Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
Seijiro
osu! Alumni
3,438 posts
Joined April 2013
Seijiro

SakuraKaminari wrote:

Let me answer you question with a question, why map an extra at all? Why map any content beyond the first two difficulties? It's not necessary for rank.
As the name implies, the "extra" difficulty is an addition. An addition for when your Insane is not using the entirety of the song and you can still make something different out of it.
I am not referring to stupid Extra diffs that just take an Insane rhythm and overspace it to reach a different SR (I could make plenty of examples here, but let's not be assholes and publicly say which mappers suck in this regard, shall we?).
As for the other diffs aside from the two required by RC I can say that just two diffs would make a too large spread on most modern songs, if that was the point of the question.

The whole problem lies in the mentality of what a spread is and how it should work.
Right now it is seen as a playground, where all the kids gather and play together and you obviously think "why shouldn't I be allowed to join too?"

As I see it instead, it is more of a business-like sort of thing. Ranked maps are representing the "official" content of the game and I would like to ask you how many games you see out there giving the player a shitton of redundant content?
Maybe the word "business" is a bit too much and can make other arguments start even if there is no need for it, but it is a way to say that the current mentality is too lax and easy-going.
It is a game, I know, but the official part of the game is still something serious. No one says you can't map anyway and upload your stuff, it just doesn't belong to the "official" part of it (if really mapping is all what you want, but we know mappers don't map just for the "pleasure" of mapping, right?)

Going back to my example with all those Extra diffs...
Those diffs shouldn't even be used for new spreads, considering they do not provide that much variation from the main and first spread, so no, making more spreads is not what I was implying.
I was implying that instead they could map another song. I'm pretty sure every mapper has quite a few songs they want to map (I do too) and the fact that someone is already mapping that in a similar-enough-way to your mapping should be enough to make you prioritize other songs, instead of jumping on the latest anime hype train and do the same stuff other 2346200920356 mappers could do.


SakuraKaminari wrote:

Why would you turn down having more ranked quality content for players to enjoy?
"Quality"?
Is "more diffs" quality for you?

As I said above, the mentality is off here imo. There has been discussion about this in the thread and it all boils down to "if I want more quality content why are those GDers not making a spread? It would mean more content, right?" so let's not go again at it.



I can't help it but to imagine how this situation would turn out in the real world...
What if you were... let's say a designer or an artist or even just anything involving creativity.
What are the chances that a well known or even just a normal agency dealing with your field of interest would take you in? And based on what requirements?

Take a book: what are the chances you will read a book similar (as in, almost identical) to one you just read?
What are the chances the publisher would even want such a title to begin with if it was already done by someone else before?

osu! is not such a business and this might taking it too far, but in real life creators are bound to make NEW things, not replicating endlessly already done stuff, otherwise they won't sell anything. They won't gain anything, which is in fact what happens when I see a new ranked map with a shitton of diffs.
If we exclude the style the main spread could have (let's not open another can of worms since even here we might say that a lot of maps are too similar, even tho the song changes) what I usually do is opening the first diff, look at it till the end, then open a second one look at the first 30 seconds and noticing no apparent difference I simply delete the map.
You may argue "why don't you look to the entire thing?", but that is because in the past year I haven't seen such revolutions nor surprises, so I just assume the rest would be similar. Don't get me wrong, I do give a chance to every diff, but 30 secs in and you can already see what is going on.

If you as a mapper even have a pride you'll probably not like to have your creation treated as a disposable object, right?
Apparently not many mappers have such pride tho, so yeah... keep going guys! We need more quality content!


Shad0w1and wrote:

SakuraKaminari wrote:

Now we have 6 dupes all being speedranked against each other!
!!!!
Truly great, huh?
Who have guessed that people doesn't even look around them to notice they are not contributing as much as they imagined

Mapping is free for everyone, but ranking is a privilege for the most notable maps, not a right for any "decent map" out there


@Shadowland
Your proposal is just promoting more idiotic sets, since the only thing I need to do is adding enough diffs to make it so all the diffs become "allowed"

I have 5 extra diffs, which means I need a total of 15 diffs and there we go, problem solved, right? 5 is 1/3 of 15 so...
My question is once again WHY all those diffs need to be there to begin with, assuming they will most likely use similar rhythms and mapping techniques?
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
@Sergio - Why are there 2309402394 different coffee shops that sell more or less the same thing? Why are there 230920384 restaurants that all sell different variations of the same burger, fries etc...?

Actually it's your view that's very short-sighted. Additional difficulties are there not just for variety, but just for more options. You really need to examine maps more closely if you think they all follow the same "flow/rhythms/mapping techniques" because that's just a really poor analysis. I can agree that it's not necessary to add these difficulties. But I don't believe we need to remove them in any degree. As well, this is the view of the majority of the community looking through this thread, so this is very unlikely to change. You don't get to decide what another mapper wants to map. If they want to GD for a set that already has 15 difficulties, the only person who should be stopping them is the host of the set.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,558 posts
Joined March 2009
CXu

MrSergio wrote:

As the name implies, the "extra" difficulty is an addition. An addition for when your Insane is not using the entirety of the song and you can still make something different out of it.
I am not referring to stupid Extra diffs that just take an Insane rhythm and overspace it to reach a different SR (I could make plenty of examples here, but let's not be assholes and publicly say which mappers suck in this regard, shall we?).
As for the other diffs aside from the two required by RC I can say that just two diffs would make a too large spread on most modern songs, if that was the point of the question.
First and foremost, the actual difficulty name is supposed to be Expert, not Extra. As far as I know Extra comes from Touhou similar to how Lunatic is from there. Secondly, I could say the same for a lot of insanes having the same rhythm as hards as well, just with bigger spacing and notes instead of sliders to reach a different SR. Why not remove all insane diffs as well, and just go with easy, normal, hard? The answer is because there is more to osu! as a game than only the rhythm. If it were all about rhythm, we wouldn't have a 2D plane to move a cursor on, so arguing that it's "the same but overspaced" is stupid anyway, since the whole point of osu! is that you can change the arrangement of things visually and not necessarily change the underlying rhythm. Oh, and what's "overspaced" and what isn't is already subjectively dependent on your current skill level anyway, so it makes total sense to change the spacing depending on what target audience the difficulty is meant for.

The whole problem lies in the mentality of what a spread is and how it should work.
Right now it is seen as a playground, where all the kids gather and play together and you obviously think "why shouldn't I be allowed to join too?"
The "problem", so to speak, is that some people think there is only one way a "spread" can work, and that any other interpretation of what a spread is is wrong.


As I see it instead, it is more of a business-like sort of thing. Ranked maps are representing the "official" content of the game and I would like to ask you how many games you see out there giving the player a shitton of redundant content?
Maybe the word "business" is a bit too much and can make other arguments start even if there is no need for it, but it is a way to say that the current mentality is too lax and easy-going.
It is a game, I know, but the official part of the game is still something serious. No one says you can't map anyway and upload your stuff, it just doesn't belong to the "official" part of it (if really mapping is all what you want, but we know mappers don't map just for the "pleasure" of mapping, right?)
Free content created by the community, for the community. If you don't see the difference between that and the official content of other, commercial rhythm games are, then you should take some time and think about it. Yes, you can map anyway and upload things, and some people do that too, but that's also completely irrelevant to the ruling. You could say "you can do x anyway" to any stupid rule. If tomorrow any maps with sliders are unrankable, I could just reply "you can map maps with sliders anyway, if mapping is all you want", but it's not an argument to keep the rule.


Going back to my example with all those Extra diffs...
Those diffs shouldn't even be used for new spreads, considering they do not provide that much variation from the main and first spread, so no, making more spreads is not what I was implying.
I was implying that instead they could map another song. I'm pretty sure every mapper has quite a few songs they want to map (I do too) and the fact that someone is already mapping that in a similar-enough-way to your mapping should be enough to make you prioritize other songs, instead of jumping on the latest anime hype train and do the same stuff other 2346200920356 mappers could do.
"Is enough for me to decide to prioritize other songs, and I definitely should not speak for everyone else nor force my own viewpoint onto others." Unfortunately, what is enough for you to prioritize other songs is also pretty much not relevant. All it means is that the rule doesn't affect you personally. Yet because it doesn't, you believe it also shouldn't affect other people.



"Quality"?
Is "more diffs" quality for you?
Is "less diffs" quality for you? The quantity of maps has nothing to do with the quality of maps. A mapset could have the best 3 difficulties in existence, and it could have the best 15 difficulties in existence. But if less difficulties are mapped, there will both be high quality and low quality maps that could have existed, but don't. Maybe you can argue that it is worth losing some high quality maps because you reduce the number of low quality ones, but in my opinion there's merit to keeping both, as quality is subjective to an extent.


As I said above, the mentality is off here imo. There has been discussion about this in the thread and it all boils down to "if I want more quality content why are those GDers not making a spread? It would mean more content, right?" so let's not go again at it.
I don't understand your quote. No one is saying that. Rather, they're saying the opposite. GDers being forced to create their own spread will very likely either put together some rushed spread, or just abandon the map. Neither results in more quality content, and one of them reduces it, if said GD was a good map in the first place.


I can't help it but to imagine how this situation would turn out in the real world...
What if you were... let's say a designer or an artist or even just anything involving creativity.
What are the chances that a well known or even just a normal agency dealing with your field of interest would take you in? And based on what requirements?

Take a book: what are the chances you will read a book similar (as in, almost identical) to one you just read?
What are the chances the publisher would even want such a title to begin with if it was already done by someone else before?
Not... too low probably. If you haven't noticed, a lot of things are very similar to each other, because they feature popular themes, story structures, ideas and whatnot. Of course some parts of the book has changed; maybe the setting, or the characters, but so are maps. If you really think almost all of these expert difficulties are just copy-pasted maps, then you should take a better look. Similar? Sure, but remember that differences in mapping is not only in rhythm, but also in placement. If you don't agree with this, then any slight variation in rhythm should also be deemed as "identical", and no song should ever have more than 1 map. And obviously that's not how it works.


osu! is not such a business and this might taking it too far, but in real life creators are bound to make NEW things, not replicating endlessly already done stuff, otherwise they won't sell anything. They won't gain anything, which is in fact what happens when I see a new ranked map with a shitton of diffs.
If we exclude the style the main spread could have (let's not open another can of worms since even here we might say that a lot of maps are too similar, even tho the song changes) what I usually do is opening the first diff, look at it till the end, then open a second one look at the first 30 seconds and noticing no apparent difference I simply delete the map.
You may argue "why don't you look to the entire thing?", but that is because in the past year I haven't seen such revolutions nor surprises, so I just assume the rest would be similar. Don't get me wrong, I do give a chance to every diff, but 30 secs in and you can already see what is going on.

If you as a mapper even have a pride you'll probably not like to have your creation treated as a disposable object, right?
Apparently not many mappers have such pride tho, so yeah... keep going guys! We need more quality content!
I don't see why there is a need to be passive aggressive with this. So first, what does pride have anything to do with a rule? It doesn't concern you nor the ruleset what motivations or "pride" a mapper has. If their creation is treated as a disposable object is a problem in the first place, then you and people who think similarly is the problem, no? Since you are unwilling to look at the mapping, and rather just lump everything under "same", and call it a day.

Second, the ranking system is supposed to judge the map, not the mapper. That's your view on pride. Other mappers have other things they pride themselves in. Some might find pride in being able to copy/imitate a lot of different mapping styles, others might find pride in their hitsounding ability. But in the end, what does that have anything to do with the amount of difficulties that should be allowed in a set? Nothing.




Truly great, huh?
Who have guessed that people doesn't even look around them to notice they are not contributing as much as they imagined
Which is better than contributing nothing. There is a small minority that will enjoy one of the duplicates more than all the others. These restrictions make that small minority enjoy the game slightly less, while it's the same either way for every other player. I wonder which is the better result?

Mapping is free for everyone, but ranking is a privilege for the most notable maps, not a right for any "decent map" out there
Yes, and notable maps again have nothing to do with the amount of difficulties on said mapset. It's irrelevant. Also I generally dislike people who throw this around all the time. Yes, not every map can get ranked, and everyone understands that. No one is arguing otherwise; they're arguing about a specific part of an arbitrary rule limiting the amount of difficulties in a mapset that is going for said "privilege". Take the example of no slider maps again, and I could very much throw this phrase out again, and it would still be just as irrelevant as it is now.


@Shadowland
Your proposal is just promoting more idiotic sets, since the only thing I need to do is adding enough diffs to make it so all the diffs become "allowed"

I have 5 extra diffs, which means I need a total of 15 diffs and there we go, problem solved, right? 5 is 1/3 of 15 so...
My question is once again WHY all those diffs need to be there to begin with, assuming they will most likely use similar rhythms and mapping techniques?
You're asking the wrong question. Why not? The main argument to restrict it seem to be someone's own opinion/interpretation of what a spread should be, how all mappers should have the exact same values and motivations (which is ironic since people thinking alike would more likely result in similar maps as well) and nothing that really says anything about how a map benefits from this, which is what the ranking criteria should be concerned about.
emilia
893 posts
Joined October 2012
emilia
caught wind of this from somewhere so i decided to dump my thoughts to someone in discord. highly unstructured but i will definitely be getting back to the insane amount of stupidity emanating from the posts i'm seeing here from some staff

the main point i'm tackling here is the 8 diff limitation

its like
imagine uhh
someone like
maybe monstrata
maps a set
and then xexxar, sotarks, kalibe, pentori, fycho, slayed, kencho etc. (in other words all pp mappers) all wanna contribute an extra
from a NHI spread maybe it turns into NHIXXXXXXXXXXX
and its not "quality" because its not necesssary
which is very dumb, because without pp osu wouldnt really be surviving
if there was no ranking system to segregate players or to tell them their standing
theres no need to play osu
especially not to a competitive level
and quitting would be much easier
which is 1 thing
hes simply restricting pp influx
secondly though
hes entirely restricting sets for good mappers whove just lost inspiration for ranking
i.e. handsome, byfar, probox, skystar, nathan, 0108, etc. (in other words all mappers who are just too lazy but map really well in the community's standards)
if they wanna contribute extras or insanes
it still makes the set a ENHIXXXXXXXXX
but this will no longer be allowed
which is why the idea of "mapping for loved" is condoned
because at this point people are way too lazy to go for ranked
theres no reason to, because mappers dont CARE about pp output
they'd just wanna see people play their map and be happy they did
so the "mapping for loved" phenomenon actually derived from strict BNs
which i've stated on twitter before
if the rules are only gonna get more fucked and convoluted
thered be less incentive for people to map for ranked at all

more to come TBC
Wriothesley
266 posts
Joined June 2014
Wriothesley

Okorin wrote:

because the amount of "just players" outweighs the amount of people producing content for them by a really large margin? the very vast majority of people never touches the editor and just plays this game? mappers create content for players so suggesting workload reductions based on length while sacrificing accessibility for people seems contradictory given that we as mappers are a very vocal minority of this game lol
Is your goal to ensure that no one ever tries to get into mapping and only plays? You just admitted mapping is already extremely difficult for newcomers. If you make it even harder, there's gonna be that many less new mappers.

Okorin wrote:

Oh god. I didn't talk about your point because it's been an exhaustingly long discussion about this stuff up until now and you were just opening the same thing again which i've talked about already? I was giving examples as to why having more lose spread requirements which people suggested is a pretty lol idea in the big picture.

You were talking about something different than what i was trying to say hence i didn't address your post because it had very little relevance to the point i was making
I brought up a completely new point about how it scares off newcomers. That's an important discussion to be had, even if it wasn't what was being talked about at the time.

-------------------


MrSergio, I'd respond to what you said but CXu did it more effectively than I'll ever to be able to. Thank you CXu.
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,911 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoratu
I feel like you missed the part where i said that the 8 diff limit thing will need revision anyways in one form or another
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
The 8 diff limit will definitely need revision so lets discuss that more here. We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely. I'm wondering how people feel about keeping it as a guideline, versus just abandoning it entirely.

Lets remember what a guideline is defined as: "Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation."

One of the big issues that guidelines pose are "what qualifies as an exceptional circumstance?" and "what exhaustive explanation would warrant breaking the guideline?" Basically "how much freedom of control should mappers have in creating large sets, if the rule became a guideline?"

I've already expressed my views earlier so it would be nice if some other people gave their opinions too.
xxdeathx
2,661 posts
Joined July 2013
xxdeathx
The only revision the 8 diff rule needs is complete removal from the ranking criteria for the reasons repeatedly discussed in this thread.
Nakano Itsuki
1,218 posts
Joined July 2014
Nakano Itsuki

MrSergio wrote:

You guys should prioritize diversity of songs instead of wasting your time on making memes...
While I'll agree that some big sets are indeed memes, the 8 diff rule would kill some good sets with good diffs in them by some people who aren't just using "big set" as a joke and providing actual content.
Allow me to provide examples:

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/333139
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/849477&m=0
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/586889
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/568693

As I see it, although some maps may seem similar at times, different mappers still have different styles and the way they play are still distinctively different from each other. I wouldn't call a map "overall" similar to another in most of the cases.
I have also yet to see a convincing reason why "a lot of diffs in a spread" is detrimental to the game. CXu and monstrata already mentioned stuff that I want to mention though so I'll not go over them again.

edit: I know that these examples might have been used over and over again, but still posting them out in one go just to say that the rule would sacrifice actual sets like these.
Wriothesley
266 posts
Joined June 2014
Wriothesley

xxdeathx wrote:

The only revision the 8 diff rule needs is complete removal from the ranking criteria for the reasons repeatedly discussed in this thread.
this

if the board doesn't listen to 14 pages of posts all saying the same complaints and asking for it to be did away with, they're disconnected from the community and should be restructured or disbanded entirely.
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
A guideline seems like the best approach. That way, it allows for circumstances like spread requirements (snow drive anyone?) or unique ideas (can do would be the easiest example) while also working against someone sticking 10 fairly identical insanes / extras on their set because all their friends asked to gd and they didn't want to refuse.

I still think that regulating this at the ranking criteria level is pretty stupid. If the concern is that big sets cause bn fatigue / yolo bubbling (which I disagree with anyway) then the limit should be placed on drain time in a set, not on the amount of diffs in a set. An eight diff 3 minute map has significantly more drain time (= more fatigue or whatever) than a 10 diff tv size set, but one of those is allowed and the other isn't.

Basically, if you guys (@oko/pishi/zexy/etc) insist on forcing this clearly unwanted proposal through, then making it a guideline is the best way to meet both goals - to stop massive sets which cause "modder fatigue" or whatever stupid thing you want to call it, while still allowing several unique interpretations of a song on one set.
Amaikai
70 posts
Joined September 2014
Amaikai
[Shad0w1and]
But just one thing, you have to consider GDs will greatly help the workload. And the effort on easy is not equal to extra.
* GD adds workload to modders and already overworking BN's.
* Thats correct, harder difficulties require more effort to create and mod.

[Okorin]
in the long run lowering spread requirements for sets further and further will only prove to be detrimental to especially new players getting into the game, there's a constant supply of new music to be mapped as well as old music to take from so denying someone that is just getting into osu to play their favourite song because you think insanes / extras / hards are more important than complete entry level content is just going to disappoint the new people getting into the game.

This content does become redundant for people as their skill increases but it remains a necessity for getting people to that level - just claiming that entry level content to the game is redundant will just make it harder to get into the game to begin with in the long run. Even if people just browse the recently ranked mapset list without understanding what it actually displays they will just search for songs they like from their favourite new anime opening or pick at random from a list they find somewhere.

* Personally I cannot relate to looking for specific songs you like outside the game at all. When it comes to ranked sets, songs I know are either mapped in 2008-2010 era or they are in approval category which are usually extras. Forced easy/normal difficulties gave me no merits, and personally, I moved on to hards in less than a week. Because of that I have extremely hard time thinking of justification to FORCE production of entry-level content which is gonna become unplayable to majority of players later on. I'm not entirely againts producing entry-level content, im againts producing such content by a RULE.
* And what about existing players? Mappers/modders/Bns are very much in minority in osu community and they have finite amount of time to spend. You want to force certain amount of this time towards another minority, entry-level skill. What about other side of spectrum, extremely highly skilled players? Currently to make content for highly skilled players, you need to support every lower tier of skill which can add up to staggering amounts of work needed to get ranked set with content for highly skilled players. Exception to this is approval category, which tends to be catered towards these highly skilled players.
* Main argument for approval category is related to workload, it adds up unreasonable amount of work to mapper. How much is unreasonable is up to debate but there is still a point where you can't expect mapper to put x amount of work into mapset to get it ranked. Why this ideology is applied only to songs above 5minute but workload spread across multiple difficulties is ignored? Especially in case of 3-4minute maps (first post showcases this).

[Several people about multiple extras]
* What's wrong with having multiple interpretation about the song on same set? I am in understanding that main argument of linear spread is so that "mapset will reach wider audience and players of all skill levels can enjoy the song". I fail to see how having more UNIQUE content to specific skill tier is harmful to players at all. When it comes higher tiers of skill people usually develop their own tastes to maps, some like streams and other like jumpy maps, some hate skystar and some love triangles. Because of taste in maps comes to play on higher difficulties why it would be harmful to cater to wider audience by providing different style of map even within same skill range?
* Above is bit more about players point of view since like I mentioned earlier, each additional difficulty scales the workload for mapper but moreso for modders and BNs.

[MrSergio]
As the name implies, the "extra" difficulty is an addition. An addition for when your Insane is not using the entirety of the song and you can still make something different out of it.
* Like CXu mentioned, officially it is expert for "highest difficulty tier". Extra is just naming convention for such content so using name as argument is just plain wrong.

As I see it instead, it is more of a business-like sort of thing. Ranked maps are representing the "official" content of the game and I would like to ask you how many games you see out there giving the player a shitton of redundant content?
* There is difference in how official actual and proper game COMPANY provides content to make money and people doing volunteer work for content, closest example would be modding on some games and oh boy, there is lot of variety in content on that aspect. What feels like redundant content to you, might be precisely what someone else wants.
* Although, I do agree that filler difficulties with low quality and originality to fill spread are pointless.


TL;DR;
* Lowest required difficulty should be revised.
* That spread was more of an example to showcase how unbalanced workload is between 2minute, 4minute and 6minute song. Yes it is disregarding actual difficulty but main point was about song length since it is something tangible. Gist is: 3-4minute songs would benefit greatly from having seperate criteria for acceptable spread to keep workload for mapper/modders/BNs in reasonable levels. Maps of that length in RANKED are in minority and I firmly believe it is because of spread rule demotivating mappers to try going for rank.
* This also applies to content for highly skilled players. Spread rule adds unreasonable amounts of workload into mapset to get it ranked when difficulty gets high enough.

- And a question actually, are there plans to introduce more "official" tiers for difficulty? Current difficulty tiers are pretty dated and relevant only up to 2013ish. After 2013 we started getting more 6* maps and nowadays even 7* maps aren't that rare.

EDIT: I should prolly mention the 2 difficulties for 6minute map was thought with specific case of the single difficulty being 8* and inaccessable to 99.99% of players. Having additional insane/expert difficulty would be pretty cool in that single case.
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,911 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoratu
entry level content is required to get into the game, no idea why you're arguing that point if you agree with it in your first sentence. not everyone moves on to hards and insanes within a week, some people spend months on that or never get into the more competetive side of things at all (aka casuals), just seems unfair to lower the bar further given your arguments, because you rank more skilled players as more important to the game and its continued existence whereas more skilled players usually fade out of the game after some time and the supply of new people is what keeps this game alive and going.

That your specific music tastes were popular mapping choices in 2008 to 2010 doesn't change that someone else who just starts out might like more recent music or a mix of both and just not requiring beginner content to be made for this game only harms the next generation of top players that tilt out of the game before getting into it just because their favourite music doesnt feature any difficulties they can play at all.

I have no idea how to address your second point because it somewhat contradicts yourself stsating that harder difficulties require more effort to create and mod and then concluding from that that they should require less effort to assure quality and rankability from that. Seems contradictory given that you seem to agree that having high tier difficulties in your set in a rankable state should require more effort lol

The approval category existed for maps that would otherwise break the score ranking to be able to get a leaderboard, it used to give no ranked score (primary ranking at the time) - seems familiar to loved in current times - and was kept in place with a time limit instead after the introduction of pp as the primary ranking algorithm

the category was, to my knowledge, not intended for any of what is in it right now, but continuously morphed into what people now believe it stands for at the moment
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn
I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,558 posts
Joined March 2009
CXu
@Okorin: You talk as if lowering the bar will remove the existence of easy diffs entirely, but as the bar has been lowered plenty of times before, we've seen that there is still a healthy amount of low level difficulties being mapped and ranked today. Even if the bar were to be lowered (although some of us aren't necessarily asking the bar to be lowered specifically), there's no evidence to suggest that there suddenly wouldn't be low level content for new players to enjoy. If anyone wants to map a full spread for a 5 minute song right now, they're still doing it. And anyone who doesn't want to map a full spread for a 4 minute song they like is still not going to do it if we don't lower the bar, although they might consider it if the bar was lowered.

In any case, I'm not in support to lower it to something like 4 minutes = 1 diff. I do think there's merit in looking into a more gradual approach though, as the cut-off we have now is firstly pretty arbitrary, and secondly also very sharp in terms of workload on songs that barely makes the cut, and those that barely don't. This is the main reason to why people feel the need to do the mp3 edits in the first place, most likely. If the difference was 1 difficulty, for example, it's not as daunting to fulfill than 4 other difficulties. So something like shadowland's proposal or a variation sounds like a good idea to me. Hell, it might even make more sense to limit 1 diff maps to 6 or 10 minutes or whatever you want, if you think we should promote more accessibility in general, but that can be discussed further.
ErunamoJAZZ
osu! Alumni
2,693 posts
Joined August 2012
ErunamoJAZZ
omg, this thread is very log now xD

A reason that I think of make a guideline to limit the amount of diff, is to guide to new(or not too new) mappers... basically, a big mapset have very low possibilities to be ranked. Naturally, those will be never be ranked in most of cases (for obvious reasons).
In the same way that guidelines say "use the same spacing in low diffs", this will say "avoid big mapset, because they are painful to rank".

I personally don't care about this proposal... I think not many sets will be affected at end, and anyway only people in big sets are crying for this xD


So... I ask: can QAT take any conclusion soon?


Edit: ok, I really dont stalked all people here. Sorry.
Last edited by ErunamoJAZZ , edited 1 time in total.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu

ErunamoJAZZ wrote:

only people in big sets are crying for this xD
that's not true, most of people here aren't part of big sets. It's just that the 8 diffs limit don't do any good.
Amaikai
70 posts
Joined September 2014
Amaikai

Okorin wrote:

entry level content is required to get into the game, no idea why you're arguing that point if you agree with it in your first sentence. not everyone moves on to hards and insanes within a week, some people spend months on that or never get into the more competetive side of things at all (aka casuals), just seems unfair to lower the bar further given your arguments, because you rank more skilled players as more important to the game and its continued existence whereas more skilled players usually fade out of the game after some time and the supply of new people is what keeps this game alive and going.
* I'm not ranking more skilled players as more important, I was just wondering why so much focus is given to new players SPEFICIALLY and there weren't any argument about making it easier to provide more content to higher skill level players. And restating this: I'm againts FORCING and not OPTIONAL creation of content for new players. Rule is effectively forcing, instead of providing some other type of incentive to create content for entry-level players. You know, only stick is used without carrot. Maybe I didn't state that clearly enough earlier.
* Can't argue againts need for flow of new players but I think it currently it comes at expense of less content for existing players(the workload arguments), which might give experienced players more incentives to quit.

Okorin wrote:

That your specific music tastes were popular mapping choices in 2008 to 2010 doesn't change that someone else who just starts out might like more recent music or a mix of both and just not requiring beginner content to be made for this game only harms the next generation of top players that tilt out of the game before getting into it just because their favourite music doesnt feature any difficulties they can play at all.
* That's correct. But keep in mind I didn't find any maps for songs I liked earlier during my initial days and I went through the horror story you are advertising despite the spread rule existing. Just mentioning it isn't some omnipotent thing that guarantees you have content for your skill level. [E] Specifically: maps of songs you already knew.
* Also, while I didn't find maps for songs I knew, I did find new songs I enjoyed through the game. There is always THAT aspect even if no maps below extra were being mapped. Older songs and maps don't just become irrelevant, they already exist in the game and I see that there is already enough existing entry-level content for new players to enjoy that FORCING creation of more is waste of time.

Okorin wrote:

I have no idea how to address your second point because it somewhat contradicts yourself stsating that harder difficulties require more effort to create and mod and then concluding from that that they should require less effort to assure quality and rankability from that. Seems contradictory given that you seem to agree that having high tier difficulties in your set in a rankable state should require more effort lol
* I never argued about higher, more complex difficulties requiring LESS modding and LESS work towards them, the opposite. I'm arguing how total workload on mapset could be invested better by reducing minimium difficulty required on mapset AND by reducing "filler" difficulties to allow better focusing of the workload to less difficulties. I'm arguing about making total workload required to rank a map more reasonable, not lowering quality/effort requirement for individual difficulty. And I'm arguing SPECIFICALLY on maps of 3-4 mins length where total song length to map scales up a lot more (example on first post on how badly it scales).
* Now the downside of course is that there is bigger skillcap required to play the bottom difficulty of set (which I think is too low to begin with) and less content for absolute beginners to enjoy. I'm arguing they will get past this skillcap requirement fairly easily and also, because content of this skill level is redundant to majority of existing playerbase, it is redundant content to FORCE creation of.

Okorin wrote:

The approval category existed for maps that would otherwise break the score ranking to be able to get a leaderboard, it used to give no ranked score (primary ranking at the time) - seems familiar to loved in current times - and was kept in place with a time limit instead after the introduction of pp as the primary ranking algorithm

the category was, to my knowledge, not intended for any of what is in it right now, but continuously morphed into what people now believe it stands for at the moment
* Oh I see. Got nothing to add on that then.

This is a rule discussion and all but as personal opinion, mappers have get lot of stick and hate but why are there so few carrots being given to content creators keeping the game alive? As a thought, would it be beneficial to give something extra for providing entry-entry-level content? Mind you this is optional work, not FORCED which i'm againts of. A carrot approach instead of stick.

EDIT: Related to what Shiirn said, some mappers do have philosophy: map to song. This means that simple/relaxing songs produce easier difficulties naturally and forcing difficulty on songs that don't support extra is just plain silly. While opposite is also true, some songs don't support easy difficulties without losing the essence of music but they support hard-insane-extra+ mapping better. For mappers who follow this philosophy, forcing too easy content to fit the song or too hard content for song is challencing and it can show up in quality. Mind you, this is highly debatable and more of a personal opinion but should still be relevant.
Last edited by Amaikai , edited 1 time in total.
Wafu
1,703 posts
Joined June 2011
Wafu

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,558 posts
Joined March 2009
CXu

Wafu wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
It's not so much finding something to map to, but mapping something without skipping so much of the song that the map you end up with is no longer really representing the song anymore. There are quite a few players who skipped out on easy difficulties because they were too simplistic in comparison to the song, to such an extent that they no longer felt like they were clicking to the beat.

While in most cases you can prioritize the stronger beats for example, in some cases the stronger beats are too complex, and you still end up skipping beats at unnatural places because you can't have that complexity in the easiest difficulty. In those cases, it's not a problem of if people can figure out how to map it better, but that any real deconstruction of the rhythm ends up being far too removed from the original song.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn

Wafu wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
Just because you like to map boring shit songs with even measures and clean metronomes at 100bpm doesn't mean that's the only music that should be mapped. Considering you've never even mapped a single difficulty over 4*, it begs the question what kind of experience or knowledge you could claim to have about a song or map's potential...


There are exceptions to every rule. I just want them to be acknowledged that they exist, as many of the current staff have a... potentially cultural impulse to be extremely stringent about rules.
Moonlit
112 posts
Joined August 2013
Moonlit
A summary of the discussion so far regarding:

Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode.
What is the reason for this rule?

At the start of this discussion, it was put forward by Ephemeral that:
the fat stack of similar yet subtly (or vastly) different tiered difficulties causes lots of fatigue in the review stage, namely the modders and the BN responsible for providing critical feedback during the modding stage.
In some ways this is a self-limiting issue; mappers will be less likely to get mods on large sets, so are less likely to attempt to rank large sets. Modders and BNs are not obligated to mod these sets either.

And that by forcing a limitation on the number of maps in a set, the set would become more "cohesive" instead of being made to fit spread requirements and then being filled with additional difficulties (such as from guest mappers).

He also notes the problems with this idea, stating that any "displaced" maps that cannot fit in the 8 diff set are forced into a new set, potentially containing no new or interesting lower difficulties (following the logic that easier maps require lower note density and are thus have less potential for rhythmic and placement variety).

I believe this quote from him sums it up nicely:
The difficulties are probably going to be "recycled" into the ranking cycle as new sets which require even more oversight during the review stage by virtue of having the four required ENHI difficulties to accompany them in the first place, often times equally as "uninspired" as the same set they came from. There's only so many ways you can spin the lower levels of difficulty in mapping.
The alternative being these "displaced" maps are never created or never uploaded.


After the sharing and attempted interpretation of some playcount data stratified by map difficulty, Loctav made a point that:
The excerise of increasing the set's amount of difficulties to add *even more Experts* (although they are not even targetted at who actually plays the set) just adds content bloat - a lot of the same, without a distinctive difference.
arguing that as most plays are within the hard/insane difficulty ratings, adding more expert difficulty maps without significant difference is somehow detrimental to the game.

There are multiple issues i take with this statement; first of all how do we determine what is a "distinctive difference" between maps? Many people are divided on the differences (or lack thereof) of Monstrata's Zen Zen Zense extras (Taki and Mitsuha) for example. And are players really bothered by such content, even if it is widely perceived to be not "distinctively different"? The aforementioned set was among the most played mapsets for a significant time. I would suggest that its mostly a problem to the creatively minded mappers and modders who do not like the idea of unoriginal content, whereas players are often more focused on challenge and reward (PP) and are less bothered.

Additionally the use of the term "content bloat" is unclear and seems to be a problem that only the team behind these changes is aware of. Noone has properly defined it and thankfully its use has diminished over the course of this discussion. Still I would like to understand why it is a relevant issue (Explain) from the perspective of the rule creators.

Further in the thread Okorin states:
lowering spread requirements for sets further and further will only prove to be detrimental to especially new players getting into the game, there's a constant supply of new music to be mapped as well as old music to take from so denying someone that is just getting into osu to play their favourite song because you think insanes / extras / hards are more important than complete entry level content is just going to disappoint the new people getting into the game.
I dont think this is an incorrect point. Players should be able to enjoy a variety of music at a comfortable level of difficulty. However the lower difficulties are rapidly surpassed by beginners. Beginners are less predisposed to playing very long maps due to stamina, attention span and the nature of how they play osu (many new players only play a map or two while waiting for other games).
For these reasons perhaps it is possible to be more relaxed on lower difficulties while encouraging their production.

The crux of the issue seems to be that newer players must remain in our focus as we move forward, as these players help grow our community. There is a fear that continued relaxation of the ranking criteria may lead to less and less beginner-level content (easy, normal) and reduced retention of these players.
This seems like a possibility to me, although as others have suggested there is a plethora of beginnner-level content already available. How important is it to keep up with current songs, as it is proposed?

How can we encourage more easier maps to be produced?

Desperate-kun makes a point later in the thread that did not receive much discussion:
Instead of limiting the amount of difficulties people are allowed to make, we should try to think of ways that motivate people to map fewer difficulties
He also suggests:
A possibility would be to allow for higher difficulty gaps between two consecutive difficulties (preferably for longer songs, which would solve some other mentioned problems, too) as long as the spread is linear, to encourage people to make small spreads that still cover a wide range of skill levels.
I believe this idea serves to increase efficiency of the mapping system for producing lower difficulty maps without directly limiting production of higher difficulty maps. This spread widening suggestion could encourage more small sets to be produced where they would normally not due to requiring many diffs to fit a tight spread.

Amaikai notes:
As a thought, would it be beneficial to give something extra for providing entry-entry-level content? Mind you this is optional work, not FORCED which i'm againts of. A carrot approach instead of stick.
A point I agree with. What do you think are potential opportunities to reward or encourage mappers in making lower difficulty content?

Other perspectives on set development

SakuraKaminari presents a unique standpoint somewhat later in the thread regarding the position of less experienced mappers and how they are affected by the 8 map restriction.
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.
When a mapper has a wide variety of maps and a well made spread they can afford to work on maps with newer mappers to get them to rankable quality. Given how difficult it is for mappers to break into the mapping environment, this can be an invaluable opportunity that would be hampered by the 8 diff rule.

MrSergio brings up a take on the meaning of spread:
Diffs that do not make up for anything useful in the spread are just a way to get past the former meaning of "spread for a song"
arguing that anything above what is absolutely necessary for each level of skill is going beyond the meaning of a true spread. I disagree with this sentiment myself, as the mapping styles of today allow for many interpretations of a song that may end up around the same skill level. As stated earlier it is challenging to judge what a "distinctive difference" really is, so perhaps it is better to allow these additional interpretations to be created and be judged by players - not modders. After all we are making maps for people to enjoy, not to fit a prescribed schematic.

My thoughts

From what I've seen most people are against the 8 diff limit. It seems to miss its intended purpose (as far as I've been able to discern its purpose) and there are probably better ways to increase the amount of beginner-friendly content through encouragement rather than restriction.
In my opinion a ruleset should be in place to ensure a level of basic quality within a map and set; to ensure that when you download a ranked map you can trust it to work and be organised without wild inconsistencies and errors.

A ruleset should not restrict creativity. We are seeing more and more interesting ideas being fleshed out and standardised by mappers experimenting with novel ideas but unfortunately they are bogged down by the ranking system. The 8 diff limit seems like another such restriction and if it were to go through in any form it could limit the evolution of mapping even further.

Perhaps instead of trying to solve all of our problems at the ranking criteria level, we should investigate other avenues to guide mapping towards a greater audience in terms of both involvement and the spectrum of content produced.
Lust
osu! Alumni
2,667 posts
Joined January 2013
Lust
Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
I will never for the life of me understand this
_Meep_
1,707 posts
Joined April 2014
_Meep_
mayb for every extra diff added after the ENHIX spread or ENHIXX spread,
they need to add another lower difficulty
idk
DeletedUser_4329079
DeletedUser_4329079

Lust wrote:

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
I will never for the life of me understand this
Because you are basically abusing the difficulty spread rules to be able to rank the map with a lot less effort. On the other hand, this is just a result of the rule being too arbitrary and the massive difference in the effort needed to make a 4+min mapset and a single marathon difficulty.
_Meep_
1,707 posts
Joined April 2014
_Meep_

Default wrote:

Because you are basically abusing the difficulty spread rules to be able to rank the map with a lot less effort. On the other hand, this is just a result of the rule being too arbitrary and the massive difference in the effort needed to make a 4+min mapset and a single marathon difficulty.
Let's say a song is 4:55
Let's say its a deathmetal song that has the potential to be 8*
Are you going to map all 8 difficulties from 1-8* to cover the spread where all the difficulties are sloppily done and are low effort because you're lazy and you dont want to map so much?
Or are you going to map one extremely good 8* difficulty that perfectly represents the song with every bit of effort put into making it perfect?
I don't see it as abusing when extending is practically done to save time
and Saving time =/= Lazy
Yauxo
1,622 posts
Joined June 2011
Yauxo
Throwing stuff in to desp's comment to encourage less diffs.

<8 diffs -> Bubble#1 Rank
>8 diffs -> Bubble#1 Bubble#2 Rank

More BNs to make up for the amount of diffs/work invested. Would be the total opposite for the "too much work for the BNs" thing tho
DeletedUser_4329079
DeletedUser_4329079

_Meep_ wrote:

Let's say a song is 4:55
Let's say its a deathmetal song that has the potential to be 8*
Are you going to map all 8 difficulties from 1-8* to cover the spread where all the difficulties are sloppily done and are low effort because you're lazy and you dont want to map so much?
Or are you going to map one extremely good 8* difficulty that perfectly represents the song with every bit of effort put into making it perfect?
I don't see it as abusing when extending is practically done to save time
and Saving time =/= Lazy
I never said the word "lazy" in my comment. It also seems like you didn't read the second part of it, but it can't be denied that editing a song to make it longer is abusing the system, even if it occurs as a consequence of the system being very flawed itself.
Lust
osu! Alumni
2,667 posts
Joined January 2013
Lust
I know a way around this rule and you can be sure to see me exploiting it when this comes into place. Don't enact a rule that will always have a loophole (is it really even a rule at that point?)
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

Lust wrote:

I know a way around this rule and you can be sure to see me exploiting it when this comes into place. Don't enact a rule that will always have a loophole (is it really even a rule at that point?)
Yea I know lol. To give everyone context as to why this was chosen though, basically this was our "compromise" to not eliminating the "approval" category entirely (meaning all maps required a spread regardless of length). Basically, the idea was that "extending and editing songs to fit the 5 minute rule was considered abuse, and we must prevent this somehow". The solution therefore is "people won't edit songs to make them over 5 minutes if that would still require you to map a spread". However, this idea would (obviously) be shot down. The "compromise" was then to add a rule saying we shouldn't edit mp3's with the intention of extending it.

So really, the discussion boils down: "how much of a problem is extending mp3s to fit the 5 minute length?" ... and "is it a form of abuse we should prevent through the ranking criteria?" We need to ask ourselves how much this "abuse" is affecting ranked, and whether we need to address it, or whether we think it's fine to allow songs like this to be ranked. Of course, extreme cases should be handled case-by-case and we can (hopefully) trust BN's not to nominate stuff like harumachi clover or haitai looped 10 times to achieve approval length.

I'll list a few maps that "abuse" this rule so we have some examples to go by to:

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/404360 <--- An entire hypermeasure (4 measures) is added to one of the kiai sections to achieve 5 minute length.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/403073 <--- Same song, except I had the BPM reduced by 3 (175 > 172) to achieve 5 minute length.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/418922 <--- The ending of the song is looped with the intro to create a longer fade out. (The intro and outro are the exact same melody)
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/378183 <--- An entire instrumental section was looped (Adding around 25 seconds to the map).
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/503059 <--- Very subtle editing to add 0.5 seconds to the song.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/315159 <--- An entireverse + chorus is looped (adding over 1 minute to the song).
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/553906 <--- Ending note is extended to reach 5 minutes.


Anyways, as for me, I personally don't believe the "abuse" is common at all, and we shouldn't be changing rules just to avoid the one case in what, 50? It hurts a lot more than it helps. And I don't believe it really helps anyways. The only positive I see coming from this rule is that mp3's aren't poorly edited or tastelessly done. That, and maybe one of the artists getting angry about having their work manipulated somehow? (Though we have zero cases of this historically, and they're probably be more offended we're offering free downloads of their works).

So what do you guys think? We can probably agree mp3 editing to achieve 5 minute lengths is skirting the rules. But do you guys think it's necessarily something that needs to be prevented through the Ranking Criteria? Do you think it's that much of a problem? Are there alternative means to addressing it?
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

Endaris wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.
One of the primary arguments for the 8 diff limit is that sets are becoming overwhelming and create what people are calling "content bloating". Having one Miiro set with 120 difficulties hardly seems like it will solve the problem. Also, I don't believe sets are obsolete in any sense. I don't think there was a traditional idea for a "set" to begin with. People have created GD's since osu first started. So your argument isn't convincing. Sure, adding guess difficlulties after a set is already ranked can get rid of the necessity of making a whole spread to rank a new set (for the same song). But there are so many issues with this. What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD? What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set? As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it? Do such GD's still go through the qualified section? Also people who downloaded the set previously will have to redownload to get new difficulties that have been added, and is there a system that tells people a new difficulty has been added? This is not a feasible option imo. Let's focus on what we can actually discuss and control in the RC.
Shad0w1and
1,588 posts
Joined April 2011
Shad0w1and
Oh Kibb gonna hate you for that 0.5 sec Mr. Monstrata XD

and for the case like
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/315159 <--- An entireverse + chorus is looped (adding over 1 minute to the song).

I have to say that a lot of old Chinese songs were made that way lol, they looped the same part 3 times and called it a full ver lol. Personally, I do not see it as a problem. Why a loop by the producer is acceptable but by mapper is not acceptable. Though I do think those looped songs sucks, and it is one of the reasons that I like Japanese songs better.
Halliday
181 posts
Joined July 2015
Halliday

pishifat wrote:

A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane).
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(

(?)
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris

Monstrata wrote:

Endaris wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.

And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.


One of the primary arguments for the 8 diff limit is that sets are becoming overwhelming and create what people are calling "content bloating". Having one Miiro set with 120 difficulties hardly seems like it will solve the problem. Also, I don't believe sets are obsolete in any sense. I don't think there was a traditional idea for a "set" to begin with. People have created GD's since osu first started. So your argument isn't convincing. Sure, adding guess difficlulties after a set is already ranked can get rid of the necessity of making a whole spread to rank a new set (for the same song). But there are so many issues with this. What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD? What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set? As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it? Do such GD's still go through the qualified section? Also people who downloaded the set previously will have to redownload to get new difficulties that have been added, and is there a system that tells people a new difficulty has been added? This is not a feasible option imo. Let's focus on what we can actually discuss and control in the RC.


Huh what.
One of the primary arguments is that such huge sets are difficult to moderate and to guarantee quality.
Also I didn't have the impression that you personally have something against more content and personally I don't think it would play out the way you made it up with 120 Miiro difficulties: Right now we have about 50 on 10 sets so it is reasonable to say that the "bloating" would happen anyway. You could go as far as saying that it is even more confusing because there are so many sets and there is no good overview (which is not the case with 2 or 3 sets imo but 10 plays in a different league...).

You also seemed to have ignored a point I made earlier:
When there are already ranked difficulties present for a set, how big will the motivation for a mapper be to map something that plays similar to an existing difficulty?
If there is only 1 similar one it might still be high. But what if there are 5 difficulties that play similar?
Once the amount of difficulties in a set reached a certain point, mapping an additional difficulty becomes unattractive for the mapper for the following reasons:
  1. It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
  2. The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.


Finally I don't consider your doubts convincing:
What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD?
Well, why would that matter if he does not have to care about getting mods for it, kicking the mapper's ass to improve it etc? Unlike now, the original set creator has absolutely no obligation to make an investment on the additional GD. If it gets through the review phase (the GD mapper has to make it happen) and is of a quality that is deemed good for ranking then it is good for ranking and should be added to the set. You said yourself a "set" never really existed. Also, I have the impression that you did not read the thread linked in my post as it clearly states that the name of the original set creator wouldn't be on the new difficulty so there would be absolutely no reason to have your good name stained or anything what you might have to worry about.
Last but not least, ranked content is created for the playerbase. If you want to map for artistic purposes and for yourself you can map for graveyard or loved.

What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set?
I don't think there would be something that keeps you from making another set for the song. But it would have to be another complete set as it has to now. The objective is not to keep alternative sets from popping up but to enable mappers to add more ranked content on a controlled(=small) scale that is comfortable for mapper, modder and nominator.

As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it?
Personally I would put them into the same nomination process as approval maps. The good thing about single difficulty mapping and modding is that you can go into detail with mods and try to get the best out of that difficulty. This means that the quality of those additional difficulties would be expected to be high. A qualification phase is mandatory.


@Halliday: As Kirby Mixes are traditionally the highest difficulty of a set, they can use custom naming. Don't think they would get DQd for the naming.
DeletedUser_4329079
DeletedUser_4329079

Halliday wrote:

pishifat wrote:

A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane).
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(

(?)
Unless it's a Kirby song 🤔
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

Endaris wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.

And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.

One of the primary arguments for the 8 diff limit is that sets are becoming overwhelming and create what people are calling "content bloating". Having one Miiro set with 120 difficulties hardly seems like it will solve the problem. Also, I don't believe sets are obsolete in any sense. I don't think there was a traditional idea for a "set" to begin with. People have created GD's since osu first started. So your argument isn't convincing. Sure, adding guess difficlulties after a set is already ranked can get rid of the necessity of making a whole spread to rank a new set (for the same song). But there are so many issues with this. What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD? What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set? As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it? Do such GD's still go through the qualified section? Also people who downloaded the set previously will have to redownload to get new difficulties that have been added, and is there a system that tells people a new difficulty has been added? This is not a feasible option imo. Let's focus on what we can actually discuss and control in the RC.
Huh what.
One of the primary arguments is that such huge sets are difficult to moderate and to guarantee quality.
Also I didn't have the impression that you personally have something against more content and personally I don't think it would play out the way you made it up with 120 Miiro difficulties: Right now we have about 50 on 10 sets so it is reasonable to say that the "bloating" would happen anyway. You could go as far as saying that it is even more confusing because there are so many sets and there is no good overview (which is not the case with 2 or 3 sets imo but 10 plays in a different league...).

You also seemed to have ignored a point I made earlier:
When there are already ranked difficulties present for a set, how big will the motivation for a mapper be to map something that plays similar to an existing difficulty?
If there is only 1 similar one it might still be high. But what if there are 5 difficulties that play similar?
Once the amount of difficulties in a set reached a certain point, mapping an additional difficulty becomes unattractive for the mapper for the following reasons:
  1. It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
  2. The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.
Finally I don't consider your doubts convincing:
What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD?
Well, why would that matter if he does not have to care about getting mods for it, kicking the mapper's ass to improve it etc? Unlike now, the original set creator has absolutely no obligation to make an investment on the additional GD. If it gets through the review phase (the GD mapper has to make it happen) and is of a quality that is deemed good for ranking then it is good for ranking and should be added to the set. You said yourself a "set" never really existed. Also, I have the impression that you did not read the thread linked in my post as it clearly states that the name of the original set creator wouldn't be on the new difficulty so there would be absolutely no reason to have your good name stained or anything what you might have to worry about.
Last but not least, ranked content is created for the playerbase. If you want to map for artistic purposes and for yourself you can map for graveyard or loved.

I don't want some random 0 ranked 0 gd mapper trying to get their map bundled with my set. So yes, it does matter. Just because I don't have to kick the mapper's ass to improve it doesn't mean I'm fine with being associated with it. Also I didn't say a "set" never really existed. I said a "traditional definition of a set" never existed. There is no formal definition for what a set must comprise, and there never was. Also please don't delude yourself into thinking the ranekd content is created for the playerbase. Ranked content is entirely dependent on the mapper first and foremost. osu is driven on community content. The content is entirely dependent on what the mapper wants to map and rank., the playerbase has very little influence on what content they want ranked, unless they convince a mapper to map a certain song, or they become mappers themselves.

What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set?
I don't think there would be something that keeps you from making another set for the song. But it would have to be another complete set as it has to now. The objective is not to keep alternative sets from popping up but to enable mappers to add more ranked content on a controlled(=small) scale that is comfortable for mapper, modder and nominator.

As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it?
Personally I would put them into the same nomination process as approval maps. The good thing about single difficulty mapping and modding is that you can go into detail with mods and try to get the best out of that difficulty. This means that the quality of those additional difficulties would be expected to be high. A qualification phase is mandatory.

Those were all rhetorical questions meant to tell you this system isn't feasible in our current context lol. You can theorycraft all you want, but this discussion honestly belongs in Community Features since it doesn't influence the Ranking Criteria but more the whole Ranking System.

@Halliday: As Kirby Mixes are traditionally the highest difficulty of a set, they can use custom naming. Don't think they would get DQd for the naming.
No. "huge sets are difficult to moderate and to guarantee quality." ?? How do you arrive at that conclusion? That's completely ambiguous and not something the RC is concerned with anyways. Huge sets can be difficult to moderate because they require more time and effort from the modder and BNs involved. But if a huge set has quality issues, it's not the fault of it being large, it's the fault of BN's not being thorough. Do you think sets like Hitorigoto and No Title are huge? I really hope you don't, because their total drain is only about 18 minutes. (12 x 1:30). Stuff like: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/94631 is already 14 minutes of drain just with 4 difficulties. And stuff like: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/500858 is already 22 minutes of drain with 6 difficulties. If anything, full-sized mapsets that have a very even spread are the true "huge sets" because they actually require even more modding time than conventional "huge sets".

It's true the "huge sets are difficult to moderate ant to guarantee quality" is indeed an argument being made here. But just read people's responses. It's clearly a poor argument that has no bearing on map quality. It's not something that should be covered in the RC. It is an issue to consider with BNG rules and BN management if anything. I don't believe the issue is valid to begin with though. I'm only acknowledging that two people in this thread think this is an issue.

Endaris wrote:

You also seemed to have ignored a point I made earlier:
When there are already ranked difficulties present for a set, how big will the motivation for a mapper be to map something that plays similar to an existing difficulty?
If there is only 1 similar one it might still be high. But what if there are 5 difficulties that play similar?
Once the amount of difficulties in a set reached a certain point, mapping an additional difficulty becomes unattractive for the mapper for the following reasons:
  1. It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
  2. The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.
Your first point is just completely wrong. It will not be harder to find modders because the song has already been mapped before. Modders don't care about that as much as you think.

The second point is true, and something that will persist even with the system Loctav proposed anyways. If you are mapping a song that already has 5 ranked mapsets, you are making a choice to map it despite knowing it won't get the plays and popularity you expect. Honestly, if you are mapping the song after that many sets have been ranked, there are only two reasons. 1. You like the song, and you are mapping it for yourself. 2. You think you have an entirely new concept and want to get it ranked. If you picked the first choice, the "unattractive" qualities of mapping another set is something you are already expecting. You aren't mapping it for other people though, you're mapping it for yourself.

If you picked the second choice then you are effectively removing those unattractive qualities through creating unique content for that specific song.

Your system doesn't reflect how the modding and mapping community will view things. You ask these big questions like "When there are already ranked difficulties present for a set, how big will the motivation for a mapper be to map something that plays similar to an existing difficulty?
If there is only 1 similar one it might still be high. But what if there are 5 difficulties that play similar?" and those are valid questions. But your answer is very far removed from how active modders and mappers in the community will view them.

Not everyone is creating maps for the playerbase. Do you really think the playerbase needs 8 different versions of Harumachi Clover? yet mappers continue to create more sets. Maybe you should go ask mappers who create these sets for their opinion and reasoning, rather than assuming they are trying to create original and unique content and/or struggling with apparently having to create similar content. You'd be surprised how different maps actually are once you look through different submissions. It just seems to be a popular mindset nowadays to say "all maps play the same".
dhpenguin7
dhpenguin7
All I can say about mapping. I believe that a mapper should make 2 diffs at least for a map, because it is otherwise just getting a bunch of gd'ers to do your fill and you doing a short gd. Therefore, I believe at least 2 diffs are needed so that one diff map makers could put in more work, especially for tv size maps.
LwL
363 posts
Joined November 2013
LwL
Had a random thought while reading the last few pages (I think everything relevant was said, definitely agree with Monstrate/CXu on most things, + what I said in my previous post).

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time.
If this goes through (in which case I think approval rules should be modified to be a less abrupt cutoff), I think it should be changed to say "If a Song/map is modified to reach the minimum drain time, spread requirements of the unmodified drain time apply". Just in case someone wants to edit an mp3 or the map because they feel it sounds better or represents the song better.
freddiiieeee
44 posts
Joined September 2015
freddiiieeee
Colored text is mine.

Color Code:
  1. DISAGREE
  2. agree
  3. Everything else.

pishifat wrote:

Spread


Rules

All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance. Let's see... let's see...

  1. Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which complies with their respective mode’s difficulty-specific ranking criteria. This should say at most a Normal instead because the phrase "at least" can imply that a Hard difficulty can be used as the lowest difficulty, then people would get an idea that Insanes can be the lowest, and so forth.
  2. Hybrid mapsets without osu!standard difficulties must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties per mode. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which does not break any difficulty-specific guidelines. Not really into the "two difficulties per mode" thing, but can't think of a better solution, really.
  3. If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties...
    1. A reasonable spread of at least two osu!standard difficulties must be included. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which does not break any difficulty-specific guidelines. Seems Good.
    2. 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. It's alright, but it could be worded better; by converted difficulties, if you're meaning "osu!standard :arrow: CtB" and not something like "Mapset as is, difficulties between all game modes must not have large gaps in difficulty", then I can see the gap needing to be filled, but if the latter, then just leave the difficulties as are regardless of jumps like 2* standard :arrow: 4* Taiko
    3. Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Hard.
      Same wording issue as 1st rule.
    4. One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
    Same wording issue as 1st rule and rule above.
  4. Mapsets must have a minimum drain time of 30 seconds. This ensures each ranked map has a practical play-time. That's obvious.
  5. Marathons must have a minimum drain time of 5 minutes. This excludes especially long mapsets from requiring a spread of difficulties.
    This could be lowered, IMO. There are a great variety of songs with a length between 4-5 minutes that show so much potential without a need for a full spread.
  6. Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
    1. Lowering a song’s BPM
    2. Looping portions of a song
    3. Adding sounds before/after a song begins/ends The first three are debatable because maybe the mapper fiddled with the song a certain way, liked it that way, and wanted to map that edited version.
    4. Extending spinners/sliders over inaudible sounds I agree; what's the point?
    5. Manually removing breaks Totally should stay unrankable, hands down.
    I'm polarized by the "no song modification" thing in general; I like it because it helps to combat such a petty way to cheat the ranking system, but I think that song modifications provide experimentation and variety all around. Personally, I'd lean more toward this rule if the minimum approval drain time were around 4 minutes instead, but if it is to stay at 5 minutes, then I'd be more against this rule.
  7. 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. Definitely not. This would essentially split many difficulties of a mapset (ex: 20 diffs into 3-4 different mapsets), which is exhausting to the GD mappers and maphost as they may split their work among each maps, leading to checking different threads for the mods instead of one, and for BNs as they'll need to icon check more maps instead of one. That last sentence is iffy, because it essentially means "Holy SH*T, I can make an 8 star difficulty right after my 5.5 star difficulty because of this!"; no don't hit those people with the "common sense" hammer, because it'll lead to a big mess in the threads, which could lead to more work from the moderation team.
  8. Excluding a mapset’s hardest difficulty, a difficulty’s name must accurately indicate its level of difficulty. Conventional difficulty names vary between modes, but any set of clearly progressive difficulty names can be alternatively used. Additionally, a mapset’s hardest difficulty should not use a name misrepresentative of its difficulty. Unnecessary rule as difficulty naming is up to interpretation of the mapper.
  9. A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane). No problems here.
  10. Additionally, a mapset host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty’s name. (e.g. Mapset Host’s Insane). Metadata conflicts caused by mapping a song multiple times are an exception. Kind of obvious, considering difficulties without a name are automatically assumed the host's.
  11. 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.
First sentence is obvious.
Second one needs some clean-up. "for via storyboarding." Wonder what that means? The mapper might not want a storyboard every time they host a collab, so maybe they should just put respective total drain times worked on in the "space provided".

Guidelines

Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation.

  1. Avoid incomprehensible username combinations to indicate possession of a collaborative guest difficulty. If it’s unclear whose usernames are combined, simplification is recommended. True.
  2. Avoid difficulty names with descriptive elements not clearly related to a guest difficulty mapper or a level of difficulty. (e.g. Mapper’s Tragic Love Extra). A mapset’s hardest difficulty may use free naming, but clear and appropriate relation to its song is recommended. Once again,
    up to interpretation of the mapper.
  3. Usernames indicating possession of a guest difficulty should be consistent between multiple mapsets. Varying nicknames for one user makes interpreting who created a difficulty confusing. I think so, too.
  4. Avoid unicode characters in a difficulty’s name. These can cause errors with the beatmap submission system and problems for certain users when appearing in chat.
Don't know too much about this, so you tell me! :D

Well, that's all the feedback I can provide for you. Hoping for the best for the future of osu!mapping! :)

Once again, this draft is not the final result, as we need the feedback of the community first before getting it officially bumped into the wiki! It will be up to discussion for two weeks and close on the 18th of June! Also I'd like to reap my kudosu reward pls thx :P
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
188 / 259