yes pls
My understanding you either start with Normal as lowest diff and fill up as desired, or start with highest diff then fill additional 2 down as required. So Normal and Hard should be okPaturages wrote:
Yes please.
The "3/2/1 difficulties below highest difficulty" seems pretty reasonable for songs that guarantee enough complexity for a very hard map. However just to make sure, what about songs where complex mapping wouldn't necessarily fit? Fitting 3 difficulties below a "Hard" would seem a bit weird to me, although such cases should be pretty rare...
In case the wording isn't clear enough, in no cases anything below a Normal will be required for 0:00-2:30 draintimes, below a Hard for 2:30-3:15, etc. We can reword those lines if they're hard to grasp.Paturages wrote:
Yes please.
The "3/2/1 difficulties below highest difficulty" seems pretty reasonable for songs that guarantee enough complexity for a very hard map. However just to make sure, what about songs where complex mapping wouldn't necessarily fit? Fitting 3 difficulties below a "Hard" would seem a bit weird to me, although such cases should be pretty rare...
Exactly this! (though in that particular case it'd be an additional 3, not additional 2)Abraker wrote:
My understanding you either start with Normal as lowest diff and fill up as desired, or start with highest diff then fill additional 2 down as required
3 difficulties below a hard would never be required because the RC states that for a mapset lower than 2:30 it would need either a Normal OR 3 diffs below highest diff. So you could have just NM and HD and that would be rankable if I'm understanding correctly.Paturages wrote:
Yes please.
The "3/2/1 difficulties below highest difficulty" seems pretty reasonable for songs that guarantee enough complexity for a very hard map. However just to make sure, what about songs where complex mapping wouldn't necessarily fit? Fitting 3 difficulties below a "Hard" would seem a bit weird to me, although such cases should be pretty rare...
So in my understanding, for example for the map like last resort which have Jakads' Lasting Legacy as highest difficulty, and you filled the 3 difficulty levels below that (Streamy's Heavenly, Ancul's Maximum, and Lolicide's Gravity) , that means in that particular spread, Lolicide's Gravity will be the lowest difficulty isn't it?Proposed RC wrote:
OR each keymode must provide a spread starting at least 3 difficulty levels below the highest difficulty.
Hi Maxus,Maxus wrote:
It's just particularly a small concern from me mainly for 7K field because how their spread works are sort of different from 4k field, so probably it can be taken into consideration.
But otherwise i do agree with this proposal and do support this! ^^
1. How to define the reasonableness of spread? I can see that the RC can help people creating a spread like 5.0 - 6.0 - 7.0 - 8.0 under 2:30, but what if there's a spread like 7.0 - 7.1 - 7.2 - 8.0? There's no lowest diff limit so mapsets might tend to become higher SR, yet we have no rules or guidelines for Extra or above.This is quite a nice topic to bring up, and the reached conclusion from the BNG would be that it will be up to the BNs to intersubjectively analyze the spread and see the "sense" it might make. Even with that being a possibility, BNs should be rational when making harder spreads, which is mostly seen in higher Keymodes.
I understand your concern! First of all, I think its important to be clear that judging what difficulty level a chart belongs to is already among BN's work, so we can definitely allow for this liberty because we will be checking a proper spread with the required difficulties is completed. As you say, Extra+ is a bit more tricky, but there's no way to define gaps there in the RC because the type of patterning doesn't change. Proper spreads through that difficulty range already exist without any specific RC binding them, and it's up to us to ensure they are properly spaced from now on as well. So yeah, a bit more work for the BNs to ensure the spreads are constructed correctly, in exchange to a bit more freedom for the players when creating them.madoka wrote:
I believe this is not what the proposed RC was meant for, and overall I'd agree on it, but I felt it can be more rigorous, because leaving all the judgement to BNs may cause some subjective issues.