Back in the old days, we counted solely based off # of diffs...
The only case where we would need to look at drain time would be collabs.
The only case where we would need to look at drain time would be collabs.
forum
Set Contribution
posted
Total Posts
58
Topic Starter
Mapping the most is not a great way to quantify this, that's what this post is about. Number of diffs is more accurate, and is probably the best way to approximate it as there are plenty of qualitative things otherwise (a noob mapper making a normal might have to put more effort than Kibb making an insane or extra gd for him for example).
So yeah I think number of diffs and then a % drain time being mandated for mapping for a diff to qualify as a "full" diff is the best way still.
So yeah I think number of diffs and then a % drain time being mandated for mapping for a diff to qualify as a "full" diff is the best way still.
Nao Tomori wrote:
Mapping the most is not a great way to quantify this, that's what this post is about. Number of diffs is more accurate, and is probably the best way to approximate it as there are plenty of qualitative things otherwise (a noob mapper making a normal might have to put more effort than Kibb making an insane or extra gd for him for example).
So yeah I think number of diffs and then a % drain time being mandated for mapping for a diff to qualify as a "full" diff is the best way still.
It is pretty evident that mapping more ≠ greater contribution. I will agree to your given example. Getting diffs done with effort is better than just basing the contribution to solely diffs made by a certain mapper without making a few considerations on certain aspects of mapping like quality (the biggest factor imo) and stuff. Efforts made as well to make the mapset can be included, but that I think is leaning at the 'subjective zone' (or case by case basis, again, i think)
At the end, the judgement falls under the people who will look at it if it fails or pass at the parameters given.
So your proposal for computation be like: Full diff = (diffs made + quality + drain time)?
or something else?
reading through the thread after https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/posts/6813028 i haven't seen any other ways of valuing set contribution that are more reasonable for the ranking criteria than the idea proposed in op. hitsounds/mods seem too variable between sets and naxess explained why a looser guideline wouldn't be a good idea
so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:
it may be worth explaining what "if necessary" means in the last sentence too. the proposal makes it sound like there should be some leniency for collabs and the guy who worded this based it off the proposal, but the wording itself makes it sound like it's a strict line. anyone have ideas for how to handle this better if it's a problem?
a full diff is more or less controlled by the rc already because of the "you must map up to 80% of the mp3" rule. that means tehre would only be slight variations in drain time between diffs on a set
so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
it may be worth explaining what "if necessary" means in the last sentence too. the proposal makes it sound like there should be some leniency for collabs and the guy who worded this based it off the proposal, but the wording itself makes it sound like it's a strict line. anyone have ideas for how to handle this better if it's a problem?
Aiseca wrote:
So your proposal for computation be like: Full diff = (diffs made + quality + drain time)? or something else?
a full diff is more or less controlled by the rc already because of the "you must map up to 80% of the mp3" rule. that means tehre would only be slight variations in drain time between diffs on a set
isn't that what "This is to provide credit where credit is due." in the rule is already doing?4n3c wrote:
if we are amending the rule, it might be better to integrate what pishi wrote about "mapped by user" on site/profile listingsinstead ofin addition to all the metrics associated with contribution
pishifat wrote:
tehre
ok
pishifat wrote:
so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
The problem I find with this is that mappers who are trying to push their first map to rank is that they might want a GD for a certain diff (say Hard, if they're bad at mapping Hard difficulties) and put a request in the Mapping Projects subforum, and end up getting a full mania spread by accident (unlikely, but can happen) and has to map more difficulties otherwise it's unrankable.
The rule is a bit unfair, but I think it would be better to have the RC be a bit more lenient, something like: The mapset host's difficulties must have around 80% drain time compared to the biggest contributor. While still giving "credit where credit is due", it provides more leniency for aspiring mappers who can't map low difficulties.
Getting a full mania spread "by accident" is not really possible, it's the mapset host's choice to add difficulties to the map, if he doesn't want certain diffs he can simply decide not to add them. Also, usually people ask for permission before they map a gd. If new mappers are unable to map low difficulties, they can either learn how to map them (since it's probably even easier to map them compared to insane/extra) or they can get a normal and hard gd and map insane and extra and it would be a rankable spread.[ - Jax - ] wrote:
The problem I find with this is that mappers who are trying to push their first map to rank is that they might want a GD for a certain diff (say Hard, if they're bad at mapping Hard difficulties) and put a request in the Mapping Projects subforum, and end up getting a full mania spread by accident (unlikely, but can happen) and has to map more difficulties otherwise it's unrankable.pishifat wrote:
so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
The rule is a bit unfair, but I think it would be better to have the RC be a bit more lenient, something like: The mapset host's difficulties must have around 80% drain time compared to the biggest contributor. While still giving "credit where credit is due", it provides more leniency for aspiring mappers who can't map low difficulties.
I agree with what pishi said about the amount of diffs being the only possible measurement as of right now. The "if necessary" thing could be explained by determining that drain time is only taken into account in collab diffs when the spread is arranged in a way that would make someone else other than the mapset host the biggest contributor, for example: The mapset host mapped Insane, while mapper x made a normal gd. The hard diff is a collab between both of them. In that case, the respective drain time each mapper mapped is considered. If the gd mapper made like 75% of it, it's probably not okay, while something like 50/50 would work.
But in cases where the mapset host has more drain time than the others anyways, for example if he also mapped an extra diff for this map, then the drain time of the collab diff doesn't matter. This is probably hard to word and implement into the rule but it's quite simple to understand I think.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I agree with what pishi said about the amount of diffs being the only possible measurement as of right now. The "if necessary" thing could be explained by determining that drain time is only taken into account in collab diffs when the spread is arranged in a way that would make someone else other than the mapset host the biggest contributor, for example: The mapset host mapped Insane, while mapper x made a normal gd. The hard diff is a collab between both of them. In that case, the respective drain time each mapper mapped is considered. If the gd mapper made like 75% of it, it's probably not okay, while something like 50/50 would work.
But in cases where the mapset host has more drain time than the others anyways, for example if he also mapped an extra diff for this map, then the drain time of the collab diff doesn't matter. This is probably hard to word and implement into the rule but it's quite simple to understand I think.
The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.[ - Jax - ] wrote:
The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.How about something like this?
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
[ - Jax - ] wrote:
The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
Yeah, that seems fair.
[ - Jax - ] wrote:
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
[ - Jax - ] wrote:
The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
Yeah, that seems fair.
Same page as Jax.
---------------
This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it is
Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
Aiseca wrote:
This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it isapplicableacceptable the parts that have been made if the drain time will be used?
Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
Depends how much effort that was put in basically in that situation. For example, slidershapes would be taken into account of how complex they are.
That's not really possible because you can't measure how calm/intense a part is or the effort that was put into mapping it. RC rules should be as clear as possible and stuff like this would only add unnecessary confusion/ambiguity imo[ - Jax - ] wrote:
Depends how much effort that was put in basically in that situation. For example, slidershapes would be taken into account of how complex they are.Aiseca wrote:
This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it isapplicableacceptable the parts that have been made if the drain time will be used?
Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
tatatat wrote:
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
That's not an actual solution, especially due to the new spread rules. Imagine a 4:15 song where the mapper wants to map an Extra. Since he also needs an Insane, somebody else makes a gd for him (there can be various reasons for this, laziness is not one of them). In this case, the gd mapper must map the same amount of breaks in the map even if he doesn't want to. And you can't tell the mapset host to just map an additional difficulty because it's simply not needed for the spread.
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That's not an actual solution, especially due to the new spread rules. Imagine a 4:15 song where the mapper wants to map an Extra. Since he also needs an Insane, somebody else makes a gd for him (there can be various reasons for this, laziness is not one of them). In this case, the gd mapper must map the same amount of breaks in the map even if he doesn't want to. And you can't tell the mapset host to just map an additional difficulty because it's simply not needed for the spread.tatatat wrote:
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
I said the same amount of breaks. The GD mapper can't map the entire song if the host decided to have a break somewhere. This proposal is supposed to fix that issue.tatatat wrote:
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That's not an actual solution, especially due to the new spread rules. Imagine a 4:15 song where the mapper wants to map an Extra. Since he also needs an Insane, somebody else makes a gd for him (there can be various reasons for this, laziness is not one of them). In this case, the gd mapper must map the same amount of breaks in the map even if he doesn't want to. And you can't tell the mapset host to just map an additional difficulty because it's simply not needed for the spread.tatatat wrote:
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
imo the mapper should always map more than the GDers, whether they mapped 30 seconds a person, or 30 minutes a person. Always more drain time for the host. If you can't get more drain time as the host, you should map more of it yourself(or remove all GDs). I see absolutely no problem with having to map more drain time than any GD'ers, in fact I think it should be even more strict and require the host to have more drain time than the total of all GDer's drain time combined but thats not what this post is about. Drain time is an objective way to measure the amount of work contributed by each person working on a mapset.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I said the same amount of breaks. The GD mapper can't map the entire song if the host decided to have a break somewhere. This proposal is supposed to fix that issue.tatatat wrote:
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That's not an actual solution, especially due to the new spread rules. Imagine a 4:15 song where the mapper wants to map an Extra. Since he also needs an Insane, somebody else makes a gd for him (there can be various reasons for this, laziness is not one of them). In this case, the gd mapper must map the same amount of breaks in the map even if he doesn't want to. And you can't tell the mapset host to just map an additional difficulty because it's simply not needed for the spread.tatatat wrote:
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
This will also probably be my last post in this thread. Goodnight!
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution when a guest has beatmapped significantly more than the host.
adjusted the last sentence based on some of the discussion above. i'd rather not draw a strict line for what's "significantly more than the host" because that's what sucks about the current rule. best to assume something like what the proposal says is in effect and pushing the limits could result in stricter rc clarification:
Nao Tomori wrote:
BNs can use their judgement in collab situations, so strict 50%+ does not need to be enforced; something like 45/55 split would also be acceptable, 35/65 not so much.
tatata seems to be saying strict drain time is better, which everyone else on the thread disagrees with, so i'll keep it as is
pr coming soon
REE
any guest difficulty creator should be singular to avoid people thinking this applies to the total amount of difficulties in a set (beatmap creators together vs singular guest difficultes)
any guest difficulty creator should be singular to avoid people thinking this applies to the total amount of difficulties in a set (beatmap creators together vs singular guest difficultes)