Since I keep hearing arguments about how you need to spend ages to improve in mapping and how some beatmaps are better than others, can someone tell me an objective answer as to what constitutes a good beatmap?

A map is "good" when it expresses the song through gameplay, i.e. cursor motions and rhythms.

So it like uses similar spacing, angle, and rhythm concepts for similar portions of the song, and stuff like that. So then like, the gameplay feels the way the song sounds.

And then ofc, people play it and enjoy playing it.

And that's about it imo

UndeadCapulet wrote:

A map is "good" when it expresses the song through gameplay, i.e. cursor motions and rhythms.

So it like uses similar spacing, angle, and rhythm concepts for similar portions of the song, and stuff like that. So then like, the gameplay feels the way the song sounds.

And then ofc, people play it and enjoy playing it.

And that's about it imo

Can you put it into terms that are less subjective and more objective?

Is a beatmap good when it follows a very strict ds like a old school map vs a jump heavy modern map? There are a bunch of old mappers who think the modern style is terrible, and of course vice versa.

Even among modern maps, there are various styles that are loved by certain audiences, while thought of as random gimmicks by many others.

pishifat has made an interesting video on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4v1QVJozGs

Anyway I think there cannot be an exact definition of a good map, it's just way to subjective. It's like asking what makes a song good. Certain people consider certain genres "trash" and "noise" while others find it beautiful.
Of course you can say general stuff like a map should fit the song, for example in intensity, repetetiveness etc. Also some kind of structure or "idea" is a good basis.

1. Go to youtube
2. Search "Pishifat"
3. Watch his tutorials
4. Profit

>w<

Tshemmp wrote:

pishifat has made an interesting video on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4v1QVJozGs

Anyway I think there cannot be an exact definition of a good map, it's just way to subjective. It's like asking what makes a song good. Certain people consider certain genres "trash" and "noise" while others find it beautiful.
Of course you can say general stuff like a map should fit the song, for example in intensity, repetetiveness etc. Also some kind of structure or "idea" is a good basis.

So Pishifat's video said 2 things, a good map does not equal a fun map, and a good map should follow the music, something that UndeadCapulet said earlier. Nothing that actually defines what a good map is. There are mappers who believe Pishifat's maps are completely nonsensical and don't follow the music at all, and there are mappers that believe that their triangle based jump maps fit the music very well. What's the difference between those mappers? Are either of them wrong about their views? Can you give an objective answer?

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Can you put it into terms that are less subjective and more objective?

Is a beatmap good when it follows a very strict ds like a old school map vs a jump heavy modern map? There are a bunch of old mappers who think the modern style is terrible, and of course vice versa.

Even among modern maps, there are various styles that are loved by certain audiences, while thought of as random gimmicks by many others.

Think of beatmapping like it is making art. Works of art don't fall under anything objective to be what people would considered "good" works of art.

That being said, I think that a good map is one that has a concept that relates to the song regarding the patterns created or slider shapes/velocities/lengths/usage-per-beat. I think it also will manipulate the player's cursor in a way that best fits the rhythm of the song or the type of song. Lastly, the rhythms that you tap to don't have to stick with JUST the drums, JUST the vocals, etc., but I think you shouldn't be sporadic with what beats you map (overmapping, undermapping, etc.) and should instead map to what beats you think stand out absolutely.

Paraphrasing blissfulyoshi (the person who I am addressing this thought to), the way pishifat defines a good map differs from those who believe that mapping patterns best fits a song. I don't think it is right to clump different mapping styles together under one list of what makes a map good, in my opinion, because of how different the characteristics of differing mapping styles are.

I may not be someone with any ranked maps... BUT I'm confident in believing that a judgement like mine will produce some fun work, provided you have the inspiration and the motivation to follow through with yourself and finish mapping an entire song.

Tsuchimikado wrote:

Think of beatmapping like it is making art. Works of art don't fall under anything objective to be what people would considered "good" works of art.

That being said, I think that a good map is one that has a concept that relates to the song regarding the patterns created or slider shapes/velocities/lengths/usage-per-beat. I think it also will manipulate the player's cursor in a way that best fits the rhythm of the song or the type of song. Lastly, the rhythms that you tap to don't have to stick with JUST the drums, JUST the vocals, etc., but I think you shouldn't be sporadic with what beats you map (overmapping, undermapping, etc.) and should instead map to what beats you think stand out absolutely.

Paraphrasing blissfulyoshi (the person who I am addressing this thought to), the way pishifat defines a good map differs from those who believe that mapping patterns best fits a song. I don't think it is right to clump different mapping styles together under one list of what makes a map good, in my opinion, because of how different the characteristics of differing mapping styles are.

I may not be someone with any ranked maps... BUT I'm confident in believing that a judgement like mine will produce some fun work, provided you have the inspiration and the motivation to follow through with yourself and finish mapping an entire song.

It is great that you think of mapping as an art, but again you stated like everyone else how to follow music to map a song, not what makes a map good in objective terms. Maps can have plenty of styles and can be considered a work of art, but we still have a QAT that prunes out for quality. While they do check for metadata and what not, there are also plenty unranks over interpretation of music and various other similar things that are sometimes quite subjective. The mapper usually has a reason for why it was mapped that way. What makes those maps considered bad to the QAT though? What makes other maps better?

I'm haven't watched pishifat's video so I'm not sure if I am omitting or repeating anything he has already stated, but in objective terms there are some basic things **that go without saying** that constitutes a "good" map to someone on the Quality Assurance Team. This is not official, of course, as I am basing these points on how the QAT has "disqualified" some ranked maps due to Quality.[i][/i]

1. Your map must be timed with the correct BPM** and correct offset. There are people floating about the forums who would love to help you time a map correctly.
2. Your map must not violate any rules that AIMod checks for (Ctrl + Shift+ A in editor. or check under the File tab) with the exception of [single-difficulty maps] that are considered marathon-length or are up for Approval.
3. There must be a concept to your map of some kind (this is vague for a reason); a map lacking rhythm-based or gameplay-based creative direction will not pass. Also, a map with multiple creative directions that contrast too heavily with each other may not pass.

These are just three things that I could think off the top of my head, and are, like I said when I started, not official. Hopefully this incites more conversation to further focus a handful of things that characterize a good map in the eyes of the QAT?

Tsuchimikado wrote:

1. Your map must be timed with the correct BPM** and correct offset. There are people floating about the forums who would love to help you time a map correctly.
2. Your map must not violate any rules that AIMod checks for (Ctrl + Shift+ A in editor. or check under the File tab) with the exception of [single-difficulty maps] that are considered marathon-length or are up for Approval.

Just going to say that also those things are fairly objective, and not really debatable (yes you argue a few ms here and there for offset, but it is definitely not all based on option). They are required for a good map, but there are plenty of "bad" maps that fit into this criteria as well

Tsuchimikado wrote:

1. There must be a concept to your map of some kind (this is vague for a reason); a map lacking rhythm-based or gameplay-based creative direction will not pass. Also, a map with multiple creative directions that contrast too heavily with each other may not pass.

You are again stating vague things about styling your map consistently to fit the music. This has been an ongoing thing with almost every reply in the thread, and none of you have tried to objectify it. I brought up the QAT because with them, there are obviously some rules to rate 1 map over another and why certain subjective things were not considered "good" while others were.

high readability which is achieved by:
• avoiding overlaps that obscure the rhythm
• grouping objects that belong to the same musical pattern in a way they can be identified as such
• making repititions of sections/musical patterns recognisable by using similar or even identical visual arrangements
     • in the same sense making different sections/musical patterns visually distinguishable from each other
     • finding meaningful variations for musical patterns that repeat really often

rhythmical consistency which is achieved by:
• using a rhythm that focuses on a primary audible element (that is sufficiently consistent in rhythm) within each section to give the player a clear orientation; this ensures the feeling of "tapping to the beat"
• making repititions of sections/musical patterns recognisable by using very similar or even identical rhythms
     • finding meaningful variations for musical patterns that repeat really often by either
           • varying the rhythm but keeping the active taps vital to the element you are following
           • focusing on a different element that is clearly audible instead

expression of intensity which is achieved by:
• choosing appropriate SVs and spacing between sections that reflect the amount of instrumentalisation/volume/density used in the song
• manipulating the cursor movement in a way that gives emphasis to the objects representing the most important moments in the music


could all be wrong though as these theories of mine didnt get my maps anywhere yet

i could be wrong but im getting the impression that blissfulyoshi put me on the ignorelist...

Endaris wrote:

i could be wrong but im getting the impression that blissfulyoshi put me on the ignorelist...

I didn't meant to ignore you, but it is more you didn't answer the question. You provided a bunch of definitions to things ppl said in the thread about what you should pay attention to in a good map, not what defines a good map. A bad map can have all of those things.

Edit: Since a lot of people seem to be struggling at answering my question, let me give you a hint. One of the key counterarguments to most of your stuff is that even while following all of those guidelines while mapping what appeals to you, may not appeal to others. However, we still have "quality" standards.

There is no recipe you can just blindly follow step by step to get a guaranteed good map out of it if that is what you are looking for.

blissfulyoshi wrote:

I didn't meant to ignore you

Just making sure because you already seemingly replied to everyone else but me in this thread.

It is a bit dubious for me then what exactly you mean with "good".
Rankable "good"?
jonathanlfj "good"?
Graces of Heaven "good"?

If it's the former I have to say that - putting aside legacy maps from 2007/2008 - I can't think of a ranked map that doesn't apply what I wrote to a big extent, even the ones I personally dislike for whatever reason. Feel free to give examples that oppose this impression of mine if that's the point of your question.
If not I'm unsure what you're after.

Tshemmp wrote:

There is no recipe you can just blindly follow step by step to get a guaranteed good map out of it if that is what you are looking for.

You already can see from the responses I've given so far that following these various guidelines pointed out in the thread aren't going to make a guaranteed good map. I'm looking for something else entirely.

Endaris wrote:

Just making sure because you already seemingly replied to everyone else but me in this thread.

My apologies. That is my fault. I didn't fully understand your response, and with the amount of responses coming in at the time, I decided it'll be easier to move on. When I'm more motivated, I'll come back to that thread again.

Endaris wrote:

It is a bit dubious for me then what exactly you mean with "good".
Rankable "good"?
jonathanlfj "good"?
Graces of Heaven "good"?

If it's the former I have to say that - putting aside legacy maps from 2007/2008 - I can't think of a ranked map that doesn't apply what I wrote to a big extent, even the ones I personally dislike for whatever reason. Feel free to give examples that oppose this impression of mine if that's the point of your question.
If not I'm unsure what you're after.

Well at least you finally hit 1 key point I was looking for, no matter which map or mapper you're talking about they are questionably good, so can you phrase why? From there, can you phrase what defines a good map?

I purposely gave an open ended prompt because that is usually what some people use to justify a lot of actions in the ranking system and many other systems today. I wanted to see if any of you could see that and come up with the actual answer. (As an aside, this is a simple question that will come in some business or marketing 101 class in some shape or form)

I personally consider good maps to be expressing the song in a structured way while using patterns. A song has various sections inside, and also within an individual section, there are similar parts and some different ones existing. Similar section having a similar mapping concept / different section having a different mapping concept is the basic idea of assessing quality as what I've got for now. In-depth interpretation of the song (such as drum heavy vs vocal heavy) would be different by people, and that's when a preference of a mapper happens imo.

Patterns are mostly an outcome of a combination of mapping techniques. By combining different mapping techniques, a variation could be made from the original pattern, or even create a very different pattern. Telling the difference between 'variation' and 'inconsistency' is one of the common things that mappers seem to be struggling (or not even aware of) in my eyes. Another part which mappers are having trouble is actually applying a mapping technique to create a pattern.

But even if the map has a great aesthetic or good technical usage of pattern itself, if it has a less relation with the song (which is changing mapping concepts variously in the same section of the song), then it won't be good as a map. Only good as an individual pattern.

Playable ideas such as "fun" or "comfortable" are just way too subjective for me to define as good or bad.


and I've actually read the previous posts, and I think the main point of this thread was to be a discussion of 'what patterns are good?'.

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Is a beatmap good when it follows a very strict ds like a old school map vs a jump heavy modern map? There are a bunch of old mappers who think the modern style is terrible, and of course vice versa.

Even among modern maps, there are various styles that are loved by certain audiences, while thought of as random gimmicks by many others.

My view on this is that there is no such better pattern. While terms like "strict ds" or "heavy jump" pretty much falls under a mapping 'concept' rather than a mapping 'technique', still I can say they are at least different. Majority of maps these days are more likely to be the latter, but nothing more than that. They are just different.

Sonnyc wrote:

I personally consider good maps to be expressing the song in a structured way while using patterns. A song has various sections inside, and also within an individual section, there are similar parts and some different ones existing. Similar section having a similar mapping concept / different section having a different mapping concept is the basic idea of assessing quality as what I've got for now. In-depth interpretation of the song (such as drum heavy vs vocal heavy) would be different by people, and that's when a preference of a mapper happens imo.

Patterns are mostly an outcome of a combination of mapping techniques. By combining different mapping techniques, a variation could be made from the original pattern, or even create a very different pattern. Telling the difference between 'variation' and 'inconsistency' is one of the common things that mappers seem to be struggling (or not even aware of) in my eyes. Another part which mappers are having trouble is actually applying a mapping technique to create a pattern.

But even if the map has a great aesthetic or good technical usage of pattern itself, if it has a less relation with the song (which is changing mapping concepts variously in the same section of the song), then it won't be good as a map. Only good as an individual pattern.

Playable ideas such as "fun" or "comfortable" are just way too subjective for me to define as good or bad.


and I've actually read the previous posts, and I think the main point of this thread was to be a discussion of 'what patterns are good?'.

I never wanted it to be a discussion of what patterns are good. People just kept on reciting videos and other sources of logic to justify that as the answer to the question. As I stated before, if you mapped your map in a way that follows logical sense to yourself, but is found to be illogical by 99% of the osu! community, is your map a "good" map?

Sonnyc wrote:

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Is a beatmap good when it follows a very strict ds like a old school map vs a jump heavy modern map? There are a bunch of old mappers who think the modern style is terrible, and of course vice versa.

Even among modern maps, there are various styles that are loved by certain audiences, while thought of as random gimmicks by many others.

My view on this is that there is no such better pattern. While terms like "strict ds" or "heavy jump" pretty much falls under a mapping 'concept' rather than a mapping 'technique', still I can say they are at least different. Majority of maps these days are more likely to be the latter, but nothing more than that. They are just different.

I agree that these are just techniques, but people have vastly different opinions of these techniques. And these vastly different opinions will decide how your map is viewed by others, which plays a major role in modding, ranking, rating, and quite a few other aspects of mapping, regardless of how we like it or not.

blissfulyoshi wrote:

As I stated before, if you mapped your map in a way that follows logical sense to yourself, but is found to be illogical by 99% of the osu! community, is your map a "good" map?

If the community thinks that way, at least one thing is sure. "The mapper's intention wasn't properly delivered." Regardless of objective quality, that is not a good situation to happen imo unless the community members aren't really professional enough in beatmaps. So, my answer to that question would be a no.

Sonnyc wrote:

blissfulyoshi wrote:

As I stated before, if you mapped your map in a way that follows logical sense to yourself, but is found to be illogical by 99% of the osu! community, is your map a "good" map?

If the community thinks that way, at least one thing is sure. "The mapper's intention wasn't properly delivered." Regardless of objective quality, that is not a good situation to happen imo unless the community members aren't really professional enough in beatmaps. So, my answer to that question would be a no.

What if the remaining 1% thought it was the truest interpretation of the song and thought the map was an absolute masterpiece.

Sonnyc wrote:

unless the community members aren't really professional enough in beatmaps.

But I'm not really sure if this will head towards a meaningful discussion when talking only assumptions without any real example regarding this such matter.

blissfulyoshi wrote:

I never wanted it to be a discussion of what patterns are good. People just kept on reciting videos and other sources of logic to justify that as the answer to the question. As I stated before, if you mapped your map in a way that follows logical sense to yourself, but is found to be illogical by 99% of the osu! community, is your map a "good" map?

I'd call it excentric at least. It's also pretty much never the case that I consider a ranked map to be illogical (probably because I spent a lot of my playtime on maps that many people consider odd/gimmicky), more that it collides with my personal opinion on how stuff should be mapped - like mapping a stream over a drum pattern that has enough depth to use a more nuanced approach because I consider streams as fairly boring from a player perspective.
This however almost never keeps me from acknowledging and honoring the thought and technical skill that went into the map and makes it sufficiently good to deserve ranking.

Sonnyc wrote:

Sonnyc wrote:

unless the community members aren't really professional enough in beatmaps.

But I'm not really sure if this will head towards a meaningful discussion when talking only assumptions without any real example regarding this such matter.

Fair enough. Let's take Skystar's Maware. When it came out, it was considered quite nonsensical with the people I talked with (usually #modhelp but there were a few others), but Charles came into #modhelp arguing that is was the greatest map of the year and gave a bunch of reasons about how logical the map was. Obviously, the view of Skystar maps has changed over time, but at that moment of time, it was probably considered a bad map to a majority of the osu! community.

(I didn't want to give specific examples too much because people will start debating about that 1 map instead of the idea of a good map in general, but I hope 1 example won't hurt too much. )

Endaris wrote:

I'd call it excentric at least. It's also pretty much never the case that I consider a ranked map to be illogical (probably because I spent a lot of my playtime on maps that many people consider odd/gimmicky), more that it collides with my personal opinion on how stuff should be mapped - like mapping a stream over a drum pattern that has enough depth to use a more nuanced approach because I consider streams as fairly boring from a player perspective.
This however almost never keeps me from acknowledging and honoring the thought and technical skill that went into the map and makes it sufficiently good to deserve ranking.

I'm glad you're so tolerant and appreciative, but sadly crowds and cliches rarely work like that. People will usually say rate something as better than another competitor for various reasons. However, at the end of the day, the makers of those products usually measure their success in terms of sales, profits, etc. In the business world, if both of them made a profit, are they both good products? Is that the only metric they should look at?

For those still trying to answer my original prompt, you should also note, I never put conditionals in the prompt, nor victory conditions for you to say you arrived at the successful answer. You'll probably need those to reach the actual answer (unless you think you have the perfect solution to please everybody)

blissfulyoshi wrote:

can someone tell me an objective answer as to what constitutes a good beatmap?

Thats not likely to happen since the term "good" is totally subjective... Literally everyone has differenet standards when they say a map is good or not.
The fact that people jumped into answering your question *trap is not going to validate the point that i assume you are trying to say because its already 100% valid.

A good map can be what the people in charge accept as it is/the vast majority of players find fun to play and so on..
It all boils down to how much % of the community knowing about the map say its a good map.

Manysi wrote:

blissfulyoshi wrote:

can someone tell me an objective answer as to what constitutes a good beatmap?

Thats not likely to happen since the term "good" is totally subjective... Literally everyone has differenet standards when they say a map is good or not.
The fact that people jumped into answering your question *trap is not going to validate the point that i assume you are trying to say because its already 100% valid.

A good map can be what the people in charge accept as it is/the vast majority of players find fun to play and so on..
It all boils down to how much % of the community knowing about the map say its a good map.

We already established in the thread that good is subjective and will vary from person to person, unless you're an idealist. However, we have a QAT that decides that some maps are better than others.

Also, I never said that a good beatmap has to appeal to everyone in a community. As Pishifat said in his video, his beatmap of Shelter is probably regarded as less fun by the community than its competitors, but is arguably a better beatmap. Measuring success by how of the community likes your beatmap is a very flawed metric because of the biases of the community and its alignment with a map's goals.

You're getting something wrong there tho.

The QAT has mainly organizational duties. It's the BNG which ensures quality now.
What they choose to qualify is the "community's" opinion, nonetheless the quality standard.


Apart from that, you're just asking for an impossible thing.
Objective reason for which a map is good? Depending on your knowledge or the priorities you set for a map, your opinion will change and so will its quality.
If we were to objectively define what a good map is someone would have already created a software to automatically generate good maps, right?

From a different point of view, "good" might also mean "interesting" and usually something like that is the opposite of something "boring", but something boring can be seen as "something already done".
This chain shows you that even if we were to define a good map, it will become boring as a standard if repeated over time. You'd need to define "good" again.

Just think of an old map that was considered to be good at the time it got ranked and see the opinions you'll receive now.


Idk where this question comes from and why, but I believe it is a question without answer (and my 3 years of mapping are telling me this)

MrSergio wrote:

What they choose to qualify is the "community's" opinion, nonetheless the quality standard.

If this was honestly true, we should rank every map optimizes the amount of pp gained or is just amazingly difficult because they are the most popular maps with the majority of the community. Just look at the most played (No offense to any mapper, but the general trend is maps that give more easy pp will get more plays. Pishi even mentions it in his video that jumpy maps are probably going to be considered more fun maps than something that might fit better).

MrSergio wrote:

Apart from that, you're just asking for an impossible thing.
Objective reason for which a map is good? Depending on your knowledge or the priorities you set for a map, your opinion will change and so will its quality.
If we were to objectively define what a good map is someone would have already created a software to automatically generate good maps, right?

From a different point of view, "good" might also mean "interesting" and usually something like that is the opposite of something "boring", but something boring can be seen as "something already done".
This chain shows you that even if we were to define a good map, it will become boring as a standard if repeated over time. You'd need to define "good" again.

Just think of an old map that was considered to be good at the time it got ranked and see the opinions you'll receive now.


Idk where this question comes from and why, but I believe it is a question without answer (and my 3 years of mapping are telling me this)

When did I ever say I wanted a map that pleases everyone? I just asked a general question that used very vague words, that a lot of people on the forums use to describe beatmaps and mappers in general. However, it was up to the people in the thread to define what these words mean.

Regardless, since this thread is pretty much dead, I might as well talk about the answers I was looking for. So let's start out by pointing out what was discussed so far. Every person will rate a map differently, so as a result, the map's relative relationship to other maps will be different from person to person.

Still, we need to define a condition to say a map is good. To do that, let's look at the various audiences that will rate a map's success. (Going to be using good and success interchangeably from here on out)

First off, we have the mapper. The mapper usually has a reason to map, it could be anything from sharing his/her love of a song to people who also like the song to something like getting the most played map osu!. These 2 reasons are vastly different, but they both have a target audience they can be used as a metric of success. From there the mapper, can apply a number to their goal and define the success of their map.

Similarly, we have the player, who also has a goal. Like the mapper, it could be anything from getting pp, or enjoying a fitting a map for a song. Both reasons can have a numerical value, and that numerical value can be used to define if the map is good enough for the player.

We can repeat this example in a bunch of other cases, like modders, BNs, QAT, but the answers are all quite similar. With that said, we can summarize what was said and create an answer. A good map is a map is a map that reaches it's user defined goal of success.

So while you can say that this exercise accomplished absolutely nothing and pointed out the obvious, you can also apply what was said here in actually useful ways. Back to maps, a good map for a mapper is usually a map that is appreciated by its target audience, which is usually not the whole community, and usually not just the mapper himself/herself. A mapper while not needing to appeal to everyone, does need to put themselves in the shoes of their target audience and get their opinions to make a map that'll accomplish his/her goals.

However, the most important point to bring up is for modders. A map may not necessarily appeal to a modder, so he/she has to keep an open mind about it. However, because there is also the need to balance the various ranking criteria and his/her standards for quality, it may very well be the best option for a modder to skip over a map.

(We can talk about the other applications of the answer, but if you read a basic book on business and project planning, you'll probably learn a lot more than from me)

that comment was meant as "the BN's opinion on the map is considered to be the community's opinion"

I also agree on your definition, although it is so vague that gives me the feeling we resolved nothing with that x)

MrSergio wrote:

that comment was meant as "the BN's opinion on the map is considered to be the community's opinion"

I also agree on your definition, although it is so vague that gives me the feeling we resolved nothing with that x)

Okay, that is fine, as long as we all agree it is the BN's opinion. (Not saying the BN's opinion is wrong, but it is different than the majority of the players)

The point I want to make is that people need to be more aware of defining success of a map. Modders need to be aware that maps with niche appeals can be good maps. On the other hand, maps with mass appeal have a different criteria to be judged by during modding. To be a better modder, modders should be aware of these nuances to better help the mappet. As seen in this topic, way too many people talk about structure and flow like its the end all, be all to mapping. Yet no one really talks about how the structure and flow relates to the map, mapper, and/or goal, which is probably the more important thing.

blissfulyoshi wrote:

tell me an objective answer

nice bite for the another shittalk about the matter

Goodness of a beatmap depends whether it closes the actual needs of the player or not. They may vary from player to player.
If you want to understand for yourself what is currently good for the playerbase majority look into "best of 2016". Alternatively there is MCA or whatever its called that represents part of the vocal minority I guess? oh, and of course there is case by case opinion from #modhelp elities and other shit, tho I doubt anyone have any actual metrics from there.

also

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Not saying the BN's opinion is wrong, but it is different than the majority of the players

huh, where this come from?

A map is good when lots of people play it for pp, and still vote for it in best of 2016.

/me runs