Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Proposal-Mania] Changing HP/OD Easy - Hard Guidelines to Rules

posted
Total Posts
11
Unpredictable
Beatmap Nominator
382 posts
Joined December 2015
Topic Starter
Unpredictable
Hello y'all, gonna make a proposal this time around in regards to the OD/HP guidelines we have currently have. I think on a surface level they seem fine as many people obey them, but what doesn't make sense as we look into further is to why they are even guidelines in the first place. I don't see much of a reason why anyone would break the guideline under certain circumstances and I can't remember the last time a map had to break this guideline for such a circumstance. From how it's enforced by BNs and as it stands, it would just make more sense as a rule rather than a guideline from an objective standpoint.

For the people that don't know the OD/HP guidelines being mentioned, I'll put them down below.


Easy:
HP and OD values should not be higher than 7.
Normal:
HP and OD values should not be higher than 7.5.
Hard:
HP and OD values should not be higher than 8.
I also don't think we need to change the phrasing at all in this case, but if we needed to, it could look something like:

HP and OD values that are higher than [blank] are disallowed. Values higher than [blank] can be too difficult for players at this level.
Would love to hear all of your feedback on this to whether this should be alright. I know some people can find this change "restrictive" in some manner but the way it's enforced by BNs and how many people look at it to begin with makes this as a guideline a bit pointless imo. I've also consulted a fellow NAT about this and they didn't know why this was a guideline as well, which gives me more the reason to make this post. Anyways, feedback is much appreciated from everyone who posts. Thanks!
lenpai
Beatmap Nominator
1,772 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai
Easy Normal ok

Hard shouldn't be a rule to give way to very fringe cases of sv challenge charts

case in point: beatmapsets/418097#mania/905136
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/687369#mania/1454484 (dk how much of a sv challenge chart it is but ill go with it anyway)
Last edited by lenpai , edited 2 times in total.
Evening
2,464 posts
Joined December 2012
Evening
what's the point of making it more restrictive? I'd rather it to be open-for-discussion

as you said, there are virtually no cases of guideline breaking, it'd make more sense if it was broken multiple times in bad faith for ranking
Unpredictable
Beatmap Nominator
382 posts
Joined December 2015
Topic Starter
Unpredictable

lenpai wrote:

Easy Normal ok

Hard shouldn't be a rule to give way to very fringe cases of sv challenge charts

case in point: beatmapsets/418097#mania/905136
tbf i consider the chart to be more of a low insane because of the sporadic sv changes across the map with the very high OD so i wouldn't personally count this quite frankly. also the map was ranked quite a while ago with a *much* different ranking criteria mind you so it's hard for make a case for the reasonings you mentioned anyways.
lenpai
Beatmap Nominator
1,772 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai
i edited this chart in for additional considerations beatmapsets/687369#mania/1454484
Unpredictable
Beatmap Nominator
382 posts
Joined December 2015
Topic Starter
Unpredictable

lenpai wrote:

i edited this chart in for additional considerations beatmapsets/687369#mania/1454484
same thing honestly. it's an older map that was under a different ranking criteria so I can't totally agree here either. I'd probably label it as an low insane in the current rc for the same reasons that I mentioned in my last post.

Evening wrote:

what's the point of making it more restrictive? I'd rather it to be open-for-discussion
bc its just a null guideline. a lot of the guidelines *are* rules but some maps are able to break it under certain circumstances, such as if the map has low BPM and whatnot most of the time. OD/HP don't really have it to the same degree. especially for spread reasons, a lot of maps are just set on a baseline number or a .5 for lower diffs with *very few* maps that actually use other decimals (.1-.4), to which the decimals change little to nothing about the OD and HP to begin with.

and just because there's no guideline breaking, doesn't make it completely ignorable either.
Evening
2,464 posts
Joined December 2012
Evening

Unpredictable wrote:

bc its just a null guideline. a lot of the guidelines *are* rules but some maps are able to break it under certain circumstances, such as if the map has low BPM and whatnot most of the time. OD/HP don't really have it to the same degree. especially for spread reasons, a lot of maps are just set on a baseline number or a .5 for lower diffs with *very few* maps that actually use other decimals (.1-.4), to which the decimals change little to nothing about the OD and HP to begin with.

and just because there's no guideline breaking, doesn't make it completely ignorable either.
i don't see a large net positive in enforcing a rule like this?

ignoring this ambiguity is fine, it allows freedom of available ways to express the map differently, it doesn't have to be black & white enforced

I believe the guideline was in place to give a sense of direction, not too much to strictly limit creativity

if this was pushed successfully, it wouldn't shake the mapping culture too much, but it does feel like it's unneeded
[Ping]
498 posts
Joined April 2015
[Ping]

Evening wrote:

i don't see a large net positive in enforcing a rule like this?

ignoring this ambiguity is fine, it allows freedom of available ways to express the map differently, it doesn't have to be black & white enforced

I believe the guideline was in place to give a sense of direction, not too much to strictly limit creativity

if this was pushed successfully, it wouldn't shake the mapping culture too much, but it does feel like it's unneeded
I agree with this. It is not a necessary change to be made. Leaving them as guidelines could provide a lenient way for some gimmick maps or as an easter egg (for example HP being a specific decimal point number in relation to the song's name or lyrics) in the future. However, this would be fine if it was changed as it would have been a really niche case for this guideline to be break and could be a better step forward to show difference between rules and guidelines - which could served for the guideline being less strict later on.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,295 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
Has breaking these guidelines been an issue? No? Then nothing needs to change.

Will breaking these guidelines be an issue? Arguably no, because BN judge whether a map breaking these guidelines is an issue and act accordingly. So again, nothing needs to change.
Last edited by abraker , edited 6 times in total.
Feerum
osu! Alumni
2,042 posts
Joined August 2014
Feerum
Most of people seem to be against this guideline change
I contacted Unpredictable and he told me he don't want to push this any further.

Therefore i will close this now as denied
Last edited by Feerum , edited 2 times in total.
Unpredictable
Beatmap Nominator
382 posts
Joined December 2015
Topic Starter
Unpredictable
thank you, I've been meaning to close this for a little bit now, but I've been meaning to make some sort of close to finish this thread off.

to be frank, not a lot of reasons people had gave here really convinced to why this shouldn't be implemented. just because this hasn't been an issue doesn't mean it couldn't, nor does it mean that someone in the future could make the case to possibly abuse it. OD/HPs for lower diffs shouldn't be gimmicky or should even be "Easter eggs", that just seems silly.

however, Evening did make a good point I hadn't considered. there really wouldn't be a big net positive from this enforcement, but rather restrictive. I mean I knew it was restrictive from the get-go but after rethinking it, yeah I can agree with that statement. I think just my thought process was going into this was: "hey if we're enforcing this essentially as a rule when it's a guideline, shouldn't this be moved up to Rules section?", but clearly the change wouldn't do much positives for the ranked section in general. It'd just be rather null or rather negative for those being more expressive with their lower diffs, which I didn't really consider going into this so my apologies.

sorry if I didn't reply much at all during this period though. and thank you all to contributed to the discussion, gave me a different perspective on things I suppose.

edits: grammar fixes
Last edited by Unpredictable , edited 1 time in total.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 11