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

[Proposal] Add a short grace period for disqualified maps to help avoid "Speed ranking wars"

posted
Total Posts
43
CORROSIVE
353 posts
Joined October 2016
Topic Starter
CORROSIVE
Currently if mapper A qualifies a map for X song and it get disqualified then mapper B can qualify their map of X song within minutes or even seconds of the first maps disqualification. This is due to the rule stating that no two sets of the same song can be qualified at the same time.

This can cause some mappers to be hesitant to apply subjective or minor mods on a qualified set. It can also cause some more malicious mappers/modders to wait until a set gets qualified to point out issues in order to get their own/a friends map qualified in its place.



What I am proposing is that a grace period of 24 hours is added to a newly disqualified map to help alleviate some of these issues listed above.


edit: to clarify i am saying that during the grace period the original mapset would get to requalify whenever they want, just others cant during that time.
Last edited by CORROSIVE , edited 2 times in total.
Smoke
Beatmap Nominator
377 posts
Joined August 2017
Smoke
+rep
OneShotFox
371 posts
Joined August 2016
OneShotFox
+1
realy0_
1,737 posts
Joined August 2016
realy0_
yes cuz rn this is getting ridiculous
Dignan
244 posts
Joined June 2014
Dignan
Completely agree, speedrank wars are a detriment to the ranked section and should be avoided.
rosario wknd
854 posts
Joined April 2015
rosario wknd
100% agree
Morrighan
116 posts
Joined April 2018
Morrighan
speedrank wars are one of the most childish things i've seen in this game, implementing this would be a huge W
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
Disagree, the set that gets ranked first will be the more popular one 90% of the time and implementing a rule like that would make it nearly impossible to compete after the first qualification. Besides, if the mapper (or the bn) cares about their set they will have checked it properly to avoid any "objective" mistakes such as missing hitsounds or bad timing.

WashedUp Player wrote:

This can cause some mappers to be hesitant to apply subjective or minor mods on a qualified set.
this also happens regardless of speedrank wars, lots of people think qualified = ranked and will refuse to apply mods no matter the circumstances

WashedUp Player wrote:

It can also cause some more malicious mappers/modders to wait until a set gets qualified to point out issues in order to get their own/a friends map qualified in its place.
also happens outside of speedrank wars
Last edited by Mordred , edited 1 time in total.
Crissa
850 posts
Joined December 2014
Crissa
or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
also the 24hrs grace period sounds quite bleh considering many many maps get dqd for ultra minor stuff and then get reqfd instantly which is completely fine imo
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
anime wars are hilarious i oppose the proposal
Kudosu
109 posts
Joined October 2017
Kudosu
basically what mordred said
Zelq
osu! Alumni
201 posts
Joined September 2016
Zelq

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
pretty much if any action has to be taken then I'd consider making no limitations of only one mapset of a song (the same version) since having multiple sets is not breaking anything, variety of issues needs different time to apply the mods properly and I never highly understood why such rule had to be used at first glance
Last edited by Zelq , edited 1 time in total.
Mir
osu! Alumni
2,152 posts
Joined July 2016
Mir

Kudosu wrote:

basically what mordred said
yea
Sampo
44 posts
Joined December 2015
Sampo

Zelq wrote:

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
pretty much if any action has to be taken then I'd consider making no limitations of only one mapset of a song (the same version) since having multiple sets is not breaking anything and never highly understood why such rule had to be used at all
Rule is probably there so some group of mappers and BNs can't do The Funny and rank like 5 mapsets of the same song in a row
Last edited by Sampo , edited 1 time in total.
momoyo
Nomination Assessment Team
247 posts
Joined June 2018
momoyo
disagree, id rather not wait 24h to qual again for really minor issues/subjective things. basically agree with mordred tbh

+ speedrank wars are retarded i like them

altho yea the rule if not having 2 songs in qual at the same time seems stupid to me
pkhg
2,507 posts
Joined May 2010
pkhg

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
also the 24hrs grace period sounds quite bleh considering many many maps get dqd for ultra minor stuff and then get reqfd instantly which is completely fine imo
yes pls
momoyo
Nomination Assessment Team
247 posts
Joined June 2018
momoyo

Ataraksia wrote:

Zelq wrote:

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
pretty much if any action has to be taken then I'd consider making no limitations of only one mapset of a song (the same version) since having multiple sets is not breaking anything and never highly understood why such rule had to be used at all
Rule is probably there so some group of mappers and BNs can't do The Funny and rank like 5 mapsets of the same song in a row
I see your point but I do think it should still change imo, I don’t think 2 sets at the same time changes anything, maybe limit it so no more than 2 sets gets qual, i believe it would limit speedranks more if anything. Waiting 24 hours to requal isn’t the solution
Zelq
osu! Alumni
201 posts
Joined September 2016
Zelq

Ataraksia wrote:

Zelq wrote:

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
pretty much if any action has to be taken then I'd consider making no limitations of only one mapset of a song (the same version) since having multiple sets is not breaking anything and never highly understood why such rule had to be used at all
Rule is probably there so some group of mappers and BNs can't do The Funny and rank like 5 mapsets of the same song in a row
Pretty sure such event wouldn't take place but even if then I don't see any issue as long as each of the mapsets provides something from its own
Crissa
850 posts
Joined December 2014
Crissa

Ataraksia wrote:

Zelq wrote:

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
pretty much if any action has to be taken then I'd consider making no limitations of only one mapset of a song (the same version) since having multiple sets is not breaking anything and never highly understood why such rule had to be used at all
Rule is probably there so some group of mappers and BNs can't do The Funny and rank like 5 mapsets of the same song in a row
i don't see absolutely anything wrong with that if all mapsets have different things to offer, if anything the same amount of sets would get ranked anyways, just in a longer amount of time. you could add something to counter a case in wich this is the opposite, when 2 or more sets of a song in qualified don't add anything different from each other to the ranked section
Last edited by Crissa , edited 1 time in total.
Deca
152 posts
Joined October 2016
Deca
I already made this proposal 2 years ago and people didn't seem to like it.

FWIW I still think the multiple qualified set rule should have been removed a long time ago and the ranking queue needs to be expanded (or removed altogether) because it's exceedingly apparent that this game isn't the same as it was back in the days when this rule was created.
Cris-
Beatmap Nominator
552 posts
Joined March 2015
Cris-
I pretty much disagree with this, indeed the mapper will have some extra time to address the mods, but the problem will still remain. For example mapper A qualifies their map for X song, then it gets disqualified and mapper B qualifies their map for X song; in that grace period of 24h, mapper A can call their friends to mod B's map to get it disqualified, and then pushing their mapset again. It doesn't solve the problem, just adds a delay in the entire qualification process, which is kind of pointless taking into account that many DQs are made to fix minor stuff. If anything, removing the main rule would be the best option... or either rewording it to disallow different mapsets of the same person in qualified at the same time (different mapsets still provide some kind of variety even if the song is the same); or allowing two mapsets of the same song in qualified at the same time, which is also a good idea in my opinion.
radar
osu! Alumni
283 posts
Joined September 2015
radar
my opinion would be to rather just remove the multiple qualified set rule/increase the limit to like 2-3 so that speedrank wars arent as cutthroat and people can just enjoy game

but about the OP, adding a grace period of 24h for disqualified maps would be extremely frustrating for any map that isnt being speedrank war'd, and would just lead to frustration and even less willingness for people to dq over small things (because 24h wait + ranking queue). i think a different solution would be much nicer for everyone (i suggest the thing i said above)
CORROSIVE
353 posts
Joined October 2016
Topic Starter
CORROSIVE

Mordred wrote:

implementing a rule like that would make it nearly impossible to compete after the first qualification.
This is kind of the point. maps that have already been qualified shouldn't need to worry about their slot in the ranking getting snipped when dqing for minor issues.

Mordred wrote:

if the mapper (or the bn) cares about their set they will have checked it properly to avoid any "objective" mistakes such as missing hitsounds or bad timing.
It is true that mappers and modders should check their maps thoroughly, but the issue comes when an issue appears that is subjective or something that is really hard to notice.

Say a mapper has their map qualified and there is another map that is wanting to take its place. if the map in question was modded and had some changes that would be a nice addition but otherwise are totally optional, the mapper would be more inclined to just leave it in fear of their map not getting rebubbled in time.

Mordred wrote:

lots of people think qualified = ranked and will refuse to apply mods no matter the circumstances
you are correct that this occurs but this change would be benefiting people who just want to make their map the best it could be. The people who think like this cant be helped.

Mordred wrote:

also happens outside of speedrank wars
its kind of irrelevant that this occurs outside of speedrank wars. my point was more based around people will mod/wait to mod maliciously so that they can get another map qualified in its place.

Crissa wrote:

the 24hrs grace period sounds quite bleh
the 24 hour number is just a rough draft of what the length should be. Ideally it should be long enough to where if the mapper (or modders) is sleeping or at work they still have enough time whenever they are done to get all the mods applied and re nomed

Crissa wrote:

or hey why dont just remove the limitation and everyones happy
while i do agree with this, that is a seperate matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nao Tomori wrote:

anime wars are hilarious i oppose the proposal
based

Erisu wrote:

id rather not wait 24h to qual again for really minor issues/subjective things.
the point is so other mapps maps cant qualify during this time, the original mapset would be exempt from this
Last edited by CORROSIVE , edited 1 time in total.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
1,002 posts
Joined March 2019
Hivie

radar wrote:

my opinion would be to rather just remove the multiple qualified set rule/increase the limit to like 2-3 so that speedrank wars arent as cutthroat and people can just enjoy game
would be a much better alternative imo
Crissa
850 posts
Joined December 2014
Crissa

Erisu wrote:

id rather not wait 24h to qual again for really minor issues/subjective things.
the point is so other mapps maps cant qualify during this time, the original mapset would be exempt from this
i was kinda missing this point which is very important huh

removing the rule entirely is much more simple and basically keeps everyone happy since it disables conflict, while your proposal could feel very unfair to the upcoming sets waiting to get qualified, which is why i can't completely agree with it
Last edited by Crissa , edited 1 time in total.
CORROSIVE
353 posts
Joined October 2016
Topic Starter
CORROSIVE
i agree that removing the rule would be a good thing overall, or maybe extending it to 2 maps. This proposal was more made around making the current situation more stable and working around the current rules.
Bibbity Bill
65 posts
Joined May 2014
Bibbity Bill
I agree with radar on this, I think limiting to 2-3 would be a much better idea and since there's already a rule allowing 3 remixes in qualify just remove the first rule and reword the second.

• Different beatmaps of similar versions of a song cannot be qualified in the same mode at the same time. Similar versions of a song include cuts, extensions, and simple covers.
• Only 3 significantly different versions of a song may be qualified in the same mode at the same time. Significantly different versions include remixes, compilations, and mashups.
into

• Only 3 different versions of a song may be qualified in the same mode at the same time.
honestly would be the simplest way but still not make it so mappers can qualify a ton of cuts and remixes. this change would also allow the full ver and cut ver (2 entirely different maps due to the massive changes) at the same time which i think most people can agree on wouldn't be a bad change.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
allowing full and tv size at same time doesnt do anything about 2 tv size sets trying to get ranked first

the point of the one song rule was explained to me like this once:
ranked is a content stream (like a daily unique event in an rpg) - having the exact same or extremely similar content released over and over lowers the satisfaction to the user. therefore limiting to one of a song per week (more like 2 weeks rn but thats a different issue and realistically temporary for a few more months) prevents having a week where like 5 sets of seasonal anime op #21452 get ranked and take out space from more varied content which would better engage players.

i happen to agree with the reasoning above. that said, the best solution if people really dont like speedrank wars for some reason (i really do find them hilarious) is to expand the limit to 2 or 3 of the same version of the same song being allowed, and also expand the number of maps getting ranked every day so that even if the actual number of the same song getting ranked goes up, the percent of new content being occupied by that same song stays low.

plus expanding the number of ranked maps per day would make it so it doesnt take 2 weeks for a map to get ranked which is annoying as hell
Last edited by Nao Tomori , edited 1 time in total.
lugu
340 posts
Joined August 2018
lugu
+1
MaridiuS
879 posts
Joined June 2014
MaridiuS
I disagree with the OP because the meta on speedrank will be to try to qualify maps as soon as possible without doing a full check. BNs/mappers will then recheck if it ever gets disqualified to something that might have easily been found with a proper look. This will easily cause more unnecessary dqs and BNs acting dumb like they did a proper check and get like a 1/1 which most BNs can likely tank for their activity.
melwoine
118 posts
Joined April 2018
melwoine
I sort of agree with the idea that speedranking is just a dumb process overall and is pretty petty. Though I would say that this is what you sign up for when you decide to speedrank a set/song. The whole "not wanting to change subjective stuff" is sort of irrelevant in my eyes since no matter what qualified map you go to there's a 90% chance that many don't want to change subjective stuff if it's not a major problem (that usually just goes to instant veto though).

My suggestions would be to just look at the dqs if they're valid or not. For example when the sotarks set got nuked and Rolni / rolniczy ranked his tv size set to just have fieryrage dq it for a non problem. Iirc he got punished for it but w/e.
Moecho
267 posts
Joined October 2014
Moecho
"no two sets of the same song can be qualified at the same time"
feels like this rule should be removed, we already have plenty of reasons like "content bloat" that are set in place for vetos in cases of clear abuse of meme / near copy paste maps

there's not really necessary to have this rule at all, while speed ranking could be fun, it could also be quite frustrating due to this rule, which op stated with some examples of malicious intent
realy0_
1,737 posts
Joined August 2016
realy0_

MaridiuS wrote:

I disagree with the OP because the meta on speedrank will be to try to qualify maps as soon as possible without doing a full check. BNs/mappers will then recheck if it ever gets disqualified to something that might have easily been found with a proper look. This will easily cause more unnecessary dqs and BNs acting dumb like they did a proper check and get like a 1/1 which most BNs can likely tank for their activity.
then it would be bn's fault, not the mapper's one to qualify it in the first place
Last edited by realy0_ , edited 1 time in total.
Crissa
850 posts
Joined December 2014
Crissa

realy0_ wrote:

MaridiuS wrote:

I disagree with the OP because the meta on speedrank will be to try to qualify maps as soon as possible without doing a full check. BNs/mappers will then recheck if it ever gets disqualified to something that might have easily been found with a proper look. This will easily cause more unnecessary dqs and BNs acting dumb like they did a proper check and get like a 1/1 which most BNs can likely tank for their activity.
then it would be bn's fault, not the mapper's one to qualify it in the first place
Ya also i can see this being easily punishable considering how bad the state of the set was when it first got qualified by just not checking the map properly or not doing so at all
Kyuunex
99 posts
Joined November 2016
Kyuunex
that rule about no same songs being qualified at the same time should not exist in my opinion
Last edited by Kyuunex , edited 1 time in total.
jschlatt stan
552 posts
Joined July 2015
jschlatt stan
very cool
LimeTwist
257 posts
Joined September 2018
LimeTwist
agreed
Vulkin
1,621 posts
Joined September 2014
Vulkin

Kyuunex wrote:

that rule about no same songs being qualified at the same time should not exist in my opinion
I agree, it just adds a delay to the inevitable, since mappers will still want their sets to be pushed towards the ranked section.
McEndu
1,166 posts
Joined March 2019
McEndu
When multiple modes are taken into concern, the no two set rule looks even worse an idea.

Say mapper A qualifies a "#NULL!*Peta" which is a std set, and B who maps the same song in catch cannot rank it when A's set is still there...

PS. Where is the rule as written
realy0_
1,737 posts
Joined August 2016
realy0_

McEndu wrote:

When multiple modes are taken into concern, the no two set rule looks even worse an idea.

Say mapper A qualifies a "#NULL!*Peta" which is a std set, and B who maps the same song in catch cannot rank it when A's set is still there...

PS. Where is the rule as written
you can
Elinor
207 posts
Joined December 2014
Elinor
ㅤ
Last edited by Elinor , edited 1 time in total.
McEndu
1,166 posts
Joined March 2019
McEndu

realy0_ wrote:

McEndu wrote:

When multiple modes are taken into concern, the no two set rule looks even worse an idea.

Say mapper A qualifies a "#NULL!*Peta" which is a std set, and B who maps the same song in catch cannot rank it when A's set is still there...

PS. Where is the rule as written
you can
Well yep misinterpretation
but where it the rule
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,685 posts
Joined April 2012
Noffy
The issue brought up here is no longer relevant with the same songs in qualified rules being removed, so I am archiving this thread. If there's some reason it should continue in a new form, I recommend making a new thread addressing the new current issues it'd be designed for.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 43