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

Rule Rewording (std): Avoid off-screen caused by stacks+HR/EZ

posted
Total Posts
8
pw384
2,286 posts
Joined January 2012
Topic Starter
pw384
Currently osu!std RC says:

osu! ranking criteria Overall-General-Rules wrote:

Hit objects must never be off-screen in 4:3 aspect ratios. Hit objects that are even partially off-screen can create reading difficulties. Test play your beatmap to confirm this.
However it is possible for a stack which is not off-screen in None to go beyond the playfield with EZ or HR, due to the following three reasons:
1. EZ reduces circle size, and hence increases the shift of stack;
2. EZ increases stack leniency, causing some patterns to get stacked which were not with None;
3. HR flips the playfield but does not change the direction of auto stack.

It is very easy to create working examples for all of them, so I just skip the screenshot.

I think it can be reworded so as to be more specific about the effect of mods.
Hit objects must never be off-screen in 4:3 aspect ratios. This includes off-screens caused by game modifiers Easy and Hardrock. Hit objects that are even partially off-screen can create reading difficulties. Test play your beatmap with None, Easy and Hardrock to confirm this.
lewski
1,253 posts
Joined September 2014
lewski
If stacks are your main concern, I think the wording of the rule should reflect that. With the current suggested wording, the bottom 4 pixels of the playfield would be off-limits at CS4, since even regular circles clip the edge of the screen when placed near the bottom at CS2. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about those on EZ, and frankly, I just don't want to have to be super conscious of the bottom pixels of the playfield when I'm mapping normally.
[[[[[[
878 posts
Joined August 2019
[[[[[[

lewski wrote:

If stacks are your main concern, I think the wording of the rule should reflect that. With the current suggested wording, the bottom 4 pixels of the playfield would be off-limits at CS4, since even regular circles clip the edge of the screen when placed near the bottom at CS2. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about those on EZ, and frankly, I just don't want to have to be super conscious of the bottom pixels of the playfield when I'm mapping normally.
^ like ez and hr is suppose to be weird mods (at least in my eye), unless maybe it's an almost unhit-able object then yeah
pw384
2,286 posts
Joined January 2012
Topic Starter
pw384

lewski wrote:

If stacks are your main concern, I think the wording of the rule should reflect that. With the current suggested wording, the bottom 4 pixels of the playfield would be off-limits at CS4, since even regular circles clip the edge of the screen when placed near the bottom at CS2. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about those on EZ, and frankly, I just don't want to have to be super conscious of the bottom pixels of the playfield when I'm mapping normally.
What I mean is, there are some more extreme cases caused by extensive stacking. Here is an example.

Suppose a map is CS 3.4 (so the auto-stacking will cause a 4 pixels x 4 pixels shifting) and there is a 25-note stacking at y = 368 with a reasonable x. In None this will not ruin gameplay because the first note's y is 368 - 24 * 4 = 272. However, in HR, CS is boosted to 4.42, the shifting changes to 4 * 34.5984 / 39.168 = 3.5333 pixels. As notes are flipped, the end of stacking is 384 - 368 = 16, and hence the first note's y is 16 - 24 * 3.5333 = -68.8, which is clearly off-screen.

Another example involves slider stacking. Take a look at the following pattern (I turned off in-editor stacking)
image
Due to stacking, in None, this pattern appears to be
image
Note that the lowest slider is more than 80 pixels above the bottom of playfield. However, with HR, it looks like
image
which is ruined.

The two examples actually have once happened (with the latter being more of an off-screen disaster because there were more sliders), right before the first and second nomination come, respectively. However, current Ranking Criteria doesn't consider this.
Last edited by pw384 , edited 2 times in total.
lewski
1,253 posts
Joined September 2014
lewski

pw384 wrote:

What I mean is, there are some more extreme cases caused by extensive stacking.
yeah

lewski wrote:

If stacks are your main concern, I think the wording of the rule should reflect that.
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
this has been discussed before. summary: ez was too hard to avoid cuz cs2 makes it so anything near the edges just goes off; hard rock, as long as it wasnt unhittable, the player is responsible for things unintendedly happening due to the mapper intending map to be played nomod, not hard rock
qwt
954 posts
Joined January 2020
qwt
no lmao
pw384
2,286 posts
Joined January 2012
Topic Starter
pw384

Nao Tomori wrote:

this has been discussed before. summary: ez was too hard to avoid cuz cs2 makes it so anything near the edges just goes off; hard rock, as long as it wasnt unhittable, the player is responsible for things unintendedly happening due to the mapper intending map to be played nomod, not hard rock
Seems fair enough and thank you for the information! I think this thread can go archived
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 8