Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[added] [Proposal - osu!taiko] Make the Muzukashii break guideline more flexible

posted
Total Posts
91
show more
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Raiden
agree with the "this is unnecessary" sentiment, just as i thought it was unnecessary to add the "less frequent rest moments are acceptable if song calls for it" as it's totally redundant and self explanatory

making such clarifications explicitly written into an RC that many mappers already consider a list of checkmarks instead of a base to build their levels upon while having clear limits will only lead to low diffs becoming almost entirely like they were mapped by an AI that uses a checkmark list (if they aren't already...)

edit: re:the last paragraph, the RC is already this flexible, the issue is entirely self-made by the mapper in their own head either of their own volition or by an unexperienced modder who considers the RC a holy literal bible instead of trying to read between the lines
Last edited by Raiden , edited 2 times in total.
Capu
osu! Alumni
351 posts
Joined March 2013
Capu
Don't think this is necessary. I didn't feel a raise in complaints or problems occuring for this topic, so I can't really follow the reasoning. In the end it would just be the same with different words. A 3/2 would still be viable and currently substitute sections (like calm parts with low density) are also valid
Cychloryn
151 posts
Joined August 2015
Cychloryn
I don't consider 2x1/1 to be a substitute for a proper 3/2 rest moment.

I don't like the idea of having very long stretches without any break longer than 1/1 (since as Genjuro mentioned, 1/1 is one of the main snappings in muzu so it doesn't really feel like rest).

The way I personally handle it: If a section doesn't support a 3/2 rest, two consecutive 1/1 could be used to stretch it longer (maybe 32/1 or so) without a rest moment. But after that point, the mapper needs a true rest moment of 3/2 or longer. And if 3/2 still doesn't fit, there's nothing wrong with using 2/1.


Regarding whether a change is necessary:
It's not necessary, but it might be helpful. Raiden brings up a good point about having some room for interpretation in the RC. But I think a slightly more detailed guideline could be helpful for new mappers to give some idea of what "using rest moments less frequently is acceptable" actually means.
Last edited by Cychloryn , edited 6 times in total.
DeletedUser_6637817
DeletedUser_6637817
Yooo this guideline keeps sparking discussions holy shit

"You are poking holes in the map to fulfill RC"

Is that not the exact reason why its a guideline? If you have a song that really just doesnt want 3/2 and 2/1 is also out of the question, it is completely fine to not put them if it means deteriorating the map quality.

Disagree with the Proposal though. As with all guidelines in the RC, its up to context and loosening it up would unleash hell imo.
Assuming 180 BPM and that you cant force in any 3/2 or 2/1:

https://i.imgur.com/zgx77kb.png
This sort of Muzu would be A-OK with the new guideline, and could go on indefinitely in this manner. Its breaking the current guideline, aswell.

https://i.imgur.com/VGRzWri.png
This sort of Muzu would also be A-OK with the new guideline, and breaks the current one.

Please note that both guidelines judge these two examples the same, even though that its quite obvious at a glance that the top one is maybe, just maybe not OK with the current density if it were to go on for indefinite amounts of time like this, while the bottom one is IMHO not an issue at all with the current guideline as the context of each map matters.

Though i do advocate for making it much clearer that the context matters somewhere in the RC since this is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this dumb guideline has sparked discussion.
Last edited by DeletedUser_6637817 , edited 1 time in total.
gothicwvlff
327 posts
Joined July 2020
gothicwvlff
i agree with this!! im mapping the song occhocorestless which doesnt exaclt support 3/2
SilentWuffer
280 posts
Joined December 2017
SilentWuffer
My opinion is that it could go either way. putting it in a box because it probably won't matter much to the discussion in the end. Also take it with a grain of salt because I'm probably wrong on a bunch of things as well

opinion
Why I'm for this: as others have stated before, in taiko it's quite difficult to integrate a 3/2 break into the map as taiko mapping (especially muzukashii) is generally centered around 1/1 and 1/2 rhythms. having a sudden 3/2 break could make the player and less experienced modders believe its a misrepresentation of the song. Allowing an alternative as 2 consecutive 1/1 rhythms is much more flexible and allows mappers to more closely represent the music.
Why I'm against this: Similarly, as others have said, this could be exploited to use only the consecutive 1/1 breaks, therefore making the map harder than intended. Players at a muzukashii level would benefit and recover more from a 3/2 break than 2 consecitive 1/1 breaks.
[\box]
Alchyr
488 posts
Joined October 2014
Alchyr
As a bunch of people have stated, the current guideline already does allow for stretching, and making the main line itself more lenient wouldn't really be the best. Instead, I would suggest just a minor amendment just to the subtext:

Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.


Using consecutive shorter rest moments or less frequent rest moments are acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.


Not particularly happy with the wording, but the general intention is just to add a bit more clarification to this vague part. Someone else can probably come up with something better, but I just wanted to get my opinion in that the main guideline itself is fine, it's just really unclear what's acceptable or not. "Less frequent rest moments" doesn't really translate to "multiple consecutive smaller gaps".
SilentWuffer
280 posts
Joined December 2017
SilentWuffer

Alchyr wrote:

I would suggest just a minor amendment just to the subtext:

Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.
I'd like to say that adding that would make the guideline even more ambiguous as a player could theoretically not include any breaks at all if the song is fast paced
0gg
284 posts
Joined January 2018
0gg
i am a fan of this proposal
Sebola
79 posts
Joined December 2019
Sebola
se aplicar eu vo fazer muzu agr :Stonks:
Megumi678
Megumi678
I don't make any beatmaps, and if I do, I'm no good, but I'm going to voice my opinion on muzukashii's since thats what I mostly play and what this topic is going on about.

Me personally, I think muzukashii's are amazing how they are, depending on who made the muzukashii map that is. There are some pretty shitty maps out there for muzukashii's, but it depends on what you're playing with. Patterns on muzukashii's are fantastic. But, I'd love to see changes if any at all.
[Zeth]
303 posts
Joined March 2017
[Zeth]
wake up its our time to revive this proposal and push it
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
Honestly this proposal could even be extended to cover more lower diffs as well. I'm aware that current guideline allow for flexibility to an extent but the wording causes a lot of confusion and could be really improved in order to make the RC more friendly and approachable.

Will figure out sth later today

Edit: talked to multiple ppl, it's really hard to go forward with this proposal unless there's a good amount of interest
Last edited by Hivie , edited 1 time in total.
SilentWuffer
280 posts
Joined December 2017
SilentWuffer
regarding extension to lower diffs:

There's a guideline in futsuu that requires a 3/1 break every ~20 beats, would splitting that into two 2/1 breaks be reasonable? it's proportional to the proposed muzukashii change but I can't really say if two 2/1 provides the same break as a 3/1
Last edited by SilentWuffer , edited 1 time in total.
radar
osu! Alumni
281 posts
Joined September 2015
radar
talked to hivie, decided this proposal can be archived now as what we currently have suffices.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
topic resurfaced again in the taiko server and it seems there's interest for having 3 consecutive 1/1 breaks, as 2 didn't seem sufficient enough, so I'm updating the proposal with that, and poked an NAT to revive it.
Last edited by Hivie , edited 2 times in total.
0gg
284 posts
Joined January 2018
0gg
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
Last edited by 0gg , edited 1 time in total.
HEAVENLY MOON
415 posts
Joined December 2018
HEAVENLY MOON
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
ikin5050
583 posts
Joined February 2014
ikin5050
3 consecutive 1/1 is fine, 2 consecutive 1/1 in my opinion isn't sufficient.

1/1 and 2/1 are the primary snapping of the muzukashii difficulty, 2 1/1 consecutively would not be out of place when regularly mapping. That is not to say rests should feel out of place, but when the definition of a break fits so seamlessly into the existing way of mapping without rest moments does it really serve its purpose of reducing density and giving players rest.
Capu
osu! Alumni
351 posts
Joined March 2013
Capu
I can see 3 1/1 working, 2 is definitely not enough in most cases imo
Burak
199 posts
Joined October 2018
Burak
as most songs won't support 3/2 breaks structurely i think the breaks should be able to be replaced with 2 or 3 1/1 breaks per measure

Another thing is, the 1/1 breaks are already useable as the RC has breaks as a guideline but this should be explicitly stated so people can use it freely

about the lenght of the break; I think 2 times 1/1 breaks per measure (to make that 'measure' clear, same as 16/1 or 20/1). some people stated they think 2 1/1 per measure won't be enough above so I think it should be able to work for everyone like this:

2x 1/1 per 16/1 or 3x 1/1 20/1

although my personal opinion is 2x 1/1 will be enough anyways
Nifty
Beatmap Nominator
898 posts
Joined September 2014
Nifty
I would like to barter 3 consecutive 1/1 to having at least 3 1/1 in one measure. this would allow more freedom and having 3 1/1 in one measure equates to the same exact density you would have with 3 consecutive 1/1, allowing for more freedom of mapping

this is a guideline after all, and I guarantee someone is gonna map a rhythm like |x---|x---|xxx-|x---|x (x = note, | = downbeat where note after is on 1/1, - = 1/4 space) and theres gonna be a big argument about whether this is a rankable break or if it needs to be changed to |x---|x---|x---|xxx-|x which is the same damn thing density-wise.

or, like, |x---|x-x-|--x-|x---|x, which is a really really common rhythm for dnb and while it has 3 1/1 in one measure, is not supported by the consecutive guideline
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
Consecutive makes more sense though, the point is to provide a period of concentrated low density for players to recover if they lost track of reading or hand position. Having an average density rhythm count misses the point of the rule.
realy0_
1,731 posts
Joined August 2016
realy0_
I wish this just abolish the 3/2 forced break regardless of how long the consecutives 1/1 are, that's all it only matter imo.
As others said above, it just straight misrepresent the song most of the times when the song doesn't fit and that others think this "1/1 consecutive breaks" are not enough just for the sake of being in rc. Guidelines aren't supposed to be broken that easily in the first place.
Cychloryn
151 posts
Joined August 2015
Cychloryn
I could live with this change, but I fear people unnaturally throwing in 3 1/1 breaks everywhere, since this is also kind of an awkward number in many situations.

Is it preferable to unnatural 3/2 breaks? Maybe. But it would also be sad to see people lazily default to spamming 1/1 strings when it would be possible to find a good spot for a 3/2 with a little thought. (or even just a 2/1 break would be preferable in some cases)

I guess overall it's probably a positive change to give more flexibility like this. I just hope we don't see a new flavor of unnatural muzus come out of it.
Last edited by Cychloryn , edited 1 time in total.
Capu
osu! Alumni
351 posts
Joined March 2013
Capu
I think it'd already help if some lines were added to the current RC? The 3/2 should probably not be removed and still maintain the go-to, if possible, but there should be clearer ways to work around it if a 3/2 break does not go along with a section in a proper way.

Edit: This is basically the og post but I felt like the 3/2 was forgotten so I wanted to mention it again
Last edited by Capu , edited 1 time in total.
KyeX
109 posts
Joined September 2019
KyeX
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
i still think 3/2 should be prioritized over 3x1/1 when mapping, and for the latter to be more of a substitute in case a 3/2 ruins the pace of the map
thoughts on this reword?

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using rest moments less frequently, or using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.
Last edited by Hivie , edited 3 times in total.
Burak
199 posts
Joined October 2018
Burak

Hivie wrote:

i still think 3/2 should be prioritized over 3x1/1 when mapping
I personally think they should have the same priority, as 3x1/1 is double the size of 3/2 with 1 more object added in between so its like almost exactly the same.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
wait, I think we can easily remove the "Using rest moments less frequently" part as it seems redundant because using 3x1/1 is already a form of using 3/2 breaks less frequently. removing it makes the wording less convoluted and more clear imo.

thoughts on this final reword?
At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.
ikin5050
583 posts
Joined February 2014
ikin5050
Yes and 2x1/1 is 66% of the length of 3x1/1 with 1 less object so they are the same too!


suggestion:

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. An exception can be made if the song's structure would lead to counter intuitive 3/2 rest moments. In this case you can use 3 consecutive 1/1 length rest moments instead as a substitute.
Last edited by ikin5050 , edited 1 time in total.
Burak
199 posts
Joined October 2018
Burak
I think hivie's wording is better here because what I understand from ikin's wording is you can only use one method (3x1/1 or 3/2) depending on the song's structure, both methods should be useable at the same time
Capu
osu! Alumni
351 posts
Joined March 2013
Capu
I actually like ikin's wording and don't get the same vibe off of it as Burak does. That might be different to some people but to me it just covers everything from both worlds
ikin5050
583 posts
Joined February 2014
ikin5050
The main point I am trying to convey in my wording is that 3x1/1 should be an exception instead of an alternatively accepted standard. I think the fact i call it a substitute kind of implies interchangeability.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
i like ikin's wording too
thereal8tsu
7 posts
Joined July 2021
thereal8tsu
I think too that's Hivie's wording is better although it might better to precise what "consecutive break" with a sentence in the Ranking criteria's glossary.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
902 posts
Joined March 2019
Topic Starter
Hivie
"consecutive breaks" seem pretty self-explanatory to me, plus it's gonna be difficult to fully explain it without using pictures, which the RC can't have.
Burak
199 posts
Joined October 2018
Burak
I think I got your idea. It's fine for me if it will still count as a viable solution for the structure problems as you say.

Still think it looks too strict counting it as an "exception" to be honest, if it's "fine/acceptable" it should be fine to call it as an alternative method instead of calling it an exception for a condition. Calling it an alternative is already putting the new method under the 3/2 breaks.
thereal8tsu
7 posts
Joined July 2021
thereal8tsu

Hivie wrote:

"consecutive breaks" seem pretty self-explanatory to me, plus it's gonna be difficult to fully explain it without using pictures, which the RC can't have.

Although it probably sounds self explanatory for most of people, some might understand it differently than others which would make this whole guideline way less useful.


An example of different understandings that might happen is that some understand consecutive break as break that are contained on the equivalent of 4/1 while others might understand as break that have less of 2 notes between them
roxorotto
70 posts
Joined June 2020
roxorotto

ikin5050 wrote:

suggestion:

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. An exception can be made if the song's structure would lead to counter intuitive 3/2 rest moments. In this case you can use 3 consecutive 1/1 length rest moments instead as a substitute.

'exception' implies it should be used rarely under special circumstances, which for newer mappers will not only be misleading but also against what this post is attempting to forward, no? I think something more like 'an alternative break usage could be used' if the song's... rest moments would be more open wording. might also be nitpicking.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
18 / 91