edit: after discussion below, this has turned into a proposal to replace this rule with something specifically against ninja spinners. this way we would allow short spinners that aren't ninja, but not short spinners that are. i need help defining what a ninja spinner is, but going by others responses it seems to be a spinner that players can't prepare for without memorizing it in advance


according to the rc,

Spinners must be long enough for Auto to achieve 1000 bonus score. Shorter spinners do not allow adequate spin time.

i think this should be a guideline, as while spinners that auto can't get 1000 on may often not allow adequate spin time, they sometimes do depending on what the mapper considers adequate spin time for their map's context and the target audience's ability in gameplay

in addition to this, i propose we add a rule like

Spinners must be long enough for Auto to achieve a 300.

or maybe something like,

Spinners must be long enough for a 300 to be achieved when spun at 400 RPM.

then again, maybe rules like this are also not necessary - but i won't take a stance on that here, all i'm proposing is to make the initial rule a guideline and add whatever rule people see fit, if any

Achieving 1000 bonus score makes sense,

Spinners must be long enough for Auto to achieve a 300.

This just means you're giving people less room to spin, and more room for the mappers to abuse short spinners so no one gets an SS on the map.

Spinners must be long enough for a 300 to be achieved when spun at 400 RPM.

At this point might as well go with the 1000 bonus score instead?
How are we gonna test every spinner to meet the requirement you mentioned, no one can consistently spin a 400 RPM spinner. You can create tools that help you check, but that's just too much work and you're better off just sticking to the current spinner RC.

I don't think changing a rule like this is necessary, at the end of the day I don't think spinners are designed to be super challenging.

This just means you're giving people less room to spin, and more room for the mappers to abuse short spinners so no one gets an SS on the map.

if a mapper used short spinners in a way they consider abusive, that still wouldn't be allowed, as they wouldn't be able to justify doing that in light of the guideline. all changing this rule to a guideline would do is allow short spinners that can be justified while still not allowing short spinners that can't

How are we gonna test every spinner to meet the requirement you mentioned, no one can consistently spin a 400 RPM spinner.

you're right, that particular rule isn't practical without some sort of program to check it. it could potentially be added to aimod, which currently checks for spinners that auto can't get 1000s on. that said, i'm sure people can come up w/ some replacement rule that works if this one doesn't

at the end of the day I don't think spinners are designed to be super challenging.

i don't know what the intent of whoever wrote the code for spinners was, but i don't think it really matters. even if spinners weren't designed to be challenging, i'd argue we should still allow positive cases where they are.

when osu was first made, nobody imagined that sliders and circles would be used as they are today - it wasn't their designated intent, yet people innovating and coming to use them as they are now has changed mapping for the better. i don't think changing this to a guideline will have that large an effect, but it should still have a small positive one in terms of expanding what it's possible for mappers to do when justified - and hopefully this comparison shows why arguments from objects' designated purposes aren't relevant from my perspective

-1. This is way too absurd for a mechanic that doesn't required to follow the rhythm.

First, not everyone have the ability to spin that high (400RPM+) with the extreme consistency, even the top players.

Second, only allowed the spinner to get a 300 instead of a 1000 can make the map nearly impossible to humanly SS as well, since Auto starts spinning faster than you think. Doing like that to an Insane or higher (where the spinner length limit is bypassed) is literally suicide, especially Insane difficulty since you have to consider about novice players as well.

I don't approve of this proposal.

First, not everyone have the ability to spin that high (400RPM+), even the top players.

not everyone can spin 400+ rpm, but if someone wants to require it in their map for some reason, i don't think we should stop them with a rule - arguing that it's not justified in their map's context in the modding thread would still be fine, of course, as with any other object usage.

not all top players can play very dense bursts, but we don't have a rule against those, for example. additionally, in the case of spinners the punishment for those players is only getting a 100 rather than failing the map in most cases

Second, only allowed the spinner to get a 300 instead of a 1000 can make the map nearly impossible to SS as well, since Auto starts spinning faster than you think. Doing like that to an Insane or higher (where the spinner length is unlimited) is literally suicide, especially Insane difficulty since you have to consider about novice players as well.

using this with novice players wouldn't happen anyways as it would be impossible for mappers to justify it

Personally feel like this proposal a bit regressive in nature. Last year, spinners were changed to be easier to hit because players generally felt like they shouldn't affect accuracy or combo.

Refer to this twitter poll and the changes that followed from it. There was also this first poll, which wasn't worded clearly but still has a bunch of opinions in the replies.

So, going from making them easier to hit -> to giving them room to be much harder to hit seems like a step backwards on this decision. I can conceptually see them as a challenge element but it's generally not sought after. The idea is also beyond niche, so it seems off to move a rule to a guideline for like .. maybe the one or two beatmaps it'll ever have an exception for.

So yeah, imo current should be kept, the 1k bonus with auto makes sense to allow regular humans to at least get 300s.

@yaspo i dont think this change would be regressive unless it somehow caused most mappers to start using shorter spinners where they would normally use longer ones. the longer ones mappers normally use would still be just as easy

The idea is also beyond niche, so it seems off to move a rule to a guideline for like .. maybe the one or two beatmaps it'll ever have an exception for.

it is niche, but i don't think we should bar those niche maps from being ranked. if there isn't enough of these maps to change this to a guideline, there should at least be a way for mappers to get a map exempt from the rule - maybe we could add a clause to the current rule saying it doesn't apply if a mapper gets a written statement from a NAT member, or something similar, for example

edit: looking at those links, getting a 300 wasn't actually made easier - only getting 100s and 50s, rather than misses, were. this seems like a change that would make this proposal even more reasonable when considering my first point here

edit 2 (sorry): i also imagine most people responding to that poll were thinking about spinners as they're normally used, not as they would be used as a difficulty element in niche cases. going by feedback i've gotten from other mappers and a couple players on a map i used spinners like this in, they're actually pretty fun when used this way :p

Just 1000 auto score is already incredibly fast for a spinner, around two beats long on a 180bpm song with OD8. We hardly ever see people pushing this boundary with just 1000-length spinners as it is, and unless that starts happening regularly I don't see the need to make it more lenient. Any shorter would be going into ninja spinner territory, which essentially require memorizing where spinners are to play and hit them. Humans unlike auto take a moment to get to max speed, so I don't think lowering the limit in Ranked would be very reasonable/fair.

@noffy,

Just 1000 auto score is already incredibly fast for a spinner, around two beats long on a 180bpm song with OD8. We hardly ever see people pushing this boundary with just 1000-length spinners as it is, and unless that starts happening regularly I don't see the need to make it more lenient

if it happens at all, i think that's a good enough amount to do something to allow those cases, even if it's just adding an exception clause to the rule like i wrote in response to yaspo

Any shorter would be going into ninja spinner territory, which essentially require memorizing where spinners are to play and hit them

while i have nothing against some maps requiring memorization, this isn't necessarily true. in the map i linked, for example, the spinners are essentially on the verge of auto getting 1000s. i don't think they need to be memorized, or at least if they do to some extent (probably not more than i.e SV changes during a completely new section of music), it doesn't negatively effect that map's experience.

Humans unlike auto take a moment to get to max speed, so I don't think lowering the limit in Ranked would be very reasonable/fair.

i'm aware that auto plays very different than humans do, but i don't think it follows that lowering the limit would be unreasonable. after all, every difficulty element is easier for auto, and we don't ban other difficulty elements because of this

yaspo wrote:

Refer to this twitter poll and the changes that followed from it. There was also this first poll, which wasn't worded clearly but still has a bunch of opinions in the replies.

^ That twitter poll tells you what people think about spinners. Players don't want challenging spinners. Why make them that?

^ That twitter poll tells you what people think about spinners. Players don't want challenging spinners. Why make them that?

this isn't necessarily true. all that poll shows is that players were in favor of making 100s and 50s easier to get on spinners, not that they don't ever want challenging ones. this also isn't a proposal to make most spinners challenging, and in the vast majority of cases they still wouldn't be

i think the last paragraph in my response to yaspo might be relevant to this too

quila wrote:

all that poll shows is that players were in favor of making 100s and 50s easier to get on spinners, not that they don't ever want challenging ones.

Is it fair to assume that players that were in favor of making 100s and 50s easier to get on spinners don't want spinners to be challenging?

quila wrote:

this also isn't a proposal to make most spinners challenging, and in the vast majority of cases they still wouldn't be

This is a proposal to allow spinners to be challenging. As a consequence of that, mappers who have no problem with spinners contributing toward difficulty will attempt to take advantage of this change. Hardest difficulties will trend, or at least attempt, to have shorter spinners for the sake of making things challenging shall this proposal pass. The claim that most spinners won't be challenging is as valid as the fact that majority of difficulties are not hardest difficulties for which, as said, mappers can make patterns challenging for the sake of making them challenging.


Speaking of difficulties, this change will be very inappropriate for easier difficulties. Changing it to from 1000 to 300 as is will allow easier difficulties to have such spinners as well since this is a general rule.

quila wrote:

the spinners are essentially on the verge of auto getting 1000s

This reads very differently from

quila wrote:

what the mapper considers adequate spin time for their map's context and the target audience's ability in gameplay

In case this would become a guideline, the difference between the original statement and what you just posted changes the exception cases where the guideline is allowed to be broken.
"A map can be designed around ninja spinners" -> "Spinners that barely miss out on getting 1k bonus score with auto are also allowed"

While I feel fairly confident in saying that we don't want maps designed around ninja spinners (based on the past and people's reactions, abraker gets it), the latter is more agreeable. The 1k bonus seems like a potentially arbitrary threshold, but also a really convenient one. It's easily measurable by everyone; objective.

Introducing spinners that barely don't make the cut makes this vague and would rely on human testing in edge cases, which isn't great for the RC imo. Unless, we start defining a new arbitrary threshold. Would it be some kind of "milliseconds away from getting 1000"? Conveniently enough to make your own map rankable? I don't know; I'm curious to see your suggestions.

This is especially important, regarding "Spinners must be long enough for Auto to achieve a 300":
I went to test how long this would be, it turns out that Auto gets 300 regardless of spinner length (even on 10000bpm 1/16 spinners (credits to Nevo's first map being 10000bpm)). This makes it an invalid way of measuring.

o dang yaspo does mention a good point with auto always getting 300s on spinners, as you can see in the time traveler aspire winner, where the combo goes up at the end with invisible ultra shortspinners, and would thus technically be rankable under the change

@abraker,

Is it fair to assume that players that were in favor of making 100s and 50s easier to get on spinners don't want spinners to be challenging?

i don't think so. especially if we're talking about whether players are okay with spinners ever being challenging

Speaking of difficulties, this change will be very inappropriate for easier difficulties. Changing it to from 1000 to 300 as is will allow easier difficulties to have such spinners as well since this is a general rule.

i don't think people would suddenly start using short spinners on easier diffs if this passes. the lack of a rule against something doesn't mean it will start happening, and if someone tried it would be pretty hard for them to justify it. if really necessary, we could keep the rule only for easy through insane diffs, though

@yaspo,
the map i linked was meant as an example of spinners that auto can't get 1000s on being okay, not as a new proposal. i'd still prefer the original proposal, but i'm of course in favor of anything that moves the rc closer to it.

Introducing spinners that barely don't make the cut makes this vague and would rely on human testing in edge cases, which isn't great for the RC imo. Unless, we start defining a new arbitrary threshold. Would it be some kind of "milliseconds away from getting 1000"? Conveniently enough to make your own map rankable? I don't know; I'm curious to see your suggestions.

i don't think relying on human judgement is bad. the rc already does this with spread rules which are much more significant, and it works fine.

This is especially important, regarding "Spinners must be long enough for Auto to achieve a 300":
I went to test how long this would be, it turns out that Auto gets 300 regardless of spinner length (even on 10000bpm 1/16 spinners (credits to Nevo's first map being 10000bpm)). This makes it an invalid way of measuring.

wasn't aware of this.

i'm feeling more and more like it would be better to remove the threshold altogether, and introduce a new rule or guideline specifically against what ninja spinners are in game-play, but not against any spinner length. like this,

Extremely short spinners that the player has no time to prepare themselves for should not be used.

this is using the wiki's definition of ninja spinner. this should allow the niche cases that the current rule unjustly makes unrankable while still giving people something easy to cite when ninja spinners are used

For the map you put as an example, the previous spinners before those that has 1/16 beat apart but Auto 1000 the shorter ones instead of the otherwise. To make it worse, the current AIMod detects both spinners as "not enough to achieve 1000". I don't see how it helps with the proposal at all. Provide maps with the way shorter spinners instead of this.

Also, how many instances are there to make extremely short spinners to represent music (Assuming we're mapping an Expert+)? Most of the time we can just put some kicksliders (in both ways) or circles and it can still express the music well. Back to the example you've made, since the limitation is "No sliders allowed" (I know it's MBC) so that seems to be an alternative, but what if you remove that limitation? This is just useless.

quila wrote:

@abraker,

Is it fair to assume that players that were in favor of making 100s and 50s easier to get on spinners don't want spinners to be challenging?

i don't think so. especially if we're talking about whether players are okay with spinners ever being challenging

The question is not asking whether players are okay with spinners ever being challenging. It is asking if those votes imply players don't want spinners to be challenging. "Not ok with spinners ever being challenging" =/= "don't want spinners to be challenging". The first implies no player would see spinners with less than 1000 bonus to be ok. The second implies that players don't want to see spinners with less than 1000 bonus even if it can somehow work and turn out to be ok.

quila wrote:

Extremely short spinners that the player has no time to prepare themselves for should not be used.

this is using the wiki's definition of ninja spinner. this should allow the niche cases that the current rule unjustly makes unrankable while still giving people something easy to cite when ninja spinners are used

Define "no time to prepare themselves". There should be some minimum time from when the spinner first appears to when it finishes; a minimum spinner duration.

@Zelzatter Zero,

For the map you put as an example, the previous spinners before those that has 1/16 beat apart but Auto 1000 the shorter ones instead of the otherwise. To make it worse, the current AIMod detects both spinners as "not enough to achieve 1000". I don't see how it helps with the proposal at all. Provide maps with the way shorter spinners instead of this.

i think auto gets 1000s on the 7/8 spinners cause there's an object 1/16 after them, which i guess makes auto go fast enough at the end of the spinner to reach 1000. that said, auto definitely doesn't get 1000s on the slightly longer spinners without objects right after them, so those are examples of spinners that the current rule makes unrankable. i don't know of maps with even shorter spinners off the top of my head, sorry

Also, how many instances are there to make extremely short spinners to represent music (Assuming we're mapping an Expert+)?

at least one, but probably more

Most of the time we can just put some kicksliders (in both ways) or circles and it can still express the music well.

the fact that something can be mapped multiple ways doesn't mean we should disallow one way, though


@abraker,

The question is not asking whether players are okay with spinners ever being challenging. It is asking if those votes imply players don't want spinners to be challenging. "Not ok with spinners ever being challenging" =/= "don't want spinners to be challenging". The first implies no player would see spinners with less than 1000 bonus to be ok. The second implies that players don't want to see spinners with less than 1000 bonus even if it can somehow work and turn out to be ok.

i don't think either follows from the poll results. at most, they suggest players want spinners generally to be easier, but even that's a bit of a stretch as the poll was only asking about making spinners less punishing when already not spun enough to get a 300

i understood "don't want spinners to be challenging" as "don't want spinners to be challenging, generally speaking", which is why not wanting spinners to ever be challenging seemed even more unlikely. your clarification seems more unlikely than both, though - i don't see why anyone would want to ban something even when they think it works and turns out to be okay.

Define "no time to prepare themselves".

this is pretty ambiguous, yea. i just put something there to portray the idea, and was hoping others would expand on it. how to word it depends on what makes a ninja spinner. are they short spinners that players don't expect, and can't prepare for without memorization, like noffy brought up? if so, it would be worded to not allow those specifically. i'm not the best at wording though, so i'm hoping others can help here

There should be some minimum time from when the spinner first appears to when it finishes; a minimum spinner duration.

i think this has kind of been addressed already, but i think that any line drawn for minimum spinner time would unintentionally exclude some cases. cause of this, perhaps its best not to have an arbitrary minimum, but to instead define what ninja spinners are and exclude those specifically

quila wrote:

perhaps its best not to have an arbitrary minimum, but to instead define what ninja spinners are and exclude those specifically

to me ninja spinners (in this sense) are ones with some arbitrary low spin time. not much more to it

agree with community/forums/posts/7691823

to me ninja spinners (in this sense) are ones with some arbitrary low spin time. not much more to it

that's not the impression i'd gotten from responses and the wiki so far :/

half of the responses directly mention a minimum spin time though... 🤔

the wiki page you linked says "extremely short spinners that are usually placed in locations where the player has no time to prepare themselves for them", which I can only imagine translating to a rule via some minimum spin time. what else makes spinners "extremely short" or gives "time to prepare"? in any case this page is an archive of mapping discussion/voting from 10 years ago and shouldn't be referenced. there was a common understanding of "ninja spinner" back then due to usage in popular maps

half of the responses directly mention a minimum spin time though

yes, but that's because this proposal pertains to short spinners

what else makes spinners "extremely short" or gives "time to prepare"?

time to prepare for a spinner depends on multiple things. if spinners are consistently used in a predictable way, players can prepare for them before they even show up on screen, just like with other objects

if you define ninja spinners that way, then i think a better question for me to ask you would be what do you think the problem is with short spinners (or ninja spinners, if using your definition)? i suspect that it's something not all short spinners share (i.e unpredictability). if that's the case, then regardless of the terminology we use i think the rc should only exclude short spinners that actually have that problem

problem with short spinners is they're an element of difficulty, and experienced players typically don't want this type of difficulty beyond gimmick maps pushing osu!'s limits. regardless of whether I know the spinner is coming or not, it's a really awkward experience to play a map already testing my aim/tapping skill, then switch for a second to spinning cursor quickly, then revert back to what feels like the "actual game". meta for spinners shows this too, where they are typically used for long drawn out sounds that give the player a break.

I understand why you want to use short spinners, and it wouldn't be that harmful to gameplay in worst case, but there's so little interest that it doesn't seem worth to allow. and fwiw you can still make maps you think are cool using odd spinner mechanics, they just wouldn't be ranked

edit: also I forgot to add that the minimum of Auto being able to get bonus score is already very short.

regardless of whether I know the spinner is coming or not, it's a really awkward experience to play a map already testing my aim/tapping skill, then switch for a second to spinning cursor quickly, then revert back to what feels like the "actual game"

thanks for elaborating. i think there are easily imaginable circumstances where this 'awkward experience' is desirable, and also circumstances where it doesn't actually happen.

just like uncomfortable movements, creating a feeling of awkwardness can be desirable for expressing something that (for example) feels awkward in a song; not saying that spinners are always the preferred way to do this, but that they sometimes can be. additionally, this awkward experience could not happen at all if the difficult spinners predictably happened in parts of a map where aim/tapping difficulty are relatively low

i also don't think switching between utilizing different skills necessarily entails awkwardness. in my map for example, there's kind of switches like this (though aim/tapping skill required is still low compared to other parts of the map), but i think it's what characterizes the section it happens in; it wouldn't feel fitting with just circles/sliders or just a bunch of short spinners

I understand why you want to use short spinners, and it wouldn't be that harmful to gameplay in worst case, but there's so little interest that it doesn't seem worth to allow.

i think it's worth it, cause i don't realistically see anything negative happening as a result. what do you think the adverse effects of changing the rule would be, given it's done in a way that would only allow positive instances of short spinners, and given that any negative instances of short spinners could still be pointed out in modding threads if there's somehow an oversight in the less restrictive rule?

dont rly understand why a poll of what random players want is a useful justification against this btw, if u went back to 2009 and asked them if they wanted more difficult jump maps that didnt use distance snap youd get the same results lol

there are some situations where a short spinner could be a useful representation of the song, using it well should be up to the mapper not a bunch of players who collectively are usually awful at determining what works well in a map and not in a vacuum.

I think Spun-Out mod is better simulating human's behavior on spinners.
Changing the rule to something like, "SO should be able to do a 300" (or a 100), will be better than using auto for this.

I've seen some ranked maps where SO is only getting 100s (that was 50s before the recent changes),
In quila's map, SO is getting 300s (when last checked, some times ago), it seems fine,
even when i try without SO, it seems doable even if i'm bad at spinners.

I'm against ninja spinners, but we need to define what's acceptable or not, and imo,
using auto is not a good way for this.

Spun-out is an interesting suggestion but seems to be inconsistent, did a test on 2 180bpm songs, OD10 and 1/8 reductions in spinner length.
1/1: 300 300
7/8: 100 300
6/8: 300 300
5/8: 100 100
4/8: 100 100
3/8 and below: 300

So not only does it seem to copy auto's behavior for very short spinners, for longer spinners the results fluctuate. Spun-out getting 100s seems more like a bug than anything.

Regardless, I've been thinking about how to define it in a way that doesn't come down to "don't use ninja spinners and you find out through testing".
The solution might've been staring us in the face, lower difficulties already have guidelines like

Hard difficulty guidelines wrote:

Avoid spinners less than 2 beats. Players need time to recognize that they have to begin spinning.

so, imo it's not unreasonable to extend this type of guideline to Insane and Expert by using spinner length on the timeline as measurement as well. The required 1000 points bonus can likely be removed then. This is reasonably testable (unlike milliseconds length) and also consistent.
Big difference between testing once for a catch-all solution compared to having to figure it out for each spinner, right.

Eyeballing it would be "Avoid spinners less than 1 beat" for expert, but I haven't tested that very thoroughly and probably shouldn't rely on my own, isolated, judgement for that. Maybe OD should be included in this as well, since that does affect the amount of spinning required. Tbh not very motivated to experiment with this because it goes very deep into diminishing returns in my eyes.

it's not a bug, spun-out spins way slower than the average player and there is not a linear correlation between spin time and 300 difficulty to begin with

1 beat on 180bpm (the rc's point of reference last i checked) is .5555 beats on 100bpm, which would be enough for my map to be rankable. i still think defining unacceptable sliders with something other than length would be ideal, but i'd be fine with this too

Oh, nice to see someone made a thread about spinners since I was thinking about this. I'm not really a mapper but want to list off some other minor problems with using Auto performance as a guideline for spinner minimum length:

- It's not as useful of a metric when there's objects right before or after the short spinner that force your cursor away from the center of the screen: quila's NULCTRL above, Dum Surfer, 8 bit princess... Auto doesn't need any time to recover from the previous object, can teleport its cursor to the center, can instantly start and stop spinning on a dime, and doesn't need any time to regroup before the next object. Who cares if Auto can hit 1000 or not, because the way Auto spins is so radically different from the way actual players spin.

- This is a bit of a corner case but it can lead to situations where you might want to fudge the OD of a map to make a spinner rankable and I really don't want anyone to have to do that. As an example look at 01:07:560 in the top diff of dsco's Sequence Start. Auto can just barely get 1000, but if you increase the OD from 8.8 to only 9.1, it can't anymore. But this doesn't have any material effect on the gameplay since it's still impossible to get a 1000 with OD8.8 in practice, unless maybe you attach your tablet pen to a drill, but it's still easy to get a 300 with only 2 or 3 turns.

anyway,

I think it's fine if spinners are a bit awkward; in a nutshell you're allowed to place circles awkwardly and sliders awkwardly so why should spinners have to be comfy? It's already possible to do certain kinds of awkward spinners, like in the maps I listed, so this just opens the door to more of them when they come in handy.

Short spinners are not that widely applicable in maps anyways and especially if players dislike them I don't think it'll open the doors to Spinner Metagame Hell and bring on the end times or anything

I'm a little unsure about having a hard timeline definition of ninja spinner, though, because issues of readability are so subjective and I dunno maybe someone will want a 1 beat spinner in their 181bpm song. Idk how these near-rulebreaks get handled in the mapping world tho, and I don't really have any better suggestions...

@quaternary
The ranking criteria has a concept called bpm scaling, read here help/wiki/Ranking_Criteria/Scaling_BPM
Since a variety of bpms can pop up, rules that rely on these tend to get approximated at least a little with their original intent in mind. The 181bpm spinner you mention would be fine but maybe a 200 one wouldn't. etc. Technicalities.

Using timeline length is fairly optimal since it provides clear boundaries for those who are creating maps, those who are modding them and those who eventually end up nominating them. It's better for everyone that they don't need to go around asking 10 people for every single short spinner they encounter, or simply misinterpret the rule because they read it differently.

In that sense, uh, this thread can't really stop at "nice my map is rankable under this untested suggestion". That's not really beneficial to the general community. Imo, next step would be to figure out a testing method, actually test what works for Insane and Expert level players and return with the results.
Maybe the UBKRC guys of the olden days have a good idea for this, I could ask them.

please do ask them, i don't have energy to test this myself

I'm fairly certain we didn't add it for insane and expert because the "must achieve 1000 bonus score" rule was in place.

The spinners that applied to were usually shorter than 2 beats and thus we didn't consider them

The 1000 bonus points was kept from the old RC it was easy to test and verify with your current OD settings and song speed to figure out whether or not your map breaks scoring / auto.


---

I only read the OP and I don't really know what OP sees as a problem here. The map linked as context (NULCTRL) can be rankable given the mapper lowers the OD. Auto spins much faster than the average player, so lowering the requirement from "at least one tick of bonus score at full speed" to "barely 300 at full speed" seems like a step backwards to me. The 1000 bonus score is already really damn hard to actually do while playing because that assumes you're spinning as fast as auto.

The map linked as context (NULCTRL) can be rankable given the mapper lowers the OD

it would have to be lowered to around 7.5 for 100bpm 7/8 spinners to be 1000-able by auto in isolation, or around 9 for auto to 1000 them in practice. (auto seems to only get 1000s on some of the spinners now due to objects 1/16 before/after them causing auto to move faster at the spinner's start/end; not sure if this breaks the rule or not). i'd prefer not to do either as they both increase notelock potential which would be bad on this map

lowering the requirement from "at least one tick of bonus score at full speed" to "barely 300 at full speed" seems like a step backwards to me

maybe, as a result of discussion here we're currently considering options between "barely 300" and 1000

But I do think ninja spinners are fun and can improve gameplay... it's like saying tech sliders aren't allowed because they're hard to follow. I showed a multi this map and they said it was still fun and they wouldn't mind if it were ranked beatmapsets/1274348#osu/2647883

can something be changed now? ;w;
(or at the very least, can an exception be granted for my map?)

BRUH

EdxCo wrote:

BRUH

why bruh? This is not a joke and OP has the right reason to bring this up.

Considering extremely short spinner can now have 2 300s, I think it's time to drop the rule completely. Spinner length rule for low difficulties still have to be kept, though, as beginners need to have time to get used to what spinners are, unlike experienced ones.

No way.
Modern maps are already have enough edgy stuff that make them completely unenjoyable for me, but at least they're somewhat playable. Ninja spinners will become the last nail in the coffin.