Sinnoh wrote:
clearly scale by bpm. double bpm stuff sucks
last time this was brought up, rc guys were opposed to it. it does make things easier to follow though so it could be worth discussing again, especially since the guys below your post also think it makes guidelines unclear
dsco wrote:
.
valid concerns here. BNs should determine if a diff is suitable as the lowest diff case-by-case, i agree, though that kind of falls apart when there's nothing keeping BNs generally on the same page. the rc dictates what nominators can/can't rank, so if the rc says diffs with constant 1/2 rhythm, high spacing, and fast slider velocity are ok for rank, then there's a problem with the ranking criteria (which as you correctly said is because of how vague a lot of its content is). like for example, your hard diff for pitch fucker is technically okay as the lowest difficulty now that the 2 star rule is gone, while it's not beginner friendly considering it's uhh... a hard diff.
this proposal basically says "don't use rhythm that's too dense, spacing that's too high, or slider velocity that's too high for a conventional beginner-friendly normal" with values comparable to most normals as reference. it's not about good/bad mapping, but rather mapping that's more intense/straining than what newer players can handle. the hope for this is to not be as vague as the current normal diff guidelines, which only go to the extent of saying "use occasional 1/2 rhythms on normals" with no reference to spacing or sv, therefore allowing just about anything on a lowest diff.
inevitably, there are gonna be situations that don't align with the guideline examples (like the 3/4 based songs you mentioned), though not specifying anything about beginner-friendly lowest diffs because of those exceptions results in more vagueness. this could be somewhat better if scaling bpm were taken into account more clearly, though it definitely wouldn't be perfect
that last point probably applies to the other concern about the rc restricting too much about how to map normals now, but i really don't think this proposal is going to affect that (however other parts of the rc are definitely guilty). if a map is designed unconventionally and breaks some of these guidelines while being beginner-friendly, it could pass. if it's deemed too extreme, an easy could be added. if it's conventional, it most likely should be following the guidelines because it might be too difficult, or again, there should be a lower diff
hopefully these explanations make it clearer as to why this proposal is more than vague rc bloat. will be getting thoughts from other ubkrc people too.
Mishima Yurara wrote:
rhythm guidelines broken frequently, especially 2 and 3
most players will be able to play current normals in less than an hour of playtime anyway so this guideline proposal wouldnt really be helping players either
im not really sure about the first thing. the rhythm guidelines are based on like, the maximum rhythm density most ranked normal difficulties use, so if there are normal diffs that break these frequently with 5+ consecutive 1/2 sliders or 3+ measure 1/2 chains, i'd be interested in seeing them
as for the second thing, i also agree, but the new rule permits normal difficulties way harder than most current normals, which is where the problem is. most current normals fit within the proposed guidelines