We mainly have pending/wip, loved, and ranked, but I don't feel like those 3 categories do justice to certain maps.

1. There are the good maps floating in the sea of pending/wip that deserve to be loved but won't for probably a long time.
2. There are ranked maps that are really good but are floating in a pile of average, saturated, gray goo of other ranked maps.
3. Many mappers give up or don't even attempt going for ranked because of the grueling process of getting maps ranked

Solution is, for each issue, is to make a new category to put maps into.

I don't think automating loved is new idea, but I also realize not everyone might be onboard with the concept. I know there is fear of manipulation of automated system, but I opposing that with hopes that those flaws can fixed. Still, current loved isn't really broken enough to demand an automated loved, but on the other hand, the desire to get more maps with scoreboards is still strong. How a new category for automated loved to rival the current loved? It can't hurt to try.

To handle the second issue, a new category would be called "featured" where the high than average quality ranked maps would go into. Maps for this category would be determined in a similar manner how loved currently is, but with BN and NAT deciding which maps go in there instead. I think mapping contest winners that had their maps ranked would also deserve to have their maps in this category.

Finally, the solution to last issue might be the most controversial one. Make a category specifically for maps that ignore guidelines. Maps that are rankable according to ranked criteria, but also where the mapper fails to justify the breaking of guideline(s) and refuses to apply mod(s) to satisfy those guidelines(s). It's reasonable to think that mappers would then go for this category instead of proper ranked. I don't see that as an issue as much as it proving how high the bar is for ranking a map and how many mappers the ranking process deters.

first part:

to #1 i would add that plenty could be ranked as well

#2 agree

#3 i would say it's more boring than "grueling" for a lot of people. especially in today's climate (very low quality standards, lots of resources, mentorship program), I think newer mappers claiming ranked presents some kind of barrier are just making excuses

second part:

new automatic category agree -- could easily work alongside Loved, all that's really stopping this from happening is the dev effort for things we talked about on discord earlier

"featured", if managed like loved but with BNNAT, is bound to turn into a home for the artsy types of maps that players don't really care for but mappers do. that kinda defeats the point of "high quality maps" cuz the audience would probably rate it worse than current ranked. I feel like this would turn out similarly to spotlights for the last few years

guideline-less category seems mega useless cuz whether or not u apply some guidelines from the RC makes almost no difference to the quality of ur map. let's say mapper refuses to make some rhythm on their Hard less dense in one spot, now it suddenly belongs to a different category? I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference without inspecting it very closely

clayton wrote:

guideline-less category seems mega useless cuz whether or not u apply some guidelines from the RC makes almost no difference to the quality of ur map. let's say mapper refuses to make some rhythm on their Hard less dense in one spot, now it suddenly belongs to a different category? I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference without inspecting it very closely

See what I and some other people noticed is that ranked maps tend have this feel to them that they wouldn't have if they didnt go through the modding process. It's the trimming of imperfections that make maps loose some of their identity associated with the mapper. As modders shave off "flaws" within the map the map closer resembles the uncanny feel all the other ranked map have. This concept is more fleshed out in this thread.

abraker wrote:

It's the trimming of imperfections that make maps loose some of their identity associated with the mapper.

if modding process makes your map lose it's identity (associated with the mapper), I don't really think this is the root of the problem.... (some related thoughts later in this post maybe)

moving on

From the other thread

abraker wrote:

Anyone who focuses on modding eventually starts being more and more selective of imperfections in patterns as they try to conform to ranking criteria perfection. What they often fail to realize is that those imperfections are what makes the map more natural and unique. It's like manufacturing artificial vs finding something made by nature.

The thing is, just like not everything in nature is beautiful, not all of these imperfections are "natural and unique" in their effect on the map. As a modder naturally lacks the mapper's knowledge of the ideas behind the map, for him, all imperfections not intrinsically "explained" by the map or generally logical and thus possible to grasp, will be flagged as mistakes rather than "flavor", and posted as mod points. From there, the mapper either offers valid explanations or changes things, or at times *shudders* neither. This part is important: "flavor" should not end up as "mistakes" and vice versa, and how well the mapper can explain his thought process is the key point for this.

Well, in any case, from there, bridge to this

abraker wrote:

Finally, the solution to last issue might be the most controversial one. Make a category specifically for maps that ignore guidelines. Maps that are rankable according to ranked criteria, but also where the mapper fails to justify the breaking of guideline(s) and refuses to apply mod(s) to satisfy those guidelines(s). It's reasonable to think that mappers would then go for this category instead of proper ranked. I don't see that as an issue as much as it proving how high the bar is for ranking a map and how many mappers the ranking process deters.

lol

Let me give a scenario comparison for my initial thoughts on this.
You're trying to sell a product idea to investors. Unfortunately, despite how great the ideas in your head are, you can't convince the investors of their genius, and you are rejected. Instead, you go talk to your nice uncle, and he invests a bit in your plans, like you knew he would. End of story.

If something that seems like a "mistake" (aka didn't manage to "clear the first phase" I talked about earlier) can't be explained to me by the mapper, there is no way I'd label it as "flavor" instead. If you can't explain your ideas, they don't see much of an ideas to me in either case. Basically, it doesn't matter to me if you in reality are the Einstein of mapping, if you answer to my concerns with "subjective, no change" it's more likely that I'll just think you don't know what you're doing (though if you actually are the Einstein of mapping, your map will probably already tell me everything I need to know about your concepts).

With the allegory of nature in mind, let's say you present me a rock, saying it's amazingly beautiful rock. Unless there's something like gold streaks or really cool shape to it, to me, without explanation, it's just a rock. Oh it's radioactive? Good that you explained, that sounds really interesting (but don't hold on to radioactive rocks kids)

Well, that was a lot of text for practically couple lines of ideas ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That all being said, things ain't perfect, so I do still appreciate people like you who spend time thinking on what to do, but this suggestion here skips a bit too many important aspects of this topic for me (topics I also skipped now for that reason and my time)

but then again not like I know anything about this stuff

TheKingHenry wrote:

but then again not like I know anything about this stuff

big agree.

TheKingHenry wrote:

This part is important: "flavor" should not end up as "mistakes" and vice versa, and how well the mapper can explain his thought process is the key point for this.

It's sometimes hard to explain the thought process and even sometimes after explaining the style I'm going for I still get disagreement. It is REALLY frustrating a lot of times, and demotivates me and a lot of people from even trying. As a result, I am looking for a way around it.



And even after you do try and explain you are met with feedback like "if you have to write a paragraph to explain what's going on, then it's not intuitive." So much for explaining.

TheKingHenry wrote:

Let me give a scenario comparison for my initial thoughts on this.
You're trying to sell a product idea to investors. Unfortunately, despite how great the ideas in your head are, you can't convince the investors of their genius, and you are rejected. Instead, you go talk to your nice uncle, and he invests a bit in your plans, like you knew he would. End of story.

The idea of needing to sell the pattern like a product is ludicrous to me. Either you play it and enjoy it, or you play it and don't. Needing to explain why something fits in a map is mind melting. People just need to enjoy or hate the map for what it is. Statements in mods like "would help emphasize the drum/high guitar notes", "for pitch relevancy since the violin's playing D as opposed to E flat" make me want to avoid ranking altogether, and some of the stuff that make maps loose their identity. As I said in the original statement, "What they often fail to realize is that those imperfections are what makes the map more natural and unique."

TheKingHenry wrote:

If something that seems like a "mistake" (aka didn't manage to "clear the first phase" I talked about earlier) can't be explained to me by the mapper, there is no way I'd label it as "flavor" instead. If you can't explain your ideas, they don't see much of an ideas to me in either case. Basically, it doesn't matter to me if you in reality are the Einstein of mapping, if you answer to my concerns with "subjective, no change" it's more likely that I'll just think you don't know what you're doing (though if you actually are the Einstein of mapping, your map will probably already tell me everything I need to know about your concepts).

That's the problem with ranking altogether. It's not about playing maps to see if they are enjoyable. It's about explaining how maps are conforming to a standard, and passing valid explanations as why the map would be enjoyable to the community. I do agree there need to be rules, but not needing to justify patterns.

======

I may sound like a really frustrated mapper going on a rant due to a bad experience. I am a player by heart, not a mapper. I hate seeing the same meta in maps that I keep on seeing. In mania there is a lot of simple pattern maps with SV put in. I want to see something more complex and intricate. By trying to rank a map I see why that is not possible. We can't get such maps if what it takes is a person capable of debating over why a complex pattern fits in the map. There is only a handful of people that can deal with the mental gymnastics and headaches associated with it. I hope this new partial ranked category would allow a breath of fresh air. The maps may be terrible, maybe not, but either way as it stands now mania players seeking to improve their skills have to fish for maps in unranked either way because ranked usually offers nothing of value.

clayton wrote:

"featured", if managed like loved but with BNNAT, is bound to turn into a home for the artsy types of maps that players don't really care for but mappers do. that kinda defeats the point of "high quality maps" cuz the audience would probably rate it worse than current ranked. I feel like this would turn out similarly to spotlights for the last few years

honestly, maps like shite are unplayable, but are still rankable, which is the problem. i like artsy, edgy type maps, but i don't think they should be normalized. a lot of edgy maps have been getting ranked lately, which is nice, but the problem is that they don't appeal to the player. the average player wants pp maps with cute anime girls, and that's why we have sotarks.

"why we have sotarks" is a long road that started with lower ranking standards and a broken-as-ever SR/pp system, there was a day when "the average player" didn't like sotarks at all, just as there was for the pp mappers that came before. normalization and stagnation are by far the main reasons that we are stuck in the current situation so I think it's good to have these discussions

Sotarks is a bit like the Lich King - there must always be one. There will always be one mapper who focuses on popularity and throughput as the core feature of their work over all else. There will always be mappers that focus on maximizing the amount of pp their creations can give.

None of these things are intrinsically bad, but we do need to spend some more time promoting maps on artistic merit over numbers and popularity. This is in the works currently with a revamp to the Beatmap Spotlights.