i decline mapsets with a lot of diffs are usually very good and take a lot of work to make so why split it when you can have all in 1
xdominik wrote:
It feels like talking to a wall again and again
I've got two questions here. First question, why would you actually limit the difficulty of maps in a hybrid set? That would mean that if you want to have a Hard difficulty of osu!catch in an ENH or EN mapset, you can't. Why not? How are Insane difficulties superior in this case? I don't see any sensible reason behind this, so I'd welcome a good explanation.pishifat wrote:
- Converted difficulties must form a reasonable spread. For example, a mapset with Easy and Normal osu!standard difficulties and an Insane osu!catch difficulty is not permitted. One or more additional difficulties may need to be added to fill the gap.
- Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Hard.
- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
Oh, "at least" sounded as if it was the minimum. Other way around makes sense, thanks.Monstrata wrote:
@Wafu - You can have more than one osu!catch difficulty as far as I'm concerned. The wording was just bad. Probably something like "If you want to add osu!catch difficulties to your mapset, at least one osu!catch difficulty must be included, and this difficulty must be at most an Insane."
I only thought tokyo was questionable with all of the extras in the set. But yeah, thinking about it a bit more, I do agree with you how this rule is limiting creativity. Multiple of mappers interpreting one song differently was an interesting dynamic tokyo brought in for sure.- Yoshimaro - wrote:
What is questionable about the Toyko spread, lol... musical elements are represented as different mapping elements in pretty much every difficulty, ranging from patterning, flow, and even the CS lmfao. Those difficulties are comparable, sure, but not the same at all. Every mapper designed their own landscape of the map, and they each play differently enough to bring new elements to the spread, so what's wrong with that?Californian wrote:
There has been large ranked mapsets out there with reasonable diff spreads (sweet dreams, hitorigoto) and some semi questionable (tokyo).
[*]Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode. The highest difficulty of a game-mode is not required to fit within a reasonable spread, so long as no levels of difficulty are skipped.Regou=
Isn't that diff-number cap thing been highly rejected by the community last year? Why are you guys putting it back to here, only with small modification towards the rule? Osu! is a community-based game, and I believe community's opinion should be taken into serious consideration, but now I just feel like you guys are trying to ignore them.I felt like the topic was out of the minds after the high disagreement in the comunity - guess i was wrong.
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mapset host has to have more mapped objects than the guest difficulty mapper?pishifat wrote:
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding.
No it wouldn't. Think again, what is the difference between a repeatslider and a stream?__Phantomhive__ wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mapset host has to have more mapped objects than the guest difficulty mapper?pishifat wrote:
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding.
e.g.: If the mapset host mapped the Easy and Normal difficulty and the guest difficulty mapper mapped the Extra difficulty of a song that has 1:30min drain time the mapset host would have certainly more mapped drain time but way less mapped objects, so the guest difficulty mapper has actually mapped more.
If spread design is the concern, why not put a condition on mapsets that have more than 7 diffs, the mapper must map the minimal amount to make a spread , basically the host must map a normal a hard themselves, plus what ever insane and extra he decide to map that fits the description of a good spread, and then GDs are treated separately.Endaris wrote:
I think one of the major underlying questions with this is:
What is a spread nowadays?
Back in the days spreads used to have difficulties built on each other, some sort of coherence in the usage of gameplay elements.
Nowadays I don't think that is an actual thing anymore as the majority of sets includes guest difficulties.
Instead of fucking around with a limit of difficulties it would be a lot better if there was a systematical change in how additional difficulties can get on a set.
Picking up this old feature request of Loctav along with something i vaguely recall from the ztrot-drama-thread:
As the traditional "set" is pretty much dead, wouldn't it be nice if it was possible to add difficulties to songs past ranking in a separate process?
That way one could restrict the spread for the ranking of the initial set relatively strictly to ensure a better review phase and get more variety in later through a separate review phase for each difficulty that strives to be added.
At the same time it would possibly reduce the amount of redundant difficulties because unlike in the current process people don't start their GDs at the same time, instead they see what is already there.
Apart from a change in the ranking system itself I don't see a way to properly satisfy both sides of the argument.
uhmm, seems reasonable. but if there is no limit on the set itself, it really does not matter how many diffs are created by the creator... it won't help the set.N0thingSpecial wrote:
If spread design is the concern, why not put a condition on mapsets that have more than 7 diffs, the mapper must map the minimal amount to make a spread , basically the host must map a normal a hard themselves, plus what ever insane and extra he decide to map that fits the description of a good spread, and then GDs are treated separately.
Though unlikely people will like this idea
Glad there is at least one person with sway in the community able to look beyond the meaningless numbers and statistics to bring up the actual issue at hand.Monstrata wrote:
Insanes/Extra's because they allow you a lot more creative freedom
Okay, replied without bringing up stuff about approval. I agree, our views on approval are different, and I don't expect to convince you of mine.Okorin wrote:
at this point it's very clear which points of the draft will need revision lol
Here's my personal opinion on the matter of approval maps, backed up with a bit of data grabbing by Ephemeral:
My one and only issue with approval is that compared to the average map the average 5 minute approval map actually adds way less content targeted towards way fewer people to the game itself.
The average (osu!) mapset across Approved, Loved, Qualified, Ranked mapsets adds 460.4542 seconds of draintime on average to the Ranked section, this translates to 7.6 minutes of content per map across all skill levels whereas Marathons are targeted towards one certain audience only and provide less content than your average map. Already entirely subjective. Here, you're defining content by drain time. What about note density, design, patterning, bpm,
etc... one high quality 6 minute difficulty can in fact hold more content than a 9 minute mapset if you consider the density of easies/normals/hards too, and perhaps those sets are 120 bpm while the approval difficulty is 200 bpm? Measuring "average content" through drain time is already way too vague. Unless you can consider all these factors, its best not to even measure content anyways. There is only so much that numbers can tell us. The only objective thing you can say is that the average approval map has a lower drain time than an average map on osu. Anything else is subjective and prone to data manipulation to serve one's purposes/arguments.
I'm not going to suggest raising the limit because I can predict the deaththreats coming in already, but with this the suggestion to have marathons include more than one diff as mentioned in parts of shad0w1and's suggestions suddenly seems more reasonable than it already was.
i.e. if your set includes one diff above 300 seconds in length it must at least include another diff if its total draintime is <500 seconds or something among the lines to balance out that the minimum requirement for the entire category is at 300 seconds, the average length across approval maps is at 399 (data distribution is hugely uneven towards being at 300 seconds or close with only 80 mapsets being above 400s draintime out of 523 (less than 20%)) seconds and the average length of all sets is 460 seconds for the upside of omitting spread Assuming these statistics are true, doesn't this also show you how many maps will be affected by this rule being implemented? Additionally, doubling the drain time for all these maps between 5-6 minutes (which as you say, accounts for over 80% of all approval maps) will just completely skew the average mapset drain time in the opposite direction. Rather than 80% of these sets being between 5-6 minutes, now you have over 80% of the set being between 10-12 minutes. This is just creating more problems.
the upside to this would be that the entire basis for don't abuse approval limit rule probably could be entirely transformed into a guideline that aims to prevent poorly done extensions as well as mp3 cuts This change is not a result of adopting shadowland's idea, so "the upside to this would be... is entirely misleading. The approval limit rule should be transformed into a guideline because of the community response. Saying "We will shift the rule into a guideline if shadowland's idea is used instead" isn't correct. Rather, it should be "We will shift the rule into a guideline, and consider shadowland's idea as well". Those two are not correlated. Trying to connect them to create a pseudo compromise won't work here.
all the data above is on osu mapsets only btw can rerun numbers for all modes but i think this should be representative anyways
What do you think? So far this is only a rough idea where i asked for data to back up my assumptions
Im not going to say anything about data but I still find this to be a faulty argument, if a song is mapped with an E/N/H/I spread most people who can play the insane will ONLY play the insane, they get less playtime out of this spread than they would get out of a marathon. Total draintime doesn't matter if most people will ignore over half the difficulties on a set.Okorin wrote:
I'm measuring average draintime because it's the amount of time you could possibly play while going through any set and comparing it to the amount of time you would spend on an approval mapset, because the entire basis for the approval rule in its current design is draintime and not mapdesign or map quality or object density or any of the other factors you just used to claim that i'm manipulating data for my own benefit here.
Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode. The highest difficulty of a game-mode is not required to fit within a reasonable spread, so long as no levels of difficulty are skipped.why tho
You are right. when the set gets bigger, it is more likely the creator might accept some new mappers' lower diffs and help them get their first GDs ranked. because it will help balance the spread of lower diffs a bit.SakuraKaminari wrote:
Hey, I'm a pretty shitty noob mapper, but I'm trying my best and would also like to offer my opinion from a standpoint that I don't think has been covered yet.
By limiting the mapset to 8, you're making it much harder for people like me to get GD slots on ranked sets. For example, let's say a new song comes out and a more experienced mapper picks it up and starts creating a set. Sometimes, these mappers are ok with taking a GD from a newer mapper and helping them to make something rankable out of it. This is super important because not only does it allow newer mappers rejected from the academy (like me!) more opportunities to learn about the ranking process and gain mapping exposure, we also learn a lot about mapping, what's rankable and whats not, and usually being modded for rank is more strict and will likely lead to better feedback.
However, under this new system, it's even more unlikely that stuff like this will happen. This is already a big headache for the more experienced mapper, as they will have to put lots of time into helping them create something rankable and have to ensure it's up to quality standards. However, with 8 difficulties, mappers are even less likely to do so because sets will fill up, and who wants a new mapper who's gonna be a headache anyway taking up precious slots when all your friends want to make GDs for that hot new song?
Now, I'm not saying that I'm good enough to create a rankable GD (I'm not), and I don't think I expressed myself very eloquently, but this cap will make mapping even more clique-y than it already is.
I also agree with what's already been said about how bad it is to limit the spread anyway, but I thought this wasn't a perspective seen yet so I wanted to write this.
Thank you for your time.
Monstrata also seconded this over in-game chat. I really hope okorin sees this, as it's important to me and others have agreed.Shad0w1and wrote:
You are right. when the set gets bigger, it is more likely the creator might accept some new mappers' lower diffs and help them get their first GDs ranked. because it will help balance the spread of lower diffs a bit.SakuraKaminari wrote:
Hey, I'm a pretty shitty noob mapper, but I'm trying my best and would also like to offer my opinion from a standpoint that I don't think has been covered yet.
By limiting the mapset to 8, you're making it much harder for people like me to get GD slots on ranked sets. For example, let's say a new song comes out and a more experienced mapper picks it up and starts creating a set. Sometimes, these mappers are ok with taking a GD from a newer mapper and helping them to make something rankable out of it. This is super important because not only does it allow newer mappers rejected from the academy (like me!) more opportunities to learn about the ranking process and gain mapping exposure, we also learn a lot about mapping, what's rankable and whats not, and usually being modded for rank is more strict and will likely lead to better feedback.
However, under this new system, it's even more unlikely that stuff like this will happen. This is already a big headache for the more experienced mapper, as they will have to put lots of time into helping them create something rankable and have to ensure it's up to quality standards. However, with 8 difficulties, mappers are even less likely to do so because sets will fill up, and who wants a new mapper who's gonna be a headache anyway taking up precious slots when all your friends want to make GDs for that hot new song?
Now, I'm not saying that I'm good enough to create a rankable GD (I'm not), and I don't think I expressed myself very eloquently, but this cap will make mapping even more clique-y than it already is.
I also agree with what's already been said about how bad it is to limit the spread anyway, but I thought this wasn't a perspective seen yet so I wanted to write this.
Thank you for your time.
You say that 6 minute songs do not require 2 diffs... but 5 minute songs do? Just clarifying what you think a cut-off length is for single-diff approval.Shad0w1and wrote:
Amaikai's point is similar to what I said. But just one thing, you have to consider GDs will greatly help the workload. And the effort on easy is not equal to extra. Therefore I do not support that 6 min you have to make 2 diffs. But in my proposal, it only requires 2 diff when there has not been a ranked Insane. As we know that insane serves the biggest player group in the game. Also I suggest when we consider the approval set, we might consider the ranked sets' spread. If there has been a ranked Insane app, then it does not really matter if you make another insane to meet 2 diff spread. One extra should be enough.