Mun - I agree, personally I'd also a different outcome here
Hailie - Well, the toxic(?) way of handling the 'set transfer' problem would be to say "Don't rank difficulties that were vetoed on a different set without making changes. (Difficulties vetoed for spread issues are an exception)". In combination with "diffs on a single set shouldn't have too many matching sections", that'd effectively keep this idea specific to the cases at hand.
But yeah otherwise trying to cover the issue is just kinda "oh your mapset is redundant because x mapped it already" and that's kinda dumb and rude.
Agree that current situation is kinda backfiring, but I think their circumvention isn't very viable since it doesn't guarantee them being in the top played listing they aim for.
Miggo - man, I agree it's not easy but I think it's healthy to try brainstorming nonetheless. If a lot of people try thinking outside of the box maybe something interesting falls out. Or not. Doesn't hurt to try.
So
- Avoid having too many similar sections across difficulties in the same set
combined with
- Don't rank difficulties that were removed due to a veto without making adjustments (avoids circumvention of vetoes post-veto)
and
- Don't oversimplify extra difficulties (just like how low diffs shouldn't be too complex, high diffs shouldn't be lacking in complexity)
How does that sound? That would at least discourage making sets for the sake of high playcount, which means a primary motivation for making this many similar difficulties is gone.
Hailie - Well, the toxic(?) way of handling the 'set transfer' problem would be to say "Don't rank difficulties that were vetoed on a different set without making changes. (Difficulties vetoed for spread issues are an exception)". In combination with "diffs on a single set shouldn't have too many matching sections", that'd effectively keep this idea specific to the cases at hand.
But yeah otherwise trying to cover the issue is just kinda "oh your mapset is redundant because x mapped it already" and that's kinda dumb and rude.
Agree that current situation is kinda backfiring, but I think their circumvention isn't very viable since it doesn't guarantee them being in the top played listing they aim for.
Miggo - man, I agree it's not easy but I think it's healthy to try brainstorming nonetheless. If a lot of people try thinking outside of the box maybe something interesting falls out. Or not. Doesn't hurt to try.
So
- Avoid having too many similar sections across difficulties in the same set
combined with
- Don't rank difficulties that were removed due to a veto without making adjustments (avoids circumvention of vetoes post-veto)
and
- Don't oversimplify extra difficulties (just like how low diffs shouldn't be too complex, high diffs shouldn't be lacking in complexity)
How does that sound? That would at least discourage making sets for the sake of high playcount, which means a primary motivation for making this many similar difficulties is gone.