TLDR: returning to newBAT system of 2014
a la MAT,hxxdeathx wrote:
TLDR: returning to newBAT system of 2014
this is p neatoEphemeral wrote:
[*] QAT will be encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps whilst also removing unnecessary roadblocks to alternate mapping styles entering Ranked
Indeed, that would be better I think, and that would encourage BN's to make a "better" work regularly (if I may say so)Weber wrote:
"The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts."
I feel like this should happen more often than twice a year. 2-3 months sounds more appropriate.
Want to speak out what i think because mapping vairety matters a lot to meShiirn wrote:
This issue has been going on for years, and is more related to the qualification system as a whole rather than the most recent change, although admittedly the tiering change certainly exacerbated it.GitHub wrote:
One T2 BN noted that in the process of forcing less experienced BN to only be able to bubble maps coupled with the more experienced T2 BN being pressured to solely qualify, the maps that were receiving the most attention were considerably safer, more uniform maps that may prioritize criteria 'safety' over creative exposition and general enjoyment.
In general, the protests regarding map quality have had nothing to do with map quality in reality, but instead in a perceived (and very real) lack of Variety and Expression. Players and mappers alike will colloquially refer to this as "maps suck nowadays" but they're not talking about the actual quality of the structure or the patterns here.
I agree with weber tbh, I do feel it should be slightly shorter. Perhaps 3 or 4 months, 6 feels a bit too longWeber wrote:
"The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts."
I feel like this should happen more often than twice a year. 2-3 months sounds more appropriate.
QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked.There's a pretty bent homogeneity in modern mapping, that "alternative" mapping styles can get pretty scrutinized subjectively despite no apparent violations in the Ranking Criteria. These would be interpretations of "intensities", "emphasis", etc. I hope we can see QATs and therein, nominators and, most importantly, the everyday modder in the community to receptively treat a variety of styles openly through this.
That may be true in the most part, but BNs are experienced mappers. We can't tell apart from what is made from connections and honest actions, I agree that we should also stop this from happening as it seems unfair with the majority of the mapping community. Monetary rewards such as supporter is enough for incentives.GaterRaider wrote:
An upheaval to me would require that the blatant favoritism amongst BNs is addressed. Quick bubbles are passed around as favors that will be returned in the future in some way or the other. I am not going to name people but public cases of this are well recorded and should be no surprise to anyone. I don't even want to know how bad this truly is when you are an insider that has access to these advantages.
The problem is that nominators are naturally mappers and have a lot of influence in the ranking process. This creates an obvious incentive for favoritism to help each other out with their own maps. When those who are in charge of running the system are actively participating in it as individuals themselves then there are going to be problems.
Connections are too big of a driver in the current ranking process. Those with access to the people in charge are highly advantaged compared to those that do not. When getting hold of a BN is incredibly frustrating for some, while others can simply post a short message in a private discord server to get things rolling quickly I do not consider it a fair system.
your right that thats not fair. but theres no way to prevent some people simply having more contacts or connections with people as long as the system isnt entirely automated. hell in pretty much anything in life those who have the contacts are usually better off in some capacity.GaterRaider wrote:
An upheaval to me would require that the blatant favoritism amongst BNs is addressed. Quick bubbles are passed around as favors that will be returned in the future in some way or the other. I am not going to name people but public cases of this are well recorded and should be no surprise to anyone. I don't even want to know how bad this truly is when you are an insider that has access to these advantages.
The problem is that nominators are naturally mappers and have a lot of influence in the ranking process. This creates an obvious incentive for favoritism to help each other out with their own maps. When those who are in charge of running the system are actively participating in it as individuals themselves then there are going to be problems.
Connections are too big of a driver in the current ranking process. Those with access to the people in charge are highly advantaged compared to those that do not. When getting hold of a BN is incredibly frustrating for some, while others can simply post a short message in a private discord server to get things rolling quickly I do not consider it a fair system.
Desperate-kun wrote:
This sounds very promising.
Though, the reason why QATs stopped disqualifying maps on their own was mainly the will of peppy himself, so I don't see this change reverting unless you can actually convince him.
Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.
Kinda agree with both here, as it is I don't think BNs should be weighing in on who a QAT team leader would be, but it's certainly true that there needs to be a lot more transparency or at least clarity on the part of the QAT.Monstrata wrote:
If the QAT became more transparent then it would be good to at least have BN insight. This is a fault of the QAT's not being transparent enough imo, not a fault of us "not being qualified to vote for QAT's".
Mappers may not know what BN's are doing internally, but there are methods to finding out, and what BN's are doing are not nearly as secretive as what QAT's are doing in any regard. As well, we can also comment on the actions of QAT's based on what we know, or what they have been doing on the public-facing front.
For example, we know pishifat does a lot of videos and gives a lot of insight into mapping theory. We also know he qualifies a bunch of maps, sometimes with minimal modding if any (and I'm sure there are people who've come to question these "yolo ranks"), we also know he participates in or had participated in BN test creation and that he is involved in helping with the Ranking Criteria changes.
I've always questioned why QAT's needed to be so secretive in the first place. Why weren't BN test answers released? People can learn from them, especially the Part A answers (considering they are not private information as anyone who participated in the BN Test received the answer sheet).
So no, I disagree with Desp, I think BN's should be able to vote, but I believe they should also be given a better insight into the behind-the-scenes actions of QAT's. We shouldn't be barred from voting just because "we don't know".
MashaSG wrote:
Agree with the others ( Werbee and Kisses )
MashaSG wrote:
Werbee
To expand on this idea,Absolute Zero wrote:
I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts.'Successful qualifications' need to go. There's only so many maps that deserve to be qualified, so when those maps get qualified, what maps are the bns going to look at? They might resort to qualifying unfitting maps. Qualtiy is a subjective term, but Modding activity is more accurate because mods can be analyzed for proper reasoning despite how much of the mod was applied, so I think this should be kept. One form of activity I'd like to add is participation in events. As in, bns who become judges of tournaments receive 'extra credit' for example.
this doesn't workLitharrale wrote:
To expand on this idea,Absolute Zero wrote:
I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
I don't think putting standard in one group and the other modes in another group is a good idea because while they are all less active than standard, they aren't as active as one another, not even close iirc.
My suggestion is to have each mode receive their own elite nominator but at different intervals than standard.
So if Standard is every 6 months, mania could be every 10 months. Taiko every year and CTB ever 14 months as an example. These time scales might seem long and they might be but it's just an example. This is the best way I can think of doing this without having the modes directly compete against one another.
Possible issues:
It requires BNs to be active for a longer period of time in less active modes to receive a title (but the trade off is less competition)
Hybrid BNs get shafted
Well, in any social environment, popularity is a strong value, even for good as for evil, I think that before hinder BN vote for QAT leader, let's try it, and if this does not work (as did not work in 2014 with newBATs), then it will be limited to elite nominators or so...Desperate-kun wrote:
Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.
It is a very important question.Okorin wrote:
The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.