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 pacedAlchyr 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.
forum
[added] [Proposal - osu!taiko] Make the Muzukashii break guideline more flexible
posted
Total Posts
91
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.
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.
Topic Starter
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
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
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
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
talked to hivie, decided this proposal can be archived now as what we currently have suffices.
Topic Starter
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.
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
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.
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.
I can see 3 1/1 working, 2 is definitely not enough in most cases imo
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Edit: This is basically the og post but I felt like the 3/2 was forgotten so I wanted to mention it again
yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo
Topic Starter
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?
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.
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 wrote:
i still think 3/2 should be prioritized over 3x1/1 when mapping
Topic Starter
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Topic Starter
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Topic Starter
I still think that 3/2 breaks are the primary ones you should try going for, and 3x1/1 just serves as a substitute for when 3/2 doesn't fit at all.
this proposal isn't aiming to remove 3/2 out of the picture, and I think that making 3/2 and 3x1/1 "equal" in priority (by making the 3x1/1 as an alternative instead of an exception) would be a step towards that direction which isn't the goal at all (and frankly shouldn't be).
making it an exception seems like the best way forward with this.
this proposal isn't aiming to remove 3/2 out of the picture, and I think that making 3/2 and 3x1/1 "equal" in priority (by making the 3x1/1 as an alternative instead of an exception) would be a step towards that direction which isn't the goal at all (and frankly shouldn't be).
making it an exception seems like the best way forward with this.
Think if the guideline are to be updated to allow 3 consecutive 1/1 as alternative break that guideline should have a stress on the consecutive 1/1s only if the primary 3/2 break is not intuitive in the map
as for what is intuitive and what's not, BNs should be able to figure that out themselves
only concern is new mappers who look at this guideline and don't understand what is "counter-intuitive" and simply just use 1/1 breaks so you might have to elaborate more on that as well
as for what is intuitive and what's not, BNs should be able to figure that out themselves
only concern is new mappers who look at this guideline and don't understand what is "counter-intuitive" and simply just use 1/1 breaks so you might have to elaborate more on that as well
Here's what I came up with in terms of wording for a new guideline, this is primarily based on what others have said. Firstly, the way this is worded is with the idea that the best of either two ideas should be used when necessary, as to not state that one should be preferred over the other in general. The idea of 3 1/1 breaks is technically an exception to the normal way maps are made as a whole is true, which is why it should be explicitly stated that this is simply another option. Also when it comes to ranking, the interpretation of the first part will end up being more important than the actual specific guidelines themselves. Basically meaning that the idea of 1 3/2 breaks every 16/1-20/1 and 3 1/1 breaks every 16/1-20/1 are not even the most important part of what I'm suggesting. But the part above those two, which explains how why/how breaks should be added is more benefitting to the RC.
Here's the wording I came up with;
Guideline: Breaks must be managed in a way that is benefitting of the map. This means that rest moments should not be counter-intuitive and should be forgiving to the player. Given the wide variety of ways breaks can be managed, one or both of these guidelines must be followed, depending which is more benefitting of the map in that given situation.
a) At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.
b) At least 3 rest moments that are 1/1 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.
Here's the wording I came up with;
Guideline: Breaks must be managed in a way that is benefitting of the map. This means that rest moments should not be counter-intuitive and should be forgiving to the player. Given the wide variety of ways breaks can be managed, one or both of these guidelines must be followed, depending which is more benefitting of the map in that given situation.
a) At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.
b) At least 3 rest moments that are 1/1 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.
I prefer Nifty's suggestion most in this discussion so far as it allows for the most freedom possible in keeping map structure and feel in gameplay as consistent as possible while reducing density to about the same in all cases. There are songs where both 3 x 1/1 and 3/2 does not fit at all.
Also this is outside the current proposal, but I really think the 16/1 - 20/1 length should be reevaluated and that an extension to 64/1 should be considered. I still think the current prescribed length makes no sense, most songs in 4/4 time signature have sections that are 8 measures long. Breaks usually really makes the most sense only when inserted between these sections. In my opinion the most problematic part of the guideline is not the 3/2 part but the 16/1 - 20/1 part because of this.
Honestly, just remove the guideline lol I still find it funny that taiko is the only game mode that has such and oddly specific way of dealing with density.
Also this is outside the current proposal, but I really think the 16/1 - 20/1 length should be reevaluated and that an extension to 64/1 should be considered. I still think the current prescribed length makes no sense, most songs in 4/4 time signature have sections that are 8 measures long. Breaks usually really makes the most sense only when inserted between these sections. In my opinion the most problematic part of the guideline is not the 3/2 part but the 16/1 - 20/1 part because of this.
Honestly, just remove the guideline lol I still find it funny that taiko is the only game mode that has such and oddly specific way of dealing with density.
agree with genjuro post - 3/2 is fine for me, everyone just needed to learn that and after years realise, that its not good :3
i'd add 3 consecutive 1/1 rest moments, as i play only muzukashii - it can be really hard and exhausting sometimes. Still, I would prioritize 3/2 over that and use 3 1/1 only in exceptional cases
i'd add 3 consecutive 1/1 rest moments, as i play only muzukashii - it can be really hard and exhausting sometimes. Still, I would prioritize 3/2 over that and use 3 1/1 only in exceptional cases
I dont think extending to 64/1 is good at all. Lenience allows 30/1 (which would be the 8 bars in 4/4 that you refer to) already during high intensity times.
I think that making 3x1/1 an alternative is misleading and will lead to people (especially newer mappers and hivie) mapping muzukashiis as oni, just without the color changes.
Personally not a fan of nifty's suggestion of average density because that goes against the idea of a rest moment (to give a space of low intensity) and averaging isn't an appropriate way to assess that.
I think that making 3x1/1 an alternative is misleading and will lead to people (especially newer mappers and hivie) mapping muzukashiis as oni, just without the color changes.
Personally not a fan of nifty's suggestion of average density because that goes against the idea of a rest moment (to give a space of low intensity) and averaging isn't an appropriate way to assess that.
As a mapper, I’d enjoy having 3 consecutive 1/1 as a possible option due to the difficulty of finding a 3/2 break without causing a weird emptiness within the rhythm.
As a player, I don’t mind much about it but if a mapper uses 3 consecutive 1/1 breaks just to get around the 16/1 rule multiple times, it can get pretty tiring without an extended break (like a 3/2).
I agree with modifying the guidelines to include 3 consecutive 1/1 but only in the case that 3/2 would not be possible or would derail the rhythmic flow of the map. Maybe another guideline can be introduced to limit how many times the 3 consecutive 1/1 can be used before a 3/2 break occurs to prevent a long, fatiguing section.
As a player, I don’t mind much about it but if a mapper uses 3 consecutive 1/1 breaks just to get around the 16/1 rule multiple times, it can get pretty tiring without an extended break (like a 3/2).
I agree with modifying the guidelines to include 3 consecutive 1/1 but only in the case that 3/2 would not be possible or would derail the rhythmic flow of the map. Maybe another guideline can be introduced to limit how many times the 3 consecutive 1/1 can be used before a 3/2 break occurs to prevent a long, fatiguing section.