Taiko doesn't need rules, it just needs guidelines
Support
Support
forum
[Rule Change] Finish notes in Taiko
posted
Total Posts
58
yes please, i agree with thisTasha wrote:
change toTaiko Ranking Criteria wrote:
- Finish notes
Finish notes must not be in the middle or at the beginning in a 1/4 or above stream. At the end, finish streams may be allowed if there is a reasonable sound for it. Finisher notes at the end of a stream must have the opposite color of the four previous notes.This allows proper usage of:
- Finish notes
Finish notes must not be in the middle or at the beginning of any 1/4 or above stream. Finishers may only be used at the end of a pattern under four conditions:
- The finisher must have a reasonable sound to be mapped to
- The pattern's previous note is the opposite colour
- If there is a finisher at the end of a pattern in a map 150BPM or above, there must be a 1/2 break before the next pattern. If the map is below 150BPM, there must be a 1/4 break before the next pattern. This does NOT apply to singular finishers.
- The previous note is not more than halfway overlapping the finisher.This disallows abusive usage of:
- ooX
- oxxxO
- oX
- ooO
- oxxoO
- oO
For obvious reasons I am supporting this. The only reason I would guess why anything shorter than ooooX was not allowed is because you could abuse it by spamming them all over the place (then again it would just make it harder, not impossible in most cases). I do not know why was it banned in the first place, I believe BATs and QATs are not robots and can judge whether something is playable or not. If they don't agree, they can discuss it, bring up ACTUAL reasons why it doesn't fit or why it does and reach a consensus together.
As far as I know we can vote maps and comment on them. If the community is dissatisfied with certain mapping styles, we can just say so, even with a 1 star vote.
As far as I know we can vote maps and comment on them. If the community is dissatisfied with certain mapping styles, we can just say so, even with a 1 star vote.
Allowing it under a specific bpm or disallow above it is a good start since Taiko depends on bpm but this shouldn't be a rule just a guideline. The BATs are exist to decide whether allow it or not on x map during testplay. And we can always ask for a second oppinion if we are kinda uncertain about them. Having this as a rule can bring up serious problems as those already stated with the example. Yes, we still can be there but in that case we will need to go against the rule when we suggesting removal on 149,99 bpm. Add this as a guideline and remove the rule should be enough, or add a link to the guideline at the place of the rule.
However, if you play with words a bit a nice rule can be created:
However, if you play with words a bit a nice rule can be created:
Having finisher as a last note is allowed around 130 bpm or under.Why better like this? Because this way the players can go below or a bit above without reject since 140 bpm is still easy.
Genocide wrote:
Taiko Ranking Criteria wrote:
This allows proper usage of:
- ooX
- oxxxO
- oX
Nwolf wrote:
Taiko doesn't need rules, it just needs guidelines
Support
(owo)b
I just don't really know if the break portion of the rule/guideline should stay, some cases would support having a note right after the finisher (like xxxxO x o etc.) for reasons depending on the song.
After picking up playing and mapping some taiko, I've been wondering why this actually is a rule in the first place. I mean, if you consider Taiko to be an actual simulation of playing a taiko drum, I'd imagine you'd have patterns where you'll have to hit with both drum sticks.
Also the fact that the finish has to be in a different color seems weird to me; as someone who plays with my two index fingers, the rule seems to favor particular playstyles over others, which I don't really think it should.
But hey, I'm no expert in taiko, so who am I to talk
Also the fact that the finish has to be in a different color seems weird to me; as someone who plays with my two index fingers, the rule seems to favor particular playstyles over others, which I don't really think it should.
But hey, I'm no expert in taiko, so who am I to talk
BPM shouldn't set the limits if this becomes a thing, as it's very subjective, certain BPMs are hard for some people while for others can play it normally, if something the patterns should be where the guideline is set, as they are more universal. Though I agree there's a zone where this could be allowed, below 100-110 BPM, where some songs are fast paced and could be mapped like the double.
Probably this would be more like a guideline than a rule. This comes from a person who dislikes 1/4 big notes, so take this with a grain of salt.
Probably this would be more like a guideline than a rule. This comes from a person who dislikes 1/4 big notes, so take this with a grain of salt.
Hi. I'm most likely neutral to this whole topic. After all, it's up to the mapper what he/she is gonna do with the map and what people will think of it as verto mentioned before. But even so, I will still tackle some concerns I have, by looking at the cost and gain of this change, especially modding wise and how it can effect the freedom in mapping after all.
In most points I can agree with what Tasha said. But this whole topic works rather when an experienced mapper talks to another experienced mapper. In most cases, these people understand each others idea and concerns since they gained over the years some kind of sense / feeling for it. But this changes once a modder gets confronted with someone who might be new / less experienced to this kind of mapping. I will explain through a .txt I have prepared before:
That's my current stands on the whole situation. In short you could say: I'm afraid about the way the modding could go. Of course, many rules have fringe cases as Tasha said before. But saying what a low BPM map is or when there is an overuse of patterns is nothing that can be valuated in an objective way. Many rules are based on subjective views from the past, which got accepted by the community and has become -more or less- objective. But on stuff like BPM, where it varriates a lot from user to user(especially time wise), I'm really unsure.
And that QAT thing... I find it vague. Speaking of a view as QAT, I say, this rather works in a perfect world where people accept the decision of the QAT fully. Which in most cases isn't the case and which leads directly to "he / she took my freedom, (possible rule change!)". Which personally, I don't like either. It's not really a community decision anymore(rule) but more of a QATs decision(gudeline/rule change) who suddenly stays -more or less- above the guideline, since he has the decision to say what's fine and what not. But as rule, the QAT is subordenated to that rule.
Current rule we have now makes no difference with BPM or how mapper map. It doesn't favor one mapping above the other(e.g. one oX or bundeled oX). People have no reason to complain since it is mostly fair and BAT / QAT can refair to the rule if anything happens. But with current suggestion, it will be more subjective based.
pooooost alwaaaaaays soooo looooooong, I might have forgot something.
In most points I can agree with what Tasha said. But this whole topic works rather when an experienced mapper talks to another experienced mapper. In most cases, these people understand each others idea and concerns since they gained over the years some kind of sense / feeling for it. But this changes once a modder gets confronted with someone who might be new / less experienced to this kind of mapping. I will explain through a .txt I have prepared before:
Now a go for finisher should be given on low BPM maps. I can understand that. It is playable and all.
But if it is allowed on low BPM, why not on high BPM as well? And how we gonna handle cases like
a bundle of doublets with finishers? After all, single one would be allowed as well. All these questions
would appear at once, for good reason. Allowing one thing but banning the other one which is nearly
the exact same thing is a foundation for heated discussions.
Right now it is clear and simple: Don't use finishers after 4 monotonically notes. That means,
5 plet with finishers are fine. If it gets exeggerated this can be discussed. But, if we change
it to "Finisher free for low BPM", this will bring up a lot more subjective modding.
We would need to deal with really hard questions:
now as well). Probably not from experienced mapper to experienced one, but from experienced to a less
experienced. Especially, when QAT is involved. We have already some disputes about difficulty spread
and such. So I doubt it would be any different with finishers.
I'm for freedom and all that. But after this got approved, another question will be where the
freedom stops once the BAT or QAT says "no" but mapper "yes"? I see a lot of discussions and
dispute coming ahead once the finisher rule gets changed because the border will be set in
a subjective way. And this could lead quickly to another rephrase of the rule by someone who
sees it in another way again. Even further, it will become a problem when QAT has a say on this.
For the moment, in my opinion the cost of this is higher than what we recieve of it. Especially since it worked all
the years without it as well.
Beside all that, the community is also an important factor. We tried once to change the rule in a similar way,
but it hasn't be accepted by it (Tasha mentioned it). Though, right now it look a bit better Huh
But if it is allowed on low BPM, why not on high BPM as well? And how we gonna handle cases like
a bundle of doublets with finishers? After all, single one would be allowed as well. All these questions
would appear at once, for good reason. Allowing one thing but banning the other one which is nearly
the exact same thing is a foundation for heated discussions.
Right now it is clear and simple: Don't use finishers after 4 monotonically notes. That means,
5 plet with finishers are fine. If it gets exeggerated this can be discussed. But, if we change
it to "Finisher free for low BPM", this will bring up a lot more subjective modding.
We would need to deal with really hard questions:
- What is a low BPM? Where do we draw a border?
- When is an overuse of finishers in 1/4 seen as such?
- (What about different playstyles when valuing these patterns in the discussion?)
now as well). Probably not from experienced mapper to experienced one, but from experienced to a less
experienced. Especially, when QAT is involved. We have already some disputes about difficulty spread
and such. So I doubt it would be any different with finishers.
I'm for freedom and all that. But after this got approved, another question will be where the
freedom stops once the BAT or QAT says "no" but mapper "yes"? I see a lot of discussions and
dispute coming ahead once the finisher rule gets changed because the border will be set in
a subjective way. And this could lead quickly to another rephrase of the rule by someone who
sees it in another way again. Even further, it will become a problem when QAT has a say on this.
For the moment, in my opinion the cost of this is higher than what we recieve of it. Especially since it worked all
the years without it as well.
Beside all that, the community is also an important factor. We tried once to change the rule in a similar way,
but it hasn't be accepted by it (Tasha mentioned it). Though, right now it look a bit better Huh
That's my current stands on the whole situation. In short you could say: I'm afraid about the way the modding could go. Of course, many rules have fringe cases as Tasha said before. But saying what a low BPM map is or when there is an overuse of patterns is nothing that can be valuated in an objective way. Many rules are based on subjective views from the past, which got accepted by the community and has become -more or less- objective. But on stuff like BPM, where it varriates a lot from user to user(especially time wise), I'm really unsure.
And that QAT thing... I find it vague. Speaking of a view as QAT, I say, this rather works in a perfect world where people accept the decision of the QAT fully. Which in most cases isn't the case and which leads directly to "he / she took my freedom, (possible rule change!)". Which personally, I don't like either. It's not really a community decision anymore(rule) but more of a QATs decision(gudeline/rule change) who suddenly stays -more or less- above the guideline, since he has the decision to say what's fine and what not. But as rule, the QAT is subordenated to that rule.
Current rule we have now makes no difference with BPM or how mapper map. It doesn't favor one mapping above the other(e.g. one oX or bundeled oX). People have no reason to complain since it is mostly fair and BAT / QAT can refair to the rule if anything happens. But with current suggestion, it will be more subjective based.
pooooost alwaaaaaays soooo looooooong, I might have forgot something.
Yes, its really hard to choose one exact bpm to use but once we found it it can be used perfectly. I'm still think we shouldn't draw an exact line because "around" gives a bit more freedom to mappers to choose whether they want to use finishers on 135 bpm (for example) or not if the rule says 130. But patterns like this can be easy for a certain play style while really hard with others. Thats why this shouldn't be an exact rule in the first place.
From other aspect:
The problem brought up by one map. Should we change the rule just because of one map? I mean, okay let's change it to make that map rankable but what about the others? Rule shouldn't be changed just because of one map in the first place. Yes, there are songs where mappers can use this kind of patterns and we take his/her freedom with this rule but allowing something has a serious impact on the futures mapping. Allowing this can lead many unqualification since maybe BATs can think that oX fit but QATs not. And force the mapper to remove them is also a no go.
I don't really understand why harder to press oX than ooooX. I think oX is easier to handle in the first place but I'm kinda new in taiko mapping.
From other aspect:
The problem brought up by one map. Should we change the rule just because of one map? I mean, okay let's change it to make that map rankable but what about the others? Rule shouldn't be changed just because of one map in the first place. Yes, there are songs where mappers can use this kind of patterns and we take his/her freedom with this rule but allowing something has a serious impact on the futures mapping. Allowing this can lead many unqualification since maybe BATs can think that oX fit but QATs not. And force the mapper to remove them is also a no go.
I don't really understand why harder to press oX than ooooX. I think oX is easier to handle in the first place but I'm kinda new in taiko mapping.
You don't need to draw a straight line where you can or cannot use the oX / ooX et cetera, it's not like we are programming an automatic map-checking-robot which cannot differentiate sensible use or just messing around with finishers. Any differing opinion between B/QATs and mappers can be solved most of the time by COMMUNICATING.
It's not about a single instance of oX being harder than ooooX, but people would put oX xO oX next to each other which is really taxing and hard to read even at low BPM . That's why we should leave it to the modders, BATs and QATs to decide if we used the pattern sensibly, or we are just trying to make the map harder artifically.Kurokami wrote:
I don't really understand why harder to press oX than ooooX. I think oX is easier to handle in the first place but I'm kinda new in taiko mapping.
I just think it could happen to guideline under that condition would be quite necessary because much beatmap with those characteristics regardless bpm have.
Terminate stream with the opposite color, no single color (for taiko only).
would not be as Taiko no Tatsujin, but here is osu !. change the rules a bit in that regard should not be a problem, is it?
oX
ooX
oooX
ooooX
oooooX
and viceversa ....
my opinion is ... support for change to Guideline .-.
Terminate stream with the opposite color, no single color (for taiko only).
would not be as Taiko no Tatsujin, but here is osu !. change the rules a bit in that regard should not be a problem, is it?
oX
ooX
oooX
ooooX
oooooX
and viceversa ....
my opinion is ... support for change to Guideline .-.
Why didn't anyone bring up actual gameplay for this discussion?
All is well when you are considering this from a sound and aesthetic standpoint, but no one really touched down on what it is like to play these notes. Plus how osu!taiko is designed And what criteria helps these notes become playable/understandable.
Let's take a look at the visual aspect first.
On the basic SV (1.40) the finishers become cluttered at the end of the stream, a good majority of the note being covered up. So when the spacing of the notes helps determine what rhythm the notes get played at, this becomes an issue at slow speeds. Generally players hit too early because visually the note is closer compared the smaller notes. (Aka signals a faster rhythm) But, once you start to rise the SV, things become less cluttered and more clear. This is something shown across all rhythm games that involve scrolling. Things are more clear at a higher speed because there is less clutter.
Coming from someone like me that stands by 1.40 SV as the best scroll speed personally. I can't deny that even slightly higher speeds benefit my understanding and performance of 1/4+finishers. Note that I'm also a frequent step mania player, so patterns like this don't bother my fingers performance, but I'm also a c750 player so from what I've gathered is visuals are the main concern. That is where most of my theory behind speed = clarity comes from.
What does this mean? Maps with high useage of 1/4+ finishers should be encouraged for higher SV for the sake of gameplay.
Now let's talk about the actual finisher.
Finishers are pretty strict. I don't have exact figures of timing, but for someone who has played this game for a long time and been through all of the taiko updates, I still can't hit them constantly. And I find it very rare to see anyone hit every single one on finisher heavy maps. So to hit them with the tight timing they require while maintaining accuracy on the stream as we'll seems unfair, especially when you add the maps OD as well. Also to mention my post above about SV helping applies here too.
What does this mean? I'm not sure because there is no easy solution. You could say lower the OD but that is a tad silly. I just wanted to point that out as another gameplay mechanic you need to keep in mind when designing maps and adjusting rules/guidelines.
All in all I'm still staying neutral. You should be able to use them in any note count as long as it ends on the opposite color. But it still needs to be appropriate for the map and song. As a QAT I would only enforce removal of these types of notes if they truly are distasteful to the map.
All is well when you are considering this from a sound and aesthetic standpoint, but no one really touched down on what it is like to play these notes. Plus how osu!taiko is designed And what criteria helps these notes become playable/understandable.
Let's take a look at the visual aspect first.
On the basic SV (1.40) the finishers become cluttered at the end of the stream, a good majority of the note being covered up. So when the spacing of the notes helps determine what rhythm the notes get played at, this becomes an issue at slow speeds. Generally players hit too early because visually the note is closer compared the smaller notes. (Aka signals a faster rhythm) But, once you start to rise the SV, things become less cluttered and more clear. This is something shown across all rhythm games that involve scrolling. Things are more clear at a higher speed because there is less clutter.
Coming from someone like me that stands by 1.40 SV as the best scroll speed personally. I can't deny that even slightly higher speeds benefit my understanding and performance of 1/4+finishers. Note that I'm also a frequent step mania player, so patterns like this don't bother my fingers performance, but I'm also a c750 player so from what I've gathered is visuals are the main concern. That is where most of my theory behind speed = clarity comes from.
What does this mean? Maps with high useage of 1/4+ finishers should be encouraged for higher SV for the sake of gameplay.
Now let's talk about the actual finisher.
Finishers are pretty strict. I don't have exact figures of timing, but for someone who has played this game for a long time and been through all of the taiko updates, I still can't hit them constantly. And I find it very rare to see anyone hit every single one on finisher heavy maps. So to hit them with the tight timing they require while maintaining accuracy on the stream as we'll seems unfair, especially when you add the maps OD as well. Also to mention my post above about SV helping applies here too.
What does this mean? I'm not sure because there is no easy solution. You could say lower the OD but that is a tad silly. I just wanted to point that out as another gameplay mechanic you need to keep in mind when designing maps and adjusting rules/guidelines.
All in all I'm still staying neutral. You should be able to use them in any note count as long as it ends on the opposite color. But it still needs to be appropriate for the map and song. As a QAT I would only enforce removal of these types of notes if they truly are distasteful to the map.
Topic Starter
@ MMzz: I actually did cover a bit of the gameplay nuances in my response to those, specifically the feeling of 'minijacks' with dD / kK. Also from the testing I did (to a minimum of 100bpm) Maps at 1.4SV that have finishers at the end of a doublet / stream / whatever tend to have the note before the finisher overlapping the finisher by about 1/3 or 1/4 of the finisher, which is perfectly acceptable in my books as it still shows a relatively consistent spacing. While the overall feel of maps at a lower BPM is obviously slower, it isn't any harder or easier to read from my experience. I will say that at our levels finishers feel much more fluent at high BPM though as low BPM gets harder to play accurately as you get faster.
This isn't the first map to have issues with oX patterns. Sushi's ROUND! had people constantly pestering Sushi to remove the finishers in the doublets of the inner oni, even when the map was great how it was originally. Having extensively played unranked maps that use these types of finishers, I can tell you that when it is done CORRECTLY it has a positive impact on both audio and gameplay. It is a negative impact in the mapping and modding community to not have discussed this sooner so that maps like the one posted in the opening post didn't have to go through with an unnecessary rule in the first place.Kurokami wrote:
The problem brought up by one map. Should we change the rule just because of one map? I mean, okay let's change it to make that map rankable but what about the others? Rule shouldn't be changed just because of one map in the first place. Yes, there are songs where mappers can use this kind of patterns and we take his/her freedom with this rule but allowing something has a serious impact on the futures mapping. Allowing this can lead many unqualification since maybe BATs can think that oX fit but QATs not. And force the mapper to remove them is also a no go.
In just about every high BPM situation, besides 1/3 maps (usually), finishers in 1/4 streams of about any length are both cluttered and awkward to hit in taiko without the risk of hitting the note off-beat. Just because it's definitely possible, doesn't mean it's right (ofc). As far as I know the only way to actually hit these in rhythm and not a quick, frantic motion is to use a '1234' key set-up (compared to say 1290 etc.) and using two fingers on one hand. However, even this technique would only work for red finishers (traditional kddk style ofc). Blue finishers are pretty much against Taiko's gameplay style entirely unless you have a different playing method. Finishers in streams just don't fit in taiko overall, and I think it's strange that this started showing up in maps after nobody ever did it for the longest time.
Topic Starter
I'm having a hard time understanding that logic Ozzy. While I'm not the best at kddk, I've played at least Oni maps with it, and I've never had more or less difficulty hitting finishers regardless of it being a D or K, even with finishers being at the end of patterns. With ddkk of course I have less trouble with it as I'm much more comfortable with that playstyle, but I don't see it being any harder with kddk at all. Finishers in Taiko are quite literally like jumps in stepmania. for ddkk dons would be "1+2" and kats would be "3+4", whereas kddk would have dons be "2+3" and kats be "1+4". It'd quite literally come down to if you're more comfortable with single hand 'jumps' or two hand jumps.
I actually addressed this a long time ago: https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/2286183MMzz wrote:
Why didn't anyone bring up actual gameplay for this discussion?
ok, bye bye
/me runs
side note: That post says 1/8th but it should say 1/4th. I'm not going to bother changing it though because it's old
(psst it's about finishers at the end of streams, everybody knows they suck in the middle or at the beginning)
That post addresses all three.... including finishers at the end of streams.... o.oNwolf wrote:
(psst it's about finishers at the end of streams, everybody knows they suck in the middle or at the beginning)
Topic Starter
So I'm not seeing much argument against this barring the BPM rule. I'd like to hear alternatives to this. At the very least if we can't come up with something the BPM part could be set as a guideline.
While this rule may sound reasonable, I think there are patterns that may be adressed that have a really different gameplay compared to others.
The thing is, if we consider BPM in action, at some point there's a certain value that some 1/3 streams with finishers within them should not be allowed.
As in, a OxxOxxO at 240 bpm 1/3 is equivalent to 720 1/1. That is, 180 1/4. Nobody's ever talked about that case and that that for granted it's doable while in fact 95% of people won't hit any but the last one.
1/3 thingy aside, I think we'd be better off talking about an absolute time spacing in milliseconds rather than BPM.
I'd say, for maps which spacing between beats is lower than ~375ms ±5%, the next note should at least be half a beat later. If not, at least 2/3 of a beat.
(The current ms setting I have put gives a BPM range between 152.38 and 168.42, rounded down to the nearest 5 it's 150-170 BPM.)
Another thing is this point:
The thing is, if we consider BPM in action, at some point there's a certain value that some 1/3 streams with finishers within them should not be allowed.
As in, a OxxOxxO at 240 bpm 1/3 is equivalent to 720 1/1. That is, 180 1/4. Nobody's ever talked about that case and that that for granted it's doable while in fact 95% of people won't hit any but the last one.
1/3 thingy aside, I think we'd be better off talking about an absolute time spacing in milliseconds rather than BPM.
I'd say, for maps which spacing between beats is lower than ~375ms ±5%, the next note should at least be half a beat later. If not, at least 2/3 of a beat.
(The current ms setting I have put gives a BPM range between 152.38 and 168.42, rounded down to the nearest 5 it's 150-170 BPM.)
Another thing is this point:
- The previous note is not more than halfway overlapping the finisher.Does that affect extreme slowdowns ? (As in, 0.5x)
Topic Starter
I've adjusted the BPM rule as follows to cover cases of 1/3 usage as well.
Original Rule Idea wrote:
- If there is a finisher at the end of a pattern in a map 150BPM or above, there must be a 1/2 break before the next pattern. If the map is below 150BPM, there must be a 1/4 break before the next pattern. This does NOT apply to singular finishers.
For those not understanding this rule change, it works like this. If I have a 1/4 stream that ends with a finisher at 150 bpm, I take the denominator of the beat snap (4) and multiply it with the bpm (150). In this case it'd be 600, which means I only require a 1/4 break before my next note. If I had a 201bpm map where I had a 1/3 dddK, the NPM would be 603, which would require a 1/2 break before the next note. This allows for a little more freedom with 1/3 finishers as well as 1/4 finishers.New Rule Idea wrote:
- If there is a finisher at the end of a pattern that as an instant Note Per Minute (NPM) of more than 600, there must be a 1/2 break before the next note. NPM can be calculated with (Beat Snap Divisor's Denominator * BPM). If the NPM is below 600, there must be a 1/4 break before the next note.
This is exactly what that overlap rule is there for, to prevent finisher use in low SV situations where it can cause readability issues._Gezo_ wrote:
Another thing is this point:- The previous note is not more than halfway overlapping the finisher.Does that affect extreme slowdowns ? (As in, 0.5x)
Topic Starter
So if nobody's going to say anything, can we push this through already? Not to sound impatient but this has been sitting here for a while and nobody is giving reasons as to why this would be bad.
So in conclusion, assuming all patterns were initially allowed, this rule will strictly look to disallow patterns if the song reaches a certain bpm value?
Topic Starter
It doesn't disallow patterns so much as it enforces a spacing after the pattern when a certain BPM has been reached, but yes, that is the idea.
I'm not 100% against 1/4 big notes, personally I don't like how they play, but I'm sure there could be cases where they could fit.
I'm against setting certain BPM/ms as a borderline, it doesn't make sense to have an objective limit in something that is very subjective to the player. If anything, this should be treated case by case.
In short, the actual rule could be moved to guidelines, and let modding process take out where it's badly used.
My 2 cents.
I'm against setting certain BPM/ms as a borderline, it doesn't make sense to have an objective limit in something that is very subjective to the player. If anything, this should be treated case by case.
In short, the actual rule could be moved to guidelines, and let modding process take out where it's badly used.
My 2 cents.
I have to agree with Dekaane on this point. I can see it working well to prevent bad finisher usage and giving the average player enough time to recover from a finisher but having an upper hard cap on bpm/ms would alienate those that can exceed it. Everybody doesn't play at the same speed. Some can't play very fast, most can play well up to 240, and very few can play above 280. A cap would limit those that can actually play something above 600 NPM with a 1/4 break perfectly fine at higher speeds.DakeDekaane wrote:
I'm against setting certain BPM/ms as a borderline, it doesn't make sense to have an objective limit in something that is very subjective to the player. If anything, this should be treated case by case.
My 1 cent.
Topic Starter
In that case the ms rule could be considered a guideline, but the rest would have to be considered rule. Is there any issue with that change?
Topic Starter
Edited the rule to look like this
if there's no issues with this now, I'd like to push it forward.
- Finish notes
Finish notes must not be in the middle or at the beginning of any 1/4 or above stream.
Finishers may only be used at the end of a pattern under three conditions:
- The finisher must have a reasonable sound to be mapped to
- The pattern's previous note is the opposite colour
- The previous note is not more than halfway overlapping the finisher.
if there's no issues with this now, I'd like to push it forward.
I think patterns like ooooX and eventually oooX should need at least 1.4*1 SV and patterns like ooX and oX should only be used when the notes don't stack at all (basically, at least 1.4*1.5 SV) because those last ones are really awkward to play on normal conditions imo.
The best would be to treat it case per case since it depends on a lot of things.
I like the old rule.
The best would be to treat it case per case since it depends on a lot of things.
I like the old rule.
^ being able to read any SV is another skill ,_,
lack of true taiko player's opinion here, maybe 20 peoples gave their opinion and they are not even all taiko player.
But we all know or should know that anyone who reached a strong level at taiko stoped playing ranked maps because they disallow funny/challenging things :
- big notes everywhere
- hard SV changes
- (high bpm/tricky stream? not sure about this one)
So obviously if you ask all of the active taiko players (not those who just started taiko or those who gave up after easy Oni or even before), most of them will agree with the actual rule/guideline that Tasha wrote.
They are the facts and i wonder why it hasn't been changed already õ_o
BATs and QATs should be able to handle this as a new guideline (to keep everything playable) but not sure if they can if they are not real strong players themselves.
At this moment it of course looks impossible regarding the reasons why tricky mapsets are being disqualified lol...
Well i just said the same things than all the others tho.......... is this thread supposed to be checked by peoples who do rules or is this just a kappa thread ?
lack of true taiko player's opinion here, maybe 20 peoples gave their opinion and they are not even all taiko player.
But we all know or should know that anyone who reached a strong level at taiko stoped playing ranked maps because they disallow funny/challenging things :
- big notes everywhere
- hard SV changes
- (high bpm/tricky stream? not sure about this one)
So obviously if you ask all of the active taiko players (not those who just started taiko or those who gave up after easy Oni or even before), most of them will agree with the actual rule/guideline that Tasha wrote.
They are the facts and i wonder why it hasn't been changed already õ_o
BATs and QATs should be able to handle this as a new guideline (to keep everything playable) but not sure if they can if they are not real strong players themselves.
At this moment it of course looks impossible regarding the reasons why tricky mapsets are being disqualified lol...
Well i just said the same things than all the others tho.......... is this thread supposed to be checked by peoples who do rules or is this just a kappa thread ?
I kinda agree that we should be more open minded about all kind of tricky things.
BUT
I think this kind of thing should be allowed only on the hardest diff when the set has a hard enough taiko before this one.
Like, if you have an easy Oni, Inner has to follow guidelines and then a diff above can be more tricky,
or, if you have an Oni close to being the hardest you can do on the song (for easy songs), the Inner can be the tricky one.
Ranking funny/challenging diffs would be great, as long as we keep it to the hardest diff and the spread in the set is good enough for not-so-pro players to enjoy it too. This way, everyone is happy.
BUT
I think this kind of thing should be allowed only on the hardest diff when the set has a hard enough taiko before this one.
Like, if you have an easy Oni, Inner has to follow guidelines and then a diff above can be more tricky,
or, if you have an Oni close to being the hardest you can do on the song (for easy songs), the Inner can be the tricky one.
Ranking funny/challenging diffs would be great, as long as we keep it to the hardest diff and the spread in the set is good enough for not-so-pro players to enjoy it too. This way, everyone is happy.
Topic Starter
Please keep in mind I don't want to degrade the quality of maps by having finisher spam in everything. This change is purely to allow for finisher use in logical places in the map where the music allows it, but the music also has say, a small to average length stream before the finisher sound that you'd want to map.Nofool wrote:
*snip*
- big notes everywhere
- hard SV changes
*snip*
Also keep in mind that while I like SV change stuff when its done right, many people do it very, very wrong and turn it into a gimmicky map really fast instead of using it in a way to enhance the map.
Please keep the discussion related to the topic at hand without throwing jabs at either the BAT or QAT. Both of the current QAT are more than capable of judging most hard maps (MMzz is a better player than me), and many of the BAT are as well.Nofool wrote:
BATs and QATs should be able to handle this as a new guideline (to keep everything playable) but not sure if they can if they are not real strong players themselves.
At this moment it of course looks impossible regarding the reasons why tricky mapsets are being disqualified lol...
There's a lot of rules that need to be changed before this goes through, but yes, this would be the ideal end result. I'd like to eventually see Kantan/Futsuu/Muzukashii/Oni sets be similar to what we have now, with Oni being controlled a bit more in terms of difficulty spread, and then having Inner Oni be the difficulty where anything goes. 5 Difficulty sets just work far too well for taiko to not take advantage of them like this.Kurosanyan wrote:
Ranking funny/challenging diffs would be great, as long as we keep it to the hardest diff and the spread in the set is good enough for not-so-pro players to enjoy it too. This way, everyone is happy.
oX etc. patterns can only be implemented in the harder diffs, since only there is 1/4 allowed, besides, I don't think one or two such pattern in a whole map would make it so hard that newer players wouldn't be able to do it.Kurosanyan wrote:
I kinda agree that we should be more open minded about all kind of tricky things.
BUT
I think this kind of thing should be allowed only on the hardest diff when the set has a hard enough taiko before this one.
Like, if you have an easy Oni, Inner has to follow guidelines and then a diff above can be more tricky,
or, if you have an Oni close to being the hardest you can do on the song (for easy songs), the Inner can be the tricky one.
Ranking funny/challenging diffs would be great, as long as we keep it to the hardest diff and the spread in the set is good enough for not-so-pro players to enjoy it too. This way, everyone is happy.
Also if you can't hit the big notes with both buttons, you have a choice not to. At lower BPM it's clearly possible and it's not the map's fault that the player sucks the player cannot.
I'd even go as far to support it regardless of the BPM even on 1/6 if it really fits and is readable, but I doubt there are many others sharing this opinion
1/4 is allowed even on Muzukashii though. Also it would probably be playable for newer players only if there's a break after and eventually before the finisher (like oX---o instead of something like oX-ox or oX-oox) or if it's a really slow bpm._verto_ wrote:
oX etc. patterns can only be implemented in the harder diffs, since only there is 1/4 allowed, besides, I don't think one or two such pattern in a whole map would make it so hard that newer players wouldn't be able to do it.
It's not that simple. There's the fact that big notes stack on other notes, so it's harder to read, and the fact the player might get distracted by it too, or even would have to think if they should ignore it or not when it's coming (except if they played the map enough already to know where those finishers are)._verto_ wrote:
Also if you can't hit the big notes with both buttons, you have a choice not to. At lower BPM it's clearly possible and it's not the map's fault that the player sucks the player cannot.
Imo "They can ignore it." should never be a valid reason to allow this kind of finisher. Only "It fits the map's difficulty."
It kinda works the same way as rolls and spinners, you shouldn't mess with it just because players can ignore them.
... i obviously meant it should be ok if it is nicely done lol (for both big notes and sv changes, i wrote big notes everywhere mainly for the ones at the end of streams)Tasha wrote:
Please keep in mind I don't want to degrade the quality of maps by having finisher spam in everything. This change is purely to allow for finisher use in logical places in the map where the music allows it, but the music also has say, a small to average length stream before the finisher sound that you'd want to map.
Also keep in mind that while I like SV change stuff when its done right, many people do it very, very wrong and turn it into a gimmicky map really fast instead of using it in a way to enhance the map.
but it might be the real problem tho n_nTasha wrote:
Please keep the discussion related to the topic at hand without throwing jabs at either the BAT or QAT. Both of the current QAT are more than capable of judging most hard maps (MMzz is a better player than me), and many of the BAT are as well.
you guys are pointing useless things about quality(depending on the diff/song or idk) when it is not the problem since it is BATs and QATs job to decide if they accept it as a guideline
my point was pretty simple tho... i support this and i am not the only (most of you also do for example) but what does it change ?_? yet nothing happenned
atm xxxxO patterns are accepted but they are not used even when it is deserved (and i don't think that it always is mapper's purpose), i wonder why lol
Sure it is, but it should be mostly monocolour with some rare exceptions. As for the second part, I agree if it's about the muzukashii.Kurosanyan wrote:
1/4 is allowed even on Muzukashii though. Also it would probably be playable for newer players only if there's a break after and eventually before the finisher (like oX---o instead of something like oX-ox or oX-oox) or if it's a really slow bpm._verto_ wrote:
oX etc. patterns can only be implemented in the harder diffs, since only there is 1/4 allowed, besides, I don't think one or two such pattern in a whole map would make it so hard that newer players wouldn't be able to do it.
Deaf-mutes is a great example how finishers can make a map lot harder than it'd be without in my opinion, and I doubt everyone presses those damn big notes with both buttons. But hey it's 1/2 so nobody complains about them, even though the BPM is high enough to make it on par with +120BPM 1/4. Sure it's not ranked yet, but not because of the finishers.Kurosanyan wrote:
It's not that simple. There's the fact that big notes stack on other notes, so it's harder to read, and the fact the player might get distracted by it too, or even would have to think if they should ignore it or not when it's coming (except if they played the map enough already to know where those finishers are)._verto_ wrote:
Also if you can't hit the big notes with both buttons, you have a choice not to. At lower BPM it's clearly possible and it's not the map's fault that the player sucks the player cannot.
Imo "They can ignore it." should never be a valid reason to allow this kind of finisher. Only "It fits the map's difficulty."
Edit: Layered quoting is confusing
Topic Starter
Agreed on Deaf-mutes. There are very little players who will play that with all the finishers (I do but I miss a lot trying to do so). It also matches all the cymbal crashing going on in the background. Hell its technically not mapping all of them, but it wouldn't be possible to map all of them without changing the patterning._verto_ wrote:
Deaf-mutes is a great example how finishers can make a map lot harder than it'd be without in my opinion, and I doubt everyone presses those damn big notes with both buttons. But hey it's 1/2 so nobody complains about them, even though the BPM is high enough to make it on par with +120BPM 1/4. Sure it's not ranked yet, but not because of the finishers.
Map like that are the one reason I find the 1/2 rule strange. The same thing in 1/4 on a map with half the bpm plays the exact same way, yet one is disallowed currently. This rule change should at least partially fix this (and not make maps like Deaf-mutes unrankable due to the suggested change being a guideline up to a BAT/QAT's discretion).
Topic Starter
If nobody has anything else to say, can we move this forward now? Thanks.
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ok fine..
ok fine..
Small question
As it says that it needs to be the opposite color of the 4 previous notes
Does it means ddK or kkD is not rankable?
I have no idea if this like this are rankable atm xD
Edit: 3000 th Post
As it says that it needs to be the opposite color of the 4 previous notes
Does it means ddK or kkD is not rankable?
I have no idea if this like this are rankable atm xD
Edit: 3000 th Post
Topic Starter
That is how the rule is currently. The rule change I'm proposing would make ddK and kkD rankable, but would have a guideline present that would allow the QAT to deal with abusive use cases.baraatje123 wrote:
Small question
As it says that it needs to be the opposite color of the 4 previous notes
Does it means ddK or kkD is not rankable?
I have no idea if this like this are rankable atm xD
Edit: 3000 th Post
Put up for revision. The rule may need further formatting and word tweaking.
As the game administration considers, we were unable to determine any scenario where the current rule barrels out all abusive cases, while allowing all proper cases. A rule should only exclude things that are unplayable or technically considerable as broken in every case that covers this rule. Thus rules should also disallow only cases that may disturb the theory of beatmaps being supposed to follow or support a song. Nothing of before can be fulfilled appropriately with the current rule and therefore, we put this one under revision as attempt for improving the current situation.
We will revise all brought up arguments about this proposal and place a decision in near time.
As the game administration considers, we were unable to determine any scenario where the current rule barrels out all abusive cases, while allowing all proper cases. A rule should only exclude things that are unplayable or technically considerable as broken in every case that covers this rule. Thus rules should also disallow only cases that may disturb the theory of beatmaps being supposed to follow or support a song. Nothing of before can be fulfilled appropriately with the current rule and therefore, we put this one under revision as attempt for improving the current situation.
We will revise all brought up arguments about this proposal and place a decision in near time.
Nothing to add here as stated in #taiko. Let's see how this will work.
Finally my xi - Halcyon map is rankable.
So how is it now?
[quote="Taiko Ranking Criteria: Rules":1337]Finish notes must not be in the middle or at the beginning in a 1/4 or above snapped pattern. This is to ensure playability of all patterns, as finisher notes in the middle or at the beginning of a 1/4 or above snapped pattern have been deemed as very issuesome to catch.[quote="Taiko Ranking Criteria: Guidelines":1337]Finisher notes may be used at the end of a 1/4 or above snapped pattern under the following conditions:
- The finisher note must have a reasonable sound to be mapped to.
- The note prior the finisher note must be of the opposite color.
- The note prior must not overlap with the finisher note by more than 50%.
I feel that there probably cases where oO is usable, granted, it being isolated from other patterns and not abusive, as was said, but other then that, I agree wholeheartedly.
This allows proper usage of:
This disallows abusive usage of:
oh yeah baby!!!
- ooX
- oxxxO
- oX
- ooO
- oxxoO
- oO
oh yeah baby!!!