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

[Rule] Stack leniency -> Guideline and rewording

posted
Total Posts
22
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Thread direction change detected!

Currently the rule reads as "Stack leniency must not be set to a point where stacking no longer occurs. The option only exists for advanced patterns where a higher stacking leniency looks horrible or doesn't work." but I have been finding that this description is too vague and many people misunderstand just what this entails. I would like to propose to change this to a guideline, and a slight rewording of the description:

Avoid setting stack leniency to a point where you have perfectly overlapping consecutive hit objects. This setting is used if stacking is damaging to patterns that exist in a map. It is usually a good idea to keep it enabled.
lolcubes
osu! Alumni
4,437 posts
Joined November 2010
lolcubes
I think that's a bit redundant. It should be reworded to something like:

Stack leniency affects how the stacking works, if set too low the notes will completely overlap. If such a thing happens manual stacking should be considered. Complete overlaps are not allowed. - unless it's a pattern which would otherwise break if normal stacking was used.
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura
I think this is good to go with Garven's wording, any objections?

Sorry lolcubes :(
Charles445
Elite Mapper II: Aspirant / osu! Paragon
2,881 posts
Joined March 2009
Charles445
I've heard this many times from many people: Having stack leniency all the way down is okay as long as the map is 100% sight-readable on Hidden.
It's a simple way to determine whether the stack leniency is hindering readability or not.

The use of 'patterns' in the rule can make it very subjective. If I called my entire map 'dependent on patterns', would that exempt me from the rule?
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura
tho technically that wording isn't part of the rule, but of the explanation. The rule still states that all objects where applicable, must stack.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Oh whoops. I forgot about this, haha. Using hidden play readability as a metric is pretty useless, as any pattern with returns to stacks are essentially unreadable in hidden, but perfectly fine in standard play. Also player skill can heavily slant the judgement opinion in either direction when to comes to calling something sight readable.

And this difference of interpretation is why I want this rule clarified. What ive always seen it enforced as when stacking behavior is expected, suchas a 1/1 or 1/2 rhythm, but it isnt shown and isnt part of a grander pattern, they need to be adjusted manually or the general leniency needs to be raised so that map presentation is consistent throughout all maps.

What do you interpret this rule to be and propose to word this particular rule so that it isnt left to complete subjectivity?
Last edited by Garven , edited 2 times in total.
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura
It's usually when the next hitobject appears and is below the one you're hitting before you get to hit it for stacking to be necessary, imo. Maybe should consider hitbursts, but with the new default skin it may not be necessary... imo the rule is fine as is, but i would like to hear more opinions before changing or denying the ammendment (it's been over a month already)
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Id prefer more discussion. Theres only 4 inputs with no real resolution thus far. Just too lazy to advertise, hehe.
Shiro
Global Moderator
4,984 posts
Joined May 2009
Shiro
Why not just say that setting the stack lenciency to a point where there exist two consecutive objects in the map that are perfectly stacked is forbidden ?

(with better wording, of course)

EDIT: I mean not stacked. As in perfectly on top of one another.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
The problem is the context. Is this a 1/1 or a 1/2 rhythm? What about longer periods such as a half or full measure? What bpm?
Shiro
Global Moderator
4,984 posts
Joined May 2009
Shiro
I'd vouch for any rhythm faster than 1/1 included.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
I'm used to 1/1 rhythms stacking unless the BPM is really low (since stack leniency works with time intervals) though. I'm willing to give on it though. It'd be nice to hear more input though...
Charles445
Elite Mapper II: Aspirant / osu! Paragon
2,881 posts
Joined March 2009
Charles445
I propose the removal of this rule entirely. Here's why.

Stacking as a function appears to provide two uses - visual appeal and readability.
  1. Good looks do not determine rankability. No rules exist in standard for good looks, and there's a reason for that. It's up to the mapper to decide how their map is going to be portrayed visually. Because of this, I will only talk about the stack leniency rule for its function in gameplay: readability.

    Stack leniency can effect the readability of two types of objects, circles and sliders.
  2. Circles are inherently readable. Because circles have no tracks and have approach circles, they are always readable when on the playing field.
    Whether stacked or under a slider at any point, the position of circles can be determined by its approach circle alone. Because of this, I will only talk about the stack leniency rule's effect on readability on gameplay elements that can have readability effected by it.

    This leaves only sliders. Stack leniency as a rule is only relevant to the use of readability for sliders. The rule would be pointless if sliders were already taken care of by other rules.
  3. Sliders are already taken care of by other rules.
    Namely the rule Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. This rule alone takes care of readability for sliders.
Time for review.

Stack leniency is used for readability and visual flair.
Visual flair has no weight on ranking standards.
Hitcircles are inherently readable.
Other rules take care of readability for sliders.

This leaves nothing for stack leniency to take care of and no reason for it to stay in the ranking criteria.
It's better off in Guidelines or completely gone.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Alright, after talking with Charles, I find it agreeable to make a push to set this as a guideline instead, along with rewording to a simplified format:

Stack leniency must not be set to a point where stacking no longer occurs. This setting is used if stacking is damaging to patterns that exist in a map. It is usually a good idea to keep it enabled.
mm201
osu! Alumni
4,495 posts
Joined August 2008
mm201
I stand by my original, functional definition: Don't have any rules regarding the stacking leniency number; instead, have a guideline against perfectly overlapping consecutive objects. What qualifies depends on AR and the other things happening in the map.
Charles445
Elite Mapper II: Aspirant / osu! Paragon
2,881 posts
Joined March 2009
Charles445

mm201 wrote:

I stand by my original, functional definition: Don't have any rules regarding the stacking leniency number; instead, have a guideline against perfectly overlapping consecutive objects. What qualifies depends on AR and the other things happening in the map.
This would be excellent.
Charles445
Elite Mapper II: Aspirant / osu! Paragon
2,881 posts
Joined March 2009
Charles445
So are we moving this to guidelines soon?
Putting a bubble on this because it seems we're agreeing on the move.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Yeah, Ill reword my first post to mm's version when im not hobble.bu alvohol and phone

Edit: SHAZAM!
Kodora
Kodora
Support!
benguin
277 posts
Joined January 2012
benguin
i'm in agreement with the most recent definition as a guideline
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Topic Starter
Garven
Whoops, forgot about this. I'm thinking it's good to go.
Kodora
Kodora
omg awesome <3
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 22