So why not add more levels between them ? All of this depend of the song, so you could at least adapt spread to the song you map.ztrot wrote:
Easy Normal Hard Insane Expert < and if you can make a proper spread you are rewarded to break away and test your limits as a mapper and make a ultra diff
There should always be progression from easy to expert.
show more
Well was this 'discussion' even scheduled so people can show up, or was it like "Get the online members now". Sounds like bs to me
Edit: nvm, thought about Marathon maps. Oh god no
1. mappers with 2+ same level diffs in their sets, obviously - nope
2. players - nope, less difficulties to choose from
3. BN's who checks sets - nope, since they are not obligated to check sets with a lot diffs and can spend their time voluntary
4. QATs - nope, considering how system is driven right now
Explain this plz, doesn't it broke the criteria itself too
OT: please no, that's gonna waste almost all mapper's works, some mappers might put GDs because people might hatred this style
Take this map as example
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/281721
The description said: "gds included so that people irritated by my mapping style can still enjoy the map"
Also I'm basically against the thing that all maps should have linear difficulty spread. Having two different styled-map with similar difficulty is bad? Why? Players get more maps to choose. If they disliked Insane 1 then they can try Insane 2. Why is this bad? If you don't like Skystar's Expert then wouldn't it be good if there's RLC's Expert? If I tell you my personal experience, I really liked to play like 10 different Insanes if I liked the song. I don't see a reason to have more diffs only if the map's quality is good.
I am totally against with this rule. Do you want this game to be strictly-optimized? Who make the maps? Do they work with this game to earn money? We're doing it FREE to contribute to the game by ranking maps. Why do we need such a restriction that disallows having many difficulties by more mappers? Not even too few diffs.
Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and GDers can only create their own mapsets to get it ranked. While different mappers show their own style on mapping, I don't see any reason why such rules is amended to restrict mapsets having same difficulties.
Also about the approval rule, I believe it discourage people from mapping Extra difficulties in Marathon maps (eg: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324047), spending far more time on mapping an easier difficulties to fulfill the requirement of the new Ranking Criteria, other than cases like this I am fine with map with has ~5mins long
INB4 you can only have one mapset per song. Once a song has a set, you cant map it.
95% of posts here disagree with that new rule, so pls stop that and reconsider your work on this one.
Looked through it, it's looking more like 100% from anyone that didn't make this decision. The only place I see agreement is for the approval rule.
Who does this benefit?
Mappers? No, it's incredibly limiting.
Players? No, it gives them less variety to pick from.
..why?
that would be good
As solely a player and not a mapper I think this is completely stupid. I love the variety that multiple insanes/extras and guest diffs bring. PP weights need to be fixed(technical/sliders worth more, jump patterns less), we DON'T need to be limiting variety and creativity in mapsets. That is one of the GOOD things about mapping right now.
show more
Im fine with the approval change, but the other things are basically the worst things to do. I dont care who proposed the rule change or which chosen players thought that this is a good idea. It isnt. Mapping is community driven, hell, the whole game is community driven. Restricting and forcing a change on the current mapping meta doesnt help, but it kills it rather. I think the thread already pointed out most of the flawed stuff, so I dont need to repeat that. Just my 2cents.
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.Sonnyc wrote:
Then why is Mao, the council member, showing a disagreement?
everythings are now hard to proceed
Because the skill range in insanes varies greatly and having just one insane in the middle kills people who try to progress from hard to insane and bores people who are at the skill level where they slowly get familiar with how extras workztrot wrote:
is to streamline the mapping process make things more clear as I have stated
The difficulty is not dependent on the star rating. The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into. Difficulties must be named to reflect that. That being said as long as there is progression why do you need two insanes in the same set?
That's mean I can make really easy easy and really hard hard?
Same for me.Desperate-kun wrote:
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.
let me fix that. 10% were not online.Desperate-kun wrote:
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.Sonnyc wrote:
Then why is Mao, the council member, showing a disagreement?
Desperate-kun wrote:
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.Sonnyc wrote:
Then why is Mao, the council member, showing a disagreement?
Well was this 'discussion' even scheduled so people can show up, or was it like "Get the online members now". Sounds like bs to me
I don't mind the changes apart for the approval criteria. If you do want to stick with having 2 diffs no matter what when you have an Expert or above diff, then I suggest loosening the lower limit (that is, Insane) to Hard or Normal though I'm reluctant with the latter considering I don't think players at that skill level have enough physical and/or mental stamina to keep up with a five minutes long song.
Now here's another thing I wish to adress :
Now here's another thing I wish to adress :
I really think you should listen to the general opinion here, I personally see no merit from pushing this new rule, and it seems that most other people agree on that, at least when it comes to the normal mapsets, people seem more on boat with the approved mapset thing (I strongly disagree with the approval thing personally though, as the whole reason people got something approved in the first place, was because it was a very long song, and a lot more work for each diff).
"You have 0 kudosu remaining. You can earn kudosu by helping mod this map! You will gain kudosu if you mod this map."
I dont see anyone gettig kds from modding this. Just saying, there has to be at least 20-30 mods here and no kds at all.
I dont see anyone gettig kds from modding this. Just saying, there has to be at least 20-30 mods here and no kds at all.
not really exciting news honestly
Oh btw, if I were to want to rank my 25 minutes marathon (not that I think I would anytime soon), I now have to map another difficulty because it's an Extra difficulty? I can understand the approval rule on shorter songs, but you're most likely killing 99% of actual marathons with this.
"The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into."
So where can I read about these mapping techniques and where on the difficulty scale the fall on, or is this just based on "feel" or whatever floats your boat at the moment? How do I know, if not with icons, if my map is what it is?
"The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into."
So where can I read about these mapping techniques and where on the difficulty scale the fall on, or is this just based on "feel" or whatever floats your boat at the moment? How do I know, if not with icons, if my map is what it is?
MBomb
Why was this discussed in enough time that no one came online. This seems like the kind of thing you would discuss for at least a week, and you're telling me you discussed it for a few hours? This is stupid, the whole ranking criteria council thing in general is, but especially the fact you took so little time to discuss this disgusts me.Loctav wrote:
let me fix that. 10% were not online.Desperate-kun wrote:
Then why is Mao, the council member, showing a disagreement?
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.
I sure hope it is one, this is the most messed up post I've seen in ages, I'm fine with the approval rule though :/Rohit6 wrote:
guys dont worry
this is just a prank
good one hhahhah
Edit: nvm, thought about Marathon maps. Oh god no
That makes it even worse. What type of trash is this?
streamline mapping process? great, and who will benefit from this?ztrot wrote:
it is to streamline the mapping process make things more clear as I have stated
The difficulty is not dependent on the star rating. The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into. Difficulties must be named to reflect that. That being said as long as there is progression why do you need two insanes in the same set?
Easy Normal Hard Insane Expert < and if you can make a proper spread you are rewarded to break away and test your limits as a mapper and make a ultra diff
There should always be progression from easy to expert.
1. mappers with 2+ same level diffs in their sets, obviously - nope
2. players - nope, less difficulties to choose from
3. BN's who checks sets - nope, since they are not obligated to check sets with a lot diffs and can spend their time voluntary
4. QATs - nope, considering how system is driven right now
Explain this plz, doesn't it broke the criteria itself too
OT: please no, that's gonna waste almost all mapper's works, some mappers might put GDs because people might hatred this style
Take this map as example
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/281721
The description said: "gds included so that people irritated by my mapping style can still enjoy the map"
So my question is, why is the "ENHIXU" the only proper spread? Why not having some smaller progression between those diffs is bad? I really don't understand this.ztrot wrote:
There should always be progression from easy to expert.
Also I'm basically against the thing that all maps should have linear difficulty spread. Having two different styled-map with similar difficulty is bad? Why? Players get more maps to choose. If they disliked Insane 1 then they can try Insane 2. Why is this bad? If you don't like Skystar's Expert then wouldn't it be good if there's RLC's Expert? If I tell you my personal experience, I really liked to play like 10 different Insanes if I liked the song. I don't see a reason to have more diffs only if the map's quality is good.
I am totally against with this rule. Do you want this game to be strictly-optimized? Who make the maps? Do they work with this game to earn money? We're doing it FREE to contribute to the game by ranking maps. Why do we need such a restriction that disallows having many difficulties by more mappers? Not even too few diffs.
I don't want to know how many things went wrong while discussing this.
this rule is depend on SD? current mania SD is broken.and if the song has few sounds and i can't make N icon diff even,what to do?spamming LNs to increase SD?
I think the heart is propganda to make people think this is a great idea 10/10 government is always right.KuranteMelodii wrote:
Explain this plz, doesn't it broke the criteria itself too
please tell me that this is just a big prank
^Irreversible wrote:
About the rest, I have one important question: All these diffs will most likely go into a new mapset, which will obviously get ranked too. Where are the benefits, for anyone?
Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and GDers can only create their own mapsets to get it ranked. While different mappers show their own style on mapping, I don't see any reason why such rules is amended to restrict mapsets having same difficulties.
Also about the approval rule, I believe it discourage people from mapping Extra difficulties in Marathon maps (eg: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324047), spending far more time on mapping an easier difficulties to fulfill the requirement of the new Ranking Criteria, other than cases like this I am fine with map with has ~5mins long
This is dumb.
What good comes from restricting the number of difficulties when the general consensus of mapping spreads has always been decided by the situational factors and by the mapper and modders themselves. There has always been a good system towards map spreads and doing this would just make us want tobend the rules in order to fit the spread. uncomfortably bend the spread in order to fit the rules
What good comes from this when 10 councilmen agreed and now you're going to get unhappy responses by the hundreds
What good comes from restricting the number of difficulties when the general consensus of mapping spreads has always been decided by the situational factors and by the mapper and modders themselves. There has always been a good system towards map spreads and doing this would just make us want to
What good comes from this when 10 councilmen agreed and now you're going to get unhappy responses by the hundreds
RIP guest diffs
THE OSU!HOOD - CHANGING THE BEATMAP RANKING CRITERIA PRANK (SOCIAL EXPERIMENT)(GONE WRONG)(GUN PULLED)
Chaoslitz wrote:
^Irreversible wrote:
About the rest, I have one important question: All these diffs will most likely go into a new mapset, which will obviously get ranked too. Where are the benefits, for anyone?
Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and GDers can only create their own mapsets to get it ranked. While different mappers show their own style on mapping, I don't see any reason why such rules is amended to restrict mapsets having same difficulties.
Also about the approval rule, I believe it discourage people from mapping Extra difficulties in Marathon maps (eg: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324047), spending far more time on mapping an easier difficulties to fulfill the requirement of the new Ranking Criteria, other than cases like this I am fine with map with has ~5mins long
INB4 you can only have one mapset per song. Once a song has a set, you cant map it.
After reading this I don't see what this hopes to accomplish. It seems like the reason this system was put in place was simply to have maps that every player of every level can play and while that sounds good on paper it's not quite as easy. The approval rule I can understand since most people go for extras and I'm sure there are many people who are not quite at that level that would love a version they can play but it's still restricting because even insane are usually only well playable by maybe top 80k which is still just a fraction of the playerbase. If this is still restricting to the majority of the playerbase then there is no reason for this to only help out maybe a few more players when the rest are still neglected it's just a patchjob on a broken dam.
More importantly regarding full spread sets this really does not make sense. For one the star difficulty is by no means a good indication of how hard/easy a map really is and this applies even for the easier difficulties. So depending on an "even" spread is pointless. And then to limit difficulties to just one makes it not only so that people are forced to map many more full spreads of the same song for no real reason and even then still restricting higher difficulties from being mapped. There are a LOT of very talented mappers out there that all have a good way of expressing their style onto a song and this is more visible with insane/extras because it's much less restricting on mapping so when you add this system it means if they ever plan to rank their version of a song they will likely need to make another spread just for that.
This also seems to be against the wishes of the mapping community which is, in this case, the most important right now. They are the ones responsible for voluntarily providing content to the oblivious players who are only here to play. No offense to them they are right to just want to play the game of course but since the mapping community already gets little to no love and now are being forced to go through these changes to appease the players even more is like the equivalent of getting forced into work overtime with no extra pay. Add that to the fact that the current ranking system is already a LOT of work to go through because BNs are already overworked and understaffed as it is, they would likely get further demotivated as more people work to rank the same song over and over and over again simply because there were four good insane and extra versions of a 2 minute song that wanted to get ranked.
As I stated above it's a nice idea on paper but as it is being proposed it does not fit both with the current ranking system or with the wishes of the mapping community in general. I highly urge the rule be put on hold so that there can be more discussion and ideas of how this rule can work for both mappers, players and staff alike before it's set in place, much like a map disqualification.
I did not have time nor patience to proofread this and revise this so maybe some things don't sound like what I was trying to say but I hope maybe it makes sense at least. PLz n0 k1ll m4pp3r sp1r17 kthx
More importantly regarding full spread sets this really does not make sense. For one the star difficulty is by no means a good indication of how hard/easy a map really is and this applies even for the easier difficulties. So depending on an "even" spread is pointless. And then to limit difficulties to just one makes it not only so that people are forced to map many more full spreads of the same song for no real reason and even then still restricting higher difficulties from being mapped. There are a LOT of very talented mappers out there that all have a good way of expressing their style onto a song and this is more visible with insane/extras because it's much less restricting on mapping so when you add this system it means if they ever plan to rank their version of a song they will likely need to make another spread just for that.
This also seems to be against the wishes of the mapping community which is, in this case, the most important right now. They are the ones responsible for voluntarily providing content to the oblivious players who are only here to play. No offense to them they are right to just want to play the game of course but since the mapping community already gets little to no love and now are being forced to go through these changes to appease the players even more is like the equivalent of getting forced into work overtime with no extra pay. Add that to the fact that the current ranking system is already a LOT of work to go through because BNs are already overworked and understaffed as it is, they would likely get further demotivated as more people work to rank the same song over and over and over again simply because there were four good insane and extra versions of a 2 minute song that wanted to get ranked.
As I stated above it's a nice idea on paper but as it is being proposed it does not fit both with the current ranking system or with the wishes of the mapping community in general. I highly urge the rule be put on hold so that there can be more discussion and ideas of how this rule can work for both mappers, players and staff alike before it's set in place, much like a map disqualification.
I did not have time nor patience to proofread this and revise this so maybe some things don't sound like what I was trying to say but I hope maybe it makes sense at least. PLz n0 k1ll m4pp3r sp1r17 kthx
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and It's hard to maintain the spread issue in taiko mode.
There is such a large backlash to this new restructure, lets be real and actually take a moment to reconsider all this.
lmfao
Just throwing my two cents here-
I think a forced linear spread could potentially stifle creativity; while it does encourage balance, it also forces the mapper to have to add/remove elements in a difficulty they otherwise may not want to in order to maintain the spread. It could lead to a lot of dumbed down and/or overcomplicated difficulties when they don't have to be.ztrot wrote:
First of all, we reworded the current spread rule. All difficulties in each game mode have to align in a linear and progressive spread. You can add one Ultra difficulty past an Expert difficulty that does not have to increase linearly in difficulty with the rest of the spread. Keep in mind, that Ultra is a placeholder term, used to reflect a high end difficulty that has not been specified with a name yet. We put that name in place, so you guys know what we are talking about when we want to refer to the high end difficulties of a mapset.
This leads to less diversity in my opinion. Many people have different mapping styles (e.g. person A can map an Insane difficulty that is completely different to how person B maps an Insane), and limiting the amount of same difficulties prevents that diversity.ztrot wrote:
Secondly, we limited the amount of difficulties of the same level per game mode. Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode. While this appears very limiting at the beginning, the hybrid set rules stay intact. Don't forget that every keycount in osu!mania is considered as individual game mode, too! If you wish to get your mapsets with multiple difficulties of the same level ranked, we advise you to split it off into a new mapset.
I'm sort of okay with this one actually-ztrot wrote:
At last, we altered the requirements for Approval beatmaps. Approval mapsets must have 1 difficulty that is either an Easy, Normal, Hard or Insane. Your mapset must contain an Insane difficulty if an Expert or Ultra difficulty is present. This means that every Approval containing only an Expert or Ultra difficulty must receive a second difficulty. If you do not wish to map more than one difficulty for your Approval sets, we would advise you to keep the single difficulty at Insane level or below.
"Secondly, we limited the amount of difficulties of the same level per game mode. Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode..."
I might just be dumb here, but I wish you guys would've provided a reason why this change is necessary. Is it only aesthetic, or is there an actual benefit to this restriction? Why separate maps in to different downloads when you could just pack a bunch of maps in to a single one?
E: I guess the goal is to increase the number of lower tier maps? Not sure how many defferent kinds of easy maps can you make compared to insane/extras, but I guess it's a worthwile goal anyway...
I might just be dumb here, but I wish you guys would've provided a reason why this change is necessary. Is it only aesthetic, or is there an actual benefit to this restriction? Why separate maps in to different downloads when you could just pack a bunch of maps in to a single one?
E: I guess the goal is to increase the number of lower tier maps? Not sure how many defferent kinds of easy maps can you make compared to insane/extras, but I guess it's a worthwile goal anyway...
the whole ranking system is fine as it is right now, why the hell do we need a restructure
Sorry, but I really dislike this change.
I personally find that there usually isn't a very good spread between Normal, Hard, and Insane (As a beginner player, the jump from Normal to Hard was a big one, as was Hard to Insane). It is good to have some sort of inbetween difficulty so that the spreading is much more smooth (Advanded and Light Insane difficulties). This change seems to prevent that.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/347460
I've been working on this for a while, and the fact that I have to remove or completely rework one of the lower and upper difficulties just feels wrong to do in almost every aspect.
I personally find that there usually isn't a very good spread between Normal, Hard, and Insane (As a beginner player, the jump from Normal to Hard was a big one, as was Hard to Insane). It is good to have some sort of inbetween difficulty so that the spreading is much more smooth (Advanded and Light Insane difficulties). This change seems to prevent that.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/347460
I've been working on this for a while, and the fact that I have to remove or completely rework one of the lower and upper difficulties just feels wrong to do in almost every aspect.
wait if i understand this new rule properly, its basically this
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, its rankable. the spread doesnt matter? so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
into 
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria. again.
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, its rankable. the spread doesnt matter? so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria. again.
i lol-edAnxient wrote:
wait if i understand this new rule properly, its basically this
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria.
I realized 2 things while I was reading the flood of comments coming:
- this new RC rule seems to be pointing the finger to some specific mappers who usually make 6*+ maps
- the staff won't change route no matter what we say (as in most cases)
The real discussion is happening here, not on the Discord #modhelp.
Please re-consider this
- this new RC rule seems to be pointing the finger to some specific mappers who usually make 6*+ maps
- the staff won't change route no matter what we say (as in most cases)
The real discussion is happening here, not on the Discord #modhelp.
Please re-consider this
I really have to disagree with the 1st and the 2nd rule tbh. That will force a mapper to delete many GDs and forcing them to map it and rank it at their own mapsets. It's kinda disappoint to see a new rule like this
For the 3rd rule, what about the "marathon" maps which are likely to have more than 10 mintes long and it is a collab map? It's kinda ridiculous here
Edit: about the 3rd rule, making another diff even that it has extra diff on it is just a wasting of time, really
For the 3rd rule, what about the "marathon" maps which are likely to have more than 10 mintes long and it is a collab map? It's kinda ridiculous here
Edit: about the 3rd rule, making another diff even that it has extra diff on it is just a wasting of time, really
changes like this reminds me why i dont want to be involved with the ranking process anymore
So if I have a set with three insanes, one by me and two GD's, I have to delete those GD's to fit your new dumbass rule? Hahahahaha no
lets make 10star ultra
we
can
fly
we
can
fly
Len wrote:
lets make 10star ultra
we
can
fly
Let me rephrase that.
"Hello everyone, ztrot here, destroying your dreams since 2008!"
seriously (i'm sorry for that rather rough introduction btw
), after working for months on my first map, getting mods, starting to mod other maps recently and shoot my kudosu at my own map, i'll have to completely change it 
i mean i don't even have to change as much as many other mappers. some will have to delete complete difficulties.
"This new rule might seem scary at first but, fear not as we don't want to forget our professional osu! players either!"
yeah, seemingly you don't want to forget the professional osu! players, so let's just forget the mappers instead
Also there's just times when not all difficulties fit to the map. Times when you have something different in mind in terms of the spread.
This will not only significantly increase the work of mappers, moders, BN's and QAT's, it will also erase a part of the mappers freedom. In my opinion we need more freedom instead of more restrictions!
"Hello everyone, ztrot here, destroying your dreams since 2008!"
seriously (i'm sorry for that rather rough introduction btw
), after working for months on my first map, getting mods, starting to mod other maps recently and shoot my kudosu at my own map, i'll have to completely change it i mean i don't even have to change as much as many other mappers. some will have to delete complete difficulties."This new rule might seem scary at first but, fear not as we don't want to forget our professional osu! players either!"
yeah, seemingly you don't want to forget the professional osu! players, so let's just forget the mappers instead
Also there's just times when not all difficulties fit to the map. Times when you have something different in mind in terms of the spread.
This will not only significantly increase the work of mappers, moders, BN's and QAT's, it will also erase a part of the mappers freedom. In my opinion we need more freedom instead of more restrictions!
Thanks for increasing more maps which need to overmapped to surepassed this rules
It's worth mentioning that, under these new rules, NONE of the maps currently on the "Most Played Beatmaps" would have gotten ranked.
Isn't that an obvious sign that this is a terrible decision?
Isn't that an obvious sign that this is a terrible decision?
I do not really agree with the new structure of the spread I mean for example if the spread between easy and normal is kinda huge,it needs another normal,a new one normal and the old one being renamed to Advanced or if the spread between hard and Insane is too kinda huge it needs a difficulty named hyper or light insane but yes,the difficulties which causes problems with the spread can be tuned down just my though.
Also I agree with the spread for approval mapsets regarding Insane and Extra because there are some players who cannot pass the Extra difficulties let's say or passing the high bpm streams.Just my opinion.
Also I agree with the spread for approval mapsets regarding Insane and Extra because there are some players who cannot pass the Extra difficulties let's say or passing the high bpm streams.Just my opinion.
nice to know you guys had the time to proofread your thread etc. but can't even schedule a meeting.Loctav wrote:
let me fix that. 10% were not online.Desperate-kun wrote:
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.
Happy Valentine's Day to people on Asia.
#BestAprilFoolsDay
oh wait, it's Valentines Day! Enjoy chocolate everyone <3
oh wait, it's Valentines Day! Enjoy chocolate everyone <3
Come on, this completely ruined and ignored current mapping stuffs.
this shit is pretty entertaining to watch i can't even lie
I guess no more to add here.Lust wrote:
changes like this reminds me why i dont want to be involved with the ranking process anymore
95% of posts here disagree with that new rule, so pls stop that and reconsider your work on this one.
Spy wrote:
lmfao
the best ironic phrase 2k16ztrot wrote:
Hello everyone, ztrot here with some exciting new news!
this is put in the beatmaps section
so please
QATs
DQ thisrule map im begging you
so please
QATs
DQ this
is this when strawpoll comes in handy? or is it too hard to make one
0.2 1.69 3.74 5.24 10.0 best spread
Nozhomi wrote:
I guess no more to add here.Lust wrote:
changes like this reminds me why i dont want to be involved with the ranking process anymore
95% of posts here disagree with that new rule, so pls stop that and reconsider your work on this one.
Looked through it, it's looking more like 100% from anyone that didn't make this decision. The only place I see agreement is for the approval rule.
Who does this benefit?
Mappers? No, it's incredibly limiting.
Players? No, it gives them less variety to pick from.
..why?
All I see here is someone having OCD and needed a ruleset to calm themselves down from it.
Yuii- wrote:
Happy Valentine's Day to people on Asia.
I feel like this is one of the issues where you kinda want a consensus when everyone is actually there, even if 10% doesn't agree, the entire structure behind the beatmap shouldnt be able to be changed, as it is arguably the biggest part of the entire video game.
Zero community discussion. Even before considering how awful some of these new rules are - to have this simply rammed down our throats is a joke. At least we know how you really feel about this "community" now.
This is way too limiting and it's obvious the negatives of this change far outweigh the sole positive.. It's clear by the levels of backlash this post has received and I hope there is consideration to compensate for or revert these changes..
or just completely removingXiMerx wrote:
how about putting this into guidelines thank
that would be good
Rules and Guidelines are from now on solely pushed by the Council and their discussions.osu! dictatorship
This Spread™ isn't really a good thing I guess after reading the thread lol...
I really hope you guys can reconsider that diff limitation tho. What's wrong with having more options for the player?
I really hope you guys can reconsider that diff limitation tho. What's wrong with having more options for the player?
itll be soon until peppy comes in and tells everyone to wank wank dick dicks shut the fuck up
2015 was great
holy. the limiting to 1 diff per difficulty level will ruin good spreads NotLikeThis
Don't worry, just make a 1 star diff of itHomestuck wrote:
RIP my two hour long undertale marathon
Nice. This completely ruined current mapping theories.
Oh god, i have to do something for this community.
Let's change the rule!
But i won't make any real discussion and poll because people won't agree with this nonsense
Let's change the rule!
But i won't make any real discussion and poll because people won't agree with this nonsense
Side wrote:
PLz n0 k1ll m4pp3r sp1r17 kthx
This is absurd.
Goodbye guest difficulties.
Goodbye long, difficult marathon maps.
Goodbye big mapsets with a variety of difficulties to play.
Goodbye guest difficulties.
Goodbye long, difficult marathon maps.
Goodbye big mapsets with a variety of difficulties to play.
quit is better
How come we don't have a "+1" button? Because this comment is PERFECT.Asahina Momoko wrote:
the best ironic phrase 2k16ztrot wrote:
Hello everyone, ztrot here with some exciting new news!
Yes. I seriously don't understand what good this could possibly accomplish.PinkHeart wrote:
So that means I can't rank two Insane of different styles just because they got same stars?
As solely a player and not a mapper I think this is completely stupid. I love the variety that multiple insanes/extras and guest diffs bring. PP weights need to be fixed(technical/sliders worth more, jump patterns less), we DON'T need to be limiting variety and creativity in mapsets. That is one of the GOOD things about mapping right now.
After checking my calendar, I am now certain it ain't april fools' yet. Can't say any of the changes would be good in my opinion. If a beatmap is good, why should it not be ranked just because it lacks lower difficulties? Why shouldn't two good insanes be ranked in the same map set?
tldr; imo the changes are fucking retarded
tldr; imo the changes are fucking retarded
I need remap my GDs, or own mapper need improve his diff. or idk, oke. I just a flow river~