You are not wrong though, please read the FAQ about that part.
Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
Nao Tomori wrote:
First, let's look at what damage the tier system did: by reducing the amount of active BNs to approximately 4, it also had the amazing side effect of completely removing their willingness to uphold any quality standard. I don't need to explain myself here - just go look at pishi's mods from that time, they are basically the same thing as what is being suggested the QAT to do here when qualifying a map. That is because people want more than 5 maps in qualified - something that is sure to happen when you only check maps that are assigned to you rather than ones you are interested in, you will either not icon them or icon them if they are rankable without modding them because you don't want to mod them.
Nao Tomori wrote:
Second, removing the ability to mod a map after qualification completely removes any semblance of community input on the ranking process. Arguing that maps can be "dq modded" before qualify is not realistic, given the difference in exposure between bubbled and qualified status. If the goal behind this rework is to shut people who think bad maps are constantly being ranked, it will 100% have the exact opposite effect because now these so-called bad maps will get ranked and they cannot even post mods to try and improve the maps because they won't have unrankable issues.
Nao Tomori wrote:
Third, given that QAT will end up either not iconing anything or yolo iconing everything after a rankability check (this is literally what happened with the Tier system, so I have every reason to believe it will happen here), there will be the exact amount of these low-quality maps getting ranked. BNs are not going to stop bubbling things that other people think are garbage (Sotarks 1-2 spam, Hailie extra diffs, etc. etc.) unless QATs also start evaluating them based on subjective icon quality (which they are extremely opposed to for some godforsaken reason).
Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
Maybe there could be some lasting thing that remains on your profile after you've completed a QAT term, much like the BN badges now but in shorter terms. That has always been one of the things that offput me about the BNG too, you do volunteer work but once you leave, there's basically nothing to show for it (unless 2y plus). Perhaps a small section of the profile could be dedicated to that, just small icons showing how much time someone has put into those areas. I honestly don't see why not, it's part of creating incentive.Kibbleru wrote:
I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".
I believe a 4 month term system will only never give the QAT enough time to get settled into their position and become more experienced.Kibbleru wrote:
I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".
on top of that I agree with everything nao saidProposal wrote:
Glossary
Core Team
Members of the Global Moderation Team (or osu!team in general), whose main responsibility is managing the system rather than necessarily being part of it. I really don't think GMT should be managing anything mapping related, most of them have no idea how anything here works, granted there are a few exceptions but overall I think this is a bad idea
Membership of the Quality Assurance Team
Membership in the QAT is limited to a four months term. Beatmap Nominators get elected/chosen to occupy the vacant seats within the QAT in order to receive the ability to proactively assure the quality of the currently nominated content. Whether or not you want do that for all game modes or just standard is in the open. removing very qualified people just because their term is over doesn't make sense to me, I don't want to replace people with less qualified ones just because of that
The QAT lose their moderation permissions and only retain their Beatmap Nominator privileges together with the disqualification button. I'm ok with this as long as the GMT starts actually moderating beatmap threads when necessary
The Core Team compiles a list of possible candidates at the end of every term based on (yet uncertain) criteria. (Probably candidates applying for the position simply)
Members of the Beatmap Nominators can vote for member(s) on the list.
Once a QAT drops out of the team for any reason, for example by not being re-elected or reaching the maximum amount of re-elections in a row, they are on cooldown for the position equal to the duration of their just expired membership in the QAT. again, I'm very against the idea of blocking qualified people from this position, though the idea of making the qat position a bit more accessible isn't something I'm entirely against
Changes to the Ranking System
The Beatmap Nominators lose their right to qualify beatmaps (second nomination). literally why
The QAT is the only team that can qualify beatmaps. Thus, they are forced to proactively process through all nominated content and only push the content forward that is deemed to have a sufficient quality level. forcing someone to do a voluntary job makes absolutely no sense, yes sure you can just remove them if they don't fullfil their quota but nobody should be pressured to check a lot of maps they don't want to check
Once hitting Qualified, a beatmap may only be disqualified when it directly violates the Ranking Criteria, rendering all subjective-level concerns moot, as the map has already passed quality revision by the QAT. this basically says improving the map is not allowed anymore, what if the mapper wants to change stuff from mods? not allowed because it doesn't violate the ranking criteria
Maps nominated by members of the Beatmap Nominators will end up in a queue checked by the QAT. Whether they are being assigned or can pick maps by themselves has yet to be decided. being assigned to maps is the worst thing you could do, as you said it's still tbd but this really shouldn't be pushed through. if anything everyone should be allowed to pick what the want
New members of the Beatmap Nominators will need to go through the same application process as now, their applications will be evaluated by the Core Team. makes sense
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do you want to limit the membership in the QAT to a specific time period?
We are trying to combat two issues with that. First, people that occupy a position are eventually finding a comfort zone that they refuse to leave, making it hard to keep new ideas, new opinions and new views flowing and spawning. Second, people that occupy a position for a while but lose motivation are rarely resigning by themselves and usually simply stop doing things but are clinging to their title. As soon as you start to questioning the legitimacy of their position based on their activity and motivation, they usually come up with reactions that reach from “I am busy with school” to “I am super motivated now! (for two days)” By limiting the membership to a specific time frame, the QAT will always be restocked with new faces that bring new opinions along. Therefore, instead of keeping the QAT in a dormant state of always the same people being in charge, a highly volatile QAT assures that new eras are initiated more frequently. I actually kind of agree with a few parts of this, mainly the "they don't resign and stop doing shit" part. But instead of forcing a term limit you could just enforce activity requirements a bit harder and actually remove people from the team if they fail to meet them
Why will the QAT lose their moderation privileges along with that?
Putting someone in charge with critical moderation tools that can affect every user (silences, deleting posts, access to logs and account histories) requires a very specific kind of trust and faith into each individual that receives these tools. This trust must come from the higher osu!team itself. Given how the QAT are supposed to be chosen, the trust does not come from the higher osu!team directly. The BNG will put people of their ranks in charge, which is fine in itself, but this doesn’t make them automatically inherit the trust that, in comparison, the GMT receives when being entrusted with critical and sensitive tools and private information (e.g. the account standings that concern nobody but the moderators/admins and the individual user) as I said, I'm totally fine with the qat losing moderation powers, but I really think it would require the GMT to become A LOT more active in terms of moderating beatmap threads to prevent them from getting out of control (see guren / shiten / etc). And I think most GMT actually care about any of this happening which is why I believe that it would be better for the qat to keep moderation powers. Also aren't new qat approved by mao who is an admin from what I know?
Wouldn’t the core team basically be what the QAT is now? How does that change anything?
First and foremost, the core team sure has its origin in the current QAT. Their task is also a task that needs to be continued. The reason why we don’t want the elected QAT to handle the incoming BN applications is simply because we want to avoid the creation of echo chambers. The core team - being in charge of conducting the BN applications, the application assessments, running the QAT elections and compiling the QAT candidate lists - is way smaller than the current QAT. Also their only task would be to conduct these management tasks and therefore forfeit their say in the matters that concern the elected QAT. They will stay separate and focus on running these tasks neutrally, so that the QAT and BNG can focus on their task while the organization and logistics is conducted with full transparency by the core team. They would be responsible for providing the BNG/QAT a proper work environment by running the applications and elections and by running the logistics and oversee the entire system in moderation fashion without injecting their mapping/modding opinion into any of these. what how is denying the "core team", who are supposedly higher than the qat, from anything else that isn't strictly what you listed a good idea? aren't they supposed to be more qualified?
How would you avoid that the core team isn’t just denying applying BNs or QAT candidates arbitrarily?
This is achieved by having the criteria for being a BN and QAT way more defined. While a behavioral and activity assessment is necessary to assure that the incoming people are not complete douches and actually do things in a satisfying quantity, we have to reconsider whether or not a proficiency assessment is worth it at this level. Given the QAT is supposedly returning to proactive quality assurance, incompetent people in the BNG would have their output gatekept and have their performance eventually be reported as insufficient by the QAT to the core team. pretty much agree with most of this, though you'll never be able to keep things completely neutral so why are you trying
Why do you make the Beatmap Nominators lose their right to nominate? Why is the QAT supposed to nominate now?
By making the QAT being the ones that put the final nomination onto a beatmap alone, we assure multiple things:
The beatmap is being approved by the QAT instead of disapproved. This is a positive reinforcement. A quality assessment that eventually results with approval will always cause more positivity than a group of people being solely dedicated to “disapprove or ignore” created content. The only approval a mapper received from the QAT so far is that QAT just ignored the map, completely uncertain whether or not is has been assessed or not. By having the QAT actually put an “ok” or “not ok” onto each map, every mapper at least received some sort of feedback from the QAT instead of just interpreting the radio silence as either the QAT actually being fine with it or the QAT being just lazy and ignorant to it.
Beatmaps being approved instead of disapproved solves a core issue with the Qualified system. The Qualified system is a system built around anticipation. Once you get your map qualified, you are anxiously watching the 7 days passing by. During that time, instead of being filled with positive anticipation, you are rather afraid that some asshole QAT comes around the corner and disqualifies your dear creation. It’s 7 days of horrible uncertainty. “Are they assessing it? Does anybody care? Does my map fly under the radar? Oh god, someone posted on my map, soon the QAT will spawn and nuke it! All the delays!” - You see, instead of creating an environment of willing cooperation, open discussions and finding a compromise by *agreeing*, the current system makes the QAT shoot down maps, which is by its very nature perceived negatively. In order to fix that, the QAT is supposed to deliver the final approval instead of being the Damocles sword that hangs down from the ceiling, impaling your creation by sheer chance. QATs delivering an approval brings certainty to mappers and community that this creation is good to go and actually has been proactively assessed. the idea of a more active approach instead of reactive is something I definitely support, but all this is going to accomplish is shifting the blame from BN x to QAT Y, people will just get even more mad at a different person because now it'd be "qat approved" and you can't do anything whatsoever against it
Isn’t that just another try to do something like the BN tiers we used to have?
Yes it is and it shows a lot of parallels. The BN tiers weren’t a bad idea in itself, however had several shortcomings: how were tiers not a bad idea? do we really want to go back to having what, 5 qualified maps at a time?
The assessment of who becomes a second tier BN was done via a test. Not only are tests itself always a very slippery slope in terms of validity, but also were all BNs forced to undergo this revision. Aside the rather disappointing outcome, the result led to people ending up in the second tier that never asked for it while keeping away those who actually wanted to be second tier but never have been given the chance to do so. By having the QATs elected, attaining such an equal position is done by choice, because the candidate wants to be a candidate and the BNs actually want this person to be in charge. valid point
The second tier BNs were by all means not organized. They were confronted with a wall of bubbled beatmaps they were supposed to check all alone. While this still holds true, the idea is to organize the QAT way better than the second tier BNs were organized (they weren’t organized at all). organization isn't gonna change much, people will still be overwhelmed due to the much larger number of BNs than QATs (even with the proposed system)
The second tier BNs were still facing a nomination limit which hindered them to nominate more than one map per day. This isn’t a thing anymore. that doesn't guarantee people will actually make use of it, many people never even hit the limit (speaking of current times at least)
The second tier BNs didn’t have the authority of a title and also did not receive additional prestige despite their higher rank. The QAT still existed above them, making the second tier BNs an unloved group of people set between the normal BNG and the QAT that would still shoot them down. In this suggestion however, the last nominators are also equal to the last gatekeepers, as Qualified will only account for Unrankables or deep deep disagreements from the very own team the new QAT will operate in. a "title" isn't neccessary)
It was absolutely unclear when new second tier BNs would be appointed and under what premise they are appointed. Having the QAT be assembled by recurring elections makes sure that there are always other people put in charge and that there are always enough active people around that are willingly taking the seat and people can actively pursue this position without being accounted to arbitrary choices of promotion from the former QAT. makes sense
This sounds like getting a beatmap ranked will be quite harder again, as you need to not only get yourself a BN but also a QAT now. What’s the point?
The point is that you can’t have it both ways. You can not ask for a dedicated team to proactively assess quality and at the same time have the same valencies available. Asking for better quality assurance will indefinitely raise the difficulty in getting something Ranked, whether it be simply taking longer or the quality requirement itself just rising. In order to combat the concern of being lost and forgotten among all nominated beatmaps and to not have the community play “fetch the QAT” after having fetched a BN, the general shared queue is organized by the core team, where all nominated maps are being collected and eventually distributed for revision among the residing QAT, so that eventually every beatmap nominated will receive some sort of feedback from the QAT. Whether or not the feedback will lead to a qualification or the QAT just leaving the workable feedback behind so the mapper can keep working on their creation is some other topic. The general queue assures that every nominated map will receive QAT feedback and combats uncertainty and the impossibility to “fetch a QAT”. However, in order to fulfill the gatekeeper and quality assurance task, the feedback can also be “negative” and will not always lead to a definite approval by the QAT either way. Sometimes, beatmaps are just in such a distant state from Ranked in their perception that beatmaps can be possibly bounced back to the BNG entirely (“popped without rebubble”), declaring that this needs way more polishing while pointing out the cornerstones of what it is lacking. The QAT will not be giving you a step-by-step introduction on what to fix exactly how but is only advised to word the shortcomings understandably and offer a direction, not a direct manual. this isn't going to assure quality at all, it only lowers the amount of people who might be "okay" with your map. do you actually every bn is in love with every map they nominate?
Why would you decline feedback being provided during Qualified stage? What about the community feedback?
Having the community leave feedback during Qualified stage is a nice idea on paper. You have experts or dedicated people push a map forward and present it on a silver platter to the community. However, as described in another question, in case of the map being *not accepted by the community*, it gets charged up with massive negativity. Getting your map disqualified is always a huge letdown. The Qualified stage is also a huge window of uncertainty. It puts mappers and supporters in anxiety, praying for nobody to show up and nag on something. Is this what we want? Hoping for people to slide through a critical revision phase without anybody bringing up suggestions? While suggestions are all appreciated and even dearly wanted by the mappers prior Qualified stage, as soon as the map hits Qualified, most mappers become massively reluctant to listen to the suggestions people provide then. The map already jumped through a lot of hoops, it has been assessed by modders, BNGs and QATs, people that are deeply involved into the scene of map creation. While we understand the desire to also offer the creation to the community, we also have to embrace the fact that you can never make it right for everybody. Qualified stage as it is now is also easily exploitable in order to gang up against specific mappers or maps, to keep a map in a limbo forever, especially since you can hold something back indefinitely for reasons that can be entirely subjective and are a simple matter of taste. By having the QAT proactively assess the quality of beatmaps BEFORE the Qualified stage is reached, we assure that every map hitting Qualified are “actually good to go”. Community feedback sure is valuable but feels a lot like a hindrance when only brought up during a phase where the mapper is the most reluctant to receive this feedback. By limiting Disqualifications to direct Ranking Criteria violations alone (as in seeing Qualified like a grace period for human mistakes to happen) and by limiting it to a stage where fellow QATs can deeply disagree with the assessment of their colleagues (avoid abuse, checks and balances), we make the Qualified stage be a stage that is way less filled with anxiety, because as long as your map sticks to the RC and isn’t over the top terrible, you have the certainty that your map will slide through because of the certainty of the map being good to go, as it is QAT approved. This change also assures that the community brings up their feedback at the point of the map review process where it is most desired by mappers: before it hits Qualified. I totally understand the "anxiety" part you mentioned, in fact I feel very nervous myself when I have something qualified and keep checking the thread very often, but while your "solution" removes this part, it will also add a part of "feeling disappointed / defeated" for anyone that disagrees with the map, as they are unable to do anything whatsoever against it
This might be the case in standard, but this is definitely not the case in other gamemodes.MrSergio wrote:
In fact we even have too much content I'd say, to the point where you can't even get an idea of who does what because you don't have the material time to keep up with the content: that in itself is the worst thing a game could do with its own content imo. Imagine being a new mapper who just went through months of effort to make their first map get ranked and all he gets is probably a few thousands plays (depending on the song) because they never got a moment on the stage.
2 - Concerning gaia's asymmetry, the DQ reason (lack of concept), would be applied in all maps who plays like a simple map with various patterns, and then you don't know why, there are 1-2 patterns that don't fit the song, and sadly it looks like the QAT closed their eyes towards this "new mapping era" with many maps that lack of concept and are mostly overdone. I remember other cases like Asphyxia's jump map that got disqualified by himself because the commuity found that the jumps were simply overdone, or the long toumei elegy drama etc...Loctav wrote:
You can stop arguing about what is subjective, what is objective, what is intersubjective and what would the map may look like if mapped by sprosive. That doesn't really matter at all. The Ranking Criteria itself is a formal guideline of "fundamental rules" that MUST be hold in in all circumstances. Everything else is on a "case by case" basis. This does NOT MEAN that mapping must ONLY obey the RC and nothing else. You still must map reasonable.
I looked on this map - and top tier players may like it, but as *QAT* stated, this is NOT what we expect to join our official osu! rankings yet. It is unpolished, it is overdone, the music is not complimenting the map sufficiently (no one said, it must be a 1:1 copy of the music, but the degree it is syncing and pleasing the music is subpar).
And *MAPPER*, we discussed that already. You seem to forget partially that this is a game, after all. And I do not know who you let testplay, but I suggest you to find more testplayers, especially ones that do not run around your skirt and yell "oooh, *MAPPER*-sama, you do so great", because that's how many people here talk. They lack of serious criticism.
If you fail to map beatmaps reasonably and stop trying to squeeze an abomination chimera of the big black, freedom dive and strange program on a 173bpm e-guitaresque song, where every normal person would use like 45% of the sum of all hitobjects used here instead, please do not try to get them approved - or at least don't be so pissed and butthurt about it, if you can not make it into the "Official osu! beatmaps".
Monstrata wrote:
Loctav wrote:
as I said before, this proposal shares a lot of similarities with my proposal that I worked on with the QAT, so please give it a read https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/posts/6910042
1. This is the tier system all over again, but I'd criticize it not just because "the past systems have all resulted in failures" but why a tier system like this won't work to begin with. The "Core Team" which is replacing the current QAT, is still going to have unreliable and uncertain criterias. One of the changes we're looking for is to get a more clear criteria for acceptance into the QAT. Rebranding QAT to something else does not change the issue. Your proposal does a good job of defining the "New QAT" (Basically BN) but the issue is that under your new system, only the titles have really changed, but the core issues remain. Cleverly though you've hit the goal of "making entry to QAT more visible" but really, at this point people are looking at getting into the Core Team which is the real QAT.
My proposal is different because it doesn't make this distinction. I don't believe there needs to be a distinction other than by tenure. Otherwise, the value of QAT is completely replaced.
2. Another big issue is making the ranking system a queue. This is no different from Tier 1 and Tier 2 BN's which failed. Replace BN's with Probationary BN's and QAT's with BN's, and you get exactly the same system that was implemented before. But what's changed? Yep, now there is no QAT. This system effectively rebrands the Tier 2 BN's as QAT's like i've said before. Except now, the Tier 2 BN's are only seeking out maps that are nominated (instead of whatever they want). And if they do try and nominate a map, a BN cannot qualify. Sure, you can say that they can just get a BN to nominate it first, but people also like to mod of their own accord. This is basically saying that modding of your own accord is not efficient because the system is now a queue.
This system also (as was shown in the past) results in low content, followed by Tier 2 BN's and QAT's yolo nominating stuff without thoroughly checking, and yes, this is true.
3. This proposal doesn't address one of the main issues which is quality control. It seems you are just assuming that the new QAT's will have some form of quality control that might be different from what it is now. It also doesn't address the issue of vetoes due to subjective issues.
Anyways, this proposal seems not really well fleshed out yet since honestly, it just seems like a rehash of previous systems, but with changed names. A name change won't solve anything. It doesn't matter if QAT becomes easier to get into if everyone knows QAT's are just Tier 2 BN's now. It's like you own a fast food shop, and rebrand all your cashiers to the title "Manager". Well great, everyone's a manager, so everyone has a special title, but it doesn't mean anything because they still all have to listen to the "Core Manager". Their job hasn't changed, only their title has.
uhh idk but just a question, why do you direct everything in this thread towards yourself? you complain about the suggestions here being catered towards blocking your maps and spend a good few paragraphs defending them when nobody even attacked them, and then you propose an entire system built around promoting your maps? lolUndeadCapulet wrote:
proposal
this thread is about making a system where my maps can't get ranked.
it's very important that people in this thread realize that the majority of the qat do not find my maps to be low quality, but instead consider them to be above average, or even great. multiple have even told me that a map i've ranked this year is one of their favourite maps of the year.
it's very important that people in this thread realize that the majority of the qat do not find my maps to be low quality, but instead consider them to be above average, or even great. multiple have even told me that a map i've ranked this year is one of their favourite maps of the year.
the general playing community should never be considered a prominent voice in the mapping scene, they don't know what's good and are easily swayed by hivemind mentality. any system that takes "backlash" into consideration opens up the ranking system to 1000x more abuse than what happens at the moment.
mao gave out the tier 2 test on the bn server a few months ago, and after i took it, i got the second highest score out of any bn to take it. tests won't keep me out of the ranked section.
Maybe it will be worthwhile to make a thread discussing how to go about defining mapping structure and rhythm consistency in RC?hi-mei wrote:
Everyone explicitly explained why is that (Just read my post above about mapping concepts, tldr: you ignoring structure, rhythm consistency, spacing emphasis and appropriate hitsounding, tho while its not explained in RC, you keep abusing this loophole making an excuse that there are no rules so ehhh).
This was an idea from those who were supposed to "reformat" the RC in 2015, but it has been dropped because of stupid things that happened in the same time that i don't want to remind.abraker wrote:
Maybe it will be worthwhile to make a thread discussing how to go about defining mapping structure and rhythm consistency in RC?
how much of a child do you have to be to sit there and constantly try to stop 1 person from ranking their map. If you are going to propose a SYSTEM. Your SYSTEM should be about including as many people as possible XD. idk why bother posting if ur gonna be like thishi-mei wrote:
@uc
Alright, guess someone should finally speak up about your case huhthis thread is about making a system where my maps can't get ranked.Well, YES.
YES.
...
1) It's not 1 person (regarding the "constantly try to stop 1 person"), like you do realize that the focus is on the maps that constantly cross every possible border and not the people behind (unless you want to take into account attitude, speaking of which, I rather feel like you are the child rather than hi-mei)bor wrote:
how much of a child do you have to be to sit there and constantly try to stop 1 person from ranking their map. If you are going to propose a SYSTEM. Your SYSTEM should be about including as many people as possible XD. idk why bother posting if ur gonna be like thishi-mei wrote:
@uc
Alright, guess someone should finally speak up about your case huhthis thread is about making a system where my maps can't get ranked.Well, YES.
YES.
...
I don't think you have the issue pinned down quite properly. Once players reach a point where they no longer need to play a difficulty, any understanding of those mechanics used in lower difficulties (namely the mechanics restricting their play) will cease to exist, this is because mechanics like "slider leniency abuse" will be use more and more frequently and choosing to not abuse slider leniency at greater difficulties makes those maps much harder for no real reason. This obviously applies to many more things about how newer players play the game. So when I open your profile and see a bunch of insane diffs in your top plays, I would find you are quite susceptible to the same faults as most (now) mappers are to in regards to understanding those mechanics. And would similarly be under the same scrutiny when it comes to properly judging diffs such as Easy, Normal, Hard; especially so in terms of their mechanics.Krfawy wrote:
As someone who plays mostly easier maps I rarely happen to see anything good quality for this difficulty type and I actually have one dominant quality over people in the BNG and QAT who say "we can judge easier maps too". Namely, I am unable to play more demanding maps so my point of view is naturally more relatable as I can discover more faulty patterns and designs than the other who form the osu mapping police. Now try to convince me the 20K-100 tier players actually know what is unplayable for noobs, you are going to be laughed at by everyone with this reasoning for the most obvious self-explanatory point which I don't think I need to type about but I will do anyways: the better you play, the less things seem problematic to the players as well as they have extremely inappropriate and low skills in telling what noobs need in maps. The only exceptional cases I can think of right now are Andrea and aeril, whereas the second is not even a BN.
I am happy that people do happen to be able to find few essential issues in easier maps once a year. Also it's an extreme pleasure to be informed about being uneducated on the mechanics used in the easier maps even though I've been showing the exact opposite for five years now, as well as modding maps with both pending and qualified statuses. Also, do you think I am capable of making videos and posting them on YouTube and educating the audience dearest on how to improve the mapping standards? Do you think I am owning the computer that is stable enough to even play osu and not to mention to make anything significantly demandiing such as tutorials? If I were, I would do that a long time ago. Instead, I am educating people case by case and most of the them happen to be from Poland which cases can be shown on my own beatmaps or supported by me, be it by contributing to the mapset as a guest mapper or a modder, because I do enforce some standards and obviously I am doing so in this particular category of mapping. Also, as long as I understand that my posts might be a bit too sarcastic and not that understandable for the taste of a generic user, especially given the fact that the English language is not my mother tongue, I am amazed by the fact you are giving me even more sarcastic and ridiculously constructed sentences. I have stated that I do have a quality that makes me more reliabe than most people in the BNG and QAT on this matter but where have you seen me say that I "dominate the lower maps"? Excuse you, could you please be polite enough and fix your register a little bit? I do not recall myself calling people "egoistical fucks" so I demand the same from you, especially as it shows a lack of your ability to behave in public and not mine. Obviously, I and my friends do call ourselves names when we talk to each other but we do it in a more casual and fun fashion, not in order to drag each other down, for Lord's sake. Also, if you were so into detailing my scores you would've noticed my Insane scores are: a) old; b) not that impressive; c) these maps are actually on the very low part of the 'difficult' spectrum.blacksocks wrote:
As for someone within my rank range being unable to understand lower difficulties. > Wake up you narcissistic/egotistical fuck.
There are many people you are oblivious to who go around map threads and get them subjectively disqualified for lower difficulties. One of those people happen to be me. And yeah I'm able to explain in detail precisely what a newer player would do when approaching a map. In fact I did that right here: https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/738265/discussion/1825240/timeline#/619566, and once the map was qualified and people bothered to WATCH THE REPLAYS (instead of just looking at the scores) they realized that what I wrote was 100% accurate.
So no, you do not dominate lower difficulties. And no proposing some sort of redundancy in the system will be ignored. If you actually care about low difficulties as much as you propose you do, then you would do a few things.
-Learn what mechanics are used in what difficulty (learn)
-Make a public thread about how those mechanics work and for what difficulties (educate others)
-More frequently mod (at least the qualified mapsets) lower difficulties (enforce)