Current rule:

The slider path is allowed to be ambiguous if the cursor can stay inside the slider's follow circle without any movement away from the slider head.

Despite this rule getting added in 2021 to allow the use of some burai, I feel that it is still too restrictive and disallows burais that are deemed to be acceptable in their contexts. (example)

Proposed change:

Ambiguous slider paths are allowed if a 300 can be achieved on the slider without any movement away from the slider head.

It seems like the proposed change is the general understanding of what is currently allowed among a few bns anyways, based on the feedback from the example above. The current rule has also been ignored altogether in at least one ranked case: 04:23:965 of Scub's King Atlantis. Granted, the proposed rule doesn't allow for the King Atlantis sliders since you would have to aim the slider ticks but it at least loosens up a few more cases such as melloe's map in the example above.

This is my first time doing one of these so I would love further thoughts to refine this if necessary.

+1 this is what i thought the rule already was

yeah seems fine to me

+1 don't see the reason why this wouldn't be a good idea as everyone who plays experts, especially gimmicky / techy ones know the concept of cheesing sliders anyway

To give further context, the DQ in the example showed in op happened because for some NATs/BNs the understanding of the rule is this one;


This understand is similar to the offscreen rule, where what matters is the visual identification of two elements; slider head and slider follow circle, and has nothing to do with movement from the cursor. That's what makes the current word of the rule horrible for the understanding of everyone.

I don't know what direction this discussion will lead, but the current rule needs to be re-worked for better clarification.

+1 since this also encompasses every scenario covered by the current rule. Probably best to not use personal pronouns in the phrasing, ergo:

Ambiguous slider paths are allowed if a 300 can be achieved on the slider without any movement away from the slider head.

ye sure, edited to what ajt posted

To give clarity on the case of King Atlantis

1. Scub asked ppy and he was okay with it after deliberation (i recommend this strategy)
2. the examples in King Atlantis are still very close to the current ruling because they follow the same idea, except you have to quickly move to the center first, which is probably why said deliberation was okay with it

---

Personally I'm not entirely onboard with the idea of just requiring 300s alone?
It means you essentially allow any slidershape as long as

1. the head overlaps the tail
2. there are no sliderticks

allowing for very large sliders like this
problems being that

1. if you hold, the sliderball will give you feedback that you're not playing it correctly -- even if you would get your 300 in the end (which I'd say is misleading/confusing)
2. if you decide to respond to that feedback and re-adjust, there is a good chance you'll get a forced 100 due to not being able to catch up to the high SV (which is rude)
3. there is also a case to be made for players generally being more drawn to follow sliders to begin with, that's what the game has always taught them to do (which is why a clear path is desirable)

in the end the player receives conflicting information on what to do (follow vs not follow), and has to break away from mechanics they learned before
which from a gameplay design point i personally think is a bit questionable

the "must be within sliderball" limitation guarantees correct feedback and still nicely fits within the game's mechanics, so I much prefer it in that sense

---

ofcourse I can see the idea of Expert players having a more advanced understanding of the game and having no issues with understanding edge-cases like this, but I also wouldn't want to take that for granted
so wanted to still share my considerations

if you get 300, there are no sliderticks. how would they sliderbreak if there are no sliderticks

woops, brainfart there, ty for pointing it out

yaspo wrote:

Personally I'm not entirely onboard with the idea of just requiring 300s alone?
It means you essentially allow any slidershape as long as

1. the head overlaps the tail
2. there are no sliderticks

allowing for very large sliders like this

If that slider in your picture is 300-able by holding your cursor still on the head of the slider, I genuinely don't see the issue.

yaspo wrote:

1. there is also a case to be made for players generally being more drawn to follow sliders to begin with, that's what the game has always taught them to do (which is why a clear path is desirable)

in the end the player receives conflicting information on what to do (follow vs not follow), and has to break away from mechanics they learned before
which from a gameplay design point i personally think is a bit questionable

I don't think this is that valid anymore as players from a wide skill range know and have been introduced to slider cheesing. As the players evolve, as mapping evolves, rules should accomodate that and I feel because of that, this current rule is quite outdated.

There's plenty of maps that go against what you're advocating for. There has been attempts of introducing ''2b'' (or just double tapping) in some cases and even I have introduced slider cheesing (by holding the head of the slider to get 300 without having to move), but because they weren't long (enough) sliders or burai, no one really batted an eye. This would just go a small step forward whilst letting mappers have more freedom.

I also don't think this would be abused, as the sliders would still have to fit the maps' overall theme and mood.

Maps in question are ScubDomino's Burnt Rice and my Machine Gun Kelly's Forget Me Too

tl;dr as the times change, so should rules so let's not dwell in the past anymore

(sorry for chaotic post, have to leave to work)

In Lazer, along with sliderhead accuracy, slider ticks don't influence the score (300/100/50) dealt out by slider heads, necessitating a new RC proposal to resolve potential confusion in 2030 for example.

I think "...if a 300 can be achieved on the slider..." could be changed to something like "...if all slider ticks and the slider end can be caught..." for future-proofing.

yaspo wrote:

It means you essentially allow any slidershape as long as

1. the head overlaps the tail
2. there are no sliderticks

allowing for very large sliders like this

i feel like this example is fine(?) its just like u said, i think expert players have an advanced understanding of the game that gives them an easier time at interpreting these movements and would just default to cheesing extreme stuff like this at high sv. (see 02:40:546 in this map which is kinda the same idea) tbf not as high sv as what ur suggesting but i feel that these would still be fine with perfect overlaps and higher sv

McEndu wrote:

In Lazer, along with sliderhead accuracy, slider ticks don't influence the score (300/100/50) dealt out by slider heads, necessitating a new RC proposal to resolve potential confusion in 2030 for example.

I think "...if a 300 can be achieved on the slider..." could be changed to something like "...if all slider ticks and the slider end can be caught..." for future-proofing.

i had it originally written as

...if perfect score could be achieved...

which might be better wording in this case? i edited it to what ajt said cuz it seemed to be more consistent with what "perfect score" is referred to currently in the rc. it might be too vague to use that wording though. might not be worth accounting for lazer right now since i think simple clarifications like that should be easy in the future (i think) and using 300 is pretty clear as is for current context but im open to more ideas of course

Hit100 and hit300 must be different from corresponding geki and katu skin elements. Hit300g, hit300k, and hit100k indicate if players perfectly hit all 300 in a combo.

was the rule i was referencing for consistency.

Howard W wrote:

i think expert players have an advanced understanding of the game that gives them an easier time at interpreting these movements and would just default to cheesing extreme stuff like this at high sv. (see 02:40:546 in this map which is kinda the same idea

Long post ahead.

The map you linked is actually a rather interesting case study for this type of stuff. It

1. has ambiguous sliders that slipped through the cracks but would be fine with this proposal
2. isn't a gimmick map that relies on these sliders or sets them up
3. has enough of these sliders to show various settings
4. is easily challenging enough to be considered "for expert players"
5. is ranked, so replays are available

This makes it a great resource for observing normal player behavior

So, I went ahead and watched some replays. There's a clearly noticeable difference between when the player has visible slider-ends and when they don't, so I recorded some notable clips of the latter.

You can find those clips here, as well as some notes I made on them so I could keep track of different cases.

My own conclusion is that what I explained is correct and that holding on the sliderhead is not a cheesing tactic that comes naturally to players. Feel free to verify for yourself, me proclaiming my own correctness isn't really productive.

The way I believe players actually cheese sliders is along the lines of the following process

1. the player reads the slider-path
2. they notice tight curves/corners on the path
3. they follow the slider up to that tight spot
4. then they'll pause in the center or cut down on how much they move, staying within the slider's follow circle
5. at the end of a slider, they'll use slider leniency and start moving to the next object early

This is what they're very good at, which is why the current ruling has some leniency over disallowing literally everything.

But it doesn't change that players prefer to plan their cheesing based on the area they think the slider's follow circle cover.
If you remove a player's ability to perform step 1 correctly, they will still try to perform the other ones. Making the mental adjustments to cheese on the slider-head can probably be learned, but seems inefficient and unnatural for your average Expert player.

Your Average Expert Player matters because as this map shows, the issue isn't necessarily in the well-designed gimmick maps this change would allow, but instead in the "poorly"-designed normal maps. (map's nice aside from y'know)

I just end up feeling like the assumed improvement of players just doesn't match the reality of things for this case, unless my interpretation is insanely incorrect.

yaspo wrote:

Your Average Expert Player matters because as this map shows, the issue isn't necessarily in the well-designed gimmick maps this change would allow, but instead in the "poorly"-designed normal maps. (map's nice aside from y'know)

even if the gameplay is slightly unfair because of percieved readability, i feel like if its not causing literal combo breaks then it should be allowable which this proposal makes sure of. it also seems like there are a plenty of maps that have sliders that would be unrankable in the current ruling that slip through into rank anyways without any glaring issues:

1. 01:53:720 (1) - of raijodo's kuuchuubukai
2. 00:49:541 (1) - of this side note: whats actually interesting about that specific slider is that you cant hit a 300 on it by simply holding the head because the slider is fast enough to where your cursor wouldnt be holding the slider ball again to hit 300 so in a way this actually limits slider size
3. 04:17:048 of schoolboy, emilia, and tatemae's nothing left to say

i just feel like the current ruling isnt really worth upholding when clearly plenty of bns think that this type of gameplay is okay (myself included) and th current is actively being broken anyways

tbh the more i look into this the more i feel like this should be reworded into a guideline instead since i feel that there are plenty of cases in ranked where there are sliders that would be unrankable now that dont disrupt gameplay in a substantial way, which i think that should be left up to bn discretion but idrk

meh?
ill be brief since ive made my point

I think you're understating the relevance of accuracy in rhythm games. Forced 100s are no joke
Replayability of these can also mega-suck fwiw

Examples you gave:

1. kuuchuubukai: yeah, can hardly go wrong because of how close you stay to the slider's follow circle, some players also go through the center, could be cool if allowed
2. chainsawman: are you saying that sliders that you can't 300 are somehow still acceptable or .. ?
   I doubt the BNs let that pass by choice and rather just genuinely missed it, like it's a 10* perma B-rank map, no real surprise people miss stuff
3. nothing else to say: this sets up the gimmick yet there are some players that will prefer moving to the center of the circular sliders and then they miss slider-ends on the biggest ones

Unrankables slipping into ranked doesn't suddenly make them rankable, otherwise timing would be unnecessary at this point

"BNs think its fine, leave it up to their discretion if it's not that bad anyway" is a massive step away from "players are skilled enough for this"
as now instead of pushing for interesting maps that leverage player skill, you're now pushing for frustrating maps that go counter to anything players know about playing sliders

if BN discretion was a reliable tool I would agree with the guideline thing, but some stuff you're linking says otherwise so .. ?

yaspo wrote:

chainsawman: are you saying that sliders that you can't 300 are somehow still acceptable or .. ?

no, the proposed rule would still disallow these cases of high sv ambiguous sliders which is part of the reason i brought this one up.

yaspo wrote:

I think you're understating the relevance of accuracy in rhythm games. Forced 100s are no joke

it seems pointless to gatekeep this when other unfair gameplay is promoted into ranked. there are other mechanics that are deemed acceptable by rc that i would even argue are more unfair than this (03:16:926 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - in trinity homerun that you are very likely to drop accuracy on ends despite hitting 300 accuracy on slider heads, there are other slider streams in this map that are like this).

the ambiguous techniques are fairly common in tech/gimmick maps that are ranked beyond the ones i mentioned and i think the rc should reflect that more accurately.

yaspo wrote:

Unrankables slipping into ranked doesn't suddenly make them rankable, otherwise timing would be unnecessary at this point

the difference here is that i dont think there has ever been a Player Outrage about sliders like this in ranked lol, if there were blantantly mistimed maps in ranked all the time i think you would hear about that pretty often

ideally this would be worded into a way that more accurately reflects how players play said sliders but im not a writing genius to think of the solution for that. i think that the proposed rule is at least better.

@yaspo

"forced 100s are no joke" your argument is all about 100s and accuracy, but earlier it was about sliderbreaks. when i point out that you cant break on the sliders being proposed here, you move the goalposts, edit your comment to make it about 100s, and carry on with the exact same argument as if 100s and sliderbreaks are they same thing. but they aren't, the two are a world apart

truly concerned about "accuracy"? in a real, practical sense, that scubdomino maximum the hormone map is 90 straight seconds of forced 100s, because nobody is SSing every slider. are we also going to police slow sliders after a fast slider section, because of all the sliderbreaks those have caused? not to mention reading-challenge maps like hollow wing's snake stick or ioexception's spelunker, which are basically impossible without multiple plays + a look in the editor. if we are concerned about perfect sightreadability, the time to complain was back in 2015 or whenever the first slow-slider jumpscare was ranked. if players have to keep vigilant for the occasional slow slider, why not keep vigilant for the occasional burai? osu players are well used to vigilance by now. the proposed change is so incredibly tame, you can't even sliderbreak on them, this already makes it a hundred times fairer than slow sliders.

about the individual patterns mentioned earlier: i doubt ALL those patterns somehow slipped through the cracks. what is more likely is that many BNs, as evidenced by above comments and also by the conversations in my ripples map originally linked, already have a different understanding of burais that they go by. if for all these years they have been operating under this alternative understanding, and the ranked section hasn't devolved into degeneracy or whatever, isn't that the exact scenario to update the ranking criteria? isn't that the whole reason the proposal system is in place, to organically update the RC to keep up with the times?

by the way, it's always been up to the BN's discretion. there are an infinite number of ways to create an unsuitable map that still technically abides by RC, and it's always been BN's discretion which filters those maps out. this will be no different.

@melloe

Basically, I care a lot about visual clarity when it comes to what the RC says about sliders. Providing proper visual input is very core to video game design in general, and rhythm games especially.

Rhythm games throw a constant stream of information at you that you have to keep up with. This makes it key that you have all necessary information available to you at all times. When that is lacking the player can essentially be forced into mistakes outside of their control.

This is why I shared my opinion and why I felt editing my post the way I did was appropriate. Regardless of it being sliderbreaks or 100s, proposals like this represent a transition from "all information is always available" to "information may be ambiguous at arbitrary points in time".
Fundamentally alters the way gameplay is presented to the player.

I probably didn't communicate this well but, the goalpost was never "sliderbreaks" or "100s" and it always has been properly readable gameplay.

This makes maps like spelunker and snake stick (mostly) acceptable. They do have all information always available (maybe on snake stick some of the fast sliders are hard to catch, I haven't looked at it enough). Though as mind-boggling as it may be, there are players who can read spelunker and other AR0 maps.

Most cases of burai don't do that though. Especially shown by the kuyusu map, some sliders provide a 50/50 decision; something that shouldn't ever happen in this context. They're like if you were to make both lasers in SDVX the same colour. Sometimes fine but mostly not very playable.

---

The slow slider thing has a lot to unpack. Briefly:

1. I started mapping after your proposed date, not going to let something from before my time stop me from having an opinion now
2. These would still be perfectly readable if some very clever developer hadn't decided to delay slidertick rendering by just enough so you can't read them in time
3. Those sliderbreaks also offer some weight to my points. Plenty of cases can be read based on the size of the slider (ie. Big Slider = Very Slow Slider), yet players seem to not adopt this very easily. It seems like they, again, may not be as adaptable when it comes to slider reading as we thought they are.
4. I am a bit tired of this "there's worse out there" reasoning. This shouldn't be the standard we work with. Fundamentally if something is unfair, it's unfair regardless of "how bad" it is. This puts it below the bar for me

---

There are definitely cases where BNs thought things were acceptable. Though not a lot of BNs push maps that fall outside of the RC even if they think they're fine.

This makes the kuyusu map stand out, because the discretion of the daring BNs there was not entirely adequate. Pushing maps that break ideas around visual clarity should be done with a lot more care due to how important it is. Yet we somehow have already failed at it?

I can trust BN discretion to be solid for all general things, but I have a hard time putting full faith into their discretion on something so niche, nuanced and yet so important.

---

Sorry my post is a lot longer than yours, happens when there are a lot of question marks involved
In the end this is just my opinion, if everyone else disagrees with me then go ahead and give it your best shot with ppy
Since I've kinda overstepped my involvement on this thread, I'll still reply to things directed at me with an @ but otherwise will leave it alone
We need more opinions not more of me yapping

the point isnt to say "there are all these other equally/more unfair things in the game so might as well add another one just because we arbitrarily want more unfair things in the game"

the point is to say that yes there are these other mildly unfair things already in the game, and the game is better for it. yes slow sliders are annoying but at the end of the day i can make a mental note about it and replay the map, its not the end of the world. but i would never for a second consider disallowing sudden slow sliders because that would be such a ridiculous limitation to musical expression and gameplay.

there is a slight tradeoff to all this, yes, but the point of these tradeoffs is to improve the game not to randomly make it worse for no reason. and all i was trying to say is that the worst of the tradeoff has already been made, and a long long time ago, so we may as well reap the benefits. you say you want 100% perfect visual input in ranked but that ship has long since sailed, and its been fine. in fact its been great. as a mapper who values musical interpretation and creativity im obviously happy, but even as a player who was bored to tears of the ranked section in 2016 im grateful. and lets not forget the big picture here, that what is being proposed here isnt even that crazy; you cannot break on these sliders, and theyre short enough so that slider leniency allows for 300s, meaning no crazy fast 10x sv burais. this isnt even pushing a controversial new frontier of acceptability; this is just filling in the gaps that should have been filled in years ago

I agree with the proposed change

Howard W wrote:

the proposed rule would still disallow these cases of high sv ambiguous sliders which is part of the reason i brought this one up.

small technical detail i just found out, that slider works just fine in lazer
and so do these
so gl with that!

yaspo wrote:

small technical detail i just found out, that slider works just fine in lazer
and so do these
so gl with that!

i think you forgot that mapping to the song and context matters. it's not like these sliders would become the norm - these would somehow have to fit the song, the map and just the overall mood of everything around it.

also maybe just me, but if the map / song would support such sliders, i would much rather deal with these because they're easily 300-able than let's say the (in)famous Hollow Wings Kaede

i did not forget
it serves as a counter-example to what i quoted, nothing more -- the high SV slider thing seems to be fixed in lazer, so it stops functioning as a real limitation

small technical detail i just found out, that slider works just fine in lazer
and so do these
so gl with that!

thats great that its fixed in lazer then! i wouldnt rly think that the chainsaw man example should be unrankable if it wasn't forcing you into an accuracy drop like it theoretically would if you held solely the head on stable. it seems like a lot of the examples i brought up would play a lot better in lazer with the way slider leniency works there.

i dont really think a bn would ever consider noming extremes like these because theyre just stupid. why do you think no one ranks streams that jump across the screen even though theyre technically rankable?

I mean, fair, my example was pretty ridiculous. But this also means the chainsawman argument was just intended as fluff. Your thinking never really cared about whether there was a finite range of possibilities or an infinite range. So me debunking that point was similarly meaningless. oops.

Also yeah, I was somehow able to SS the trinity homerun stream on Lazer so that's cool.
However, Lazer can not fix sliders being Guesswork that Forces 100s like in the kuyusu map.

So I guess that might mean less forced 100s from buggy/weird game mechanics and still the same amount from mapper decisions?

i think that there is just a fundamental disagreement on whether from a player perspective ambiguous sliders that may require a second playthrough are acceptable.

personally, i think it is a mechanic that has merit, and as a player I enjoy maps that employ it. the mechanic operates similarly to many other mechanics, such as sudden sv changes without implication, and it seems weird to not employ actual support via the rc given that these maps get through, get played, and even earn awards, and no one complains that they are being placed against unfair gameplay.

i think it is important for this thread to get more opinions regarding peoples experiences with the ambiguous sliders mentioned.

my main point is really that its a mechanic that you can solve systematically and replicate realistically like every other accepted mechanic if you understand the game enough and that is why I think that we should support it.

No new replies for a while now and I do think Self Destruct is an interesting case, so I'm gonna post my thoughts
long post again (very long actually oops)

Compared to the kuyusu collab mentioned earlier, players are remarkably more consistent at figuring out which direction they need to move in on ambiguous sliders
I checked literally the whole nomod top 50 (as listed in lazer) and found very few places where players got mislead. This is great compared to the kuyusu collab, where I needed just 10-15 nomod replays to find a few players that skinned out slider-ends and ran into reading issues

So, why? What is different?

Simply put, the mappers on Self Destruct put in the work to make sure their sliders are intuitive. The main techniques used for this are:

1. 01:43:492 (1,2,1) - the path of least resistance here is to continue leftwards, which coincides with the slider direction. The majority of sliders in the kiai follow this system, keeping it very predictable
   Other clear examples are 01:55:492 (1,2,1) - 02:05:617 (1,1) - 02:07:492 (1,2,1) - 02:10:492 (1,1) -
2. 03:25:680 (1,1,1) - and the rest of this section, a smaller and easy to hit slider indicates the direction of upcoming sliders
   both techniques can work together as well, like here 01:38:805 (1,1,1) -

You could also argue that this map is more popular and players have put multiple attempts into it, the scores on this leaderboard are plenty stacked. This was not the case on the kuyusu collab after all

While practice probably helps, it doesn't alleviate the odd instance where these techniques don't work out as expected

01:57:180 (1) -

This slider alone is notorious for catching players off-guard. Again I have put some clips up to watch here as well as a merged version with map ranks and global ranks here
(sidenote, the clips label the time as 1:55 because that's where they are when watching the replay on lazer)

You can see a variety of executions. Some players confidently go the wrong direction. Others seem to briefly get confused and then move late

A few seem practiced enough on the map that they realize their mistake really quickly and manage to adapt well. This is mainly noticeable in the first 2 clips:

1. milkybox starts of wrong but very quickly catches it and goes the other way
2. Gambler notices midway through and follows the slider back to still get a 300

So, it appears that practice doesn't guarantee that you will get every slider in the map correct. At most, it helps with reacting to mistakes more quickly in the moment. Players still need guidance on what to do

My best guess as to what makes this specific slider less intuitive compared to others, is that the player does a mostly horizontal motion into it. They won't use the previous 1/4 sliders as reference for direction because they look unrelated. Players will rather trust the path they're taking already. This makes both up and down seem like valid path choices

03:36:742 (1,1) -

There are few mistakes here, which I've recorded, and a few are actually interesting. Specifically Paka's play and Xidorn's play stand out to me

They mainly show how committal players are to their decisions in the moment. Both players have a respectable score and rank and likely understand the gimmick, yet follow both sliders the wrong way around

The reason they take the wrong direction might be because the short slider before 03:36:555 (1) - was too fast to inform them.
The reason they commit to the same direction after, is likely due that they plan their movements ahead of time. This makes them less adaptable in that moment. In a fast-paced environment like this it's hard to change plans on the fly.
This can happen due to inexperience or purely misremembering, but it couldn't be a misread because there is nothing to read

Reedkatt

Out of all (nomod) replays, Reedkatt's is the only one that consistently displays the behavior of holding the sliderhead, as was suggested as basis for the RC proposal. (even MALISZEWSKI follows them fyi)

I think it ends up giving some useful insight on why players might not not default to holding sliderheads. Here is a merged clip again

What seems to be happening is that when Reedkatt holds in place, he always goes to the next object too early. The reason I think this happens is that players are used to relying on the slider's speed and length to help them with their timing. So, removing the motion is to remove their sense of timing

Reverse sliders

The reverse sliders 03:26:805 (1) - and so on are the only place where many players share the idea of holding on the head. Probably because they also need to hit the reverse and the slider is too fast to follow or cheese consistently

Though, only few adapt that idea to surrounding sliders, most players will still try to follow or cheese those even if they hold on the reverses

This in a sense validates the idea that 100s are less relevant to players than sliderbreaks, but likely doesn't make it so that they don't care. They still want to follow sliders correctly and I imagine they want their rewards when they do.
Especially with the direction lazer is headed with an increased focus on accuracy, forced 100s are still a problem

Where does this put us?

I don't think Self Destruct should be seen as "unrankable". In fact, if we want to allow these types of sliders it would serve as a good basis to argue why. The issues I pointed out are relevant lessons for this thread, but in terms of mapping/modding they are honest mistakes.
Though, imo, it firmly shifts the concept of the proposal to being more specific about when sliders like these are valid

To me it looks a bit like this:

Direction wrote:

When multiple slider paths are available on a slider without sliderticks they should meet one or more of these conditions

1. they are very short on the timeline (essentially, 1/4 and shorter is fine, with bpm scaling in mind)
2. the player can be inside the sliderball from all paths (01:53:720 (1) - of raijodo's kuuchuubukai and small sliders)
3. there is a strong, prior indication of which direction the player should follow (Self Destruct)

When multiple slider paths are available on a slider with sliderticks there should be a position where the player can hold to hit both the sliderticks and sliderend (King Atlantis)

Which likely reads as quirky and too complex, but embedding proper design ideas into the rule/guideline would be a lot better than a blanket rule that is negligent of actual gameplay. An outrage shouldn't be needed to recognize a problem with gameplay, that's ridiculous

Why didn't I suggest this before? I hadn't closely looked at these maps and their replays before, but neither had you guys, and Scub's king atlantis was very lacking in examples for how broad this proposal is

yaspo wrote:

When multiple slider paths are available on a slider without sliderticks they should meet one or more of these conditions

1. they are very short on the timeline (essentially, 1/4 and shorter is fine, with bpm scaling in mind)
2. the player can be inside the sliderball from all paths (01:53:720 (1) - of raijodo's kuuchuubukai and small sliders)
3. there is a strong, prior indication of which direction the player should follow (Self Destruct)

When multiple slider paths are available on a slider with sliderticks there should be a position where the player can hold to hit both the sliderticks and sliderend (King Atlantis)

definitely a bigger fan of this as a start but need some clarity on what you mean when you're referring to sliders with multiple slider paths. does multiple paths only mean sliders like kiminozanshi where there are two percieved ways of pathing or would the melloe slider also fall under this category even though theres only one percieved way of pathing? personally i think that melloes slider should be included under that umbrella but then maybe the wording of multiple slider paths isnt the most clear wording. maybe the term of ambiguous slider paths is better with different wording of the bullets? idk

anyways im leaning more towards these as guidelines rather than rules especially since the 3rd bullet is mostly subjective

As mentioned in beatmapsets/1551112/discussion/3195200/timeline#/4604954/12251318, in order to keep things simple I think I'm on board with this proposal.

I haven't checked the "Self Destruct" case yet, but if it follows "as long as you can get a 300 with no cursor movement" then I'll probably avoid looking for my own sanity 😆

im unsure if we should solely go with the 300 condition since it doesnt cover a lot of cases where these types of sliders would be valid (index does not pass the 300 condition funnily enough but (i think) all of these examples do pass in lazer, just not stable).

I think something along the lines of

Ambiguous slider paths are allowed if a 300 can be achieved on the slider without any movement away from the slider head on the lazer client 

outlines how we can allow a lot of perceived valid cases, though I do not like the wording it is a bit jank and makes the rc overly complicated with two different clients.

I don't think RC rules should be based on stable or lazer, it should be the same everywhere.

So what's the current state of this discussion?