Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked Beatmaps (Archived)
  4. Beatmap Graveyard

Fall Out Boy - I Don't Care

posted
Total Posts
108
show more
Weber
1,254 posts
Joined May 2015
Weber
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.
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
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.
Aleks719
osu! Alumni
2,436 posts
Joined May 2010
Topic Starter
Aleks719

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.
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.
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).
_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding
well, gl ~
Last edited by _handholding , edited 3 times in total.
Saileach
525 posts
Joined November 2014
Saileach
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
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.
Aleks719
osu! Alumni
2,436 posts
Joined May 2010
Topic Starter
Aleks719

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.
Yes, i got it, thanks.

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.
Weber
1,254 posts
Joined May 2015
Weber

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.
That's getting a bit ridiculous, 6 words for a normal difficulty name? You might as well just scrap the custom difficulty idea altogether.

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.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
"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.
Aleks719
osu! Alumni
2,436 posts
Joined May 2010
Topic Starter
Aleks719

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.
I agree.
Mekki
1,793 posts
Joined November 2014
Mekki
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. ;)
Voli
811 posts
Joined April 2013
Voli
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
1,254 posts
Joined May 2015
Weber

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.
Pachiru
osu! Alumni
2,957 posts
Joined June 2013
Pachiru
or you go Easy/Normal/Hard

→ problem solved
laport
1,239 posts
Joined June 2010
laport
The diff names make perfect sense, it might be the reverse of what some people tend to expect, but that's life.
Aleks719
osu! Alumni
2,436 posts
Joined May 2010
Topic Starter
Aleks719

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.
I have not decided what names mean, think about it by yourself please, you are experienced enough, your BN label tells me so.
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.
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
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
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
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.
_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding
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
Weber
1,254 posts
Joined May 2015
Weber
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.

Aleks719 wrote:

Also, i don't really like the manner you talk to me
I don't know how you're interpreting my text, but i'm speaking as neutrally as possible? lol
Aleks719
osu! Alumni
2,436 posts
Joined May 2010
Topic Starter
Aleks719

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

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

No problems at my side:
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
Lowest diff has got minor spacing updates btw. Thanks.
Mitkoff
351 posts
Joined January 2015
Mitkoff
I hope it's not dead... again ?
BanchoBot
w00t p00t
34,830 posts
Here since the beginning
BanchoBot
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.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
87 / 108