I'm really looking for additions, corrections, suggestions, in particular there are things to improve. This topic was opened to get ideas. The faster process was meant more to ensure that mappers who are actually starting from scratch do not take several years to reach the ranking. Loved does not require mods, and in that category anything can be anything that is truly extreme. What is good quality, boring map... is largely subjective. I look forward to more people actually adding, rewriting, giving ideas from modders, mappers, bns... BNs will still be able to control what is ranked, so that maps that are actually sloppy would not be ranked. I wrote the two weeks Qualified time because that should be enough time for at least 1 person to check it.

Bless kazuya

The idea that the ranking process should be simpler than it is now should be encouraged. Being a BN is not easy, especially when you regularly receive hate for nominating certain maps and not nominating other maps.

Most current BNs will not be interested in checking qualified maps. We saw what happened with QAT and no one wanted to do QAH. BNs are generally more interested in pushing maps they like instead of checking qualified (which consists of maps that they don't like and "would never nominate").

It's true that there are a bunch of amazing maps in pending, more than ever before. This is due to the large amount of mappers, the mentorship culture surrounding osu!, and the idea that mappers have over 15 years of mapping history to learn from.

In the current modding system, BNs are encouraged to nominate maps they understand fully. This leads to BNs "choosing" certain maps for "free activity", and mappers making those maps for "the easy nominations". Although unfortunate, this seems to be related to the idea that "life is unfair" and most things in life revolve around exploiting people's preferences.

peppy has stated in the past that lazer would automate the ranking process a bit more. It's well known that a "BN check" is different than a regular mod, and by automating the checking of objective unrankables, BNs no longer need to check for them. This lets actual modders have more say in the nomination process (through their kudosu) without having to perform the menial tasks that being a BN typically entails.

peppy wrote:

The point of ranking is to get maps that are solid and enjoyable into a permanently engraved state. That's literally why the whole system exists. It has obviously evolved into something more stringent and opinionated over the years, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

I'd say most of your problems either don't exist or are non-issues. The system you're proposing essentially creates a clout issue (10 stars from modder, really?). Either that or my brain is square and I am very stupid.

Maybe the https://github.com/Naxesss/MapsetVerifier could be used as a tool to help automate the ranking process and ensure that ranked maps are at least semi-playable. It could deal with issues like timing, allowing Beatmap Moderators to focus on other, more significant issues like overmapping.

papereater420 wrote:

Maybe the https://github.com/Naxesss/MapsetVerifier could be used as a tool to help automate the ranking process and ensure that ranked maps are at least semi-playable. It could deal with issues like timing, allowing Beatmap Moderators to focus on other, more significant issues like overmapping.

Using Mapset Verifier alone is not enough to determine if a map is rankable or not. It may spot out some unrankable such as files, unsnaps and etc. but the program by its self would not be able to see issues such as contrast and quality.

This also goes for AI mod. These programs and functions should be used as a reference or tool to help with modding and bn work, but never as a fundamental way of determining if a map is ready for ranked.

I took a quick glance at this and I don’t wanna add much as for obvious reasons I disagree with the main post.

Missing the point that osu! is about having fun and that includes Beatmap Nominators roles since they’re voluntary and forcing them to become “Beatmap Moderators” (In short forcing them to check sets isn’t the way).

BNs have different tastes of what they’re willing to nominate whether is;

1) Song: Good song, one that wasn’t ranked, or one that pick their preferences.
2) Length or Spread: Some nominators are willing to push sets that required a little bit of time and effort and that could be through a full solo spread or a really long song.
3) One of their inspiration/favorite mappers in your set: I see a few Nominators willing to accept maps solely based on that. Obviously you should try to have your difficulties with enough quality to make it worth pushing too.

4) And most obvious a interesting set for them: BNs have different preferences and standards, some will be lenient towards new mappers and some will not. It’s up to the mapper to find the proper nominators willing to help you and it might or might not take time.

I think pishifat’s latest video is the perfect example of how to rank while being a new mapper, highly recommend you check it up if you didn’t.

This will be a bit of a ramble. I tried to summarize your post so that I could respond to points more easily. Let me know if I misunderstood anything:

Basic issues:
- Nobody wants to give or receive mod posts, everyone bothers BNs right away for a check
- Ranking process is not objective enough, influenced by BNs preferences

Solutions proposed:
- Separate the duties of checking unrankable issues vs more subjective issues (Lighten the workload for staff)
- Force maps to receive higher-quality mod posts before BN can check the map (More quality assurance)
- Limit to 1 map at a time per mapper (Spreads out the time/effort dedicated to different mappers in the ranking process)

I already know people (like Iceluin above) are going to ignore most of your post in favor of only focusing on the part where you mention needing connections to rank maps. While this is kinda true in a sense, it's not like friends rank each others maps that are complete garbage low quality. That pishifat video even mentions that multiple extra factors lead to this random map gaining interest from BNs (besides the fact that it was mapped by someone super experienced). So instead of acting like there is no issue at all, I think it's better to reframe this "issue" as what it really is.

What you mentioned falls into the same category as personal preferences dictating what maps BNs choose to push for rank. This point also ignores the fact that tons of BNs rank stuff all the time from mappers they don't know. Why? Probably because they like the mapping or the music choice. Simply being friends is not enough to get your map nominated. It is definitely more to do with genuine interest in the map itself, whether it's due to quality, style, etc.

Basically, this isn't the real issue with the ranking process. It just seems like the issue to some people. In my opinion, the real issue is the other thing that you mentioned:

BNs are bombarded with 10 million maps per day. In a sea of maps (90% of which are just "okay", or even bad), how do you choose which ones to look at? Unless you are extremely dedicated to being objective (and check every single request you receive in order), the next best way to narrow down your choices is to pick stuff you are familiar with. Music from a band you enjoy/know? More likely that you will enjoy the map (and perceive it as good) than if you pick an artist you don't know. Mapper you know makes really good stuff, or mapper you don't know about at all? It's really simple, this is what happens when humans are asked to curate subjective things like osu maps.

I think enforcing a system to ensure a higher baseline quality of maps to be sent to BNs is a good way to encourage more BNs to check maps out of their own comfort zone. If every map requires feedback and proper (good luck enforcing this part) modding before a BN even touches it, then BNs will know that any map they choose will at least be decent, so they would be less likely to stick to map styles/mappers/music they already enjoy. If BNs are forced, to put it harshly, to wade through a sea of trash everyday, they are not going to be as open to giving different mappers/music a chance. It's not their fault, anyone would resort to doing this after a while.

The issue with your proposal is how this system could be implemented at all. If you are forcing a certain number of "quality" mod posts, you now have to:

- Have a team of mod post moderators verify that mod posts are high quality (how can they do this without checking the map themselves, basically just reinventing the BN role)
- Somehow force really experienced mappers to get the same amount of constructive feedback as someone who doesn't know how to map at all. Sometimes, maps really do not need extra improvements before they are ranked.
- Community-based voting unfortunately, can not be trusted on its own. Having beatmaps selected for ranking by anyone is a terrible idea without further restrictions or failsafes in place. If the current ranking process requires having connections, your idea would require connections x10. I can easily ask 10 of my mapper friends to leave a single mod post each to improve my map and suddenly it will be ready for a BN to check faster than I could ever manage now. This isn't possible for newer mappers who aren't friends with people knowledgeable enough to leave mod posts.

I think, as many other people have thought and said before, the ranking system is far from perfect. I really appreciate that you proposed anything at all, but I don't think it's enough to fix any real issues. In my opinion, the single biggest issue with the ranking process is that the standards continue to increase over time because ranked maps (surprise) contribute to ranked scores. Most mappers do not care about this part, they just want to see people play and enjoy their map. I think giving maps a leaderboard takes care of this, but unfortunately there is no place for mappers to go to push their maps for a leaderboard, without also entering it into the ranking system. This is what "Loved" section is supposed to be, but the same issue is here. It's too selective, only what, 5 maps per mode get selected every month or even less often. And these are meant to be special maps that are actually beloved by the community, not just any map that is good enough to warrant a leaderboard.

So before you plan out a whole system of new moderators and mod post requirements, I think having a tier of maps below Ranked would be useful. These maps would not require as much scrutiny as ranked maps, although should still be curated and voted on. But I think many mappers (especially newer, less experienced ones) don't care that their map gets ranked per se, they just want it to get exposure and share their creation. Ranking is the only way to go about this currently, but if there were a second section that was more lenient of maps then I think this would really decrease the burden of BNs and other members of the ranking system.

Overall there would be:
- less mappers going for ranked right away and getting discouraged
- less inexperienced mappers (or people with wacky gimmick maps) bothering BNs all the time with requests
- a more concrete way to "build up" and progress towards ranking a map. i.e. you start mapping, you eventually work up to getting a map in this secondary section, eventually you improve mapping more until you can rank something
- somewhere to put all the maps that are quite good, but either do not want to go through the arduous ranking process, or simply do not meet the standards for ranked, but are really close.
- honestly, this could also potentially help fix the loved section from including a bunch of maps that people just want to see leaderboards for, but are not maps that are "loved" in the proper sense of the word.

That was a massive essay so I doubt many people will bother to read that whole thing. I'll probably spoilerbox a summary of the main points. Either way, I hope you find my response interesting Kazuya! I think with more brainstorming and discussion over time, the ranking process can be improved even if it's just a little bit.

What silverboxer layed out would probably be my best guess as well.
Biggest problem is the ammount of requests putting a strain on BNs and also on how much they wanna check in actuality.
Introducing a step before ranked, so that maps are already weeded out before getting into BN hands could be a great way of improving the current system.
One way I'd like to propose would be to create a team that would give out a seal of approval to people who can mod sufficiently - which then would be able to hand out something after modding/getting them resolved - to get the set on track to get into BNs hands.
That role/seal/whatever shouldnt be as high stakes as being a BN - you are regarded as someone who can mod/judge a map, but you dont have to fullfil a quota per se.
Maybe you'd lose it after a year or two due to lack of experience with the current scene but that's about it in terms of commitment.
If enough of those experienced modders gave the set their seal of approval the set would get into this stepping stone category.

Like silver said - this process should lead to giving sets a leaderboard, but the map not awarding pp (aka what approved/loved did/does).

The question is whether that is needed or not in order to ask BNs.
Prob not tho else we end up again with being established helping when it shouldnt. But at least this in between step would

A) give regular modders a way to actually contribute to a set getting further into the ranking process - which in turn also adds a stepping stone for modders between being a non factor for ranking sets and being a BN/NAT - which could also help with reducing BN eval ammount

And B) Gives newer mappers a stepping stone between being unranked and ranked, in turn smoothing out the experience

C) reduce strain on BNs cause newer mappers would aim to get their maps into that new stepping stone category first - weeding out a lot of the requests beforehand

Hope this didn't end up being too messy, but I felt so inspired after reading silvers response.

hi, i didn't really read the rest of the discussion bc it's too much words for my 2am brain.

directly replying to the original post, i feel like it's trying to solve a narrative from 2017 but you're 5 years late

-- now to the breakdown of your post --

i personally think that doing something against one genre in favor of another will spark something like this discussion in the near future with the keywords being "metal bad anime good, rank more anime less metal"

the same with styles, and anyways, main mapping styles change over the span of time, and i feel like there's already a lot of variety in styles with 2022 ranked maps

eliminating the current bn's would solve nothing since there is also less anime and more variety, as they are already encouraged to nominate more variety anyways

having a map modded before rank doesn't really matter, this was something pretty big in the past but now that speed ranking is a thing that happens it's normalized. what matters is the style, rhythm choices, yadda yadda. not if your dumpster looks nice and polished

also, newbies requesting doesn't matter, if it's something like google forms you can check the map like any other and reject it. just because there's a bit more maps that you have to check doesn't mean a loss of motivation

one more plus is that not many newbies request anyways from what i've seen

bringing back stars and mod priority and all shit like that would also make the ranking section a popularity contest which we do not strive for

> Currently, the music diversity is rather monotonous. Mostly music that has something to do with anime and more popular games is constantly getting ranked, or like: popular English pop music, world hit, featured artist, meme, sped up/nightcore or some electronic genres.

Yeah you shouldn't blame the ranking system for this. Tell the mappers to change their preferences instead ty.

Kazuya wrote:

On the other hand, it's almost impossible to rank for example metal, so only a very few people try to rank it.

Not that I know why it's hard to rank metal, but I don't feel like the solutions outlined would be addressing the core issue of this particular problem. How many metal songs are waiting to be ranked anyhow?

Kazuya wrote:

It doesn't matter how good or bad of a mapper you are, how much you follow the current trends in both map style and song choice, or how many people support you, if you simply don't have connections, you're not constantly active, or you're/were not a big hit (for example: a streamer), there's usually very little chance that any BN will care about you and accept your map.

pishfat's vid supports that good mappers would draw attention. I know you made good beatmaps I enjoy playing, so I'd have a hard time believing you'd run into this issue.

The rest of issues have to do with BN being a bottleneck or bias, which I believe there is truth to. Honestly how you describe "Beatmap Moderator" sounds a lot like combining the roles of MAT/BAT of the old days into one.

AnimeStyle wrote:

What silverboxer layed out would probably be my best guess as well.
Biggest problem is the ammount of requests putting a strain on BNs and also on how much they wanna check in actuality.
Introducing a step before ranked, so that maps are already weeded out before getting into BN hands could be a great way of improving the current system.
One way I'd like to propose would be to create a team that would give out a seal of approval to people who can mod sufficiently - which then would be able to hand out something after modding/getting them resolved - to get the set on track to get into BNs hands.
That role/seal/whatever shouldnt be as high stakes as being a BN - you are regarded as someone who can mod/judge a map, but you dont have to fullfil a quota per se.
Maybe you'd lose it after a year or two due to lack of experience with the current scene but that's about it in terms of commitment.
If enough of those experienced modders gave the set their seal of approval the set would get into this stepping stone category.

Like silver said - this process should lead to giving sets a leaderboard, but the map not awarding pp (aka what approved/loved did/does).

The question is whether that is needed or not in order to ask BNs.
Prob not tho else we end up again with being established helping when it shouldnt. But at least this in between step would

A) give regular modders a way to actually contribute to a set getting further into the ranking process - which in turn also adds a stepping stone for modders between being a non factor for ranking sets and being a BN/NAT - which could also help with reducing BN eval ammount

And B) Gives newer mappers a stepping stone between being unranked and ranked, in turn smoothing out the experience

C) reduce strain on BNs cause newer mappers would aim to get their maps into that new stepping stone category first - weeding out a lot of the requests beforehand

Hope this didn't end up being too messy, but I felt so inspired after reading silvers response.

I personally like this idea. Another role between normal players and BNs would be beneficial. I don't think there should be an entirely new team working specifically to judge modder experience, as that would be a bit too much. Here's a proposal on how this could possibly work:

1. Modders open modding queues and eventually gain experience in modding;

2. Mappers give said modders kudosu based on their modding quality;

3. After these modders have reached a certain amount of kudosu, they can apply to be a member of an experienced modder team;

4. Current BNs or NATs check the status of modders applying, and approve modders to the experienced modder team.

With this system, only the experienced modder team or above should have the privilege to submit maps to BNs or above. All the issues or suggestions in the mapset should be resolved before the submission. These maps may receive a special status (i.e. the status one step before ranked), and BNs may only nominate these maps. If a special role does exist, then the "submitting to BN" part doesn't have to happen either because they should be able to get directly searched via category.

Relationship issues shouldn't be that much of a deal since members of the experienced modder team can be easily found on the modding queue subforum. Members of the team may also be removed after a certain period of inactivity in modding.

In an ideal world, this system should have the following pros and cons:

Pros:

-Freeing BN time
-Giving regular modders a chance to contribute in the ranking process
-Making regular mappers more in touch with more experienced mapping community
-Giving regular players a more reliable source of good and new maps

Cons:

-Complicates ranking process even more
-Dramatically slows down ranking process
-Increasing the distance between mappers and BNs

Looking forward to feedback on this.

having some modder group to filter "good maps" for bn is good as long as they dont false rejected a map that some particular bn might be interested in. right now bns are getting bombarded with mostly bad maps but with this modders approval thing they would be getting bombarded with decent maps so they would have to check a lot of maps either way. and so it wouldnnt really improve ranking process. idk it probably makes it harder for newer mappers to rank their maps because they have to pass two barriers and its more complicated than just pm spamming bns.

the real solution to fixing rankinng process is making new mappers realize them copying their favorite pp mappers isnt going to give them good maps. and forcing everyone to get mod is just inefficient for everyone. also the song preference thing cant really help anyway. mappers that are mapping songs that are out of the ordinary scope are bound to struggle ranking their maps because most bns are prob not interested. thats probably why theres so much anime and game music stuff. anyone trying to do new things will have hard time and thats really not fault of bns or ranking process

watch pishifat's video lol

Regarding cat
I don't think it would be a good idea to force people to use that in between step.
Experienced mappers should still be able to just go straight to BNs.
The system would just slow down the ranking process when it's supposed to do the opposite.
People who got their map in the in between category should be allowed to still get the map up to ranked status tho (which would have to resest leaderboards, but that would be the price for this to work)

Edit: Maybe I'm gonna write up a properly constructed proposal once I have enough time, considering my take has gone way too far of the og proposal to begin with

I join Erisu opinion on this

How is everyone linking pishifats video like it answers anything in Kazuya's post? Watch pishifat's video and learn what? That we should teach mappers:
1. To have years of experience before they are allowed to rank a map
2. Pander to BNs

Such stupid comments. Pishifat does not even say his experiment proves anything definitively. Stop ignoring every other thing Kazuya wrote just to say "look you don't need to be popular". Read my earlier post

Silverboxer wrote:

How is everyone linking pishifats video like it answers anything in Kazuya's post? Watch pishifat's video and learn what? That we should teach mappers:
1. To have years of experience before they are allowed to rank a map
2. Pander to BNs

Such stupid comments. Pishifat does not even say his experiment proves anything definitively. Stop ignoring every other thing Kazuya wrote just to say "look you don't need to be popular". Read my earlier post

The first point is pretty much true tho? Not to the point of taking years but you gotta have some good fundamentals beforehand which can be gained through experience in mapping. How can you even so sure to make BNs interested in your maps if they're not at the bare minimum of acceptable quality to begin with?

Tho I gotta agree that the ranking process is still way too steep for new mappers rn. Yes you don't need to be really popular to rank a map, but having even a bit of reputation in the mapping community can be a stark difference in how easy it is to rank something. A medium category to smooth things out would be nice.

AnimeStyle wrote:

Regarding cat
I don't think it would be a good idea to force people to use that in between step.
Experienced mappers should still be able to just go straight to BNs.
The system would just slow down the ranking process when it's supposed to do the opposite.
People who got their map in the in between category should be allowed to still get the map up to ranked status tho (which would have to resest leaderboards, but that would be the price for this to work)

Edit: Maybe I'm gonna write up a properly constructed proposal once I have enough time, considering my take has gone way too far of the og proposal to begin with

Well I'd rather have things done better rather than done quick. There could be multiple paths for ranking maps, for example, a mapper that has at least 1 ranked or loved mapset could be able to go straight to BN while mappers who don't have any maps ranked or loved must go through the rather winded process (if people really want to get their maps ranked then this shouldn't be as much of a deal as currently people are already spending months and even years ranking maps). There does exist mappers with no ranked or loved maps but have a high reputation in the mapping community, but that would most likely mean that they have no intent in ranking maps, and when they eventually do, their broad relationships would probably get them through rather quickly.

Silverboxer wrote:

How is everyone linking pishifats video like it answers anything in Kazuya's post? Watch pishifat's video and learn what? That we should teach mappers:
1. To have years of experience before they are allowed to rank a map
2. Pander to BNs

Such stupid comments. Pishifat does not even say his experiment proves anything definitively. Stop ignoring every other thing Kazuya wrote just to say "look you don't need to be popular". Read my earlier post

i mean the thing with popularity is you need to be well knownn enough that other mappers respect you and they know by your name for you to actual use your fame to do stuff easily. its not like having some ranked maps just changes how everyone views your mapping anyway. at least for me my first map was probably like 3rd easiet to rank despite me being completely unknown. imo a lot of new mappers struggle to rank their maps not because theyre not popular or have no connectionn but because they give too much credit to their ability in mapping. their good is significantly worse than bn good and thats what makes it hard probably. literally just get good (and pretty sure it shouldnt takes years) and you shouldnt need connection or anything like that to rank.

Huh this is suddenly a lot, and long. I need a time because i'm working until sunday. Next time i'll be completely free on Monday. I will respond probably with a long monologue. I need time to do this, mainly because my english skills are low and i would like to read carefully the shorter and longer comments received.

I agree that you don't need connections. That's why I tried to explain that it's not the real issue, and why it's dumb that every mapper ALWAYS focuses on this point when replying to each other. Every suggestion to change the ranking process gets ignored if it is brought up as if there is no reason to ever propose a change just because sometimes some new mapper has an easy time getting something ranked.

"Get good" is not a helpful solution. Lots of mappers have gotten good and once in a while still have trouble getting something pushed for rank. Why? Because sometimes you map a certain song a certain way where no specific BN is interested. They might like the music, but not the style you chose. Or they know your mapping and usually enjoy it, but they hate the music for this new mapset you sent them.

Also, you think mappers do not try to get good? I agree that a LOT of people overestimate their own mapping knowledge. But I think the standard has become very high and it's very daunting for mappers to improve 50 times over and over before allowed to have just one mapping achievement. I'm not saying every barely-mediocre mapper ever should be given praise but let's be honest, mapping is for fun, right? Well isn't it fun to not let thousands of maps go to waste in the graveyard, when there can be an easier way to search through and find fun/high quality maps that aren't ranked? Ranked section is considered "official" osu content so it needs to be a high standard, and fitting for official sponsored content. Why should this be the only way for people to spread their creations and have others enjoy it?

That's what I want to discuss with others but many people brush over it and say "get good" or whatever. So many people act like the ranking process never needs to be changed as if there is absolutely 0 issues whatsoever. Why not try to discuss things and come up with an idea to improve it?

Silverboxer wrote:

I agree that you don't need connections. That's why I tried to explain that it's not the real issue, and why it's dumb that every mapper ALWAYS focuses on this point when replying to each other. Every suggestion to change the ranking process gets ignored if it is brought up as if there is no reason to ever propose a change just because sometimes some new mapper has an easy time getting something ranked.

"Get good" is not a helpful solution. Lots of mappers have gotten good and once in a while still have trouble getting something pushed for rank. Why? Because sometimes you map a certain song a certain way where no specific BN is interested. They might like the music, but not the style you chose. Or they know your mapping and usually enjoy it, but they hate the music for this new mapset you sent them.

Also, you think mappers do not try to get good? I agree that a LOT of people overestimate their own mapping knowledge. But I think the standard has become very high and it's very daunting for mappers to improve 50 times over and over before allowed to have just one mapping achievement. I'm not saying every barely-mediocre mapper ever should be given praise but let's be honest, mapping is for fun, right? Well isn't it fun to not let thousands of maps go to waste in the graveyard, when there can be an easier way to search through and find fun/high quality maps that aren't ranked? Ranked section is considered "official" osu content so it needs to be a high standard, and fitting for official sponsored content. Why should this be the only way for people to spread their creations and have others enjoy it?

That's what I want to discuss with others but many people brush over it and say "get good" or whatever. So many people act like the ranking process never needs to be changed as if there is absolutely 0 issues whatsoever. Why not try to discuss things and come up with an idea to improve it?

You’re putting yourself way too much in mappers’ shoes here. Now, let’s try to put ourselves in a BN’s shoes;

Being Beatmap Nominator is nothing but a hobby, they also do it for fun and shouldn’t be held responsible for the fact that some mappers have it harder than others when it comes to ranking (or didn’t manage to rank), neither should be forced to rank stuff they don’t like.

If you yourself enjoy mapping (Which by the way mapping =/= ranking) then do it. However, getting yourself upset because of your map not being appealing to all BNs and calling it a waste of time is not really the way to go but not everyone as a good mindset for it and don’t blame them either.

There are many many ways to make a map appealing for nominators even if the map is bad (considering you said that pishi was already experienced enough to obtain attention even if he was using an alt account). The map doesn’t really have to be the main appeal at all. It can be either song, spread, etc.

As of now there are 76 nominators for standard and I’m pretty sure someone can manage to find two interested if the mapper has the right mindset and is willing to put effort into it.

As for the ranking process change;

Any change recommendation so far in here would make everything more annoying for new and experienced mappers. I myself can’t say any solution to this because I can’t find the issue to begin with.

It seems to be a common misconception that it's only new mappers who struggle with the ranking process, but this is not the reality, at least not anymore. There are more active mappers now than ever, and the number has been and will be increasing further because a lot of mappers continue mapping for years or come back to it, while there are also lots of new mappers joining. This means that there are tons of maps being created at a much faster rate than in the past. And while a lot of them are not ready to be ranked (either because they're unfinished or not good enough), a big part is high quality and could be ranked. Meanwhile the number of BNs has not grown significantly over the years (at least in standard) so it's simply impossible to keep up with the volume of potentially ranked maps. This means that even very good maps made by experienced mappers might never get ranked, and not only because of song choice or other similar reasons that depend on BN preferences like people have suggested, but partially also because there are so many other maps aiming to get ranked at the same time that it might simply not be chosen to be nominated at all.
So the discussion shouldn't be focused on new mappers because they are not the only ones affected by it.

There is no straightforward solution to this problem, and whether the proposed ideas could alleviate it is debatable. But I think there are some interesting points worth discussing:

Insignificant modding system

It's definitely true that mods from non-BNs have lost their value in the past few years. A lot of people only mod to become BN to begin with. Part of the reason for this is the moddingv2 change that basically made kudosu obsolete. The star priority system seemed to be better than hypes (which have no actual meaning) because people could spend their kudosu on something and actually had an incentive to mod maps. The only problem in today's mapping scene is that BNs would probably not give maps with high star priority special treatment, making it pretty much useless too. There might be a better way to rework the modding system into something that benefits both modders and mappers alike.

Sanctioning BNs can also lead to a loss of motivation

I feel like the BN system could become much healthier if measures other than punishment were taken for BNs making mistakes or not being in line with certain standards. Trying to help BNs improve and learn would encourage them to give their best going forward and would build a more positive environment with committed and skilled BNs. But instead, they are often put on probation or removed entirely and expected to improve by themselves with little to no help or resources before trying to reapply. Not only is it demotivating but also leads to the BN group being smaller and not growing over time. A change like this, along with a more efficient application system (which I'm not going to talk about in detail), could increase the number of BNs and therefore make the ranking process easier and faster.

Erisu wrote:

If you yourself enjoy mapping (Which by the way mapping =/= ranking) then do it. However, getting yourself upset because of your map not being appealing to all BNs and calling it a waste of time is not really the way to go but not everyone as a good mindset for it and don’t blame them either.

Mapping is more fun when you get support from the BN system. However, some BNs close themselves off for this.

1. Some BNs put on their profile that you get ghosted if your map gets rejected. I think it's common etiquette to not ghost people and replying "no" would be infinitely better.
2. Some BNs rely on the common modding queue for requests. All maps I requested stayed pending forever without any reply. Given the countdown put on the common modding queue this doesn't give the idea that you're encouraged creating your own content for this game.

Mappers aren't instantly good at mapping and I think BNs should be more open in what they want without having to rely on social constructs like the mentorship program.

Project Railgun wrote:

In the current modding system, BNs are encouraged to nominate maps they understand fully. This leads to BNs "choosing" certain maps for "free activity", and mappers making those maps for "the easy nominations". Although unfortunate, this seems to be related to the idea that "life is unfair" and most things in life revolve around exploiting people's preferences.

Silverboxer wrote:

- Ranking process is not objective enough, influenced by BNs preferences

I don't understand this hyperfocus towards giving suggestions 'in the spirit of the map', what the hell is wrong with BNs posting an idea that doesn't follow the mapper's ideas but may be interesting regardless? A mapper who makes maps considered by BNs for rank is probably smart enough to reject the mod if they feel like it detriments the map. Giving more freedom towards what mods you are allowed to post as a BN attracts people who are in for a discussion, who are way more valuable than people who just mod the inconsistent hitsound or NC.

About the main point of this thread, while I agree with Kazuya's issues of the ranking process, I don't think their solution changes much except timeouts for everything you do. Instead I think the focus towards "objective modding" should be relaxed and unapproachable BNs should just be kicked. In the worst case, I rather see 20 BNs nominating a handful of good maps with good variety than 100 BNs nominating the same anime music over and over.

I hope i have described everything clearly. Unfortunately, my english is bad. If something is not understandable, please let me know.

In the meantime I came across a reddit post. By the way, I didn't know that the cat avatar was of the user "whitecat". In any case, I hope I've made myself unique with this lovely, sun avatar. : )

The video is not representative of reality, and it's completely irreal, that someone's very first map looks like this. In addition, all the difficulties are aesthetically too few errors. In addition, the pitfall is that only 1 particular map is included even though the novice mapper is trying out several different types of music. It is obvious to most people that the person is not a beginner mapper. The other observations have been described by others: https://www.reddit.com/r/osugame/comments/ww7qj3/comment/iljzu6f/
Instead of a pretend role, more people should have been asked about their experiences, or even aspiring or old mappers about how they got to the top ranking and how long it took them.

I'd say most of your problems either don't exist or are non-issues. The system you're proposing essentially creates a clout issue (10 stars from modder, really?). Either that or my brain is square and I am very stupid.

Then it's perfectly fine:

- If it's all up to the Beatmap Nominator. Let them just be bombarded with 100+ requests a day with no suggestions.
- Absolutely no say whatsoever for the average modder/player in what gets ranked. Don't even have another alternative way to have your map get a ranking rating via user support
- Git Gud.

The argument that this would avoid ranking unqualified maps has failed in some cases. It is mostly in these situations where favouritism, or even paid nomination, of interest in joining the team is shown to exist.
These moments are all destructive to the mapper, modder community and also to the Beatmap Nominators community. It is especially damaging when a Nominator has been sanctioned for a completely subjective thing because of one of their nominations. In such a case, he can justifiably be outraged and point fingers at the other Nominator for not being sanctioned for ranking a map that substantially violates the basic ranking criteria. Usually one of the reasons is "it's art", "subjective" etc...

Not that I know why it's hard to rank metal, but I don't feel like the solutions outlined would be addressing the core issue of this particular problem. How many metal songs are waiting to be ranked anyhow?

I may have worded this section rather badly at the beginning of the post, but essentially it's not just metal as a genre that's more substantially difficult to rank. I could say jazz, folk music, or even songs in the player's own language which are significantly lower in priority despite having high support within the average community.

pishfat's vid supports that good mappers would draw attention. I know you made good beatmaps I enjoy playing, so I'd have a hard time believing you'd run into this issue.

3rd paragraph (after at spam)

+
I also run into problems. i make too much different music and my mapping style is a bit different. I'm not going to immediately go in a different direction, or follow popular styles to have more ranked maps. And most of my old maps are a shame, but if they weren't ranked, i probably wouldn't have improved.

The rest of issues have to do with BN being a bottleneck or bias, which I believe there is truth to. Honestly how you describe "Beatmap Moderator" sounds a lot like combining the roles of MAT/BAT of the old days into one.

In the old days it was expected that before sending a map to a BN, you had to collect some quality suggestions, timing checks etc... The old system was good because all the mappers and modders knew that something had to be done to get closer to the ranking, or to become an experienced Beatmap Nominator. Mappers were encouraged to improve in modding, learn different styles, so more experienced Beatmap Nominators were added to the team. It was much better when you had to help others to some extent. It was beneficial and useful for both parties.
Over the years many have fought for mapper freedom, less modding and easier ranking. The result has been that modding has become completely irrelevant, with fewer experienced modders capable of moderating multiple styles. BNs have become more overloaded, with many inexperienced people joining. If they are given something more complicated map, they tend to reject it to avoid sanctions.

There should definitely be an alternative way to get a ranking, because there are maps that the owner has made for ranking, he has received significant support but none of the Beatmap Nominators are willing to check because of the music or the mapping style even though it meets the ranking criteria, he has received quite a lot of quality checks etc...

Suggestion:

The community would rate and support the map, even if it could be a voting system like the Loved I support/ I don't support. It would be specified how many individual votes would be needed for the map to reach the final vote and of course before anyone would put their map up for a vote, criteria would be specified how many mods would be needed, how long it would take to submit to this system, how much hype would be needed, how much support from modders (kudosu star) etc... The composition of the judges would consist of independent experienced modders, veteran mappers, players and even different judges every month. And these judges would evaluate the map in detail, explain the problems that arise, make suggestions. And if a majority votes in favour and the problems are fixed, you can get ranked status.

Maybe more people would be inspired to help others.

Kazuya wrote:

- Currently, the music diversity is rather monotonous.

This is not really a fault of the system. Mappers will always map whatever they want. A large portion of the osu community likes anime and video game music so these maps are most popular. Mapper also choose to map these things because they WILL get lots of plays. Maps for less common genres do exist. The solution is to fix the system so good maps can get ranked more easily and we will see more of these maps.

Kazuya wrote:

- Mostly you have to adapt to the taste of the current BNs.

Right, and with all due respect to the nominators who are volunteering their time, their "taste" (preferred music and mapping style) doesn't matter to the ranking process at all. You are a BN because you have proven yourself a very competent and experienced mapper & modder. You should be able to judge maps even if you "don't like the song"

I think reworking the system completely could have long term benefits.

Current Ranking Process vs. New Ranking Process

Current Procedure:

1. Map is submitted as Pending (or WIP).
2. The map receives mods.
3. The map is fine-tuned to address those issues.
4. The map receives 5 hypes.
5. When the mapper is satisfied with the newly modded map. They then must find 2 BNs to nominate their map.
6. Qualification
7. Ranked

Unfortunately during this process, many mappers don’t make it past step two. Finding people to mod your map can be challenging. Finding good quality modders is even harder. Modders need to understand mapping theory, the ranking criteria, mapping styles etc. And be able to explain/provide feedback in a way that the mapper will understand. It’s a lot more than “change this cause i don’t like it.” or “this pattern sucks”

Mappers also fail at step five. Finding BNs is as easy as visiting this page. But getting a BN to look at your map, or even respond to a message can be quite challenging. (And you gotta do this 2x)


New Procedure:

1. Map is submitted as Pending (or WIP).
2. The map receives mods.
   
   Here it might help to implement some kind of system that would incentivise players to mod maps.
   
   Modding resources include: #modreqs, modding queues, mapping and modding focused discord servers, osu discord servers in general, making friends in the community, r/osumapping, r/osugame monthly mapping thread.
3. The map is fine-tuned to address those issues.
4. The map receives 5 hypes.
   
   I don’t think hypes are useless… but honestly they’re pretty easy to get. A lot of people will hype a map if you just ask them (especially if it’s only missing 1 or 2 hypes) It requires much less effort than modding.
   
   It may be better to implement a system where a map is not eligible for nomination until it has received 3 mods.
5. When the mapper is satisfied with the newly modded map. They can submit their beatmap to the Qualification Queue
   This is the first measure toward eliminating useless communication between the mapper and nominator.
   
   How this works:
   
   Only maps that are genuinely ready should be submitted. Therefore the mapper confirms that they ran their map through AIMOD and other tools to check for basic issues. The mapper confirms that the timing, background image/video, metadata is correct. That they fully believe their map to be of acceptable quality and not just sending bullshit (basically the easy stuff)
   
   
   
   1. The map enters into a Qualification Queue.
   1. Maps in the queue will be cleared FIFO. (first in, first out) This system will likely result in a high number of submissions (which is good for increasing mapping activity, but also means more work for BNs*)
   1. Maps from the queue will be distributed to BNs automatically with the mapper’s name hidden. Beatmap issues caused by carelessness (as mentioned in the first point) will cause a map to be instantly rejected. This will ensure BNs can move along the queue quickly without wasting too much time on troll maps. Troll maps with unrankable issues and blatant violations of the Qualification Queue terms of service will be reported to the NAT. This will allow BNs to focus on good maps that are ranked ready or need few mods before ranking.
   1. Experienced mappers are less likely to send maps with issues to the queue. However, allowing experienced mappers to skip the queue would make this system completely unfair and pointless. Instead, I suggest granting queue priority under certain conditions: songs by osu! featured artists, songs that have not been mapped yet, players with osu!supporter tags, and players who contribute to the system by actively modding maps.
6. Qualification
   
   1. Works the same way with one difference, a map that is qualified then disqualified will not have to go through the queue again. Mappers should coordinate with their nominators in the case of disqualification and requalification.
7. Ranked

Yes, there will be a lot more maps in the queue. But this system will help automate and improve things. It sounds like a lot of work but as the game and community continues to grow we can add more BNs. And one day maybe an event to honor these volunteers and their hard work.
This creates an incentive for modders. If you help mod mods you can slightly reduce your own time in the queue. Experienced modders can eventually become BNs and the cycle repeats.

Addition queue details:
-Each mapper can only have one submission in the queue at a time. (Not including GDs). This encourages players to do other things while waiting such as: modding, making more maps.

-Maps that are rejected from the queue cannot be resubmitted for 30 days.

I think I already mentioned that concern briefly - but something like this will never have any chance at being tested when it actively challenges the role/power of the current BNG.
BNs already offer their free time and then telling them to use that on songs/maps they might not like will automatically result in them rejecting your suggestion.
The only way imo to change anything about the ranking procedure is first and foremost to ensure it has a payoff both for the mappers AND the current BNG.

AnimeStyle wrote:

I think I already mentioned that concern briefly - but something like this will never have any chance at being tested when it actively challenges the role/power of the current BNG.
BNs already offer their free time and then telling them to use that on songs/maps they might not like will automatically result in them rejecting your suggestion.
The only way imo to change anything about the ranking procedure is first and foremost to ensure it has a payoff both for the mappers AND the current BNG.

^ this is what i wanted to say

people seems to forget that bns are just volunteers nominating maps, who have their own opinion and ideas of a "rankable map", idk if you've ever modded a map of a song you don't like before but the process is not fun at best and painful at worst, imagine if bns are forced to do that everyday. also it's not like the process is very efficient anw

even if you ignore that, i don't see why this system will even solve the current problem, as the bn's (or bm's) friend can just tell them about their "going for ranked" map, and they can just look through the queue sheet to mod the friend's map first. there's pretty much no way to detect stuff like that

imo the only way to solve the problems you mention is to a) somehow find more people to become a bn or b) actually pays bns with actual money, the only thing close to a monetary gain from being a bn is the infinite osu! supporter (which is literally 4 dollars a month btw and no you can not convert it to real money), imagine if bns can nominate maps without having to worry about the bills, i wouldn't be surprise if the average bns can nominate like 25 maps a month

dPeace wrote:

people seems to forget that bns are just volunteers nominating maps, who have their own opinion and ideas of a "rankable map", idk if you've ever modded a map of a song you don't like before but the process is not fun at best and painful at worst, imagine if bns are forced to do that everyday. also it's not like the process is very efficient anw

I understand that. I do admire BNs. They volunteer their time. They work hard. They help the community by pushing good maps.

...However, the reality is that the current system gives them a little too much power. It's not efficient for the long run of this game. Even peppy knows.

Project Railgun wrote:

peppy has stated in the past that lazer would automate the ranking process a bit more.

peppy wrote:

The point of ranking is to get maps that are solid and enjoyable into a permanently engraved state. That's literally why the whole system exists. It has obviously evolved into something more stringent and opinionated over the years, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

I'm not saying we tie them up to chairs and force them to write mods for music they hate. In this proposed system, BNs don't directly choose their maps from the queue. Instead it will automatically sent to their inbox therefore...

even if you ignore that, i don't see why this system will even solve the current problem, as the bn's (or bm's) friend can just tell them about their "going for ranked" map, and they can just look through the queue sheet to mod the friend's map first.

this will be impossible. Everyone needs to wait their turn, fair and square. BNs can set their preferred song style in settings.





This will help prevent them from being flooded with songs they hate, but doesn't guarantee they will only get one particular style/genre. As mentioned in my previous reply,

vodit51321 wrote:

You are a BN because you have proven yourself a very competent and experienced mapper & modder. You should be able to judge maps even if you "don't like the song"

Also, thank you for sharing that reddit post, it was interesting and I have never seen it before. I don't think his experiment conflicts with my proposed changes.

How Maps Are Viewed In The Current System vs. My Proposed System

Current System:

(from the reddit post) wrote:

I decided to split the maps into 4 categories:

- Inexperienced: Maps that are most likely from newer mappers or very inexperienced people. They contain several major flaws to the point of not being worth a full specific mod.

- Okay: Maps that are decent but, despite being quite “ok”, they’re very unpolished and still need medium/big improvements.

- Good map: Maps that don’t have many issues or just need some polishing. OBS: It does not mean I want to nominate it, it just means I think they’re cool.

- Point of Interest: Maps I like enough to the point of wanting to help push them forward.

Total maps: 80 (100%)

-Inexperienced: 29 (36%)

-Okay: 37 (46%)

-Good map: 8 (10%)

-Dropped: 6 (8%) <- Maps which the host asked me to not mod anymore OR maps that got ranked before I got to them (those were only 2)

-Point of interest: 3 (4%)

My Proposed System

1. Nominate: maps that are good, likely from known/experienced mappers. These are the types of maps that many BNs are looking for today. Easy nominations. The map has little to no issues and it's free activity.
2. Reject: maps from the "inexperienced" category. If the mapper followed the Qualification Queue TOS then these maps should at least be timed correctly, hitsounded, correct metadata, etc. However, the map itself is not good. As Seto said since "these maps contain several major flaws" they are not worth a full mod and can simply be rejected. (With a brief reasoning)
3. Send Mod: this combines Seto's "Good" and "Okay" categories. If a map "doesn't have many issues/just needs some polishing" it makes no sense to avoid helping the mapper. Maps like this should be modded so they can progress to rank, rather than rejected until the mapper finds a BN who wants to rank it and will assist with the few changes needed to get there. This is more efficient and will save everyone's time. For maps that are "decent but, despite being quite “ok”, they’re very unpolished and still need medium/big improvements." it will be up to the BN's discretion to either send a mod or reject it.
4. Refuse: In the rules, BNs are encouraged to nominate maps they understand fully. Refuse will allow a BN to discard a map they have been assigned and it will be passed along to another BN. This is not meant to discard maps of songs you don't like. This is reserved for situations where the BN is not comfortable judging the map but the map is still potentially rankable.
5. Report: For the troll maps, incoherent mapping, blatant violations of Ranking Criteria and to keep track of repeat offenders who send unfinished or maps with common negligence issues (as defined in the Qualification Queue TOS). This info will be sent to the NATs and they will do...uh something about it

To sum it all up. The current system is slow and relies too much on what Nominators feel like and don't feel like ranking. This new system will be fast and based entirely on the map's quality.

And in response to this,

AnimeStyle wrote:

I think I already mentioned that concern briefly - but something like this will never have any chance at being tested when it actively challenges the role/power of the current BNG.

Of course the BNG will not like these changes. The work will require less "doing what you want to do" and more selflessly doing what's fair for the whole community. We will need more BNs. We will need incentives for people to mod and become BNs. I don't think peppy would be on board with the monetary idea. Too expensive. Free supporter is already generous and this has always been a community game, we just need people who are willing to step up.

vodit51321 wrote:

Of course the BNG will not like these changes. The work will require less "doing what you want to do" and more selflessly doing what's fair for the whole community. We will need more BNs. We will need incentives for people to mod and become BNs. I don't think peppy would be on board with the monetary idea. Too expensive. Free supporter is already generous and this has always been a community game, we just need people who are willing to step up.

Then how would those changes be in any way sustainable? Where are you going to find the people to keep the system running?

Logically, out of the people who are good enough at modding to become BNs, more or less everyone who also wants to be one should be one right now. In the system you're proposing, the required skillset would be the same (since you're still judging whether a map is good enough to be ranked), so the pool of eligible people wouldn't get any bigger, but the way the system would work and the frankly unrealistic expectations you set for BNs would make the work a lot more tedious, so the number of people willing to do the job for any significant length of time would plummet.

Increasing demand and decreasing supply at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Of course, you could just loosen the requirements so that enough willing people are eligible, but honestly, at that point I think you're better off figuring out how to rank maps automatically instead.

You're not wrong. But keep in mind these expectations are not as "unrealistic" as the idea of a fully automatic ranking process. Unless someone suggests a more reasonable system, this system is the closest we got to being fair for everyone. The two big issues of the current system are solved and now we're all left discussing the new issue it would bring. How to incentivise nominators to do the work.

I doubt anyone in this thread has the answer. That's just something osu!staff might have to figure out.

Basically, one of the main problems is that many people approach this BN thing by ranking their own maps. I know of people who would like to join the team in the near future to submit their own maps for ranking via nom4nom because no matter how much they evolve or follow the current trend in both mapping style and song choice, they are not making any progress at all. Some have been waiting for an answer for more than 1 year, and some people have found BN, but the person has been kicked. What makes the process even more difficult is that you need two BNs. If the majority does not want to change the current system, there should at least be an alternative way.

That's why i think need at least one alternative direction where mappers have the opportunity to rank own map. This direction would give the chance that if none of the BNs are interested in the map, there is still a chance to be ranked in the near future. Maybe it could work like Loved. There would be x amount of people made up of experienced players, modders ex BN members and they would vote. There would be x amount of maps/modes per month that would get ranked. The the team would always change, so it wouldn't be the same people deciding what would get ranked, so if someone's map didn't make the rankings before, they could get a chance in the next round.

I think we should actually get a member of the BN team to share their ideas on this proposal, rather than being limited to what regular players like us think.

Since change may not be to their advantage in most cases, I doubt that any of them would support an alternative. At most peppy can decide. I wonder what he thinks.

Pretty much agree with Silverboxer. People like us who just go with the flow appreciates those people who takes care of the “issues” that we don’t really care of. I’m blessed having you guys do the action and some of us are here in our hammock drinking coconut juice.

I asked a member of the BN community about their thoughts on this matter. They said to keep anonymous so this is a detailed transcription of their words by me:

Anonymous BN wrote:

I've looked at the thread a bit, and honestly I don't feel the need for any big changes on the current ranking system.

On the matter of "hard to rank maps", I can't necessarily say that it's not good. In my understanding, there should always be a balance between quality and quantity, and if the entire community is involved in map ranking, I think that, when no one is in charge of it (unless someone keeps their eyes on the qualification zone 24/7, but mostly likely nobody will take such a boring job), their might be another way of ranking a map, which may be easier, but also relatively less equal. Of course it's based on how you see the issue, and definitely not an absolute matter, so I think keeping the current ranking system wouldn't have any big issues, and honestly you can't be sure if making big changes would make things worse or not.

Then there's the issue of new mappers having a hard time ranking maps. Well actually 99% of mappers have to experience that procedure, and unless the current ranking environment is worse than what it previously was, shouldn't be a problem at all. There isn't any "inequality", and there can't be absolute equality either.

There is one thing I can relate to however, which is that finding modders (especially good ones) is quite difficulty, at least in osu!mania. I have discussed this with others, and really, after removing the activity requirement to apply for BN, most of the experience modders have a good chance at applying for BN, which can be easily seen by the dramatic increase in BN count lately. So now the number of experienced modders may have shrunk, and most BNs don't have experience in BN jobs. I can't tell if this is really a good thing or a bad thing, and only time can tell.

I think it's funny that most of the time the people saying the current system is not a problem are BNs or popular mappers. Not being affected by it doesn't mean everyone shares the same experience.

A minimal improvement would be to allow a maximum of 1 map per month to be ranked by 1 user, and only 1 nominator would be needed instead of 2.

Kazuya wrote:

A minimal improvement would be to allow a maximum of 1 map per month to be ranked by 1 user, and only 1 nominator would be needed instead of 2.

I don't think that would fix much at all. We not seeing an insane amount of maps being spammed by 1 user in a given month. The problems lie in other things

Of course, there are many other major problems, but if the possibility of ranking were limited, it would avoid that only a few users get more focus.
Over time, BN will be forced to deal with a mapper who is less popular or has a lower priority, and there will be less risk of BN forgetting, or even later deceiving him. If BN cannot deal only with its preferred users, it will have to deal with other, less active users whose requests BN has accepted.
Reducing BN's involvement would be a relief for both parties. If only 1 BN were needed for a given map, the burden would be slightly less.

Kazuya wrote:

A minimal improvement would be to allow a maximum of 1 map per month to be ranked by 1 user, and only 1 nominator would be needed instead of 2.

this just sounds like it's gonna be worse lol, bns who are less active but still wanna be in the team already did sth like this. forcing sth like this is making less maps ranked per day for no reason

Well, that leaves us with an alternative which is a slower process, but absolutely not dependent on the tastes and preferences of BNs, what i mentioned earlier. After all, what would be the obstacle if there were two different ranking processes? Please come up with some other reason, not related to the quality of the maps, because sometimes a map gets a rank that is extremely messy and/or overmapped.

idk if someone said this already

honestly imo you cant fix/improve the current ranking system unless you want to discourage competition and make it some centralized production system or something. getting a bn is a competition between all the mappers trying to rank their maps. there will always be some loses in a competitive process like the ranking process and the losers in this case are the new mappers trying to rank their first maps. but this isnt something we can fix. its literally how life works and nature works. unless you are better than someone competing for the same job, you are gonna lose. giraffes with shorter necks would go extinct because giraffes with longer necks are gonna get all the food. new mapper map isnt gonna get ranked unless its better than most of the maps the bn has to look at. having losers is just a natural consequence of competition and its unavoidable unless you eliminate competition. there's obviously a reason why we dont live in a utopian society. i agree there are some people that bypass this competition, but economy works fine with competition so idk how ranking process with competition isnt fine tbh.

Livermorium wrote:

honestly imo you cant fix/improve the current ranking system unless you want to discourage competition and make it some centralized production system or something. getting a bn is a competition between all the mappers trying to rank their maps. there will always be some loses in a competitive process like the ranking process and the losers in this case are the new mappers trying to rank their first maps. but this isnt something we can fix. its literally how life works and nature works. unless you are better than someone competing for the same job, you are gonna lose. giraffes with shorter necks would go extinct because giraffes with longer necks are gonna get all the food. new mapper map isnt gonna get ranked unless its better than most of the maps the bn has to look at. having losers is just a natural consequence of competition and its unavoidable unless you eliminate competition. there's obviously a reason why we dont live in a utopian society. i agree there are some people that bypass this competition, but economy works fine with competition so idk how ranking process with competition isnt fine tbh.

This type of logic is backwards and is the reason why there have been little to no positive changes within the past few years. First of all, the ranking process isn't inherently competitive (which you acknowledged yourself) so comparing it to other systems doesn't really make sense. The only reason it has become this way is because of the ever-increasing discrepancy between the number of potential ranked maps and the nomination capacity of BNs. Maybe making it more like a "centralized production system" as you said would actually have some benefits (depending on how it works). Either way, saying that the problems the mapping community is facing are only "natural consequences of competition" is a fallacy because the system could be different (less competitive) and even if you view it as a competition it's still flawed and could be changed for the better, especially because it's not even fair. If maps would only not get ranked simply because they're not good enough, you'd have a point because the "better" maps would "win" and the others would "lose". But this is not the case given the vast amount of high quality maps that never made it into the ranked section. It might be impossible to find a perfect solution but by continuing to defend the status quo there will never be an improvement.

This current competition only works as long as there are, for example, selected people, "osu! celebs" etc... After a while, everyone grows up, has different priorities, work, family, etc. And if there is no replacement, the whole game can go out of business for lack of interest.

But osu! is not a huge game, with millions of active users every day. In addition, if only one particular theme is preferred, such as anime music or popular crap/trash/pop... songs with a map that follow current trends, this also prevents the game from spreading more widely.

^ I agree with Serizawa.

It makes no sense to flat out ignore the issues with the system. Saying "it makes it more competitive" when it doesn't even make sense for the ranking system to be this way. Players won't benefit from it, mappers won't benefit from it and I don't like how Livermorium also implied that making things more efficient would be a bad thing. (he used the term "centralized production system" but really it's just making things more efficient/streamlined and fair/objective for ALL participants).

In response to Yyotta Cat, thank you for attempting to further this discussion by reaching out to members of BNG and getting their thoughts. Once again, I have to agree with Serizawa. Because BNs experience and participate in the ranking system in a way that's completely different from the average player it's likely harder for them see this discussion from our POV. Given the reality of the issues that have been brought up around this topic time and time again... (and even peppy saying this):

peppy wrote:

The point of ranking is to get maps that are solid and enjoyable into a permanently engraved state. That's literally why the whole system exists. It has obviously evolved into something more stringent and opinionated over the years, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

I just can't agree with the people saying "the current system does not need changing"

This thread is quite lengthy for anyone popping in now and I feel the discussion is also starting to get off focus (going in circles) so I want to rehash some things that were said earlier.


That being the said. The rest of the thread is filled with proposals, ideas, and discussions. Feel free to check those out. Here's the proposal I made for a system that would be more fair for everyone and try to ensure a higher baseline of quality maps are sent to BNs. I exaplained it further here.

sorry for 2200 words lmfao (not sorry)

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

the ever-increasing discrepancy between the number of potential ranked maps and the nomination capacity of BNs

This is the heart of the problem, and I can't see any easy solutions. Obviously, to ease the discrepancy, you have to either reduce the number of acceptable maps or increase nomination capacity, but I think the latter is the only realistic option. Still, all the versions of even that option that I can think of are hard to implement and/or have major downsides. Also, for what it's worth, I think those downsides are more or less equal in magnitude to just keeping the status quo and letting the discrepancy grow. The status quo IS a viable option in my eyes if no legitimately good alternatives emerge or if such an alternative would have to wait until Lazer (or something else that takes a bunch of dev time).

Why we can't just have fewer maps

I think the problems with reducing the pool of acceptable maps are pretty obvious (people rarely even suggest doing it in these discussions), but I'll expand upon that point a bit for good measure. To simplify the issue, if there are too many maps above a threshold, you have to either raise the threshold or reduce the overall number of maps. I think the latter is pretty obviously inherently self-destructive from a community management perspective; no maps, no game.

As for raising the threshold, I think it's clearly completely impossible to do across the entire community, so it'd have to be done at the level of the BNG. However, even if it somehow went well, it'd just make BNs opt for safer maps, which would just make the situation worse. But there's no world in which it could go well, which should be evident to any mapping drama enjoyers out there. The community doesn't exactly have a strong consensus on what's good.

The idea of raising the quality of the maps that get sent to BNs is a fun twist on this theme, but I don’t think any of these kinds of suggestions that I’ve seen so far are actually sound. There are two types of suggestions here: a separate group between mappers and BNs, and mod count requirements. Making a two-layered nomination system seems absolutely nonsensical to me at this point, because it’s been done and abolished at least twice before. Mod count requirements, on the other hand, just don’t do what the proposals want them to do. They’re incredibly easy to circumvent if you have any friends in the game, they’re well known to be pointless for experienced mappers, and they don’t even guarantee map quality because no reasonable number of mods on someone’s first map will make it good.

Increasing nomination capacity

The most obvious way to get more maps nominated is to get more BNs into the team (or let more people nominate maps in some other way), and different versions of this get suggested every once in a while. However, it seems logical that everyone who both 1) wants to be a BN and 2) meets the current requirements is either already a BN or on their way to becoming one. So, to grow the BNG, you need to grow the number of people who fulfil 1) or 2).

Making the BN position more attractive is something that comes up every once in a while, but nothing usually comes out of it. On paper, it sounds amazing: if more people want to do the job in general, the number of competent applicants will probably increase as well, so we’ll have more BNs. It’s just really hard to actually accomplish. Ideas for rewards tend to die because of the whole “money in osu!” issue, while making the job easier tends to lead to worse overall nomination quality. Haruki's suggestion about handling underperforming BNs better seems interesting, but I’d really like to hear other BN/NAT perspectives on the situation.

To make more people meet the criteria to become a BN, you can either teach people to mod better or relax the criteria. Based on everything I’ve seen in Mentorship in the past five years, relying on volunteer teachers for an infrastructure problem like this one isn’t viable, although I do think it’s an important effort nonetheless. Relaxing the criteria, on the other hand, would certainly work, just with the side effect of inevitably reducing the overall quality of the ranked section.

That’s two mentions of reduced quality. It’s a common theme I see in a lot of proposals, but for some reason, it’s rarely addressed in the proposals themselves. Eventually, I do think that we’ll head in this direction in one way or another, but right now, I don’t think it’s a trivial issue at all. The opinion that “ranked sucks” is fairly common, and any change that further lowers the bar of what can get ranked will only exacerbate the issue. Any such change needs careful thought weighing the pros and cons against each other.

Addressing stuff from the thread

Kazuya wrote:

initial proposal
- mappers nominate their own maps
- BNs are demoted to just quality assurance
- 2 weeks in qualified, maps are ranked even if no one actually looks at them
- mod count and other requirements
- limited number of ranked maps

Mappers nominating their own maps is something I have a certain affinity for. However, it’s unrealistic to expect enough people to volunteer to do quality assurance. Add in the fact that maps could get through qualified without being looked at by anyone and you have a recipe for disaster. Also, limiting the number of ranked maps and pushing everything out of qualified after 2 weeks are mutually exclusive unless I’m missing something here (plus limiting the number of ranked maps just makes no sense if your aim is to make it easier to rank maps).

Silverboxer wrote:

a tier of maps below Ranked

How about automatic leaderboards for anything that passes Mapset Verifier or an equivalent check (probably when the mapper clicks a dedicated button instead of on every upload to reduce server load)? Not perfect cause the lack of pp would turn a bunch of players away, although I do honestly think enabling pp would be plausible with a more robust check.

vodit51321 wrote:

global anonymous BN queue and additional context

I responded to a part of this earlier, but I want to add some things. First, people have been complaining about the ranking process (and modding in general) being too impersonal ever since mv2 came out. An anonymous queue between mappers and the BNG would take the issue to a whole new level. I don’t think “eliminating useless communication between the mapper and nominator” is the way to go.

Also, the whole anonymity thing is getting really old in general. Sure, the queue might be FIFO, but you can still ensure that your BN friend doesn’t reject your map because of something that they’d reject a random map for but that they could overlook in a friend’s map. Also, would people have to stop putting their names in their storyboards? They trivialise the whole anonymity thing, after all, but that’d be pretty draconian.

As for the part where you assume you can just force the BNG to go along with something like this, that’s covered “a bit” later in this post.

vodit51321 wrote:

response to my earlier criticism
You're not wrong. But keep in mind these expectations are not as "unrealistic" as the idea of a fully automatic ranking process. Unless someone suggests a more reasonable system, this system is the closest we got to being fair for everyone. The two big issues of the current system are solved and now we're all left discussing the new issue it would bring. How to incentivise nominators to do the work.

I doubt anyone in this thread has the answer. That's just something osu!staff might have to figure out.

If you can’t propose a way to actually maintain your system, the fact that it might solve some current issues is cold comfort. You can’t go “hey yaspo/peppy here’s a new system can you figure out how to make it work and then implement it thanks” and expect something to come out of it.

There’s a similar issue here:

Kazuya wrote:

Since change may not be to their advantage in most cases, I doubt that any of them would support an alternative. At most peppy can decide. I wonder what he thinks.

This is just not how the community works. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue if peppy went “Yeah I saw this cool system on the forums and ranking is gonna work like this now. Make it happen, NAT.” out of nowhere? A system most of the NAT and BNG don’t accept can’t solve anything because it can’t be implemented.

Kazuya wrote:

minimal improvement
- 1 ranked map per month per user

I think it's pointless to suggest something like this without presenting data that shows that a significant portion of ranked maps actually come from people who rank several maps per month, because if that isn't the case, this proposal doesn't improve anything. However, anyone who maps that much obviously has a lot of passion for the game, and telling them to just stop would be a massive slap in their face. Driving away the most passionate members of the community is a bad idea.

Kazuya wrote:

- 1 BN per map

Could genuinely work, but again, only if it’s actually worth the inevitable reduction in nomination quality. It’d also make abuse easier, but that might also be fine if the quality reduction was fine. IDK. One interesting side effect of this would be that the problem presented in the somewhat recent veto mediation proposal would be at least somewhat alleviated.

Livermorium wrote:

competition

Agree with previous posters that this is totally the wrong thing to focus on here. In the free market example that you brought up, business owners want to make their products better than others in order to make more money, while consumers want to ensure that businesses in the same field are actually competing because competition drives prices down. We, in contrast, are creating free maps for a free rhythm game. We make no profit, so we don’t need to compete, and players don’t need to pay for maps, so they don’t need us to compete.

several people wrote:

BNs’ music/map/whatever preferences

Every proposal that I’ve seen before that has tried to take away BNs’ right to freely pick the maps they want to nominate has been rejected. It’s an important part of what makes the job doable for many people. It seems to be commonly accepted in the world at large that a certain degree of freedom in the workplace leads to better results and happier workers, and I think it would be wise to take this into account in proposals regarding the function of the BNG. They’re already basically glorified RC checker robots. If people having preferences is abhorrent to you, I’d like to suggest that you come up with a system that doesn’t need people.

several people wrote:

they volunteered to nominate maps so they need to nominate maps no matter what they are

To put it bluntly, this is entitled and delusional. Every BN filled out their application in a world where BNs can choose which maps to nominate. That is what they signed up to do. You can’t just take a simplified description of what they do and pretend that it’s some sort of contract that must be followed to the letter. It’s not going to persuade anyone.

Final thoughts

This was probably obvious if you read the post, but personally, I’m a fan of the idea of automated ranking. Yes, I know that the tech isn’t there yet, and I’m all too aware of the implications for map quality. I just don’t see any plausible way to make sure that everything that’s good enough can be ranked easily without a drop in average ranked map quality. Just accepting more BNs could be an option with less of an impact on quality than fully automated ranking, but with the NAT work overhead it would come with, it’s hard for me to see it being sustainable.

Of course, you can’t mention automated ranking without also bringing up a new curated section. The standards could be as strict as they needed to be for the section to have the right vibe, and existing ranked maps could be moved into it as needed. With some increased visibility for the new section on the site, we could have a world in which everyone could rank all the barely decent maps they wanted and the really epic maps would have an appropriate spotlight.

Or you could say “fuck it” and go in the other direc- actually, no. I don’t think that’s possible right now. The community has been constantly moving away from how things were in, for example, 2016, so doing a complete 180 would be way too jarring. As far as I can tell, right now, our options are either not doing anything or adding a bunch of BNs and accepting the quality drop, along with some other smaller-scale adjustments that may be possible. Those proposals for anonymous global queues and quality assurance only BNGs have been seen and rejected over and over again over the years. I don’t think posting them again is gonna do very much.

So... since this discussion is dead I wanted to revive it because I still think it's an important topic.

lewski wrote:

As far as I can tell, right now, our options are either not doing anything...

That's what has been done in the past few years for the most part, except some minor changes recently which I don't think are enough to really improve the situation.

Regarding the rest of your post: It's a good analysis about potential solutions and their viability and I mostly agree with it, however I believe it's not all "black or white".

For example:

lewski wrote:

Mod count requirements, on the other hand, just don’t do what the proposals want them to do. They’re incredibly easy to circumvent if you have any friends in the game, they’re well known to be pointless for experienced mappers, and they don’t even guarantee map quality because no reasonable number of mods on someone’s first map will make it good.

While it's true that fixing someone's first map with mods is almost impossible, and very experienced mappers don't necessarily need mods, these are basically two extremes of the map quality spectrum. Most maps are somewhere between them and can be improved by getting modded. I'll come back to this point later.

lewski wrote:

Making the BN position more attractive is something that comes up every once in a while, but nothing usually comes out of it. On paper, it sounds amazing: if more people want to do the job in general, the number of competent applicants will probably increase as well, so we’ll have more BNs. It’s just really hard to actually accomplish. Ideas for rewards tend to die because of the whole “money in osu!” issue

Monetary compensation isn't the only possible reward though, even smaller benefits like increased friend list limit, more customization options for your profile, the alumni badge etc. (I can't think of much else at the moment) would be a nice bonus. Being able to exchange kudosu for certain things would also be a good idea since BNs tend to have a lot of them, but more on that later as well.

lewski wrote:

To make more people meet the criteria to become a BN, you can either teach people to mod better or relax the criteria. Based on everything I’ve seen in Mentorship in the past five years, relying on volunteer teachers for an infrastructure problem like this one isn’t viable, although I do think it’s an important effort nonetheless. Relaxing the criteria, on the other hand, would certainly work, just with the side effect of inevitably reducing the overall quality of the ranked section.

There's currently a trial for BN mentorship so we'll see what the results are soon. Regarding the requirements for becoming a BN, it's not only about being strict or relaxed. The problem I see is that they don't measure the necessary skills in a realistic way and to most applicants it's very unclear how to fulfill the requirements because the assessment is so subjective. I think it's very much possible to change/facilitate the requirements without dropping quality standards. Read this for a more detailed explanation.

lewski wrote:

However, it’s unrealistic to expect enough people to volunteer to do quality assurance.

This is a bit unrelated to what you were adressing but I think there are some people interested in doing quality assurance, it's just that so far only BNs had the chance to do it but for most of them it wasn't really an option because they are already busy with checking maps and dealing with requests. The task could instead be delegated to experienced non-BN modders who wouldn't be able to disqualify maps but could still check them for issues and report them to BNs/NAT.



I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point but this is a summary of some ideas for changes that could have a positive effect:

1. Honestly, it's time to get rid of hypes. They serve no actual purpose other than indicating popularity, which can also be done with favorites, but that should play no role in the ranking process.
2. Instead, readopt something similar to star priority. I know this is probably an unpopular opinion nowadays, but hear me out. During modding v1 (forum modding), this system worked for the most part because it incentivized mappers to mod other people's maps and in turn use the kudosu to raise the star priority on their own maps, and/or get mods from others. So modding was pretty active even among regular users (not BNs). Things have changed since then, now these regular mods hold much less importance and people have no reason to even mod at all unless they're going for BN. This is not ideal because as mentioned above, mods generally do help mappers improve their maps. That's also why I think a mod requirement would be good for the ranking process - it potentially increases the quality of maps before they can be nominated and decreases the workload for BNs as there are less things for them to point out. Of course this only works if modders are somewhat experienced but that should evolve naturally as they mod/map. Just like with hypes, it's easy to circumvent the requirement by just asking friends to post random things on your map. That could be prevented by BNs checking those mods, but whether that makes sense is debatable. And before you say that it's useless for very seasoned mappers, I think almost every map has room for improvement so it doesn't hurt to get feedback from others. Anyway, this can also be accounted for by lowering or even completely removing the requirement based on the number of ranked maps someone has.
3. Star priority goes hand in hand with kudosu, which has been meaningless for a while now. But kudosu could also be used for other things like unlocking pending map slots or even buying supporter and username changes to further incentivize modding. BNs could get additional perks as mentioned above.
4. Change the BN application process as explained earlier. Also, extend the possibility for former BNs to rejoin instantly to 1 year. This would help people who want to take longer breaks and I doubt someone just forgets to mod properly in less than a year. If necessary, have them retake the RC test before rejoining to make sure they're up to date.
5. Take a different approach when evaluating the performance of current BNs, specifically regarding sanctions. See the bottom of this post for more details.
6. Enforce the BN expectation "be approachable". Require BNs to provide correct and clear information about their request status and policy. Sometimes it's difficult for mappers to request a mod from BNs because this information is either missing, outdated or confusing/contradictory. It should be mandatory to write down either on their profile or on the BN website whether they're currently open or closed and how to send them a request. Also, require BNs to be open to requests from everybody at least once in a certain time period. This would not be often, like once every 4-6 months, to account for the high number of requests they get. But it would prevent BNs from being permanently closed for a long period of time while nominating other BNs' or their friends' maps and ensure that everyone has a chance to get their map nominated.