agree w/ mordred
Other modes besides mania don't have 893382 clones you could relay on to have players learn how to play, so you need those lower difficulties. And since they are a need, you can't call that bloat content.Penguinosity wrote:
There's a surprising number of people in the community who heavily bias accessibility and inclusivity over quality, which while that's great for those purposes, it's also shafting plenty of maps in the process that aren't created solely for that reason. We can spin in circles over what defines quality as well, but it's just my two cents. I don't like seeing seasoned mappers forced to create bloat just for the purpose of newer players hearing a song they like in the game.
This is a fair response. It's true that in the grand scheme of things the rules aren't a "big issue" for other gamemodes, but I personally disagree with how it's done in principle.yaspo wrote:
This trial seems okay for gamemodes that suffer a lack of content - mania specifically, not so much for gamemodes that already have a plenty abundant amount of maps being ranked.
One reason is that this trial very intentionally spikes up the content available for ranked by targeting maps that would otherwise be a single diff in the graveyard. For a mode like standard this kind of spike is a complete disaster. The ranking queue won't be able to hold it, which will have significant consequences for how the ranked section is interacted with.
Another is yeah, other gamemodes work fine with the current spread rules, so let's not hastily try to fix what's not broken? Significant issues have been explained and identified for the mania side of things, but those issues don't necessarily translate to other gamemodes. If there's things we'd like to see change or improve in terms of spread requirements for other gamemodes, let's start there and not with opening the floodgates.
Lastly, from the pro-side of the argumentation that I'm reading, this idea has a completely different set of values and goals than the current spread-rules do. It's basically jumping from one extreme to the other, regardless of which extreme we're at there will always be people who aren't satisfied. So, there's really no good reason to make this jump without discussing things and considering alternatives (when it comes to other gamemodes)
It seems extremely strange to me that we'd need to make spread rules apply to all gamemodes, when in reality all of these separate gamemodes are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT GAMES. [...]I'm extremely confused why the issue has spread (No pun intended) to all gamemodes in the first place. I was already confused to get opinions based on other modes basing myself on the same premise that all modes are different and it's hard to generalize such rules.
Maybe already ranked spreads is a better choice of wording? But lowkey agreeIOException wrote:
What about just relaxing requirements for maps of songs that already have ranked maps?
In general, I disagree with relaxing it for all modes since low diffs are valuable but I also don't believe every new set of an existing song should need one either.
I agree that this is a concern that separates this thread from the other, maybe not for taiko ig but for standard and catch at least. same as my comments in the other thread, I argue that taking this into account can support this change, bc not requiring mappers to invest minimum effort into lower diffs should improve the quality of those that are left going forward, providing better experience/introduction/etc for newer players that will be using osu! as their first exposure to this kind of game.Noffy wrote:
I can't bring myself to agree with bringing it to other modes. osu!mania is part of a very broad VSRG genre, many players come from and can also play very similar VSRG games, changing the learning curve and general approach.
also from other thread I have a hard time seeing where reduction of song choice would impede on accessibility for newer players. I don't buy (from what other ppl said in other thread) that there's a significant population that comes to osu! with such rigid expectations that they're disappointed right away by not being able to play particular songs. even if that were the case, it's unlikely that mappers motivated by satisfying popular demand would give up that opportunity just because the rules changed, so naturally the individual songs most likely to be singled out by search would still be most likely to have been mapped. I think.Noffy wrote:
An issue on other level making game communities where custom levels are a thing is the majority of user made content will cater to the harder end, since they get into making stuff after playing for a while.
This can be frustrating and restrictive from the player's point of view and reduce their available song choice significantly, especially for osu! Which is entirely community content.
I think this is a bigger problem for osu! and osu!catch which don't have much for other active and equivalent games that players can additionally use to learn from. I think it would be unhealthy going forward as many more songs would be left without accessible options.
this is with the assumption that the extra required work is helping anything which I don't think is fair. apart from having more songs available like mentioned above, nobody is even trying to argue other upsides and nobody argued so far that the main/clear downsides are invalid.Noffy wrote:
The current spread rules are pretty balanced as they are to account for amount of work involved and the endurance of newer players not being able to play longer songs as well to start with, doesn't seem like something that needs changing IMO
things have a chance to get really unusual either way if this rule goes into effect, I don't think it's unlikely that we'd see a sudden wave of maps going for ranked that used to not be eligible just cuz the mapper didn't want to make a full set for itNoffy wrote:
The thing about a trial period is unless it's extremely long most of the maps going for rank will have already existed and have spreads for the previous rules too, making it hard to see if it's actually accurate to long term reality.
It's not like they're gonna see the rule change and be like "oh gonna delete these diffs I was made to make"
Absolutely agree with this^Niva wrote:
I'm okay with IOE's idea of relaxing the spread requirements further tho, but for completely quote-on-quote "abolishing" the spread requirement I don't think that would be a good idea for the game at large going forward.
I'm not sure if it's what you're referring to and I'm pretty sure you've seen this already, but there's already a mania-specific thread, it would be great if you could share your thoughts there.Kawawa wrote:
i think we'll need another discussion if mania decided to having a specific spread rule.
It's bad enough IMO that Easy diffs basically don't even get mapped anymore. While the above^ is pretty much spot on, there are many players (not even just score farmers) who enjoy playing through low diffs and full spreads, while at a higher skill level. Not all of osu! is pushing skill/getting better. Playing at a level you are already proficient at or lower is perfectly enjoyable (at least with the right mindset I suppose).VINXIS wrote:
most players that play for more than 5 maps play [Normal] level difficulties for like a week or so at most before moving on to [Hard] for the next month or so (though I could be wrong, mainly from what I've observed from players who I knew before osu who joined after me, and players that I randomly stumbled upon that were just starting out)
VINXIS wrote:
theres actually a ridiculous amount of [Normal] level diffs and this diff range has the highest density of all difficulty ranges in standard, to where u could might as well equal the amount of content to the equivalence of like 17 other paywalled games similar to osu
Yeah I'm pretty sure 50% of all ranked o!std maps are 0-3.99* from what I've seen, however that doesn't mean that players don't want new low diffs, to keep things fresh, or on new songs/genres that come out etc. For example, my music taste has really only been mapped in the past year or so, there hasn't been much of it around until now, meaning there's not many low diffs for them either.VINXIS wrote:
most if not all song tastes have essentially more than enough low diffs from the past 14 years already to get players good enough to move on to the next difficulty level
oh thank you so much i forgot this linkvernonlim wrote:
I'm not sure if it's what you're referring to and I'm pretty sure you've seen this already, but there's already a mania-specific thread, it would be great if you could share your thoughts there.Kawawa wrote:
i think we'll need another discussion if mania decided to having a specific spread rule.
Removing low diff requirements from ranking criteria would remove innovation from low diffs since only old normals are available.VINXIS wrote:
most if not all song tastes have essentially more than enough low diffs from the past 14 years already to get players good enough to move on to the next difficulty level
people who were never interested in mapping low diffs would stop mapping them, and people who are would continue. does that not leave a higher portion of low diff mappers left who could "innovate"? where r u seeing "innovation" done by ppl who wouldn't make these maps in the first place without a rule requiring it?Castagne wrote:
Removing low diff requirements from ranking criteria would remove innovation from low diffs since only old normals are available.
I'm also curious where you find many "coherent" mapsets spanning down to low diffs these days, part of the reason I'm very supportive of this change is that the default minimum-effort low diffs made due to requirement hardly ever feel belonging in their mapsets to me to begin withCastagne wrote:
Mapsets are supposed to provide a coherent package of content to the ranked section.
nobody is saying it's so much effort and they want to escape some responsibility like this. the point of these threads is to reconsider the pros and cons of these rules that have been with osu for so long that the scene has almost entirely changed. you're never going to be open minded about changes if your reaction is to attack views of the discussion that aren't even presentCastagne wrote:
There is no need to change the ranking criteria to handhold mappers who can't be arsed to make low diffs or ask 3 friends to make low diffs for them.
my argument about that is that it'd do away with the bottom denominator of low diff maps that are made with min. effort for the requirement alone, other ppl said things too though, it's all in this thread and some in mania oneCastagne wrote:
I don't see arguments why the ranked section would improve with relaxing of the spread requirements.
that second part is the topic o_oCastagne wrote:
Difficulties that can be ranked with relaxed spread requirements can also be ranked with the current system, provided that proper low diffs are added.
there is a thing called the 'bn application process' that goes over this, don't worry! you wont be added to the bng without understanding of lower difficulties!Project Railgun wrote:
From a nominating point of view, a set without low diffs means that the nominating BNs were not tested on their ability to mod low diffs. From a mapping point of view, this means that the mapper is able to create maps without limitations but may not understand the nature of low diffs.
orproposed RC wrote:
If the highest difficulty within a set is...
...an insane, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...an extra, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...an Extreme, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.
this approach to having bracketed spreads is a much better approach and helps tackle most qualms people have with it now, with this you are able to have a ranged audience access your maps, whilst appealing to that specific audience, this will help push forward the agenda of mapping higher difficulties as maps slowly progess into becoming harder and harder, this will make the burden on both BNs and mappers for mapping higher diffuclties much less.proposed RC wrote:
If the highest difficulty within a set is...
...4.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...5.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...6.5, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.