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?