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.
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:
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.
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.
I'd get the concern if we were talking about shrinking a small library, but this is on the scale of tens of thousands vs. thousands of maps in coming years. not to mention that existing maps aren't going anywhere.
the extension of this thought I can agree with is that some general variety is nice to have, but I don't think that is in jeopardy by removing spread requirement
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
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.
is having more songs available at low difficulties really more valuable than supporting and expanding the involved community? can you be sure that this is a question of tradeoff in the first place, rather than a relic of the past that doesn't have positive effect today?
---
Noffy 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"
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 it
"trial period" is questionable to me, i think it might be an unproductive way to gather thoughts in this situation because the end of that period will leave lots of mappers feeling like something was taken away from them, diverting focus to the "forced mapper work" part of this argument even tho that is not the only consideration
that said i dont have better alternative... besides treating this like normal rc and just removing the rules if consensus goes that way, which is what i want :^)
ok i argued only with what noffy said but its cuz she summarized everything to respond to sorry noffy i dont hate u---
other thoughts:
other RC rules are there to ideally promote a quality standard and technical requirements for the maps going into ranked. this set of rules does not do that, it mandates creating more maps in certain cases, which I don't think is what RC should be for. or what anything should be for. why are we forcing people to create stuff against their will just to make their other stuff eligible for exposure?
spread requirements apply to all mappers & mapsets currently but it doesn't require that to meet its end. they exist (according to people in these threads) to create choice and accessibility for players of lower difficulties, which
does not have anything to do with the maps that mappers happen to be pushing through ranked, it was merely convenient to give mappers some homework since they'll probably do it in order to rank their sets. this is main reason I think the spread requirement setup is so ridiculous, it's offloading time and effort to other mappers for a passion project they don't even care about, and that their maps are not related to.
if you passionately believe that bare-minimum ENH diffs in volume help the game in some way, is there anything stopping you from building those yourself? if so, what justification do you have to move the responsibility to other people?