Disagree with the proposal but cba discussing why lol
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.
Such poll would demonstrate intentions from a select sample size at the current moment, but that would not be completely indicative of what will actually happen with time passed. Polls are great to gauge thoughts and opinions, but not great to predict how entire dynamic systems will function.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
5. It's not necessary to make a trial period without spread rules. Just make a poll to ask mappers if they would continue to make spreads and one to ask BNs if they would nominate maps that don't have spreads.
i find a poll to still be more feasible than a trial period because of the issue noffy previously brought up. this is exacerbated by the fact that maps aimed for rank probably take longer to rank in mania compared to standard (don't have data to back this up but i don't think it's too unreasonable to think this). i think a poll would be a good compromise between the insight it'd provide and how quickly it can be done in comparison. at the very least this could be done to ask BNs if they'd nominate maps without full spreads considering it's not too hard to do.abraker wrote:
Such poll would demonstrate intentions from a select sample size at the current moment, but that would not be completely indicative of what will actually happen with time passed. Polls are great to gauge thoughts and opinions, but not great to predict how entire dynamic systems will function.
isn't this a meaningless poll though, since the idea is to let mappers and BNs choose when they feel a spread is necessary?Scotty wrote:
at the very least this could be done to ask BNs if they'd nominate maps without full spreads considering it's not too hard to do.
just lol, this is all backwards. there are currently way more mapsets including low diffs than high diffs. even if we want to make a (probably baseless) assumption that something abt the nature of mapping high diffs yields more song variety for the same amt of mapsets, it's not enough to cast aside the data here:Serizawa Haruki wrote:
and an even bigger discrepancy between song choice for low diffs and high diffs than there already is
SR range | Name | Count ---------+-------+------ < 2 | E | 12906 < 2.7 | (E)N | 18076 < 4 | (EN)H | 19118 >= 4 | I(X+) | 14571 >= 5.3 | X+ | 6441 >= 6 | | 2679 >= 6.5 | | 1118
although tbf a player is only in this stage for like,, 2 weeksSolitaire wrote:
it's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which a new player finds a map of a recent op they liked & reacts negatively when they can't find a mapset that includes low difficulties for them
no and no, stop doompostingDoyak wrote:
Do we want to let many potential new players feel ignored and quit, and think that this game is only for talented players?
I also highly doubt if there are even a few mappers who are willing to map lower diffs "when they feel necessary", like for most of the songs. Of course, there are very calm songs that many people do consider lower diffs proper, but we don't want new players to play such songs only, right?
4real it's not relevant to this at all, i regret entertaining it in my own argumentsVINXIS wrote:
WHYY is accessibility even sitll a talking poiint i doint undwerstand
There's no way to prove how beneficial / disadvantageous to remove the rule since it hasn't happened yet. Yes, that could be a little extreme assumption, but it's totally a possible scenario which we should take in consideration when discussing a huge change in RC like this. I think Nao's post explains this point pretty well. Calling it a doompost and just telling me to stop doesn't help.clayton wrote:
no and no, stop doompostingDoyak wrote:
Do we want to let many potential new players feel ignored and quit, and think that this game is only for talented players?
I also highly doubt if there are even a few mappers who are willing to map lower diffs "when they feel necessary", like for most of the songs. Of course, there are very calm songs that many people do consider lower diffs proper, but we don't want new players to play such songs only, right?
see community/forums/posts/8313322 too. and viewed a different way, this is more of a potential benefit for new players than anything, said in other posts.
imo, i think 1:45, 2:45, and 3:30 for minimum ranges would work betterwafer wrote:
Hold on, have an idea here
What if we further reduced spread requirements based off drain time?
Purely hypothetically (literally just throwing random draintimes out there), 0:00-1:59 could be Normal minimum, 2:00-3:29 could be hard minimum, 3:30-4:14 could be insane minimum, and 4:15+ could be any diff
Something along these lines would still keep a steady supply of lower diffs, but would help alleviate some of the pressure for making lower difficulties.
Finding the right drain times for each minimum required diff is a bit of work but pretty sure we can just tweak what we have right now.
it's a shame nobody in this same thread mentioned what related data we could look to to help predict what would happen! -_-Doyak wrote:
There's no way to prove how beneficial / disadvantageous to remove the rule since it hasn't happened yet. Yes, that could be a little extreme assumption, but it's totally a possible scenario which we should take in consideration when discussing a huge change in RC like this. I think Nao's post explains this point pretty well. Calling it a doompost and just telling me to stop doesn't help.
^ is my main point of view. I'm not saying there will be no maps new players can enjoy at all. However, it still highly limits what these people can enjoy. Even the current rules do limit player experiences at some extent (like a set with a single 8* difficulty which only a few thousand players can try). And in the long run, we lose potential "skilled" players who can become good enough to play these harder diffs as well, who would keep playing if they had been able to enjoy the game early in their experience in osu!.Nao Tomori wrote:
to your points about doing more work - yes, it makes sense for rc to tell you to make more maps. rc sets a bare minimum standard for a ranked section that contributes to the overall health of the game. low diffs are included in that overall health as a game with a greatly reduced amount of lower difficulties will fail to attract new players as songs they want to play are not mapped for their level or maps at their level are sparse enough that they can't find new content (relevant for taiko and ctb, not as much standard).
preachmrowswares wrote:
general quality of low diffs will increase if only the people who want to map them map them, out of interest for it rather than a necessity. I saw some random point about innovation and you're not gonna get innovation by forcing people to map low diffs as FILLER. because that's what forced spread mapping typically results in - FILLER.
looking into data relevant to the prior spread changes (with the flexible lengths), and assuming the same will apply for a "no spread requirements" rule, YES the quantity of these diffs is going to drop (by about half), but nowhere near as much as some of the people in this thread are trying to tell you
Mokobe wrote:
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.
Some maps are targetted generally at higher levels of expertise, this is fine. Can we stop breaking the mappers intention by forcing them to adhere to lower levels of play? if for example, we had a 9* map going for ranked, and there would be a difficulty for each star up to normal, that would require the map to have 8 difficulties. With my proposed change, we would only need to see such map with a 4-5* lowest, which better targets this set at higher levels of play whilst encouraging and removing the burden for those who want to push harder maps that test the limits.
Are you really for keeping normal maps to hinder the progression of higher-difficulty mapping and a higher level of play?
I'm not entirey sure if this would work out this easily.Mokobe wrote:
preachmrowswares wrote:
general quality of low diffs will increase if only the people who want to map them map them, out of interest for it rather than a necessity. I saw some random point about innovation and you're not gonna get innovation by forcing people to map low diffs as FILLER. because that's what forced spread mapping typically results in - FILLER.
looking into data relevant to the prior spread changes (with the flexible lengths), and assuming the same will apply for a "no spread requirements" rule, YES the quantity of these diffs is going to drop (by about half), but nowhere near as much as some of the people in this thread are trying to tell you
agree with clayton again, also refer back to my previous point as i feel like this thread overlooked it a bitMokobe wrote:
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.
Some maps are targetted generally at higher levels of expertise, this is fine. Can we stop breaking the mappers intention by forcing them to adhere to lower levels of play? if for example, we had a 9* map going for ranked, and there would be a difficulty for each star up to normal, that would require the map to have 8 difficulties. With my proposed change, we would only need to see such map with a 4-5* lowest, which better targets this set at higher levels of play whilst encouraging and removing the burden for those who want to push harder maps that test the limits.
Are you really for keeping normal maps to hinder the progression of higher-difficulty mapping and a higher level of play?
Nao said something about the current system being fine & that we have the most amount of ranked maps ever, and while the latter is true, this is partially due to an influx of new users, therefore new mappers. However, the influx of users & maps doesn't mean our system works perfectly.wafer wrote:
Hold on, have an idea here
What if we further reduced spread requirements based off drain time?
Purely hypothetically (literally just throwing random draintimes out there), 0:00-1:59 could be Normal minimum, 2:00-3:29 could be hard minimum, 3:30-4:14 could be insane minimum, and 4:15+ could be any diff
Something along these lines would still keep a steady supply of lower diffs, but would help alleviate some of the pressure for making lower difficulties.
Finding the right drain times for each minimum required diff is a bit of work but pretty sure we can just tweak what we have right now.
wht vinxis said, i think the change in rate is both exaggerated and not meaningful.yaspo wrote:
This is supported by that yes, spread requirements are in some way a hurdle needing to be crossed to enter the "official" content stream. By slowing down the amount of content released, maps that do get ranked get appropriate attention.
? mfwyaspo wrote:
For what it's worth, it's not like the people pushing for this actually care about the spread requirements.
loved is a whole other beast with similarly messed up grouping of concerns like ranked, and if u trace it back it exists literally only because ranked(or ranked categories altogether) failed to adapt to anything in the years leading up to it, u gotta be very desperate or not payin attention to see loved like a proper answer to handling "immortalization" of maps in its current state. not to mention the concept of "immortalization" doesn't apply to loved, mappers can just remove and delete their maps, among other things. got to save myself from going on a wild tangent about this stuffyaspo wrote:
If the community wants to immortalize content it's up to them to put in that effort. This is what Loved does really well
That's the crux of this thread right, the originally discussed topic was the binary idea of removing spread requirements or not as a solution to the issue of certain maps not getting leaderboards. I can defend against their removal but not so much against new ideas.clayton wrote:
why does it have to be a spread requirement?