Dont think the amount of favorites needed across different game modes should be normalized as some game modes have smaller / larger player bases. I like the suggested ideas though.
Why do I feel like I am an example of this statement =A=;;LMT wrote:
How about the kudosu thrown in has to be from at least 15-30 different people? It is more representative of "loved" by the community rather than the mapper dumping like 50 on a map (which is not that many), that is more like the mapper being narcissistic towards their own map.
i disagree completely. i think most new mappers don't have something that really fits the idea of the category. it's meant for maps that are loved by the community, but i think most new mappers aren't able to produce a piece that really fits this. the current problem that most people currently have with the category is maps that aren't truly loved are being pushed into loved, so don't you think your ideas are a step in the wrong direction? especially by lowering the requirements, it just makes it easier for someone to gather a few friends together and boost their map to meet the criteria.BeatOfTheDragon wrote:
lots of words
i think you should work to creating something that the community genuinely loves, not work to making something that you can just boost with some friends to meet the category's qualifications.BeatOfTheDragon wrote:
I see Loved status as an objective for mappers who are trying to "stand out" in anyway, but it's hard for the "new to the community"
Agreed, it seems like an easy way out. A way to get the recognition of being ranked but with less effort.Shiirn wrote:
As it stands, a lot of new mappers actually try to aim for Loved rather than Ranked, purely because it's something they can reliably work towards. This is severely fucked up. It is a symptom of a problem both in the Loved requirements and the current motivational/activity issues plaguing the ranking system.
I agree that normal maps shouldn't go into loved, but some people just might not be able to get a map ranked as it sparks controversy. Not that it is unrankable, but because no one thinks it should be ranked.Shiirn wrote:
As it stands, the requirements for Loved are if anything, too generic. Ideally speaking there shouldn't be any maps in Loved that are just "normal maps except the mapper decided to go for loved instead of ranked because BNs are dead".
Again I think this could be more easily fixed by having more BNs. I don't see a downside to having more.Shiirn wrote:
Loved maps, that is to say, maps that the community loves, that are perfectly rankable should be getting ranked just fine. If they aren't, that's the problem that should be fixed - not the threshold of SP or favorites. That's irrelevant.
100% agree with this statement. A separate group of people could be in charge of running the loved section (obviously QAT would still have some power) that are not necessarily great at mapping, but people who know what the community wants. Big problems in maps should be fixed (unless it is intentional) and the Metadata should be correct too.Shiirn wrote:
Add a requirement to Loved that a map must be unrankable for some reason, and have one or two people actually vet these maps to make sure that they actually fit the spirit of the Loved nomenclature.
Shiirn wrote:
Maybe have maps "Apply" for Loved, and have a monthly or weekly vote on however many maps. Reject maps that fail for a month or something.
Shiirn only one with balls to say what's on most peoples' mindsShiirn wrote:
Generally speaking, when the Loved level was originally introduced, it was praised as an attempt to get maps that were otherwise unrankable for a variety of reasons to get a scoreboard.
This is no longer the case. The Loved section has many maps that are otherwise perfectly rankable, either because they are full sets, don't break any rules, or are quite capable of having lower difficulties but don't purely due to laziness.
As it stands, a lot of new mappers actually try to aim for Loved rather than Ranked, purely because it's something they can reliably work towards. This is severely fucked up. It is a symptom of a problem both in the Loved requirements and the current motivational/activity issues plaguing the ranking system.
As it stands, the requirements for Loved are if anything, too generic. Ideally speaking there shouldn't be any maps in Loved that are just "normal maps except the mapper decided to go for loved instead of ranked because BNs are dead".
Right now, Loved is mostly being used as a "last resort" for shitty, lazy, or normal maps that aren't capable of going through the ranked system the normal way. This sounds so antithesis to the entire concept that it's outright silly. Loved maps, that is to say, maps that the community loves, that are perfectly rankable should be getting ranked just fine. If they aren't, that's the problem that should be fixed - not the threshold of SP or favorites. That's irrelevant.
Add a requirement to Loved that a map must be unrankable for some reason, and have one or two people actually vet these maps to make sure that they actually fit the spirit of the Loved nomenclature. "Couldn't find BNs" shouldn't be the reason a large percentage of Loved maps are Loved instead of ranked.
Maybe have maps "Apply" for Loved, and have a monthly or weekly vote on however many maps. Reject maps that fail for a month or something. This is far less important to me; I don't really care. If people can't get their map Loved because not enough people Love it, that's their problem. Not the system's.
I'd rather see Loved maps managed by the QAT through an application process like Shiirn said. Voting system utilized too much of a "this guy is popular so there's a 200% chance we see more of his maps every week in voting" in ctb. Every week it was a new CLSW or Spectator map, which, although they are very good, did not give very much variety to the Loved section as a whole. Having people apply for Loved through a system that's moderated by a team that ensures the set belongs there seems like a much more viable and correct approach to the situation. When it comes to CtB though, I'd rather see 1 good loved map per year than 20 failed ranking attempts. We shouldn't be expecting to have as many loved maps as standard. That's delusional.Sinnoh wrote:
With CtB mindsest, I really don't see any reason why the voting system was done away. Ever since sp/favs was added, there's only been one ctb only set loved. Getting a map loved is just not possible when the minigame is 10x smaller than the others.
Voting system on the other hand was much better. Popular unrankable maps were loved often, old sets with no sp and yet were actually 'loved' by people became loved, those 10* diffs that simply wouldn't pass were loved, and spreads that were high quality and long abandoned were loved.
That + a large majority of the ctb players don't map, and have no kudosu to shoot. Voting is far more engaging for them because they can actually have a say on what they want to see.
tldr should bring back voting for ctb, our playbase is way too small to use the system for the other modes. If that doesn't happen, favs/sp count should really be lowered from it's current number to something reasonable. Imo 15 favourites/30-50 sp. Else we'll be having ~1 loved map per year.
1000 favorites for lovedif you generalize the entire community as "the community" then mappers and modders and like-minded people will be mostly excluded. this became very apparent when loved was first implemented and the voting system turned the loved category into generic jump map category. which, yes, is true to the name "loved," but do we really fucking want that? i dont, you dont, and if you do want that, you shouldn't. there are too many amazing maps rotting away in the graveyard because it's too hard or even impossible to rank them. they deserve a scoreboard.
a kudosu counts as 5 favorites
a single person can shoot only 10-15 kudosu at a map. they can shoot more but anything over 15 won't count towards the 1000.
numbers can be adjusted, the general idea is that a kudosu is like a more heavily weighted favorite and you can't have one or two people carrying the map to loved status via kudosu
Yeah, I agree and have nothing more to add LOLSyph wrote:
Perhaps a bit extreme but some maps look like people's first ever maps, and I don't think those belong there.
also a really good point LOL like 3 weeks ago i purged my favorites to open space and i felt terrible doing it.Yusomi wrote:
This new loved system treats favourites as if they are just freely given out. I think the cap of 100 should be increased, or a new favouriting system is introduced if this new loved system actually happens.
Why not to asuume that you have their permisson to move it to the loved until its proven not. I mean is this really different case from people taking copyrighted songs?Ephemeral wrote:
What if the mapper is inactive or has left the game?
This poses a conundrum. What if a mapper does not consent to having their map deemed "complete" enough to have a scoreboard? What if they do not or never intended the map to have one in the first place?
At what point do we assume the mapper's intentions for the map in this process? Is this something we should consider at all?
I have no answers for these questions. It is a complicated topic, and we have deliberately erred away from adding very dated maps from the most part after this issue was raised VERY early on in the community voting for the first round of Loved.
thisMonstrata wrote:
I would recommend a score system where each map must attain a certain "score" to be eligible for qualification.
Let's say,
1 Favorite = 20 points
1 Star Priority = 10 points
To be eligible for Loved, you must get at least 1000 points.
If the player base loves the map, then they usually express this through favoriting the map.
If the mapping community loves a map, then they usually express this through starring the map.
Combining both favorites and star priority into one score system allows mappers more freedom to get their map Loved. They can either get support from the player base, or they can get support from the mapping community, or a mixture of both. Of course, we can shift points around later, or even logarithmatize the point system to have diminishing returns for # of favourites and # of star priority.
THe current SP system only benefits active modders currently. Not all mappers also mod, actually some of the best mappers don't do a lot of modding at all (see RLC Skystar ProBox handsome etc...) so they rely on the mapping community to promote their stuff. I hope we can find a balance through integrating # of favorites into Loved eligibility, not just Loved requirement. Currently # of favorites is useless above 30, while SP is useless above 100. Removing a dual requirement allows mappers to overlook one area (perhaps # of SP, if the mapper is not a known mapper or modder) through a significantly higher value in another (say # of favorites) and vice versa.
Eraser wrote:
You shouldn't be able to make your own map "loved", that is for somebody else to judge.
If you're unknown then your maps aren't loved and they need to gtfo being viable for the category. Such a stupid argument.Ovoui wrote:
Eraser wrote:
You shouldn't be able to make your own map "loved", that is for somebody else to judge.
I do not agree about this, if you're an unknown mapper, love section is a great way to promote your work.
The use of kudosu was interesting because it forced you to mod a lot to have your beatmap loved. I think it's fair because you get rewarded for helping the beatmapping community.
(encouraging modding is great thing tho).
Yeah sorry, I posted before I finished thinking.Ovoui wrote:
Making great map which deserved to be loved by the community and being unknown is compatible.
I didn't see your edit btw
I definitely think this is an issue that needs to be addressed, especially if from now on having favourites on a map will play a bigger role for the loved section and both mappers and players will be encouraged to do so. I usually rarely favourite maps, and I'm already at 81 favs, considering the enourmous amount of maps which are currently submitted 100 is definitely way too low and I can see it being a problem in the long run for the loved section.Yusomi wrote:
This new loved system treats favourites as if they are just freely given out. I think the cap of 100 should be increased, or a new favouriting system is introduced if this new loved system actually happens.
Based on this and the current state of maps in the loved section I would like to ask everyone advocating changes to the current system, especially those that are aiming to raise the map quality in the section by one way or the other:Ephemeral wrote:
Our thoughts in mind when making Loved were not to introduce a listing that contains high-skill, high-acclaim maps that were otherwise unsuitable for ranking, but rather to provide an alternate method for mappers with content that was widely appreciated regardless of what difficulty level or paradigm it was made under.
I'm not sure that pursuing a return to the same curated voting that started off Loved is particularly helpful - though if there is such a high demand for curated content in that regard, we could look at setting up something else to achieve the same end.
Why exactly wouldn't they want their maps to be loved? Take a look at Charles' skeleton map for example, I'm pretty sure he doesn't mind having that map loved even though he drifted away from the community and game itself. The point of loved (or at least as it was suggested by the community before the category existed) was to give the old, classic graved maps that couldn't be ranked in any way get finally the place they deserved (biggest examples would be Groundhog and deltaMAX, and to be honest I don't think Takuma would've been able to submit it for loved as he's been away for quite some time). It feels a bit unfair that maps like Moskau and Konbini can't get loved because of 1. the current requirements; 2. because their respective mappers are inactive, even though the maps were exactly the reason why the section was created in the first place.Ephemeral wrote:
What if the mapper is inactive or has left the game?
This poses a conundrum. What if a mapper does not consent to having their map deemed "complete" enough to have a scoreboard? What if they do not or never intended the map to have one in the first place?
At what point do we assume the mapper's intentions for the map in this process? Is this something we should consider at all?
I have no answers for these questions. It is a complicated topic, and we have deliberately erred away from adding very dated maps from the most part after this issue was raised VERY early on in the community voting for the first round of Loved.
There are maps that I would love to see in the category, but with their creative directors long vanished from the game (Larto is a good example of this), often times with unclear intent for their creations that are left behind, it will likely remain a very difficult issue to resolve fully.
You had me when you said mapping community but lost me when you said modding community. The modding community works to make the ranked section a thing. If a map is getting heavily modded it should be getting ranked not loved. As others have pointed out a lot of the more acclaimed mappers don't even mod much to begin with and hence do not get any benefit from SP being part of the system.Ephemeral wrote:
the mapping and modding community should have some sort of investment in the system themselves given the work they both undertake to make it a thing in the first place.
As mentioned earlier (and in the OP), the crystallization of their time investment (SP) means very little for actually influencing the ranking cycle at the moment. Beyond preparing maps for Ranked itself, they receive very little in the way of reward for essentially providing the rest of the community with content to enjoy.chainpullz wrote:
You had me when you said mapping community but lost me when you said modding community. The modding community works to make the ranked section a thing. If a map is getting heavily modded it should be getting ranked not loved. As others have pointed out a lot of the more acclaimed mappers don't even mod much to begin with and hence do not get any benefit from SP being part of the system.Ephemeral wrote:
the mapping and modding community should have some sort of investment in the system themselves given the work they both undertake to make it a thing in the first place.
Yes, and that is an issue. With the ranked category. The core of the current issue with the loved category is that we are letting major issues with the ranked category spill into the loved category. There needs to be a line drawn and that is what seems to be getting lost in all this fixation about points/voting.Ephemeral wrote:
As mentioned earlier (and in the OP), the crystallization of their time investment (SP) means very little for actually influencing the ranking cycle at the moment.
ha that's a funny joke good onechainpullz wrote:
Due to the more objective nature of the ranked category and the need for strict rules/guidelines
Ephemeral wrote:
Actually, scratch that. New idea.
Loved as it is currently known, is renamed to Approved. Approved maps follow the SP/favourites criteria outlined earlier - you meet them, you get in. No questions asked.
Guess we'll need to provision for them in the RC, yeah. Another topic entirely I think. Failing that, we can just also make special exceptions for Marathon maps.Okorin wrote:
so marathons will be called marathons or what and just ranked
and approved maps are just that approved via a process
I don't see issue here because if mapper had posted his map on the forums it already belongs to the community in some way. If community loves map and wants to see a leaderboard on specific mapset, mapper is not obliged to actively participate in this process.Ephemeral wrote:
What if the mapper is inactive or has left the game?
This poses a conundrum. What if a mapper does not consent to having their map deemed "complete" enough to have a scoreboard? What if they do not or never intended the map to have one in the first place?
At what point do we assume the mapper's intentions for the map in this process? Is this something we should consider at all?
I have no answers for these questions. It is a complicated topic, and we have deliberately erred away from adding very dated maps from the most part after this issue was raised VERY early on in the community voting for the first round of Loved.
There are maps that I would love to see in the category, but with their creative directors long vanished from the game (Larto is a good example of this), often times with unclear intent for their creations that are left behind, it will likely remain a very difficult issue to resolve fully.
When Rezoons Jump training maps then?Ephemeral wrote:
Time to tidy this up, I think.
The general consensus seems to be that the expectation for the category is to unequivocally support maps that are highly appreciated by the community. By large, it appears that most people do not endorse the ability for mappers to contribute a majority share of the SP requirement via their own kudosu (though people from the modding community do support this as it obviously empowers them).
It also appears that there is large support for a return to the community-based voting to determine at least a nominal number of Loved maps to enter the pool.
I think we can address this by implementing the mode-specific scaling SP/favourites requirement as listed in this post while also imposing a hard limit on the amount of SP that can be contributed by any one user - perhaps something to the order of no greater than a third of total contribution towards the base SP cap. We'll also start holding votes for older maps with inactive or uninvolved mappers that have widespread community support, though the number of maps this will introduce per month will be very limited (2-3) to start with.
So we define "Loved" as attempting to highlight and immortalize maps that deserve attention or are cult classics, but explicitly do not and will not fit the criteria to be ranked. So, what's the best way to accomplish this task while avoiding pitfalls, explits, and controversy such as:Ephemeral wrote:
Over the years, a common complaint with the ranking cycle has been that it is fairly restricted for most people [...] especially if it tailors to a distinctive audience, or seeks to attempt gameplay paradigms that are not allowed by the current Ranking Criteria.
Couldn't agree more. That seems to be the case as to why kudosu is involved - because the staff have failed to incentivize modding properly, so the reward for modding is being shoehorned into this system, to the system's explicit detriment and abuse.burntcedar13 wrote:
we're involving sp because it's actually worthless otherwise [...] the loved section is supposed to be about the community (which is mostly players), not mappers.
Do they know more about fun than the community, or do they know more about rules?melloe wrote:
[the modders] make the maps for you to play and they know more about mapping than the community
Why are the people who focus on making something rankable whether it is fun or not getting an undue say on literally the exact opposite type of mapping category?A severe dunking wrote:
Ephemeral wrote:
I'm not sure I can get behind the idea of removing SP qualification from the system entirely - the modding community should have some sort of investment in the system themselves given the work they both undertake to make it a thing in the first place.chainpullz wrote:
The modding community works to make the ranked section a thing. If a map is getting heavily modded it should be getting ranked not loved.
with 100 SP being thrown by the mapper into their own map, its not relevant for now
- We will regularly be adding maps based on community votes.
This sounds like a good idea except mappers can still shoot 100 stars by themselves to get their maps into the Loved (or Approved) category.Ephemeral wrote:
Actually, scratch that. New idea.
Loved as it is currently known, is renamed to Approved. Approved maps follow the SP/favourites criteria outlined earlier - you meet them, you get in. No questions asked.
Every month, a poll is held based on a selection of highly favourited old maps. At the end of the month, those maps are collated and the winning maps (number yet to be decided, perhaps 6-12) are made into a Spotlight complete with ranking chart and are automatically given the Approved status if they do not already have it.
Mappers/modders get their open scoreboard category, community gets their vote-based, curated content section with scoreboards full of maps proven to be liked by at least a reasonable majority of active and engaged people.
Everybody wins.