+1

+2

I like the approach - the difficulty level is very implied.

That also allows branding, if that fits this criterion. Take "Nogard" for example, where it does not directly specify a mapper, but those who knows, will know.

I'd like good types of diffnames back yeah

yup, full support

+1

Full support but this was decided by peppy himself stating that he would not allow this under any circumstance IIRC because he just doesn't like the idea of usernames being associated with diffnames, and that pretty much overruled any community stance on it

However this was around 10 years ago so I hope he changed his mind lol

source:
community/forums/topics/169960?n=83
community/forums/topics/159456?n=187

Mismagius wrote:

Full support but this was decided by peppy himself stating that he would not allow this under any circumstance IIRC because he just doesn't like the idea of usernames being associated with diffnames, and that pretty much overruled any community stance on it

However this was around 10 years ago so I hope he changed his mind lol

source:
community/forums/topics/169960?n=83
community/forums/topics/159456?n=187

Thanks for the context and references, I honestly totally forgot this was peppy's decision xD

As you said yourself 10 years have passed since then, and the current rule about progressive difficulty names already kinda goes in contrast with what peppy specified in that post w.r.t. top diffs, which is why I feel the username rule doesn't really fit the current mapping scenario.

Since this is his ruling his opinion on the matter would be appreciated though

yes

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve. This suggestion/sentiment seems to come from nostalgia more than anything, from the time where the community was smaller and dominated by big names like NatsumeRin and Skystar. I don't think this is appropriate for modern osu.

It doesn't really matter though, since the decision is peppy's to make it seems.

-White wrote:

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve.

The reasons are listed in the OP, we've already experienced various cases in which the application of this rule is not clear so in general I think it would at the very least need to be reworded.

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but usernames is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

-kevincela- wrote:

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but usernames is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

To be clear, I never said I liked the current rules nor do I think of the naming schemes many people choose are great. The Okoratu one being just a dot is probably unrelated to the song but at least the tomatas one seems to be related to the Christmas theme of the song. I'd personally like stronger guidelines about diff names being related to the song in some way but we all know that won't get anywhere. I'd really like to see guidelines for backgrounds change in a similar vein.

If we want to change the rules to just allow any words/names/titles for top diffs then sure, that would be consistent. Going and updating it to explicitly allow usernames seems overly focused on bringing back 2014, at least to me. If this is closer to what you want, them perhaps changing the post to be more general would improve the optics given that you self admitted that nostalgia was a motivator for this?

(+1)

I cannot propose a satisfying answer to the question "what significant material benefit does this rule bring in 2024", hence I see no point in it existing. It is already not necessary for the highest difficulty level of a set to use a descriptor that describes the difficulty level, and the idea that players at the Insane and Expert level will be confused at lack of difficulty indication when they can clearly see the star rating and the difficulties are ordered by star rating, as opposed to 2013 where everything past a certain difficulty level was 5* and had the same red "I" icon with no gradient for progression (which was the time period when peppy made the post linked by Mismagius), doesn't seem likely to be congruous with reality.

As stated above, this is ultimately a peppy decision, and he doesn't necessarily need a compelling reason as it's his game. However, since I can't think of one, I agree with the post.

-White wrote:

If we want to change the rules to just allow any words/names/titles for top diffs then sure, that would be consistent. Going and updating it to explicitly allow usernames seems overly focused on bringing back 2014, at least to me.

What I'm proposing is exactly that. At the moment there are only 2 rules about the general difficulty naming: the one about username only diffnames and the one about the progressive difficulty naming (unless I'm missing any additional rule, feel free to correct me on that). Doing this would exactly do what you've said in the first sentence, since this is the only "exception" to the rule.

I don't really understand how you got the impression that I'm proposing this change for the nostalgia (and the "self admitted" thing is basically a non-factor, I could have very well just omitted the word "just" from the previous post and it would have been all the same since I don't really care about it). I think I've been pretty clear in the reasons of the OP to why I feel this change is beneficial, and never once in the OP I've specified I'm doing this for that reason.

If anything, I would even be open to adding more guidelines or even rules to go on the other side and restrict the range of words/themes that can be used as diffnames as long as there's some consistency, but I don't really think the mapping community is interested in this at this time.

I'm fine with AJTs reasoning fwiw. I didnt recall if there were other rules for diff naming schemes and misremembered there being more. Its been a while since I've looked at the rc. Though I am well aware my opinion means nothing on the matter lol

-kevincela- wrote:

If anything, I would even be open to adding more guidelines or even rules to go on the other side and restrict the range of words/themes that can be used as diffnames as long as there's some consistency, but I don't really think the mapping community is interested in this at this time.

While Id likely support this, unfortunately, i think you're correct.

As long as only the highest difficulty (or difficulties) are allowed to be named like this, I suppose it's fine. However, I'm honestly concerned about whether people will actually stop there and not try to circumvent or ignore these guidelines because in recent years there has been a very lenient approach regarding diff names. It's not uncommon to come across mapsets where the difficulty naming is nearly unintelligible, not directly related to the song or not progressive/consistent, for example beatmapsets/2055029 or beatmapsets/2129736. So unless these things are actually enforced, I don't see this working as intended.

+1

👍

i know this might sound completely unbelievable coming from me at this point, but i personally would love if this was put into place. i would explain myself but at this point i'm a little terrified to even try. the simple reason is that altering the rules is different from interpreting the rules and in this case, i was only ever trying to help people do the latter. if that doesn't make sense, i'm sorry, but i don't think i have it in me to elaborate further.

just please let this happen so no one ever has to discuss this topic again 🫠

+20 gigglespillion

senya - xxx [Satellite] (Satellite) lets gooooooooooooooooooo

+1

You have my full support!

+1

👍

The word from peppy is he'll leave this rule up to our discretion on what to do with it 👀

+1

i think this is an overreaction, and disagree that this is the logical next step for difficulty naming when you can basically name difficulties whatever you want already. i think a top difficulty spread of just usernames sounds genuinely awful. restrict it even more and maybe but if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s usernames it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game. the vetoes are clearly in grey areas that need to be more well defined, i do not believe that removing the rule entirely is the way we solve this

Edit: the two cases are also completely different. Arles is not the same case as “Phob’s “ being acceptable for a song named NO TITLE. Please disconnect these topics.

I'm not old enough to know where the rule originated from or how it affected the game long term but I think nowadays difficulty of each... difficulty is so disassociated with the diffames that allowing this would not make any substantial difference for a player experience

and it looks way cooler so I really want to see this pushed

I like the idea of at least vaguely knowing a difficulty based on difficulty name. This just sounds like "map crazily and toss a signature on it for notoriety" reasoning without a clear benefit.

I know Expert is probably worthwhile. I can only guess at xXosuEZG0DXx's diff :p

I'm sorry if this is not the right thread for this, but can we also consider relaxing this rule for the same reason?

A beatmap host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty's name. (e.g. Beatmap Host's Insane). Conflicts caused by beatmapping multiple songs with the same metadata and collaborative difficulties are the only exceptions.

It seems kinda dumb to deem [Arles] rankable as a guest top diff, but unrankable as a hosted top diff.

And also, with modern trends of creative diffnames, I see no reason to retain this specific "cannot contain the mapper name" exception to naming diffs what you want. Would be nice to re-allow diff names that use the mapper name for wordplay (e.g. [Sotarks no Jutsu]) or to fit with the naming scheme of a set (like [mapset.Insane(Exile-);] and [Let's show them Monstrata's powerful stance.], both of which might be deemed unrankable today)

Ascendance wrote:

i think this is an overreaction, and disagree that this is the logical next step for difficulty naming when you can basically name difficulties whatever you want already.

Your post reads to me pretty similarly to -White's post, and I think I've already answered to the question on why this isn't really an overreaction but rather a way to make the RC more consistent w.r.t. difficulty naming.

Ascendance wrote:

i think a top difficulty spread of just usernames sounds genuinely awful. restrict it even more and maybe but if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s usernames it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game.

Why don't they make sense in the current mapping era, where as of now the difficulty naming rule has been relaxed to the point where you can literally use arbitrary words for not only top diffs, but Insanes and Experts in general (assuming they are the highest difficulty level)? As I said above, why are usernames where we draw the line? It's such a strange and specific exception in the RC of today that it really seems more inconsistent more than anything. I may understand the argument of not liking usernames difficulty names in general, but then shouldn't this apply for whoever decides to name their top diff literally ".", "a", "moe", or whatever floats their boat? It doesn't make logical sense to me whatsoever.

As I said, I am open in going in the opposite direction and add more rules to restrict the diffname's topic, word length and/or other aspects as long as they are consistent and well defined. But as mentioned, I don't think the mapping community is interested in going in this direction as of now.

Ascendance wrote:

Edit: the two cases are also completely different. Arles is not the same case as “Phob’s “ being acceptable for a song named NO TITLE. Please disconnect these topics.

I've edited the post to better reflect the gray area argument for the Phob case, hope that distinguishes them enough.

Ascendance wrote:

i think a top difficulty spread of just usernames sounds genuinely awful.

Ascendance wrote:

if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s usernames it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game.

it's hard to do anything with this without any given reasoning

You can see who mapped the diff by checking either set host or the "mapped by X" bit for GDs/Collabs, I see no need for anyone to make their diff name their own username. I can't help but feel that in most cases, username diff names would just look tacky.

If it's a thing about branding/identifiability, just use some sort of unique naming akin to Nogard or Arles. I'm sure for most mappers, there's something appropriate they could consistently use across their top diff / insane+ diffs that'd help them stand out, if they cared about it.

Frankly I think the overwhelming majority of mappers are plenty happy with just using whatever progression naming and then sticking on some corny one-liner or lyric translation for the top diff :p

-White wrote:

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve. This suggestion/sentiment seems to come from nostalgia more than anything, from the time where the community was smaller and dominated by big names like NatsumeRin and Skystar. I don't think this is appropriate for modern osu.

It doesn't really matter though, since the decision is peppy's to make it seems.

i don't think it pushes for nostalgia more than abolishing existing difficulty rules that serve no real purpose other than "i don't like it"

Not to be a contrarian, however I do believe there are reasons beyond "I don't like it" worth considering. Guess this point is already considered moot for the simple reason difficulty names can be whatever* on top difficulties. But I don't really see a point in a difficulty name being a username for the sole purpose of being able to be a username.

I personally believe it'd be better to move the rule to a guideline, requiring some justification as to why the username should be present in the first place, or why in the context of the song or set it makes sense for it to be used.

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with, as the current argument to make these possible is that even more nonsensical stuff like, and I quote ".", "a", or "moe", is allowed to begin with. But that's a whole separate discussion altogether.

But all in all I don't have a big stake to either remove the rule completely or making it a guideline to require even if it's just a basic reason to use them. Difficulty names are somewhat the last thing for us to consider when ranking a beatmap, and I argue that under ideal circumstances SR values and the progression of a spread's naming schema already do a good job of providing the player with an ever so vaguely intuitive way of what difficulty to expect.

I support Randome's idea to make it a guideline, I think this would enable it to be uses when justified without every diff devolving into the mappers name.

RandomeLoL wrote:

I do believe there are reasons beyond "I don't like it" worth considering.

35+ posts without someone giving one says a lot to me 🤔

-White wrote:

I support Randome's idea to make it a guideline, I think this would enable it to be uses when justified without every diff devolving into the mappers name.

When exactly are uses meant to be justified? Cases where the diffname happens to be the mapper's username but is thematically relevant ("Fiery Rage", Satellite etc.) are already explicitly allowed. Which usage cases would moving this to a guideline further allow, and for what reasons (keep in mind it was concluded that the Phob case technically follows current RC)? I'm a bit confused on what potential examples are being referred to.

I also doubt that most diffs would become only the mapper's name, given that most mappers use normal diffnames currently despite extremely liberal diffnaming rules. However, if they did, I think a satisfying explanation regarding the issue with this is needed.

AJT wrote:

35+ posts without someone giving one says a lot to me

RandomeLoL wrote:

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

The above would be one of them. I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a username. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

My view may be more conservative on the matter as I do believe that this further takes value from having a difficulty name to begin with. The guideline would still serve a purpose as it would make sure some basic reasoning is needed. While yes this doesn't mean everyone will start using it, I really cannot fathom the possibility of that becoming the case. I genuinely do not think there's a benefit of that being the case other than "it looks cool".

AJT wrote:

When exactly are uses meant to be justified? Cases where the diffname happens to be the mapper's username but is thematically relevant ("Fiery Rage", Satellite etc.) are already explicitly allowed. Which usage cases would moving this to a guideline further allow, and for what reasons (keep in mind it was concluded that the Phob case technically follows current RC)? I'm a bit confused on what potential examples are being referred to.

On a whim I'd probably say sets that try to recreate the aesthetic/impression of maps from the era where usernames as diff names was more common, or where the music track somehow justifies it (perhaps a track from Your Name?). And of course, what is already allowed, thematically appropriate usage of mapper names.

Are there any other actual use cases for usernames as diff names?

RandomeLoL wrote:

I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a username. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

I don't think there really needs to be a significant benefit (what's the benefit towards allowing 72 character essay diffnames?), it's just about being consistent and giving mappers the choice. On the other hand, there does need to be a benefit or logical purpose towards the enforcement of something as a rule (in my opinion). If the diffnaming rules in other aspects were as strict as they were in [insert year] and hadn't been relaxed, then this rule would be more in line with the others. On that note:

RandomeLoL wrote:

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

This doesn't solve the dilemma of why this specific method of non-descriptive difficulty names deserves special treatment over the other methods. I actually don't have an issue with your general viewpoint at all and think that many current (and surely future) diffnames are dumb, but I don't really think it matters what I think of them and to have a logically consistent ruleset would be a good thing to me.

Shii wrote:

On a whim I'd probably say sets that try to recreate the aesthetic/impression of maps from the era where usernames as diff names was more common, or where the music track somehow justifies it (perhaps a track from Your Name?). And of course, what is already allowed, thematically appropriate usage of mapper names.

Are there any other actual use cases for usernames as diff names?

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

AJT wrote:

RandomeLoL wrote:

I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a username. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

I don't think there really needs to be a significant benefit (what's the benefit towards allowing 72 character essay diffnames?), it's just about being consistent and giving mappers the choice. On the other hand, there does need to be a benefit or logical purpose towards the enforcement of something as a rule (in my opinion). If the diffnaming rules in other aspects were as strict as they were in [insert year] and hadn't been relaxed, then this rule would be more in line with the others. On that note:

RandomeLoL wrote:

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

This doesn't solve the dilemma of why this specific method of non-descriptive difficulty names deserves special treatment over the other methods. I actually don't have an issue with your general viewpoint at all and think that many current (and surely future) diffnames are dumb, but I don't really think it matters what I think of them and to have a logically consistent ruleset would be a good thing to me.

As I've said in my previous post, I believe this is a larger issue than just whether or not to keep this rule. Several people seem to agree that some diff names which are currently acceptable make no sense (and even break RC guidelines sometimes). So I don't think removing this rule alone is really an improvement because it doesn't address the problem of the current "anything goes" approach. Instead, I think making clearer rules/guidelines and actually enforcing them would be a better solution. If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

AJT wrote:

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

I'm asking about use case because I need to understand *why* this change apparently has to be made.

As is, I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule.

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes username diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of usernames, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

Why maps are allowed to name diffs unrelated to the song or source etc, but it full stops at mapper names. I think the freedom to name something what ever you want as long as its not something horrible should be part of a mappers choice to express them self and their map. I kinda also see it as a signature like a artist would give to their piece. But thats just my mindset about it.

some people think username difficulty names are cool. some people think they have aura. lets let people indulge in things they find cool, because why not it's just a video game

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

I don't think it's necessarily about letting people "use whatever they want". There are better reasons for lots of the other rules and guidelines, some of them even stating or clearly implying the reason within the text. I don't think there is a need to remove rules whose purpose and purported benefit are clear.

"Actually enforcing" guidelines is an issue that extends far beyond difficulty naming and will always be an issue in all likelihood. I think it's more productive to focus on one thing at a time (this conversation is already dragging out, imagine if we were discussing 5 rules at once), but:

Avoid difficulty names with descriptive elements not clearly related to a guest difficulty creator or a level of difficulty. (e.g. Beatmap Creator's Tragic Love Extra)

This stands out to me as a guideline that is frequently ignored. I don't think this guideline is necessary either but that can be discussed later if someone wants to (don't want to derail this thread and don't really care enough about this to start another one).

Shii wrote:

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes username diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of usernames, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

Could you explain how this applies more to the diffname "Shii" than "Shii's Extra"? Both of them contain superfluous information, your reasoning leads me to believe that everyone should drop ownership indication altogether. Furthermore I would like to know why something being redundant means it shouldn't be allowed. I would argue that, as apollo and Kojio said, the personal reasons to a mapper behind using a diffname, insofar as its usage poses no problem to any aspect of the game, are sufficient.

I'll reply more if new concerns arise but I think I've probably voiced everything from my side so would like to prevent going around in circles and get some new perspectives.

Shii wrote:

AJT wrote:

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

I'm asking about use case because I need to understand *why* this change apparently has to be made.

As is, I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule.

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes username diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of usernames, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

I'm going to quote myself here:

-kevincela- wrote:

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but usernames is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

-kevincela- wrote:

Why don't they make sense in the current mapping era, where as of now the difficulty naming rule has been relaxed to the point where you can literally use arbitrary words for not only top diffs, but Insanes and Experts in general (assuming they are the highest difficulty level)? As I said above, why are usernames where we draw the line? It's such a strange and specific exception in the RC of today that it really seems more inconsistent more than anything. I may understand the argument of not liking usernames difficulty names in general, but then shouldn't this apply for whoever decides to name their top diff literally ".", "a", "moe", or whatever floats their boat? It doesn't make logical sense to me whatsoever.

As I said, I am open in going in the opposite direction and add more rules to restrict the diffname's topic, word length and/or other aspects as long as they are consistent and well defined. But as mentioned, I don't think the mapping community is interested in going in this direction as of now.

Other than that I would also like to say that:

1. Difficulty ownership =/= difficulty name, there are things you can do in the difficulty name that you can't with only difficulty ownership (as an example, the top diff of this set was named "Saten-nyan" which is one such case and is currently outlawed by this rule). There's also the matter of the owner changing name but still wanting that difficulty to be recognized on another name instead (which, if you think about it, is exactly the case for Arles). In general putting them on the same place doesn't seem to be a valid explanation to actually enforcing the rule as-is imo.
2. Some of the cases you've described as "artistic usage of username diffnames" are already not applicable under the current rule (you can look at the 2nd discussion linked in the op w.r.t. the Arles difficulty name). Sure, the rule can be modified to account for these cases, but then what if other edge cases appear? Do we really want to keep changing a rule which already doesn't have much reason to exist in the current landscape (as outlined by me, AJT and others above) just for the sake of keeping it, under the reasoning that "I don't see reason in using it" (while the RC already allows the mapper to basically do whatever they want with diffnames on top diffs with only this specific exception)?
3. "there is no need to allow x" -> "we must disallow x" seems a bit of a strange logical connection to me, a rule should disallow something if there is a reason for which the user must be explicitly disallowed to do something (which is different than saying "discouraged", since that's what the guidelines are for), which is not what is being claimed here. This rule was specifically created for a reason which was valid 10 years ago (and answered the question "why mustn't the user do this?"), but as outlined by AJT isn't nowadays, which makes the point of it still being a rule moot (this should be an answer to the "I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule" point).

FWIW, I'm ok with moving the rule as a guideline at the very least to discourage having lazy cases where the user literally repeats just their usernames (Skystar is an example) for no reason. I think stuff like Nogard, Arles, Rin instead are ok, since they denote a specific kind of mapping and difficulty which make them already descriptive of the kind of difficulty (and again, this adds another reason to why the current rule does not make much sense at this moment).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

Regarding rules specifically this is already (almost) the case, the only rules present on this matter are the two rules in the OP and the one Purplegaze brought up above (which I agree needs some discussion, but I think it's something that should be considered separately since it's only tangentially connected to this specific matter)

Agree with the original post unconditionally. Disallowing username diff names seems arbitrary by modern standards.

Kojio wrote:

Why maps are allowed to name diffs unrelated to the song or source etc, but it full stops at mapper names. I think the freedom to name something what ever you want as long as its not something horrible should be part of a mappers choice to express them self and their map. I kinda also see it as a signature like a artist would give to their piece. But thats just my mindset about it.

They probably shouldn't? Just like we probably shouldn't use completely unrelated bgs for shits and giggles but a lot of mappers haven't got the memo. Plenty other ways to make a mark/brand after all (the particular way I use album covers for bgs for example). To that end:

apollodw wrote:

some people think username difficulty names are cool. some people think they have aura. lets let people indulge in things they find cool, because why not it's just a video game

Mappers can already do what they want. Doesn't mean everything has to be rankable, no? Let graved, loved, and pending/wip be the place for people to be as silly as they desire like they already are lol

AJT wrote:

Shii wrote:

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes username diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of usernames, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

Could you explain how this applies more to the diffname "Shii" than "Shii's Extra"? Both of them contain superfluous information, your reasoning leads me to believe that everyone should drop ownership indication altogether. Furthermore I would like to know why something being redundant means it shouldn't be allowed. I would argue that, as apollo and Kojio said, the personal reasons to a mapper behind using a diffname, insofar as its usage poses no problem to any aspect of the game, are sufficient.

I'll reply more if new concerns arise but I think I've probably voiced everything from my side so would like to prevent going around in circles and get some new perspectives.

I'd argue that "Shii's Extra" is actually descriptive and at least adds something new (by conveying that the diff is intended to be an Extra). While I'd also be interested in seeing this challenged, at this very moment in time GDs/Collab ownership is not properly conveyed on lazer - once it is I'd be happy to see renewed discourse.

As for why something being redundant being justification for it being disallowed, is that not just common sense? The difficulty name field is called the difficulty name field for a reason. It is the name of the difficulty. Not the mapper. There are already places for mappers to put their usernames. We should let difficulty names be used for difficulty names and not usernames. We don't tend to put the song title, artist, or tags in the difficulty name, so why put the username?

-kevincela- wrote:

I'm going to quote myself here:

-kevincela- wrote:

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but usernames is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

-kevincela- wrote:

Why don't they make sense in the current mapping era, where as of now the difficulty naming rule has been relaxed to the point where you can literally use arbitrary words for not only top diffs, but Insanes and Experts in general (assuming they are the highest difficulty level)? As I said above, why are usernames where we draw the line? It's such a strange and specific exception in the RC of today that it really seems more inconsistent more than anything. I may understand the argument of not liking usernames difficulty names in general, but then shouldn't this apply for whoever decides to name their top diff literally ".", "a", "moe", or whatever floats their boat? It doesn't make logical sense to me whatsoever.

As I said, I am open in going in the opposite direction and add more rules to restrict the diffname's topic, word length and/or other aspects as long as they are consistent and well defined. But as mentioned, I don't think the mapping community is interested in going in this direction as of now.

(not quoting the entire thing cuz this reply is already gigantic)

I firmly believe that difficulty names should not simply be arbitrary but should either convey difficulty or serve an artistic purpose (ideally both tbh). Frankly, I believe some people push the 'artistic purpose' a bit too far. I've argued over what I felt were inappropriate diff names in the past, though I get the impression I was and still am in the minority when it comes to policing diff names .3.

With respects to artistic purpose, I consider it to be a reasonable enough justification for breaking the existing rule so long as said artistic intent is justifiable in and of itself. As already mentioned, I would not take issue with maps emulating an old aesthetic using username diff names, nor if a music track had some sort of link to names. Perhaps stuff like "Saten-nyan" would be reasonable if it was on something like beatmapsets/35375#osu/114716 ? To that end, I'm actually more in favour of a guideline than a rule (or the removal of said rule).


I've got nothing else to add & probably can't articulate well enough what I want to get across so I'm leaving it here. I'll let more capable people do the arguing while I return to retirement :3

Shii wrote:

apollodw wrote:

some people think username difficulty names are cool. some people think they have aura. lets let people indulge in things they find cool, because why not it's just a video game

Mappers can already do what they want. Doesn't mean everything has to be rankable, no? Let graved, loved, and pending/wip be the place for people to be as silly as they desire like they already are lol

i didn't say it was silly, as a matter of fact i'd say it's quite serious. username difficulty names can elicit a unique "final boss" feeling from me. if you want to think from an artistic standpoint, username difficulty names break a separating barrier between the mapper and the player, like hey you're not playing an extra. you're playing my map. it does feel a little more personal

Lets say the proposal passes, but there's a local mod that auto-converts diff names to Easy/Hard/Expert/traditional names and hides custom diff names. Would the people wanting to use username diff names approve of others hiding their diff name? On the one hand, who cares about a diff name to be hiding custom names; on the other hand, people care enough to want to use usernames :p

I'm thinking some people want to prioritize showing-off their name for notoriety vs showcasing the difficulty, and this isn't exactly feeling like a benefit for gameplay. I respect the original rule had a reason to be implemented.

Edit: I also feel this has potential for abuse considering words have various meanings nowadays, and people wanting to present a political stance certainly will slyly mock-up usernames to present to people in the most front-facing manner possible. Fun maps have diff names up-front. Usernames are user-chosen. Eg: "Fren"

Compromise guideline

A difficulty name should not solely be the difficulty creator's name or nickname.
Exceptions include:
- Long held and iconic difficulty names commonly recognized by the community
- Difficulty names which strictly fit the theme of the song.
- Names modified to fit a theme in the difficulty naming.

Cover most cases allowed before + fixes wording to specify difficulty creator ( people joking someone out there is named Expert Rain Oni etc are giving me headaches), and moves to guideline with specific exceptions.

Noffy wrote:

Compromise guideline

A difficulty name should not solely be the difficulty creator's name or nickname.
Exceptions include:
- Long held and iconic difficulty names commonly recognized by the community
- Difficulty names which strictly fit the theme of the song.
- Names modified to fit a theme in the difficulty naming.

Cover most cases allowed before + fixes wording to specify difficulty creator ( people joking someone out there is named Expert Rain Oni etc are giving me headaches), and moves to guideline with specific exceptions.

How do we qualify "long held and iconic difficulty names" and "recognized by the community"? This is, imo, too vague to be an effective guideline. New players to the game won't know who Skystar or NatsumeRin is, and these names will become increasing obscure as time goes on.

Noffy wrote:

Compromise guideline

A difficulty name should not solely be the difficulty creator's name or nickname.
Exceptions include:
- Long held and iconic difficulty names commonly recognized by the community
- Difficulty names which strictly fit the theme of the song.
- Names modified to fit a theme in the difficulty naming.

Cover most cases allowed before + fixes wording to specify difficulty creator ( people joking someone out there is named Expert Rain Oni etc are giving me headaches), and moves to guideline with specific exceptions.

I'm not a massive fan of the first exception. Firstly, I don't necessarily think that certain mappers should be able to use this type of diffname ad-infinitum simply because they existed in 2013 and were following the norm at that time, this feels like grandfathering in a convention 11 years after the fact - I think I'd rather blanket disallow (save for your other 2 exceptions) than create an exception only for these mappers. Secondly, I think "iconic" is too subjective - having seen a tediously long discussion about whether Arles' Freedom DiVE map was iconic in #help, I think the non-objectivity of this criterion might lead to a lot of time wasting. "Long-held" also favours graveyard/loved mappers as any mapper who existed in 2013 and continued to exist in ranked after has consistently not been using username diffnames for 11 years.

2nd point is fine to me.

Is the third point addressing things like "Saten-nyan"? If yes, I had a little bit of trouble deciphering what was meant at first (not sure if just me) and so an example might be helpful when codifying.

Agree on the points risen above. The first exception cannot be quantified. I kind of get the point of it, where the name of the difficulty is easily recognizable by players. But at the same time, it doesn't feel practical to enforce.

Shii wrote:

With respects to artistic purpose, I consider it to be a reasonable enough justification for breaking the existing rule so long as said artistic intent is justifiable in and of itself. As already mentioned, I would not take issue with maps emulating an old aesthetic using username diff names, nor if a music track had some sort of link to names. Perhaps stuff like "Saten-nyan" would be reasonable if it was on something like beatmapsets/35375#osu/114716 ? To that end, I'm actually more in favour of a guideline than a rule (or the removal of said rule).

Kinda coincidental mentioning that, this is also another example we're hoping to push through