Currently, the rule about song compilations of two songs is worded as follows:

To my knowledge, this rule was made only to prevent the evasion of spread requirements by stitching two songs together to hit 5 minutes ("R3 extensions"). This was agreed to not be in the better interest of the game, since spread rules maintain the stream of content for all skill levels of players while not putting unnecessary extra work on mappers.

When this rule was made, it was being discussed with many other proposals all at the same time in this thread. While some did voice concerns about it, it ended up being brushed aside because of how much else was being discussed all in the same thread.

In the end, I believe the way this rule was put in place is far too strict and disallows way more than should be banned, considering the intention was only to prevent mappers from unfairly circumventing spread requirements. "Exclusively released together" is an extremely specific criterion that has nothing to do with the actual reason behind the rule being implemented and applies to a very small portion of mapsets that should have been considered acceptable mapsets of 2 songs.

We have already seen the negative effects of this with mapsets such as "The Deceit / The Violation" by Mazzerin, which had to be split into two mapsets despite the songs working well together and the mapset clearly not intending to evade spread rules like the R3 extensions were (Deceit and Violation are both 5 minutes on their own)

Whether you like song compilations or not, I think it's fair to say the amount of "lackluster" in playing a compilation matters a lot more on how well the songs fit with one another and if there's a good flow between them rather than how many songs there are. There's nothing more lackluster about playing a 2 song "compilation" rather than a 3 song compilation if the songs work well with one another.

This rule should be reworded in a way that maintains a fair requirement for full spread content while avoiding a ban on 2-song mp3s that aren't any different in quality to compilations of 3 songs.

I propose a change to:
as well as adding "song compilation", defined as something like "a mapset of an audio file containing three or more songs, fully or partially" back to the Glossary, to clarify that song compilation exceptions in spread rules don't apply to two songs stuck together, as they are not song compilations.


TL;DR -
Allow mapsets incorporating 2 songs as long as they follow spread requirements corresponding to the length of the longer of the two songs. Still disallows spread evasion with R3 extensions, but makes the rule more fair for mapsets that would be considered just as acceptable as 3+ song compilations.



edit history:
- changed it so that it doesn't call 2 songs a compilation when it's been previously established that it isn't, and also suggested adding it back to the glossary
- added back exception from the original rule to avoid unintentionally added restrictions

yes

r3 wasnt the only thing this was for, it was just the catalyst. there were several things being considered at the time, and a lot of the weirder sounding stuff from that thread came from discussions with higher staff.

this was never intended to ban people from making mp3s with only 2 songs, they were just not considered to fall under the glossary definition of "compilation" that was originally attached to the rc page. so since they weren't compilations, they couldnt fall under the compilation exemption to the spread rules. but they could always still be mapped, theyd just need each mp3 to still fit the spread rules for their respective lengths. this was far more clear before the site was redesigned to not have glossaries anymore (this change actually fucked a lot lot of stuff up and i have yet to go back to fix stuff bc i am ded)

i am ok with rewording this to make it a bit more clear they arent banned entirely but the current suggested wording is unsatisfactory bc it implies that 2 songs together is a "compilation" which does not fit the definition. simply changing the line "should be broken up into separate beatmapsets" into "and cannot be used to circumvent the respective mp3's required lowest difficulties" or something along those lines should fix this.

UndeadCapulet wrote:

i am ok with rewording this to make it a bit more clear they arent banned entirely but the current suggested wording is unsatisfactory bc it implies that 2 songs together is a "compilation" which does not fit the definition. simply changing the line "should be broken up into separate beatmapsets" into "and cannot be used to circumvent the respective mp3's required lowest difficulties" or something along those lines should fix this.

some more specific context in what im about to say is missing bc i talked with them on discord but to summarize(?):

- current guideline says "should be split into multiple beatmapsets" which implies they aren't allowed altogether, which UC says was not the intention. also, it's phrased as a rule in the guidelines section which makes it weird

- turns out, "song compilation" is no longer defined as "an mp3 containing portions of 3 or more songs" in the glossary, like it used to be
- my thought: just from the wording alone it's also kind of understandable to take "song compilation" in a literal sense which would also encompass 2 songs compiled together
- therefore to the existing rules on song compilations, "of 3 or more songs" should be added

Though, a lot of people know song compilations as a definition of requiring 3+ songs, so maybe it would be better to rephrase the rule entirely. For now i will update the OP to include the wording change and then go to sleep because ive been talking about ranking criteria for 3.5 hours and it's noon

What about "a majority of songs must match in intensity" and because 50% isn't a majority, so unsatisfying mixes like described wouldn't be accepted. 2 songs would be fine if they were in similar intensity (I would say within ~2 stars of difficulty is fine).

icytors wrote:

What about "a majority of songs must match in intensity" and because 50% isn't a majority, so unsatisfying mixes like described wouldn't be accepted. 2 songs would be fine if they were in similar intensity (I would say within a 3 stars of difficulty is fine).

Just because the entire song doesn't match in intensity doesn't mean it can't fit well though? Single songs can have calm sections in between two intense sections too. It's not so much intensity that decides if 2 songs fit together.

Purplegaze wrote:

icytors wrote:

What about "a majority of songs must match in intensity" and because 50% isn't a majority, so unsatisfying mixes like described wouldn't be accepted. 2 songs would be fine if they were in similar intensity (I would say within a 3 stars of difficulty is fine).

Just because the entire song doesn't match in intensity doesn't mean it can't fit well though? Single songs can have calm sections in between two intense sections too. It's not so much intensity that decides if 2 songs fit together.

I don't typically see calm sections of songs being highlighted in compilations... but if it were included, I'm only talking about the max intensity.

icytors wrote:

I don't typically see calm sections of songs being highlighted in compilations... but if it were included, I'm only talking about the max intensity.

Still, (max) intensity doesn't determine if 2 songs go together well. Intensity isn't the only things songs can share in common to flow into one another. This is also not just talking about sections of songs being spliced together but also 2 entire songs one after the other, which can flow into each other much more easily even if one song is more intense than the other, just depending on how they're structured.

But besides that, this is kind of irrelevant to what my proposal is, because evasion of spread rules is the concern here, not whether or not people will rank weird combinations of 2 songs. It's not like they'd be able to do anything weird that can't already be done with 3 songs. All that my reword would do is unban mapsets of 2 songs while still preventing them from evading spread rules, because the spread rules thing is the reason that 2-song mapsets were (intentionally or not) banned in the first place.

for starters, I didn't read the whole thread since don't have the time for it at the moment, so sorry about possible ignorance

couple comments however

Purplegaze wrote:

We have already seen the negative effects of this with mapsets such as "The Deceit / The Violation" by Mazzerin, which had to be split into two mapsets despite the songs working well together and the mapset clearly not intending to evade spread rules like the R3 extensions were (Deceit and Violation are both 5 minutes on their own)

I didn't follow too closely what discussion happened with this set, but it absolute did not "have to be split". This may have been the enforcement back when it originally was uploaded, I don't remember, but surely not when this split actually happened far more recently. At the very least I didn't catch the whiff of such from my chats with Mazz, but perhaps I'm wrong. Seemed more like the intention was to have the whole piece in loved, and more accessible versions (singular ones) in ranked.

Additionally, album version Violation is actually not 5 minutes, the middle part is all in Deceit, but the loophole was Mazzerin using the official video version. Anyhow, that's a different topic

For the actual topic,

Purplegaze wrote:

A mapset of 2 songs combined together must follow the minimum spread requirements corresponding to the length of the longer song. This is to avoid the artificial extension of songs as an evasion of time limitations in the beatmapset section of this criteria.

I don't know why the compilation was edited from here rather than rewording it with it better. If the TLDR is "allow compilations of 2 songs as long as ...", wording the rule without compilation is seriously weird move, as now it targets also the mapsets with two songs that are not compilations. (EDIT: or perhaps better move is to just add exception phrase like in the current one, rather than messing around with the integrity of the "compilation" term meaning)

So with that in mind, as it is currently worded, in addition to allowing spread-complying 2 song-compilations, it will add restrictions to the multipart songs that were exclusively allowed in the previous rule, meaning songs that are supposed to go together will suddenly need a spread if neither of them is over 5 minutes standalone. Considering you also mention these kind of restrictions as one problem in your post, this feels quite contradictory to me.

Anyway, the basic idea of spread-based allowance seems intriguing, just please don't arbitrarily target the combined songs when it was originally the intention to exclude them from this purge.

TheKingHenry wrote:

I didn't follow too closely what discussion happened with this set, but it absolute did not "have to be split".

Fair enough. I never talked to Mazzerin or anything, I just always overwhelmingly heard everywhere when it was split that it was due to this RC rule, so I assumed it was the reason.

TheKingHenry wrote:

I don't know why the compilation was edited from here rather than rewording it with it better. If the TLDR is "allow compilations of 2 songs as long as ...", wording the rule without compilation is seriously weird move, as now it targets also the mapsets with two songs that are not compilations. (EDIT: or perhaps better move is to just add exception phrase like in the current one, rather than messing around with the integrity of the "compilation" term meaning)

So with that in mind, as it is currently worded, in addition to allowing spread-complying 2 song-compilations, it will add restrictions to the multipart songs that were exclusively allowed in the previous rule, meaning songs that are supposed to go together will suddenly need a spread if neither of them is over 5 minutes standalone. Considering you also mention these kind of restrictions as one problem in your post, this feels quite contradictory to me.

Perhaps it should be specified somewhere what exactly a "song compilation" is, then, because if this is true it seems I was totally mistaken in what the rule actually means. I'll try to explain my thoughts when writing this proposal and then editing it:

- "Song compilation" isn't defined in the RC or glossary. Since this wasn't the case, I read it in a literal sense, meaning "a mapset combining portions or entireties of 2 or more songs", i.e., multiple songs compiled together.
When I asked some people about it, I got the impression that this was the rule used to disallow spread circumvention via R3 extensions; however, since the wording of "unless the songs were exclusively released together" is so strict, I read this rule as if it effectively banned any sort of mapset of 2 songs from being ranked. (the wording: "and should be broken up into separate beatmapsets")
- After UC's reply, I learned that "song compilation" actually is supposed to be defined as having 3+ songs in the definition. I didn't know this, as it had been removed from the glossary some time in the past before I learned of it, so my thought was to edit the wording to no longer call it a compilation as it isn't one, and suggest it be added back to the glossary since it seems like it's an important point.

You are correct that I didn't think of the added restrictions it would add to the songs that were supposed to be together. That was unintentional, so I will add "Exceptions can be made for songs that were exclusively released together." back into the proposed adjustment.

Is there any other way you think this should be worded? I was only hesitant to call a map incorporating 2 songs a "compilation" because I learned that it wasn't defined this way in the past.

Purplegaze wrote:

Is there any other way you think this should be worded? I was only hesitant to call a map incorporating 2 songs a "compilation" because I learned that it wasn't defined this way in the past.

With the exception included just like the old one, the wording itself seems otherwise generally fine. It is indeed best to not mess with the word compilation when this rule is talking about 2 songs only, as per definitions like you mentioned.

Another thought though, I'd personally prefer "shorter song" instead of "longer song" for the drain requirements. The basis for this rule is to allow, under certain regulations, something that was plain not allowed before (other than the exceptions). Thus I don't see why it would be necessary to word it so that it adds any leniency for possible misuse (for example, adding another 2 min song on top of 5 min one at the mapper's discretion). In my mind, because it is an exception rule by nature from the start, it should be about allowing mapper to create a different gameplay experience with two songs, something otherwise not allowed, as long as he then complies with relevant rules that'd apply to mapping either of them standalone.

This way the reality for the average use case doesn't change much, considering artists tend to pump out songs of relatively the same length either way usually, but it'd prevent possible abuse with the other option. But I'd imagine not all of you will agree with me on this particular suggestion

But shorter song drain time doesn't really make sense when you look at the alternative - lets say you have a 4:30 song and a 3:15 song, which I think is reasonably possible. If you were to map them, you wouldn't be sitting there mapping the insane and extra of a 4:30 song entirely to avoid making 3:15 long hard and normal diffs. Instead, you'd be adding the 3:30 song to the 4:30 one because you think there is some value in sticking the songs together.

Judging from the fundamental viewpoint that more map = better, posing a choice between mapping an extra 3:15 x2 of drain time for some artistic purpose and mapping a full spread for the combined length of 7:45 quickly turns into a choice of just mapping the 4:30 song alone and not mapping the 3:15 one, losing out on the value of having both songs.

This was basically the same argument as back in the good old days where 4:59 songs needed nhi mapped but 5:00 ones didn't - the dichotomy was not "a full spread vs two diffs" it was "no diffs because the mapper didn't want to sit there and map a full spread vs two diffs" - in which two diffs is better. Similarly, we should use longer song for drain time requirements as the choice would be between mapping just the longer song and mapping both songs together.

Yes — I believe people generally cared about the spread requirements of the longer song. As those who were circumventing of spread requirements only did it because they wanted to map a song that was a bit too short for a marathon. There was never an instance of "I want to map this 1 minute song but I'm too lazy to make a full spread, time to add a 4.5 minute song to the start of it"

throwing my 2 cents here

i dont think that 2 song can be considered as compilation, its more like songA x songB rather than song compilation

maybe adding this thing to rc (on spread section i guess) could help

or something like that (sorry for my wording, my english sucks)

so that if two map is merged into one, you still need to make spread based on the lowest drain time of the song

lets say that you want to merge 2 anime song (maybe you want to do it to avoid making full spread since its below 5 min mark or you just want to makenit like animeName Compilation), 1st song is 3:50 and 2nd is 4:20, the lowest diff must be hard or below

also i guess adding some rule on metada section about how to standarise 2 song comp if that a thing

-Keqing wrote:

throwing my 2 cents here

i dont think that 2 song can be considered as compilation, its more like songA x songB rather than song compilation

maybe adding this thing to rc (on spread section i guess) could help

If two song merged into one, the spread rule applied to the song that has lowest drain time

or something like that (sorry for my wording, my english sucks)

so that if two map is merged into one, you still need to make spread based on the lowest drain time of the song

lets say that you want to merge 2 anime song (maybe you want to do it to avoid making full spread since its below 5 min mark or you just want to makenit like animeName Compilation), 1st song is 3:50 and 2nd is 4:20, the lowest diff must be hard or below

also i guess adding some rule on metada section about how to standarise 2 song comp if that a thing

yeah, that's almost exactly what my proposal says.

my proposal is to define "song compilation" in the glossary as referring to 3+ songs and put in exactly that rule for 2-song mapsets except with the drain time requirement being the longer song rather than the shorter one.

reason for longer song rather than shorter was talked about in the 2 posts above yours

Personally I don't think making a compilation of 2 songs make sense. Mapping the two songs separately would be something I would do instead. Especially when both are like 2 minutes long.

As there hasn't been any discussion or much support for this proposal so moving the thread to finalized will be done if no further discussion or new support for this will be shown. I'll wait with this for ~1 month.

Greaper wrote:

Personally I don't think making a compilation of 2 songs make sense. Mapping the two songs separately would be something I would do instead. Especially when both are like 2 minutes long.

As there hasn't been any discussion or much support for this proposal so moving the thread to finalized will be done if no further discussion or new support for this will be shown. I'll wait with this for ~1 month.

There are plenty of cases where 2 songs go well together and hearing one after the other in one map can create a nice experience. I think regardless the RC needs to somehow be reworded to state rules for mapsets using audio files containing 2 songs because right now it really does look like they're banned altogether.

This thread didn't have much activity but there didn't seem to really be any comments against it altogether, only some thought that my proposal for this clarification (requiring a spread based on the longer song's drain time) could be changed to require a spread based on the shorter song's length instead and some agreeing with staying with the proposal and using the longer song.

If anyone else has opinions, they would be welcome~

Bumping this since I genuinely think this is a good idea. Times have passed and the stigma against these kind of mashups isn't that harsh anymore. there are plenty of instances where a 2-songs comp would work well (this song and this song for example, or the deceit + the violation), I even think that the R3 extensions have their audiences.

The original intent of the rule was to remove the abuse case of dodging spread requirements, and this proposal is basically the perfect way to deal with said issue, while not being as destructive.

+1

yupge, accomplishes the original goal without neutering others

+1

works for me

-JI- sometimes combines songs to have them / the maps contextualize each other in a specific way, posting some of their maps for reference. in these cases i think it creates something more than just 'hearing one song after another'
The Promise + Eulenlieder
Nanachi in the Light / Nanachi in the Dark
Pulse of Steel / Sinful Eyes / Melody of Tarantella

these comps are already allowed under the 'released together' clause (and the latter is 3 songs as well), but this is coincidental, and in principle the same can be done with songs not released together

it might be too late, but...

slight disagree, what if a 2-song compilation is of songs related to one source? such as a 2-song compilation of Still Alive / Want You Gone? these two were not released together, but are related to the same franchise. would this fall within the exception, or would it have to follow the proposal?

is merged

h3oCharles wrote:

slight disagree, what if a 2-song compilation is of songs related to one source? such as a 2-song compilation of Still Alive / Want You Gone? these two were not released together, but are related to the same franchise. would this fall within the exception, or would it have to follow the proposal?

this would have to follow the new rule, since they weren't released together.