здравствуйте,привет вам РАНК (:
forum
Fall Out Boy - I Don't Care
posted
Total Posts
108
I have to agree there, there is no real progression of difficulty naming. It's just from one point to another (A -> B), doesn't imply harder in any way.
Please try to find more appropriate difficulty names that clearly indicate difficulty progression
(also taking it down because mapper hasn't responded to the report)
Please try to find more appropriate difficulty names that clearly indicate difficulty progression
(also taking it down because mapper hasn't responded to the report)
Thats same story how with Xanandra's map,its really big problem to make DQ? If this map was ranked 3-4 years ago no one BAT or QAT nothing would have said. why now such a tight control? answer me please. ;____;
Because standards change, and you have to adapt to them. This is not 2014.
I agree with Raiden about diffnames. They don't properly indicate the true difficulty level.
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all). Come on, this isn't even advanced English, people.
Also, was the mapper somehow notified that there was a report on his map? I don't see any post on the thread about the map getting a report, and I don't know if he received a pm about it, so this is just a question.
I see no problem here, there's an inverse correlation between how much the mapper says he cares and how high in the spread the diff is. It's consistent, even if consistently negative, and works with the song title.
Make the hardest diff "I don't care" and it makes sense progressively
Right now the meaning is kinda "implied" so the syntax sounds different.
Right now the meaning is kinda "implied" so the syntax sounds different.
I posted on the thread about it, and reported it. Which he ignored 
Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.
Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.
OBJECTION!ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all). Come on, this isn't even advanced English, people.
Also, was the mapper somehow notified that there was a report on his map? I don't see any post on the thread about the map getting a report, and I don't know if he received a pm about it, so this is just a question.
Pay more attention to why it's being disqualified; it's not being disqualified because it doesn't show progression, it's being disqualified because it doesn't properly indicate the difficulty level. How does "I Care!" -> "I don't Care!" properly display the intended difficulty levels?
Nao posted 4 days ago on this thread and didn't receive a reply, so the mapper has had plenty of time to properly address the issue, and they didn't.
Yes, I saw your post, but in that post you didn't say you reported the map so the mapper could care enough and take action, that's why I asked if he was notified by pm. You see, Aleks doesn't get online everyday so he needs a good reason to show up, I suppose. Imagine if you see a comment about one of your qualified maps and you think is no big deal, but then your map gets reported and the person never said it got reported, so you know until your map gets dq'd without a chance to at least attempt to defend yourself. If you did notify him directly, then that was nice and Aleks wasn't for not replying, but if you didn't, well, just be more clear when you do such thing next time.Naotoshi wrote:
I posted on the thread about it, and reported it. Which he ignored
Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.
Well moving on to the important thing here, I think Monstrata's and Nao's way of dealing with this is fine, so it should be up to Aleks on what to do. For some reason my brain saw the last diff as "I don't care" instead of "I really don't" all the time haha. Still is something that works imo, but since the map is already dq'd we should expect an improvement.
edit: Dooormat, my explanation shows how it is related to difficulty as well
Admittedly I should not have made the assumption that he is a no-life like the rest of us and looks at the game every day. I'll make sure to forum PM people when I report their maps - which is a fairly rare occasion for me. Sorry for causing trouble. Regardless, I do believe I was in the right and that my solution is an good one. And also, don't forget to add exclamation mark to the end of the last difficulty name to keep it consistent with the rest of them.
@ezek you didn't know explain why it's related to the difficulties at all. Doormat was asking how "I care" and "I kinda care" relate to normal and hard respectively. Also just because the diff names aren't advanced English doesn't mean it's ok. There are many osu players that don't understand English all to well, some not at all which is why it's preferred to not use diff names such as these. Names like Normal, Hard etc are fine because they are the staple names of their difficulty but you can't expect everyone from a multi linguistic community to be able to interpret what each diff means if every set was names like this.
They might not represent what kind of difficulty it will be, but you will be sure that the first difficulty, which in this case was "I Care!", would be the easiest difficulty of them all, because the mapper decided to follow the general theme of the song. Starting at this, I do not see where the issue is with the current difficulty names as they show a progression from "I care" to "I really don't".
Following this aspect, I agree with Monstrata as the last difficulty should be named "I don't care" instead of "I really don't", because it would first, follow the song's title and the theme of the song and second, show an actual progression, like Aleks intended to do.
Following this aspect, I agree with Monstrata as the last difficulty should be named "I don't care" instead of "I really don't", because it would first, follow the song's title and the theme of the song and second, show an actual progression, like Aleks intended to do.
@Kisses I meant difficulty based on the progression. My bad for not being clear there. Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~ And again, the names are simple and most people should understand (I can tell since English is not my native language). Anyway, I already expressed my opinion on the subject, so I'm not going to reply on this anymore xp let's see what Aleks has to say~
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
I think I'm going to give my opinions here.
Some things mentioned here makes not definitely sense to me if you ask me. First of all I want to say I do agree with difficulties names.
If you're using custom sets, it's because they makes sense with the music/band/some lyrics/etc.
As an example I've mapped some "Panic! at the Disco" songs (and some other mappers did the same a few time ago such as Bakari), and I used something like "Calm!/Nervous!/Panic!" but I'm wondering.. How can you notice the level of those difficulties? Yeah, I personally think that "Calm!" is the only one that you can notice as an Easy but "Nervous" as Normal? Why? You generally put nervous when you play something that it can be a bit "Hard" but not in this level (you can say to me, "there are players that can be nervous in Normal difficulties" but there are new players that don't feel really calm playing Easy difficulties becuase they've recently joined this game, so this doesn't count to me as a justification).
Are you telling me that I can't use these difficulties names because they don't represent properly its level? That's not fair at all, and it sounds pretty bad to me.
I'd like to use this phrase because is what I think too. I don't need to add anything else.
I'll repeat this phrase as a conclusion, if you want to indicate the level of all difficulties with its name, then we must only use "Easy/Normal/Hard/Insane/Extra" and similar ones such as "Beginner/Advanced/etc." because other thing won't meet this "rule" and I don't want to see that, I think all users here have common sense to notice that by themself. If difficulties names are progressive, the rest should be subjective.
Some things mentioned here makes not definitely sense to me if you ask me. First of all I want to say I do agree with difficulties names.
Yeah.. that's true, standard changes, but it's impossible to indicate the level of difficulties when you use custom names. Following that textually, the only difficulties names that we are available to use are "Easy/Normal/Hard/Insane or similar ones, you can't innovate at all in anything.Doormat wrote:
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
If you're using custom sets, it's because they makes sense with the music/band/some lyrics/etc.
As an example I've mapped some "Panic! at the Disco" songs (and some other mappers did the same a few time ago such as Bakari), and I used something like "Calm!/Nervous!/Panic!" but I'm wondering.. How can you notice the level of those difficulties? Yeah, I personally think that "Calm!" is the only one that you can notice as an Easy but "Nervous" as Normal? Why? You generally put nervous when you play something that it can be a bit "Hard" but not in this level (you can say to me, "there are players that can be nervous in Normal difficulties" but there are new players that don't feel really calm playing Easy difficulties becuase they've recently joined this game, so this doesn't count to me as a justification).
Are you telling me that I can't use these difficulties names because they don't represent properly its level? That's not fair at all, and it sounds pretty bad to me.
I'd like to use this phrase because is what I think too. I don't need to add anything else.
This can be a point that we can discuss a lot of days but nobody will be happy with others opinions. But well, I'd say this is a subjective issue because 50% of the community do agree with those difficulties names and the other 50% do not agree with them.ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all).
I'll repeat this phrase as a conclusion, if you want to indicate the level of all difficulties with its name, then we must only use "Easy/Normal/Hard/Insane/Extra" and similar ones such as "Beginner/Advanced/etc." because other thing won't meet this "rule" and I don't want to see that, I think all users here have common sense to notice that by themself. If difficulties names are progressive, the rest should be subjective.
Oh well, here I am again~Doormat wrote:
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
While it is true that they're implied, they're simple. The most important thing is that we can understand which is the easiest, hardest, and average difficulty, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Now that you pulled out that from the rc, I understand why Nao suggested the diffs in that explicit way lol. Too much regulations ruin the fun xp I think Nao's suggestion is the safest way to go, but I don't think the current ones (except for the highest diff) are bad.
Anyway, I'm not saying the current names must be kept the way they are, I was just expressing my point of view on the matter by explaining why I believe they're okay in their current state; as I already said, improvement should be expected since the map is already disqualified. In short, I'm not against a change~
seems mancuso wrote something while I was typing this, so idk if I repeated something that he already said (I'm a very distracted person so my mind goes to places and I stop writing xD)
I can't believe we're having a long discussion just for some diffames lol, well, I'm gonna keep myself out of this since I gave all the input I could xp
Topic Starter
First of all, i would like to greet all drama queens in this awsum thread but actually i don't care.
Post of nominator in the thread is just the opinion. Should i reply every opinion? It makes no sense. Words of ONE nominator were previously beaten by TWO nominators who had qualified map earlier. Do you get it? Unbeliveable behaviour from your side, really.
Opinions of bns after dq can't be counted, it's like feeding wingulls, sorry guys,no offences. it always was like that, most of you support qats just because. I will continue to talk only with qats. Topic will be locked. QATs, pm me for next conversation after reading my objections.
About progression. Answer me personally, who cares about diff's difficulty?
Right, newbies. Tought guys don't care anout it at all, they can play everything. And "Kinda" shows that person knows basics, but still care about difficulty, something between previos names. Pretty clear for me. Plus star indicator on preview for dummies. I gave you clear indication, what can you reply?
Liar. There were no report or pm. It was simple dq w/o notifying. You were the one who had broken the rules.Raiden wrote:
I have to agree there, there is no real progression of difficulty naming. It's just from one point to another (A -> B), doesn't imply harder in any way.
Please try to find more appropriate difficulty names that clearly indicate difficulty progression
(also taking it down because mapper hasn't responded to the report)
Post of nominator in the thread is just the opinion. Should i reply every opinion? It makes no sense. Words of ONE nominator were previously beaten by TWO nominators who had qualified map earlier. Do you get it? Unbeliveable behaviour from your side, really.
Opinions of bns after dq can't be counted, it's like feeding wingulls, sorry guys,no offences. it always was like that, most of you support qats just because. I will continue to talk only with qats. Topic will be locked. QATs, pm me for next conversation after reading my objections.
About progression. Answer me personally, who cares about diff's difficulty?
Right, newbies. Tought guys don't care anout it at all, they can play everything. And "Kinda" shows that person knows basics, but still care about difficulty, something between previos names. Pretty clear for me. Plus star indicator on preview for dummies. I gave you clear indication, what can you reply?
The map was reported here - p/6340110 - Yes, perhaps Naotoshi could have notified you via PM, but this is a standard method of operation for the current Qualified section and nobody has broken any rules.
The post of anyone in the thread is an opinion and yes, you should reply to every one. The Qualified section exists for this explicit purpose - to allow the wider community to give feedback on maps. If a mapper doesn't respond to that feedback explaining why the map is fine in its' current state, we disqualify the map to allow that discussion to take place.
Opinions of everyone are counted, regardless of whether they are a Beatmap Nominator or not. The task of checking Qualified maps is now the community's responsibility, with the QAT acting on those reports. If you refuse to interact with the community, this map won't be able to progress.
Believe it or not, players care about difficulty when choosing a map to play and the naming system plays an important part in making that decision. Star Rating alone will never be a 100% accurate portrayal of a map's level of difficulty. Plenty of suggestions have been provided which might help remedy the situation and find a point of compromise everyone can agree on, so I ask you to please consider them once you decide to unlock this thread.
The post of anyone in the thread is an opinion and yes, you should reply to every one. The Qualified section exists for this explicit purpose - to allow the wider community to give feedback on maps. If a mapper doesn't respond to that feedback explaining why the map is fine in its' current state, we disqualify the map to allow that discussion to take place.
Opinions of everyone are counted, regardless of whether they are a Beatmap Nominator or not. The task of checking Qualified maps is now the community's responsibility, with the QAT acting on those reports. If you refuse to interact with the community, this map won't be able to progress.
Believe it or not, players care about difficulty when choosing a map to play and the naming system plays an important part in making that decision. Star Rating alone will never be a 100% accurate portrayal of a map's level of difficulty. Plenty of suggestions have been provided which might help remedy the situation and find a point of compromise everyone can agree on, so I ask you to please consider them once you decide to unlock this thread.
And what happens with the opinion of those who agrees with the diff names?JBHyperion wrote:
The map was reported here - p/6340110 - Yes, perhaps Naotoshi could have notified you via PM, but this is a standard method of operation for the current Qualified section and nobody has broken any rules.
The post of anyone in the thread is an opinion and yes, you should reply to every one. The Qualified section exists for this explicit purpose - to allow the wider community to give feedback on maps. If a mapper doesn't respond to that feedback explaining why the map is fine in its' current state, we disqualify the map to allow that discussion to take place.
Opinions of everyone are counted, regardless of whether they are a Beatmap Nominator or not. The task of checking Qualified maps is now the community's responsibility, with the QAT acting on those reports. If you refuse to interact with the community, this map won't be able to progress.
Believe it or not, players care about difficulty when choosing a map to play and the naming system plays an important part in making that decision. Star Rating alone will never be a 100% accurate portrayal of a map's level of difficulty. Plenty of suggestions have been provided which might help remedy the situation and find a point of compromise everyone can agree on, so I ask you to please consider them once you decide to unlock this thread.
Topic Starter
They need to shut the fuck up since their opinion is different and their reading the rules is not the same as people with power.Xanandra wrote:
And what happens with the opinion of those who agrees with the diff names?
I have got Raiden's reply, that in his opinion changing "i really dont" into "I don't care!" doesn't make the situation better (by quote, but screenshot can be atteched too):
I especially like this part:Raiden wrote:
Even if the highest diff is named "I don't care" it still makes no sense in a difficulty representation level. There is nothing that implies that not caring is harder than not caring. The meaning remains ambiguous.
Also, you cannot limit yourself to talk only to QATs. Everyone's opinion is valuable on their own. Good luck!
Look at the broken heart icon. It says someone's opinion more valuable than another, we got it, yeeeeah. So hypocritical.Raiden wrote:
Everyone's opinion is valuable on their own.
By that logic you shouldn't care about it either since you're not a newbie like the rest of the ppl in the thread. "Kinda", being slang, isn't really appropriate for me to use for a rhythm game such as osu. You can say it's clear to you but it's not clear to everyone in this multi linguistic community. If you're just going to resort to SR being a good enough indicator then that would allow for a plethora of different custom names being used with their sole argument being that player's will determine difficulty by SR.Aleks719 wrote:
About progression. Answer me personally, who cares about diff's difficulty?
Right, newbies. Tought guys don't care anout it at all, they can play everything. And "Kinda" shows that person knows basics, but still care about difficulty, something between previos names. Pretty clear for me. Plus star indicator on preview for dummies. I gave you clear indication, what can you reply?
Since it was day 7 it was DQ'd to allow for discussion. Better then than too late after it has already been ranked and no one can do anything about it. There is no need to be upsetAleks719 wrote:
Look at the broken heart icon. It says someone's opinion more valuable than another, we got it, yeeeeah. So hypocritical.
[]
Also I think this set could be improved quite a bit before pushing it towards rank and I'll be giving it a mod soon
Topic Starter
Since diff names are blocking points for ranking process i don't see any sense in your desire. Better improve something which can be ranked.Kisses wrote:
Also I think this set could be improved quite a bit before pushing it towards rank and I'll be giving it a mod soon
Mod placeholder for whenever you want to continue the set.
Well, first of all, I find funny what was said earlier about "standards changing and not being 2014 anymore", since difficulty name regulation was something we pushed for discussion back in the day. I was, personally, one of the BATs who were more bothered by this when difficulty names actually made no sense at all. However, in my opion, that's not the case for this map, I believe the actual difficulty names actually show progression and they are fine for ranking. On top of that, the mapset has 3 difficulties which leaves no space for "wondering" which one is the easiest, hardest and inbetween difficulty, not implying that the difficulty names aren't clear enough but just in case newbies were the problem.
The thing with difficulty names is that, for some people, not even the standard ones "show indication of difficulty" I mean, can we get the team agreeing on what's a "Normal"?. That said, it's impossible to "rule" over difficulty names with some sort of "standard criteria", that's a part of metadata that will always require case by case analysis and a little common sense when modding. Take the example of Xanandra's map, which was quoted in this thread, that map had over 4 difficulties with custom, iffy, random names in a foreign language (not to us). That clearly needs some regulation and I have to completely agree with that disqualify, however definitely not with this case, we're talking about 2 completely different scenarios in which the same regulation was applied, that's wrong. Little tweaks to the names won't make any difference at all, this is just time wasting.
So, since the disqualify allows room for more discussion and discussion is happening, this has been productive. Nonetheless, discussion can't last forever, else beats the whole purpose of this system, a time limit should be set in which a decision should be taken. I personally believe, taking in account that this will always be a subjetive matter, that there's enough, elaborated, opinions on why this map should be re-qualified in it's current state and that's what should be done.
The thing with difficulty names is that, for some people, not even the standard ones "show indication of difficulty" I mean, can we get the team agreeing on what's a "Normal"?. That said, it's impossible to "rule" over difficulty names with some sort of "standard criteria", that's a part of metadata that will always require case by case analysis and a little common sense when modding. Take the example of Xanandra's map, which was quoted in this thread, that map had over 4 difficulties with custom, iffy, random names in a foreign language (not to us). That clearly needs some regulation and I have to completely agree with that disqualify, however definitely not with this case, we're talking about 2 completely different scenarios in which the same regulation was applied, that's wrong. Little tweaks to the names won't make any difference at all, this is just time wasting.
So, since the disqualify allows room for more discussion and discussion is happening, this has been productive. Nonetheless, discussion can't last forever, else beats the whole purpose of this system, a time limit should be set in which a decision should be taken. I personally believe, taking in account that this will always be a subjetive matter, that there's enough, elaborated, opinions on why this map should be re-qualified in it's current state and that's what should be done.
In instances where both parties disagree, QAT will step in and make a decision based on the arguments given. Just for the record, I still disagree with the current difficulty names, regardless of appropriate difficulty progression, they make the mapset look unprofessional and unfit for the ranked category. However, there are more problems than just the difficulty names with the mapset, and I'm surprised it was qualified in its current state.
Edit: I agree with Naotoshi's suggested diff name changes. They're clever, and don't detract from your original concept.
Edit: I agree with Naotoshi's suggested diff name changes. They're clever, and don't detract from your original concept.
The issue at hand is that they do not accurately define the level of gameplay contained in the difficulty. Normal diffs have a set of guidelines, hards, etc. While the current set up arguably shows progression, what it lacks is the actual level of difficulty independent of the context of the other ones. I realize that "normal" and "hard" can be argued as arbitrary, but they are officially provided and used as the standard for all sets in the game. As such, incorporating those names in some fashion is the simplest way to get this thing requalified without arguing endlessly with a bunch of qats. I've provided in my first post a suggestion that resolves this problem; if you want to maintain your custom theme, my solution works well. Maybe you can come up with something more to your liking. However, it has to include the absolute level of the difficulty, not only the relative ones. That is what the ranking criteria says right now and that is what the qat will adhere to
I have nothing against the map in specific and to be frank I don't know why you are being so dismissive and hostile just because the standards from 2013 when this was submitted no longer apply in the same way. Nobody here is doing anything out of spite, but rather out of a sense of what the ranking criteria demands.
I have nothing against the map in specific and to be frank I don't know why you are being so dismissive and hostile just because the standards from 2013 when this was submitted no longer apply in the same way. Nobody here is doing anything out of spite, but rather out of a sense of what the ranking criteria demands.
Topic Starter
map you own set if you don't like this one, it always works. Or don't play. That's just your opinion, modding is suggestions, please don't forget.Weber wrote:
In instances where both parties disagree, QAT will step in and make a decision based on the arguments given. Just for the record, I still disagree with the current difficulty names, regardless of appropriate difficulty progression, they make the mapset look unprofessional and unfit for the ranked category. However, there are more problems than just the difficulty names with the mapset, and I'm surprised it was qualified in its current state.
Edit: I agree with Naotoshi's suggested diff name changes. They're clever, and don't detract from your original concept.
Naotoshi naming sounds even more ugly than current. Normally care? Waaaat? Do pepole in your countries really talk this way? I normally care? Oh, come on.
As Gonz said, standards were created in those years by us (we both were in that team, it was acceptable then, rule hasn't been changed, but you still say "oh, it was at 2013") and they are actually the same. Take a look at maps with 10+ diffs, where 7 of them extra, ultimate, insane or whatever. Rule was GENERALLY for these sets, not for obvious easy-normal-hard stardard sets. But team is changed, reading of rule had become another. Oh well, now it's our problem, not yours.
Would you also be against naming like "I care about this Easy", "I partly care about this Normal" and "I don't care"?
Weber, Naotoshi, Raiden? Anyone else who were against current naming?
Cuz provided variants by you were ugly (except Monstrata's, but you keep flaming against it).
well, gl ~
There is a history of precedent in recent years regarding difficulty naming standards that the naming of this set is held in stark contrast against. That is what many of the BN are protesting about in this thread.
For example, the naming system using a scale of "I care" to "I don't care" in a song that is titled "I don't care" raises a degree of ambiguity - is the scale of "caring" immediately relative to that of actual difficulty, and if so, what way? Is caring more in a song about not caring meant to represent less difficulty, or more difficulty? You could argue that caring more means greater difficulty - it's harder to care about things that you really don't care about.
This level of ambiguity adds a layer of uncertainty to the set at first glance, and since a common way of appraising maps is to refer to their difficulty names, you can quickly come to understand why it is important that a clear, non-ambiguous naming scheme is followed when creating sets.
The intent of the rule is not to stifle artistic liberty, but to avoid unnecessary confusion on that front. With that in mind, effort would likely be better spent devising a naming scheme that keeps your creative intent intact while also not being vague.
For example, the naming system using a scale of "I care" to "I don't care" in a song that is titled "I don't care" raises a degree of ambiguity - is the scale of "caring" immediately relative to that of actual difficulty, and if so, what way? Is caring more in a song about not caring meant to represent less difficulty, or more difficulty? You could argue that caring more means greater difficulty - it's harder to care about things that you really don't care about.
This level of ambiguity adds a layer of uncertainty to the set at first glance, and since a common way of appraising maps is to refer to their difficulty names, you can quickly come to understand why it is important that a clear, non-ambiguous naming scheme is followed when creating sets.
The intent of the rule is not to stifle artistic liberty, but to avoid unnecessary confusion on that front. With that in mind, effort would likely be better spent devising a naming scheme that keeps your creative intent intact while also not being vague.
Topic Starter
Yes, i got it, thanks.Ephemeral wrote:
There is a history of precedent in recent years regarding difficulty naming standards that the naming of this set is held in stark contrast against. That is what many of the BN are protesting about in this thread.
For example, the naming system using a scale of "I care" to "I don't care" in a song that is titled "I don't care" raises a degree of ambiguity - is the scale of "caring" immediately relative to that of actual difficulty, and if so, what way? Is caring more in a song about not caring meant to represent less difficulty, or more difficulty? You could argue that caring more means greater difficulty - it's harder to care about things that you really don't care about.
This level of ambiguity adds a layer of uncertainty to the set at first glance, and since a common way of appraising maps is to refer to their difficulty names, you can quickly come to understand why it is important that a clear, non-ambiguous naming scheme is followed when creating sets.
The intent of the rule is not to stifle artistic liberty, but to avoid unnecessary confusion on that front. With that in mind, effort would likely be better spent devising a naming scheme that keeps your creative intent intact while also not being vague.
Question is the same, would names "I care about this Easy", "I partly care about this Normal" and "I don't care" fit? Because if yes i'm fine with renaming this way.
That's getting a bit ridiculous, 6 words for a normal difficulty name? You might as well just scrap the custom difficulty idea altogether.Aleks719 wrote:
Question is the same, would names "I care about this Easy", "I partly care about this Normal" and "I don't care" fit? Because if yes i'm fine with renaming this way.
Also, can you please confirm whether the first two difficulties are "Easy and Normal" or "Normal and Hard" because I legitimately thought they were N/H when I was looking through them. If they really are "Easy/Normal", then i'll have a lot more to say when I mod it.
"I really don't"
Just reading those words, you wouldn't be able to figure out they had anything to do with "caring". I think that's the issue.
I care! > I kinda care!
They show a progression in level of "care". Imo they make sense. What stands out is the "I really don't" because it's a different syntax (way in worth a phrase is organized). Your organization is (Pronoun) + (optional Adjective) + (Care) // "I care" and "I kinda care" both work with this syntax. As you can see, "I really don't" is the phrase that stands out. If you replaced it with "I Don't care" i think most if not all BN's here would be okay with the difficulty naming scheme now.
"Caring" is the central theme behind this difficulty naming so omitting it from the highest difficulty's name is my big issue with it.
I care! > I kinda care! > I don't care!
They show a clear progression from caring to not caring, and all follow the same syntax. Also "Care" is used in every difficulty name which is the central theme of the difficulty. I would really just recommend this sequence. It is 100% acceptable and logical imo.
Just reading those words, you wouldn't be able to figure out they had anything to do with "caring". I think that's the issue.
I care! > I kinda care!
They show a progression in level of "care". Imo they make sense. What stands out is the "I really don't" because it's a different syntax (way in worth a phrase is organized). Your organization is (Pronoun) + (optional Adjective) + (Care) // "I care" and "I kinda care" both work with this syntax. As you can see, "I really don't" is the phrase that stands out. If you replaced it with "I Don't care" i think most if not all BN's here would be okay with the difficulty naming scheme now.
"Caring" is the central theme behind this difficulty naming so omitting it from the highest difficulty's name is my big issue with it.
I care! > I kinda care! > I don't care!
They show a clear progression from caring to not caring, and all follow the same syntax. Also "Care" is used in every difficulty name which is the central theme of the difficulty. I would really just recommend this sequence. It is 100% acceptable and logical imo.
Topic Starter
I agree.Monstrata wrote:
I care! > I kinda care! > I don't care!
They show a clear progression from caring to not caring, and all follow the same syntax. Also "Care" is used in every difficulty name which is the central theme of the difficulty. I would really just recommend this sequence. It is 100% acceptable and logical imo.
And that's why old mappers leave game.
Good Luck, Aleks. I really would like to see this being qualified again without having the need of changing diff names to the basic everyone already is used to see.
Good Luck, Aleks. I really would like to see this being qualified again without having the need of changing diff names to the basic everyone already is used to see.
agree with what monstrata proposed. The names should be fine now and fit the theme of the map. Jeez this was blown out of proportions quite a lot by both sides ...
Weber wrote:
Can you please confirm whether the first two difficulties are "Easy and Normal" or "Normal and Hard" because I legitimately thought they were N/H when I was looking through them. If they really are "Easy/Normal", then i'll have a lot more to say when I mod it.
or you go Easy/Normal/Hard
→ problem solved
→ problem solved