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

[Proposal - Mania] Remove Guidelines regarding SVs

posted
Total Posts
28
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken
Hello there! I'll be proposing the removal of the following guidelines for mania:

Hard:
Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable within 1/2 of a beat or more.
Insane:
Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable within 1/4 of a beat or more when unnormalized and 1/2 of a beat or more when normalized.
The main concern with these guidelines is that no one (asked a couple BNs) seems to know what exactly these two mean, making it practically useless as we can't enforce them either. Normalized SVs are nearly always reactable (sightreadable) unless you put a high value at the far end of an SV, and even then it depends on the player's scroll speed about when they can see what comes next.

I feel like this guideline brings more confusion than it actually helps control quality. Honestly, the fact that most (if not all) people don't know what this guideline means should be reason enough for this guideline to be useless. Which is why I think these guidelines should be removed.

As always feel free to give your own insights and opinions!

EDIT:
Summary of what has been discussed below:
General consensus seems to be that the guidelines should be either completely removed or adjusted. (or Hard should be adjusted and Insane guideline removed).

Removing guidelines would make every SV map case by case
Adjusting them would create a baseline, but limit it a bit
Last edited by Roasted Chicken , edited 2 times in total.
Phukiir
145 posts
Joined June 2014
Phukiir
There are several methods that could make sv gimmicks reactable, but yeah, even it's normalized, sometimes it still depends on scroll speed. e.g. for long-term nomalization lasting more than 1/2 of a beat, Sometimes players using high scroll speed would not see the start of normalization which means normalization doesn't work for them.

Personally as a sv mapper I did't refer to these two guidelines so much when I made svs, and most of the time I tried to make svs reactable by my own understanding. However tbh idk what would happen if these two are removed, i believe BNs would point out awkward svs but it's also good to remind mappers of importance of sv gimmicks' playability? Maybe change them into something less mandatory and easier to understand would help?

For example, simply change them to "Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable" to give some more freedom, or add the explaination of normalization(and some other glossaries of svs maybe) into this ranking criteria to make sv guidelines detailed.

I would perfer some more detailed explanations honestly.
Last edited by Phukiir , edited 1 time in total.
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken
However tbh idk what would happen if these two are removed, i believe BNs would point out awkward svs
Well we already do that, which is why I don't think removing the guideline actually changes anything as to how we check maps, or how mappers map their maps.

For example, simply change them to "Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable" to give some more freedom, or add the explaination of normalization(and some other glossaries of svs maybe) into this ranking criteria to make sv guidelines detailed.
I'm open for rewording the guideline, but this is a bit too vague imo. Either way, adding an explanation to the glossary as to what normalized is would also be practically useless, no newer mapper that starts off mapping SVs will understand what normalized is, or how to make them with just a 2 sentence explanation. Like you said it needs a more detailed explanation, but I don't think that fits in the ranking criteria?
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen
I'm not sure why it should be removed, to me it's already pretty clear (those guidelines actually explained more than just "normalized" for new mapper - mapper that still confused about what SV should be used).

Mostly they only rely with math which is not absolute & has different formula, which is bring more confusion & enforced them to obey existed formula (as far as i remember, there are 2 formulas by: abraker & Dubstek)(P.S: those from 2018 - before)
Last edited by Noch Einen , edited 1 time in total.
yetii
175 posts
Joined August 2015
yetii

Noch Einen wrote:

I'm not sure why it should be removed, to me it's already pretty clear (those guidelines actually explained more than just "normalized" for new mapper - mapper that still confused about what SV should be used).

Mostly they only rely with math with is not absolute & has different formula, which is bring more confusion & enforced them to obey existed formula (as far as i remember, there are 2 formulas by: abraker & Dubstek)(P.S: those from 2018 - before)
How does the RC even remotely explain what normalised SV's are... Also I don't understand your second point? Are you trying to say that players need to follow certain formulas to get normalised SV's? (Which obviously is the case)


Anyways I think the the RC is way too vague and literally nobody I know considers those factors when mapping SV's. Especially since non normalised is very subjective and usually done by beginners(that don't know better) or those with enough expertise in SV's to pull them off properly. I think feedback through mods about readability is the way to go as you can discuss the reasoning behind the sv's (especially if not normalised)
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen
Based on my second line is: most mapper that is new to SV are don't know what to do to make it normalized, so some modder or BN would fix that with whatever formula they have in mind (assuming this is for people who's experienced on SV) to proceed ranked.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

Noch Einen wrote:

I'm not sure why it should be removed, to me it's already pretty clear (those guidelines actually explained more than just "normalized" for new mapper - mapper that still confused about what SV should be used).

Mostly they only rely with math with is not absolute & has different formula, which is bring more confusion & enforced them to obey existed formula (as far as i remember, there are 2 formulas by: abraker & Dubstek)(P.S: those from 2018 - before)
Oh hey I'm mentioned!

I am not sure what sv related formulas you are referring to. The closest related thing I remember touching is scroll velocity formula here from this thread.

SV wording in that RC guideline were made between this and this thread, and I don't recall mentioning SV related portions of the proposal during that time.
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen

abraker wrote:

Oh hey I'm mentioned!
Idk if you remember this abraker community/forums/topics/611233?n=44 (actually epic, its exact 3 years from now)
Last edited by Noch Einen , edited 2 times in total.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

Noch Einen wrote:

abraker wrote:

Oh hey I'm mentioned!
Idk if you remember this abraker community/forums/topics/611233?n=44 (actually epic, its exact 3 years from now)
One of the few things I actually didn't remember. Honestly if you want cite actual sv theory you are better off going with Evening's sv crash course
AncuL
1,114 posts
Joined March 2013
AncuL
knowing there's no objective way to judge SVs (a normalized SV section can be unreadable and unnormalized one can still be perfectly fine) why don't we just look at it on a case-by-case basis?

Sillyp wrote:

For example, simply change them to "Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable" to give some more freedom
that would limit freedom on maps that are fundamentally meant not to be reacted to, no?

also wtf abraker is GMT? o.o
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken

Noch Einen wrote:

Based on my second line is: most mapper that is new to SV are don't know what to do to make it normalized, so some modder or BN would fix that with whatever formula they have in mind (assuming this is for people who's experienced on SV) to proceed ranked.
Which is why I think having the guidelines removed would make more sense. They are meant to be there for setting a quality standard, which it currently just doesn't do.
I think most (if not all) mappers and modders just make and judge SVs on feeling, and not through a number "1/2 beat to react to the SV". If an SV plays like shit it will be pointed out.


AncuL wrote:

knowing there's no objective way to judge SVs (a normalized SV section can be unreadable and unnormalized one can still be perfectly fine) why don't we just look at it on a case-by-case basis?
case-by-case sounds way more ideal, since defining what reactable and normalized means is just not possible in 1 or 2 sentences in the RC, new mappers won't understand the guideline, while more advanced (sv) mappers don't need the guidelines either as they already make fine SVs.
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen

Roasted Chicken wrote:

Which is why I think having the guidelines removed would make more sense.
I think most (if not all) mappers and modders just make and judge SVs on feeling, and not through a number "1/2 beat to react to the SV".
I think these 2 are clashing against each others. The problem i saw is only "whether player/mappers are actually read & understanding the RC or not", because as you stated "judge SVs on feeling and not through a number".
To me, removing guidelines would make confusion even more, it's just matter of people read & understand RC or not then adjust the SV how it should be appropriate. Even though if there are no exact value that should be used, but as long as it's predictable (not always readable), i consider it fine (ofc with adjusting to music's intensity).

Case-by-case most likely reasonable & ideal idea since we're working on & as community (creator & player + modder + BN).
Unless, its just a circlejerk among friend & groups h3h3h3 dont read this spoiler unless you curious, reader discretion advised
Last edited by Noch Einen , edited 1 time in total.
_VianK_
785 posts
Joined August 2015
_VianK_

Noch Einen wrote:

Roasted Chicken wrote:

Which is why I think having the guidelines removed would make more sense.
I think most (if not all) mappers and modders just make and judge SVs on feeling, and not through a number "1/2 beat to react to the SV".
I think these 2 are clashing against each others. The problem i saw is only "whether player/mappers are actually read & understanding the RC or not", because as you stated "judge SVs on feeling and not through a number".
To me, removing guidelines would make confusion even more, it's just matter of people read & understand RC or not then adjust the SV how it should be appropriate. Even though if there are no exact value that should be used, but as long as it's predictable (not always readable), i consider it fine (ofc with adjusting to music's intensity).

Case-by-case most likely reasonable & ideal idea since we're working on & as community (creator & player + modder + BN).
Unless, its just a circlejerk among friend & groups h3h3h3 dont read this spoiler unless you curious, reader discretion advised
I absolutely agree with these. I think that was standarisation, so needn't to remove.

Then, what do you think if a mapper put 1/4 or 1/3 sightreadable SV on HD diff and they wont change it coz not stated in RC? Actually 1/2 SV in HD diff is already hard enough for play since the player at this tier still learning how to determine the song rythm it self, not just like hit the notes randomly.

I think 1/2 beat is very hard tbh. It should be 1/1 😅😅😌😌
Last edited by _VianK_ , edited 2 times in total.
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken

_VianK_ wrote:

Noch Einen wrote:

Roasted Chicken wrote:

Which is why I think having the guidelines removed would make more sense.
I think most (if not all) mappers and modders just make and judge SVs on feeling, and not through a number "1/2 beat to react to the SV".
I think these 2 are clashing against each others. The problem i saw is only "whether player/mappers are actually read & understanding the RC or not", because as you stated "judge SVs on feeling and not through a number".
To me, removing guidelines would make confusion even more, it's just matter of people read & understand RC or not then adjust the SV how it should be appropriate. Even though if there are no exact value that should be used, but as long as it's predictable (not always readable), i consider it fine (ofc with adjusting to music's intensity).

Case-by-case most likely reasonable & ideal idea since we're working on & as community (creator & player + modder + BN).
Unless, its just a circlejerk among friend & groups h3h3h3 dont read this spoiler unless you curious, reader discretion advised
I absolutely agree with these. I think that was standarisation, so needn't to remove.

Then, what do you think if a mapper put 1/4 or 1/3 sightreadable SV on HD diff and they wont change it coz not stated in RC? Actually 1/2 SV in HD diff is already hard enough for play since the player at this tier still learning how to determine the song rythm it self, not just like hit the notes randomly.

I think 1/2 beat is very hard tbh. It should be 1/1 😅😅😌😌
again, quoting what AncuL said:
knowing there's no objective way to judge SVs (a normalized SV section can be unreadable and unnormalized one can still be perfectly fine) why don't we just look at it on a case-by-case basis?
A 1/4th sightreadable SV (assuming normalized) can be made to be just as easy (or easier) than a 1/1 sightreadable SV. If you make the SV right, it can be super ass to play even with a 1/1 gap, and vice versa for 1/4th and 1/2. So again, it's too case by case imo
_VianK_
785 posts
Joined August 2015
_VianK_
Well yeah... It was very accordingly by the how the mapper use the SV
Evening
2,464 posts
Joined December 2012
Evening
My opinion is that guidelines should be vague, generic, and most importantly simple to understand.

Agreeing with what Sillyp mentioned (2nd Post in Thread),

Just make it "SVs should be easy to read for easier difficulties."

then BNs can handle case by case,

--

If they care about how to make it easier to read just extend with

"[...] easier difficulties. <url=normalization_guide>Normalized SVs are generally easier to read.</url>"

I recommend my crash course as linked by abraker above if they want a thorough understanding using visuals. Probably good to create a derived wiki page though

My Guide to SVs

--

Noch Einen wrote:

...
Mostly they only rely with math which is not absolute & has different formula, which is bring more confusion & enforced them to obey existed formula (as far as i remember, there are 2 formulas by: abraker & Dubstek)(P.S: those from 2018 - before)
However, just so that it's clear, there's a mathematical formula to create a normalized SV, not sure where you're getting multiple formulas from.

Skipping the mathematical jargon, it's as simple as calculating the average speed of anything over a small distance.

The example shown below in (General Formula) can be rephrased as

Evening wrote:

I walk for 1.5m/s for 0.5m, then 0.75m/s for 0.25m, 2.5m/s for 0.75m.
What's my average speed? (It's 1.875m/s)
General Formula
LaTeX Code
\left(\sum_{i=0}^{n}Speed_i \cdot Length_i\right)\big/\left(\sum Length\right) = Speed_{Average}\\

=\underbrace{(Speed_0 * Length_0 + Speed_1 * Length_1 + ...) / (Length_0 + Length_1 + ...)}_{(Eq. 1 )}\\
=\underbrace{(Speed_0 * \frac{Length_0}{\sum Length}) + (Speed_1 * \frac{Length_1}{\sum Length}) + ...}_{(Eq. 2)}\\
\\
\text{Example: 1.5x (1/2) + 0.75x (1/4) + 2.5 (3/4)}\\\\

\text{Equation 1} \\

=[(1.5 * 1/2) + (0.75 * 1/4) + (2.5 * 3/4)] / (1/2 + 1/4 + 3/4)\\
=[0.75 + 0.1875 + 1.875] / (1.5)\\
=1.875\\\\

\text{Equation 2} \\

=[\frac{1.5 * 1/2}{1/2 + 1/4 + 3/4} + \frac{0.75 * 1/4}{1/2 + 1/4 + 3/4} + \frac{2.5 * 3/4}{1/2 + 1/4 + 3/4}] \\
=0.5 + 0.125 + 1.25\\
=1.875

--

Side Note

1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/n SV Normalization terms are too complicated.
New mappers will not know what those terms mean, make them layman
Last edited by Evening , edited 3 times in total.
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen

Evening wrote:

not sure where you're getting multiple formulas from.
several maps in the past (i only caught & remember some) such as: beatmapsets/842514/discussion/1912827/timeline?user=9555243
https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/611233?n=44

Evening wrote:

My opinion is that guidelines should be vague, generic, and most importantly simple to understand.
@chicken, again, removal isn't needed imo, some words or sentence could be added on wiki (focusing on RC mania).
Guidelines removal may be fine since there are no explaination about normalization. But ehhhh, we could make things even clearer than current if you think its just too vague / difficult to understand. By common sense its actually easy to understand just by few words below.

Evening wrote:

"SVs should be easy to read for easier difficulties."
My suggestion is too add words about normalization (under Short-term slider velocity) & Evening's SV guide.
  1. Common terms
    Normalization: Slider velocity that does not change the snap placement interval with upcoming notes.
Last edited by Noch Einen , edited 3 times in total.
Evening
2,464 posts
Joined December 2012
Evening

Noch Einen wrote:

several maps in the past (i only caught & remember some) such as: beatmapsets/842514/discussion/1912827/timeline?user=9555243
https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/611233?n=44
Dubstek's calculation is fine i suppose? It's 20 months ago so I'm sure they can explain it better now

The idea is there, they just used percentages instead of fractions.

e.g.

Percantage Calculation
1.5 * 50(%) + 0.5 * 50(%) = 100(%)

Decimal
1.5 * 0.5 + 0.5 * 0.5 = 1

Fractional
1.5x * 1/2 + 0.5x * 1/2 = 1
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen
Ya, i can understand it too after few week
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken

Noch Einen wrote:

@chicken, again, removal isn't needed imo, some words or sentence could be added on wiki (focusing on RC mania).
Guidelines removal may be fine since there are no explaination about normalization. But ehhhh, we could make things even clearer than current if you think its just too vague / difficult to understand. By common sense its actually easy to understand just by few words below.
If normalization is used in a guideline it should 100% be in the common terms/glossary, but what I'm afraid of is that 1 sentence for normalization just isn't enough, I suppose Evening's guide can be added?

Anyways how about something like this then for hard diff guideline
SVs should be easy to predict and read, as players at this level are still new to SVs.
I wouldn't really know what to do for insane diff guideline tho? As this should just be the hard diff guideline, but with more leniency?
Last edited by Roasted Chicken , edited 3 times in total.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
Anyways how about something like this then for hard diff guideline
SVs should be easy to predict and read, as players at this level are still new to SVs.
idk if this guideline accomplishes anything. As a guideline it should be guiding mappers to make sv appropriate for players at this level. Saying it should be "easy to predict and read" accomplishes little because ofc it's common sense to make svs easy to predict and read at that level. As a statement it would make sense only as a rule, but as a guideline it has no weight because it can be ignored under "special circumstances".
lenpai
1,780 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai
Insane guidelines should just be removed 100% since it wouldn't consider memorization elements and soflan (ex. long term slowjams and fastjams) and is usually the spot where a good bunch of sv challenge charts are.

The current hard guideline i believe comes from reacting to slowjams and transitioning out of slowjams in conjunction with long term sv guidelines but doesn't consider jump / bump svs.

I think what a new hard guideline should do is to discourage the usage of unpredictable, memorization based, or difficult to read svs but im not too sure how it should be worded. Removing it and leaving any usage up to the discretion of other BNs is also alright but may lead up to some arguments in the future.

NOTE: Guideline and not Rule! Because there can be very edge cases of such usages can work in favor of a hard diff.
Last edited by lenpai , edited 3 times in total.
AncuL
1,114 posts
Joined March 2013
AncuL
if we're really going to add something to RC, I'd agree with lenpai's suggestion. I don't think bringing normalization up is necessary tbh, with the reason that I said earlier . it's not like unnormalized maps are automatically going to be bad or suck to play
Feerum
osu! Alumni
2,042 posts
Joined August 2014
Feerum
Greetings!

My opinion to the suggestion from the opening post:

I am definitely against a complete removal of these SV related guidelines. The reason is pretty simple, if we remove these there will be absolute no control/limit anymore for SV changes in Hard and Insane difficulties.

Sure, we can say "common sense" or "Case by Case judgement by the BNs" but what if there comes the day (and i am pretty sure, it would) when a BN considers heavy SV usage in a Hard difficulty as alright?

They would be allowed to proceed since we would have no rule or guideline preventing it.

Therefore i think rewording it to something that makes more sense and is easy understandable by the majority is a much better way than completely removing it. Case by Case judgement should then only apply to very specific cases.

----

In my opinion hard can contain SVs but they should be easy to react/read. No heavy stutter, jumps or teleports (or whatever terms they have these days) at all in Hard difficulties.

Insane can be more, well "insane" SV usage then. And Expert stays at it is, without much of a limitation.

----

And just for the general information: Feel free to also suggest term clarification which explains specific words when they are used in any rule or guideline.

As i myself am not much into SVs i would prefer other to come up with wording suggestions! When there is something the majority can accept, please edit the opening post with the suggestion so that it is easier to find by everyone and they can give their opinion on it.
lenpai
1,780 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai
To be able to create guidelines for Insane level SVs, we first need to define what constitutes Insane level SVs and to what degree is set apart from Expert level SVs.

Insanes are the point where the values and duration of SVs that can be used broadens a whole lot as more reactive, reading, and memorization heavy elements are introduced. This is where the players try to make their own visual or audio cues to help hon hitting certain sections and start developing the ability to play much slower slowjams. To limit Insane SV guidelines to certain values would be a disservice to this potential so something vauge and general would be the go-to option like what Evening said if we need to have a guideline. Though im not too sure on how to word it.

I've seen a few stuff mentioning that "this sv is good for ranked" or "this sv is not good for ranked but nice map" + the fact that low density sv challenge charts are already a rarity in ranked. I think it's also a good point of consideration that a good bunch of what people may consider to be "Expert" SVs already go as to resorting to heavy red line usages. Additionally, do we have something ranked right now that would be consdiered an "Expert" level SV? If so, then we would have a baseline for the creation of Insane guidelines. Otherwise, the need to make guidelines for Insane SVs is unnecessary.
AncuL
1,114 posts
Joined March 2013
AncuL

Feerum wrote:

Sure, we can say "common sense" or "Case by Case judgement by the BNs" but what if there comes the day (and i am pretty sure, it would) when a BN considers heavy SV usage in a Hard difficulty as alright?
Even so, some wall-text discussions and justifications would likely end in approval of said map, especially that it's just a guideline. Either way, it's not much different than just checking it case by case basis lol
Last edited by AncuL , edited 1 time in total.
Roasted Chicken
264 posts
Joined December 2016
Topic Starter
Roasted Chicken

lenpai wrote:

To be able to create guidelines for Insane level SVs, we first need to define what constitutes Insane level SVs and to what degree is set apart from Expert level SVs.
I don't really think there's a difference between "insane" and "expert" level SVs, because something like memorization doesn't exactly fit well within these catagories. If we for instance take Fuego as example, it's 3 years old but I think it'd still be perfectly fine in todays standards. The top diff has elements of memorization but is an insane.

I think Hard should be where SVs could be introduced and Insane should just be where anything is allowed. Just a guideline stating something like "SVs that feature memorization aspects are not recommended" should be fine?
Last edited by Roasted Chicken , edited 2 times in total.
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,685 posts
Joined April 2012
Noffy
Archiving due to the thread stalling for quite a long time (5+ months) if you feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed still, please ask a NAT/GMT to move the thread and we can see about bringing this to the community table again.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 28