 4K diff on this, if you don't find Lv. 10 then you're not viewing it the same way.

What I propose to counter the big question of what difficulty is Lv. x, is to do it this way : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/124866. It gives the difficulty level (Easy, Normal, Hard, Exhaust, or whatever) as well as a rating, which is much more accurate than a simple number.

I heard difficulty naming as [Lv. x] is same as O2jam level, but I'm not certain. (I've never played O2jam)

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/124866 At this map, map creator wanted to name each diff same as SOUND VOLTEX's diff system imo.(NOVICE-ADVANCED-EXHAUST-INFINITE) So that's why named like NOVICE Lv.6, EXHAUST Lv.15. I think gives the difficulty level like EZ, NM, HD, MX whatever is subjective too, so it's not necessary to naming diff like this map. Also we have Star Difficulty system at full beatmap information to sort like "Is it too hard for me or not".

I must ask this question: Are these levels pre-determined by the mapper, or are they determined by BATs during the process of qualifying/ranking?

If they are determined by the mapper, I would much rather not use a numerical difficulty system at all. Ideally, the number system would work great as a rating of the difficulty of each map; once they get used to it, I'm sure newcomers would greatly appreciate being able to tell which maps are easier and harder, despite having the same difficulty name (ie. Insane). However, for this to work, we need to set standards, and ensure that each mapper fully understands the differences between each difficulty rating. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of arbitrarily set numbers that hold little to no significance. In such a case, I would rather see [Insane] than [Lv.32905].

You mention maps with both words and numerical ratings in their difficulty names. The only ranked examples I could find are this and this. From what I can tell, some of the numerical ratings do not reflect the actual difficulties of the mapset, but are taken straight from the ratings of their SDVX chart counterparts. As Chocoliti mentioned, one example map VALLIS-NERIA has ratings of 6, 12, and 15 - same ratings as those used by the osu!mania mapper.

Ignore the #K difference, and already, there is a discrepancy between leveling systems. Piano Concerto uses the O2 leveling system - which I never understood well myself - whereas maps like VALLIS-NERIA and Ha-lle-lu-jah are limited to rating of 15 due to SDVX/Stepmania limitations. Is a 15 in 4K the same difficulty as a 15 in 7K? This might misinform players and cause them to think that 7K is automatically more difficult than 4K - something I'd like to avoid if possible.

Besides, why bother using a number as the difficulty? Isn't that what a difficulty calculator should do?

Actually I don't get what you want from your examples and clues.

In my opinion, difficulty names should be at least clear (as a must), and as creative as possible. And I don't think using only "LV.10" is against it.

You know actually it's far better using LV.1,LV.3,LV.7 than easy, easy+, normal - People tend to understand numerical things better than words. The author using this numerical representation to say that LV7 have a bigger gap with LV3 than LV3 to LV1.

But what about two maps both having LV5 / two maps both having Normal? Forget comparing it

Actually difficulty rating, using either LV1 or easy , is itself subjective, so to force mappers to write "NM LV.5" doesn't make it better.

xxbidiao wrote:

Actually I don't get what you want from your examples and clues.

In my opinion, difficulty names should be at least clear (as a must), and as creative as possible. And I don't think using only "LV.10" is against it.

You know actually it's far better using LV.1,LV.3,LV.7 than easy, easy+, normal - People tend to understand numerical things better than words. The author using this numerical representation to say that LV7 have a bigger gap with LV3 than LV3 to LV1.

But what about two maps both having LV5 / two maps both having Normal? Forget comparing it

Actually difficulty rating, using either LV1 or easy , is itself subjective, so to force mappers to write "NM LV.5" doesn't make it better.

I'm not denying that it's better to use numerical values than words to describe the relative difficulty of a mapset. In fact, if anything, I wholeheartedly support it.

My point, however, is that these numbers only hold real meaning if they're based on a certain standard. How do mappers come up with these numbers in the first place? Do they just map and afterwards play it themselves and think "Oh, this feels like a Level 27"? Is it safe to assume that all mappers are such great players, that they can pinpoint the exact difficulty of a map relative to other mappers as well? ("Oh, AAA's map is Level 27, and BBB's map is Level 30, so my map must be exactly Level 29.") So far, the only mappers I have seen that use numbers as part of their difficulty names are Lieselotte and Spy. With such few mappers actually using it, it's hard to tell how effective this system really is. My point is that if the mappers can't rate their own difficulties properly, then the numbers become irrelevant, and in that case, it's better to use words than use arbitrary numbers that only confuse the players.

If the community agrees that most mappers are well aware of the difficulties of their own maps, and can rate the difficulties numerically and relatively, then a number-only system would work wonders. If the ratings are determined only by a group of high-skilled and respected players (ie. BATs), then that's fine by me too.

And yes, I agree that if we do end up allowing numbers in the difficulty names, that the words are not really necessary. To different individuals, NM Lv.5 can feel like HD Lv.5 or EZ Lv.5. It's redundant to add an extra word in there when numbers already reflect the relative difficulty of a map.

Naming difficulties with numbers rather than easy/normal/hard/etc is excellent. You do need BATs to set up a common ground tho, mappers should not be able to give a difficulty level to their maps, they should give approximates and then BATs make a decision.

Wishy wrote:

Naming difficulties with numbers rather than easy/normal/hard/etc is excellent. You do need BATs to set up a common ground tho, mappers should not be able to give a difficulty level to their maps, they should give approximates and then BATs make a decision.

why do BATs have to do everything

mapping is best in the hands of the players homie

You need someone to define a common ground.

Players map, BATs just need to give it an approximate difficulty level.

xxbidiao wrote:

In my opinion, difficulty names should be at least clear (as a must), and as creative as possible. And I don't think using only "LV.10" is against it.

You know actually it's far better using LV.1,LV.3,LV.7 than easy, easy+, normal - People tend to understand numerical things better than words. The author using this numerical representation to say that LV7 have a bigger gap with LV3 than LV3 to LV1.

But what about two maps both having LV5 / two maps both having Normal? Forget comparing it

Actually difficulty rating, using either LV1 or easy , is itself subjective, so to force mappers to write "NM LV.5" doesn't make it better.

The problem about "Lv.10" is that it doesn't give a proper rating due to the differences in rating from one person to another. As example, an identical chart could have some differences in rating: What one sees as 15 is seen as 10 for another or 17 for a third guy. And these people woudn't hold the same difficulty standards.

Wishy wrote:

Naming difficulties with numbers rather than easy/normal/hard/etc is excellent. You do need BATs to set up a common ground tho, mappers should not be able to give a difficulty level to their maps, they should give approximates and then BATs make a decision.

At least this would be a great idea, if we end up keeping the Lv. X diff. rating. osu!mania currently has a strong BAT base at the moment, so there's no problem (but the BAT should agree on a common diff rating).

whocaresaboutdislol

BATs would indeed have to setup some standards. Currently, two Insanes from two different mapsets can be very different different difficulty-wise. Using LVs would actually be a great idea (and numbarz r kewl anywaiz), but I don't think it is necessary to setup such a thing (whether it is using LVs or forbiding them) since players usually predict the map's difficulty by looking at the BPM and notes/min. It would be either a lot of controversy or work for nothing reallyimportant at the end of the day.

This is completely arbitrary and overly confusing. The example map provided by the OP displays adequate difficulty naming without the inclusin of the LV. x suffix, which is essentially a pointless addition once all is said and done.

Denying.