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...

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 ok

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...

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.

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

Exactly this! (though in that particular case it'd be an additional 3, not additional 2)

Yep, as Abraker said, it's very important to take notice on the OR clause on every Drain Time range. This is the kind of flexibility that would help the end user with spreads, as one clause would normally help harder spreads while the other would still make it feasible for lower ones.

this is pretty cool honestly, im glad that the sort of discussion has managed to come to an ending point finally

gl to any newcomers going for ranked, as they say!

I was more into remove the spread requirements but I really like the solution that has been found. I'm all with it

definitely support 100%

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...

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.

Edit : Someone already said that lol, sorry.

Would just like to say this is a fantastic solution to discussions that have been popping up recently.

Agree 100%

Don't mind me I'm just shooting kudosu stars

★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

Happy to see the inclusion of the "each keymode must provide a spread starting at least x difficulty levels below the highest difficulty" clauses as I felt that form of relaxation was kinda overlooked in the discussion threads and I personally think it's more significant than the time thresholds.

Anyway, very well written and I do agree with the proposal.

Proposed RC wrote:

OR each keymode must provide a spread starting at least 3 difficulty levels below the highest difficulty.

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?

While i'm pretty much okay with that rule in 4K scenes, i'm unsure how this will translates into 7K scenes, because in general 7K mapping field have bigger difficulty spread than 4K (and most likely it will be even bigger in the future), so you probably can differentiate the ruling based on the keymodes itself (for example, using the 3 difficulty levels ruling for 4-6K , while 5 difficulty levels ruling for 7-10K).

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! ^^

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! ^^

Hi Maxus,

As you point out, 7k spreads could be the only "unsafe" part of the proposal, and they have brought up our attention in the BNG and NAT during the last couple days: we understand your concern.

Our insight into this, after discussing with 7k-focused BNs, was that 7k's problem is the lack of spreads as a whole; right now, no large spreads with U+ difficulties are getting ranked in 7k, as the keymode has always seemed to have a higher focus into marathons. Of course, we believe this is an issue and wish for a bigger influx of large spreads in the mode.

With this in mind, we are certain that the best idea is commiting ourselves as BNs into incentivizing mappers to push larger 7k spreads instead of trying to avoid them due to the larger workload they tend to carry. 7k lacks from a lack of content more than a lack of accesibility as of now, so we believe this change would still be a move in the right direction. Some changes into our group's activity requirements, such as increased activity points for nominating multi-keymode spreads, should also help with this, with more to come. Hopefully, we will also achieve the inclusion of more non-4k-focused BNs into the group (Kawawa and Asherz007 have already rejoined in the past week!).

We will do our best to ensure the increased liberty from this change and the one regarding hitsounding relates to an improvement of the 7k mapping scene, instead of being exploited exclusively for XU-only sets.

That's great to hear, Thank you for still provide the solution for the problem from different angle! I appreciate there's more incentive to be done for 7K mapping field.

Strongly in support of this.

100% support this, already discussed this in the BN server but yeah I think this is the best of both worlds and geared towards what the community would like!

Definitely yes.

so good. o2jam maps please come out

Sure

Yes.

I fully support this.

I have some nitpicky concerns about the current wording.

For example, if the drain time is below 2:30, mappers are allowed to create a spread with the lowest diff starting from Normal OR map a spread with 4 diffs.

There are 2 points I want to mention:

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.

2. As for spreads at the lower SR, people can still map 3.0 - 3.2 - 3.4 -3.6 for those under 2:30 and call them ALL in Extra level, because I have 4 diffs already, so they can simply apply "OR each keymode must provide a spread starting at least 3 difficulty levels below the highest difficulty." and no diff of the spread needs to follow the RC in lower levels which can lead to chaos. I have seen the explanation that says Normal is definitely required but yeah I think it needs to be writen clearly in RC as people are not likely to browse the forum long time after new RC got applied.

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.

Thanks for your efforts on improving the ranking field!

Agree

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.

One thing that was proposed is, that for cases such as these, at least an Insane was added to still have a degree of "openess" so the mapset wouldn't just be for 60 people or so. But as that was very unfeasible to write in the RC as a general rule/guideline, the final assessment as said will fall upon the BNs themselves.

Your second concern would theoretically not be possible. Keep in mind that despite the RC changing, the actual criteria that determines whether something might be too big or too small of a gap is still under BNs discretion, the same as previously. Having such a reduced gap would definitely stand out, plus doing these kinds of things in mania tends to be harder due to the layering concerns and conflicts that normally pop out.

In short as to answer your concern, said rigurosity would hinder more than help. As these are things expected for BNs to check for, engraving it in the RC will only narrow the maps and, therefore, make a big difference on spreads if they're forced yet again to follow strict guidelines, even those that this reform precisely tried helping out.

And it is true! The thing with Subjectivity is a double edged sword. A double edge sword that has been applied to a plethora of other cases currently, in the past, and even on spreads with the current criteria. Hopefully that approach tries to encapsulate the "why" said rigurosity is lackluster on this iteration of the RC.

I cannot speak for EVERYONE that is, so take this take as just what has been taken to a conversation prior to the proposal's release as these same concerns are not new to the discussion, which is perfect to see for others to comment on!

yes

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.

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.

Agreed.

yes.

totally agree

glad to see my shower thought (top diff based spreading) get refined and put into proper context by everyone involved in this proposal

thanks for your efforts lets make this work!!!

@madoka as of late, sets that reach into very high difficulties have been reasonable and spread out well. Last Resort (as an example if it only had the top 4 diffs) was an outlier and will not fly should this proposal pass as it has a lot of overlapping diffs.

100% Agreed!

i still have some doubts but overall i think this is a very good middle ground solution so i'm in support of this too

Perfect!

The proposal has been merged!

https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/6238/files