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.
forum
Fall Out Boy - I Don't Care
posted
Total Posts
108
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
The diff names make perfect sense, it might be the reverse of what some people tend to expect, but that's life.
Topic Starter
I have not decided what names mean, think about it by yourself please, you are experienced enough, your BN label tells me so.Weber wrote:
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.
Also, i don't really like the manner you talk to me, that's why i kindly ask you to mod something else instead of this map. Thanks for understanding.
as i stated, those names are fine to me. your other solution is also fine, and probably better. also, yes, people do say "i normally care" in my country =P
I also checked with Kisses and he said the naming I proposed was fine.
Okay, guess we've wrapped this up. Poke me if you need someone to renominate, since Bakari has now retired.
Okay, guess we've wrapped this up. Poke me if you need someone to renominate, since Bakari has now retired.
Top
00:00:435 (1,2) - The drums have more emphasis on certain beats so mapping the whole thing as 2 reverse sliders feels unftting, especially for the highest diff in the set
00:12:972 (1) - forced break is forced
00:26:703 (9,10) -
02:32:524 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - spacing many 1/3 beats like this feels too much of a diff spike and inappropriate for the relatively calm section imho.
I have major problems with the rhythms you've used in your kiai times tbh but I'll just state this for now
00:00:435 (1,2) - The drums have more emphasis on certain beats so mapping the whole thing as 2 reverse sliders feels unftting, especially for the highest diff in the set
00:12:972 (1) - forced break is forced
00:26:703 (9,10) -
02:32:524 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - spacing many 1/3 beats like this feels too much of a diff spike and inappropriate for the relatively calm section imho.
I have major problems with the rhythms you've used in your kiai times tbh but I'll just state this for now
Can you at least fix the distance snapping issues in the lowest diff? https://i.imgur.com/eGGwqSI.png Regardless of whether the diff is E or N, keeping consistent distance snapping is important, especially for the lowest diff. This one is especially noticeable: https://i.imgur.com/HimQLMQ.png
00:54:390 (3) - 01:55:360 (2) - Miiiiiiiiiiiiight also want to fix the inconsistent snaps here in the middle diff, the first one shouldn't start on the 1/2 tick.
00:54:390 (3) - 01:55:360 (2) - Miiiiiiiiiiiiight also want to fix the inconsistent snaps here in the middle diff, the first one shouldn't start on the 1/2 tick.
I don't know how you're interpreting my text, but i'm speaking as neutrally as possible? lolAleks719 wrote:
Also, i don't really like the manner you talk to me
Topic Starter
Kisses wrote:
Top
00:00:435 (1,2) - The drums have more emphasis on certain beats so mapping the whole thing as 2 reverse sliders feels unftting, especially for the highest diff in the set starting diff from a stream or making a bunch of 1/3 sliders is a bad taste and unfriendly to players
00:12:972 (1) - forced break is forced that's how i see it. It's also used for an artist's name appperance
00:26:703 (9,10) - spacing here is regular
02:32:524 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - spacing many 1/3 beats like this feels too much of a diff spike and inappropriate for the relatively calm section imho.
Uhm, it's made with spacing inside combos without any critical speed ups. Don't see a problem here. Also look at time section velocity, it's slowed at this section. Can't agree here
I have major problems with the rhythms you've used in your kiai times tbh but I'll just state this for now
Lowest diff has got minor spacing updates btw. Thanks.Weber wrote:
Can you at least fix the distance snapping issues in the lowest diff? https://i.imgur.com/eGGwqSI.png Regardless of whether the diff is E or N, keeping consistent distance snapping is important, especially for the lowest diff. This one is especially noticeable: https://i.imgur.com/HimQLMQ.png
But okay, I reduced it somewhere.
00:54:390 (3) - 01:55:360 (2) - Miiiiiiiiiiiiight also want to fix the inconsistent snaps here in the middle diff, the first one shouldn't start on the 1/2 tick.
2nd you mean? But it follows vocals and Charles' lessons of playability, rhythm is still 1/1 there, pretty easy to catch
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.