From discussion in modhelp.


The basic idea of this proposed rule is to support single difficulty mapsets or mapsets without proper spread.

A mapset can be ranked or approved with one difficulty or more, ignoring the 6 minute requirement, the minimum difficulty requirement, and the difficulty spread requirement.

Currently there is a large issue with the ranking system and the effect it has on the quality of beatmaps.

A beatmapper can work on a three minute map and polish a single difficulty to perfection, while another mapper can make four unpolished, 'acceptable' difficulties in the same time window.

Both have spent the same amount of time and effort into the map.
Only one gets ranked.

This cuts off that extra polished difficulty from the ranking pool, leaving only the 'okay' stuff for the playerbase.
An example of an extremely polished map restricted by the rules in place.

Maps with a single difficulty or ones that don't have a proper spread would still follow the same ranking/approving methods in place. Two / three people to push the maps forward depending on mapset length.

Mappers are losing motivation to finish their sets, and a lot of amazing maps are winding up in the graveyard.
They have worked hard to get the maps that good.

No reason to hold them back any longer.


Thoughts on this? I personally think a relaxation on ranking and approval is what this game needs to usher back in the high quality content it once had. Of course, the occasional bad map will be created that tries to go through this new process, but that's what the approval team is for, to slow that down.

Good point, i support this.
Also, for now approval for non-marathon maps in special cases is already allowed, isnt it?

Btw, it will resolve problem with maps what have leight like 5:50 or close to it.

I doubt that the sloppy mapset would have the same amount of effort as one polished map. If somebody's too lazy to finish a set, or doesn't have the time, then I don't see why they're even bothering. The least that they could do is offer to make a guest difficulty for somebody, or otherwise have one or two guests to share the load.

It's important that there's a fair difficulty spread, because if one can make three or four amazing maps, then just about anybody could enjoy their work. 3:48 isn't an unreasonable amount of time to fill with something that's had effort put into it. If somebody's already proved that they can work hard, then couldn't they go the extra mile to bring more difficulties up to scratch?

Excuse me if I'm missing the point of this, but it seems to me that this falls under "mapper laziness."

I approve of this.

Support so hard I might rename to Sona, holy crap.

Apply this for Taiko too. God does it ever need it.

D33d wrote:

If somebody's too lazy to finish a set, or doesn't have the time, then I don't see why they're even bothering.

Excuse me if I'm missing the point of this, but it seems to me that this falls under "mapper laziness."

Yes, you missed the idea.
The idea is that the mapper is in fact not being lazy when making a single difficulty, as putting massive amounts into a single difficulty is comparable to making a mediocre spread map.

It's absolutely not mapper laziness.

I do approve too, I try really hard usually in doing my maps, and I lose interest when it comes to making a full spread, usually making the quality lower.

Mr Color wrote:

Apply this for Taiko too. God does it ever need it.

I support this statement

I absolutely agree, and I also think that the minimum line for such maps should not be based on time, but note density. Stamina is consumed moreso based on how many notes you hit as opposed to how long you're holding your mouse/pen for.

It also really defeats the purpose of the marathon rule when people are just going for the bare minimum of 6 minutes. It feels like a rule to work around as opposed to a rule to maintain quality.

If a really large amount of effort is put into polishing a map like that, I don't really see why it should be held back.

If they cannot make a difficulty focused towards the easier players, then their map should not be ranked period. It's not about how long it takes to make a map, it's about fairness. I would consider this a step back in mapping rules. It will just promote people to make single level difficulties, and will completely invalidate the rule requiring two taiko difficulties which is aimed towards letting newer players get into taiko.

This would just make a mockery out of the consistent difficulty spread rule, because you cannot have a good spread without a spread. It really makes no sense to me to say you must follow this, this, and this rule unless you're lazy and only map one difficulty. why should people even map a second difficulty if they can ignore all the rules by having only one?

Charles445 wrote:

D33d wrote:

If somebody's too lazy to finish a set, or doesn't have the time, then I don't see why they're even bothering.

Excuse me if I'm missing the point of this, but it seems to me that this falls under "mapper laziness."

Yes, you missed the idea.
The idea is that the mapper is in fact not being lazy when making a single difficulty, as putting massive amounts into a single difficulty is comparable to making a mediocre spread map.

It's absolutely not mapper laziness.

That's actually my point entirely. Why not put the same amount of effort into a whole mapset? Better yet, why not focus first on making something that simply works and then take a few weeks to improve everything?

Mapping and remapping one difficulty over and over again, or otherwise spending months on it, seems to me like it would become increasingly wasteful. LC spent nine months on making one map (this is from reading the dates of the submission and the last upload), during which time it's had one or two mods--nothing was even changed from one of them. Besides, if LC really is the best mapper on osu!, then I imagine that she'd have little trouble with making an entire spread that's polished, within maybe a couple of months. All you're implying is that she, or other highly-regarded mappers, don't have the competence to make a good mapset within a reasonable timeframe.

If anything, I believe that the problem lies more with people who try to get something ranked quickly. They shouldn't even be given the time of day via a comparison. If somebody spends a month or two on making a mapset excellent, then it shouldn't be too hard to rank it. Besides, some of the polish comes from the modding process. It's up to mappers to make a decent effort, modders to suggest improvements which will actually benefit the map and staff to choose what they deem to be good enough.

TheVileOne wrote:

If they cannot make a difficulty focused towards the easier players, then their map should not be ranked period. It's not about how long it takes to make a map, it's about fairness. I would consider this a step back in mapping rules. It will just promote people to make single level difficulties, and will completely invalidate the rule requiring two taiko difficulties which is aimed towards letting newer players get into taiko.

This would just make a mockery out of the consistent difficulty spread rule, because you cannot have a good spread without a spread. It really makes no sense to me to say you must follow this, this, and this rule unless you're lazy and only map one difficulty. why should people even map a second difficulty if they can ignore all the rules by having only one?

Ok so having acceptable maps > having quality maps?
It's not like every mapset with only one diff will be ranked, only the ones where you can NOTICE the mapper really put effort on it and it is a really good map
When you map because you want it to be GOOD for yourself you put effort, make it perfect and you can finally say "this is a great map".
But YOU HAVE TO MAKE MORE DIFFS! Yes, to be fair, so everyone can play this map! Who said you WANT to do it? Do you really want to map something you won't even bother to play?
This is selfish but this is the true. You already made the perfect map. You wasted your creativity on it. You gave your best. Now you need to do it for 3 more diffs. Tiring, right? What if the song is repetitive?
That's easy, let it graveyarded. It is still great, right? People will still play it, right? WRONG. I know many players who only bother to play ranked maps.
Once your map is graved you won't get the attention you deserve for making such an awesome map unless you are a famous map and SOMEONE FOUND YOUR MAP AND SHARED IT TO OTHERS. Still, you won't get enough attention.
It's not the "OMG I WANNA BE FAMOUS" attention, it is like "Omg I made an art and everyone should check it!"
Awesome maps MUST get more attention.
Solution: make them approved AS LONG AS the mapper really puts effort on it and makes a great map.
This isn't hard, c'mom
Oh yeah, they are lazy... really?
Being tired =/= being lazy
Run a marathon, be tired as fuck. I tell you to run it again. Oh you won't? LAZY!!!
^pretty much this
Nothing to say about taiko.

Approve this, please.

edit: if you can make THE WHOLE SPREAD an amazing thing, you are my hero lol
I'm sure someone is actually able to do it, but maybe only 2 out of 10?

It's amazing how many people that aren't supporting this find very bad ways to make their spreads perfect, having badly mapped difficulties just to fill the spread.

I fully support this and there are many maps that can't have easier/harder difficulties that cant be ranked because some people want to be "fair for everyone" and aren't being fair to the mappers.

TheVileOne wrote:

If they cannot make a difficulty focused towards the easier players, then their map should not be ranked period. It's not about how long it takes to make a map, it's about fairness. I would consider this a step back in mapping rules. It will just promote people to make single level difficulties, and will completely invalidate the rule requiring two taiko difficulties which is aimed towards letting newer players get into taiko.

This would just make a mockery out of the consistent difficulty spread rule, because you cannot have a good spread without a spread. It really makes no sense to me to say you must follow this, this, and this rule unless you're lazy and only map one difficulty. why should people even map a second difficulty if they can ignore all the rules by having only one?

I pretty much agree with the above.

While the mapper puts in lots of work to polish one difficulty to perfection, he is can still ask for guest difficulties to help cover the the rest of the gap. There is no shortage of good mappers.

If the mapper really isn't lazy and strives for perfection but doesn't want quest difficulties in the mapset, nothing is stopping him from mapping one diff at a time, till he his perfectly happy with it, then move on the the next difficulty in the set. Sure, this might make take a lot lot longer, but I think personal satisfaction would be gather in the end. He is going for quality, not speedranking right?

There is no excuse to ignore a huge player base to favor a smaller one. Even if the map is perfect.

Teara ninjad me. It's not that difficulty to ask people to help out. People have too much of an ego to ask for help these days. And you do not need 4 difficulties and can get away with 2 with the proper spread, but it is recommended that you have at least 3. You could just as easily ask someone who is willing to make a thoughtful easier difficulty.

TheVileOne wrote:

Ask someone to make a guest difficulty. You would only need to make two difficulties and the third will be a guest mapper. I don't know where you're getting 4 difficulties from. Even if you needed 4 difficulties, you could have 3 guest mappers. Andrea gets away with that all the time. You should take notes.

Sure, let's ask for people to make CS7 overmapped difficulties on 100BPM songs, just because "pro'er players should have the right to play this as well".
Remember, we're focusing on GOOD quality here, not forcing something bad to be considered "of enough quality to be ranked".

Needless to say, single diff sets must have a good reason for being a single diffuculty set (high bpm, length, high density of notes to map). It also is not uncommon for songs in other rhythm games to only have one diffuculty (ffr, seriously do I need to say more) and they all have very good reason for only having one diffuculty as well.

I feel that I'd rather have one high quality map for a lot of people to enjoy thoroughly rather than a set full of lower quality maps which ends up getting ranked anyw- oh wait charles already said that.

This isn't a step backwards, its a huge step fowards for player enjoyment. Maps which exist to teach and allow people learning the game to enjoy the game will still exist, its simply that better maps for people who have reached a point to appreciate polish will also come into light.

Ok, implying that finding guest mappers for non-anime songs is easy.
Please I know the ranking system wasn't supposed to be "easy" but lol this is too much
If the song isn't something people are "used to", your map will be dead forever because no guests :/
This is the case where you rank it without more diffs.

Maybe if its handled on a careful select basis, where like 5 bats agree to it.

Otherwise I can see a lot of 1diff mapsets coming out and they will be pointing fingers, that guy can do it, so why cant I?

Remember, perfect is very subjective term

A map might be perfect for one player, but utter garbage for another.

Maybe the approval rules should be changed instead. BATs can decide whether a map can be approved with a single difficulty by how well its mapped/how hard the map is/etc. Something like a free pass for the truly amazing mappers to be able to rank maps without having to worry about spread.
This would probably allow whoever has the most BAT friends to approve their maps so maybe there has to be a minimum favorite or star priority requirement (not counting ones from yourself) on top of the multiple BATs approval since great maps will naturally attract attention so this shouldn't be too hard.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the ranked maps but approval maps are really messed up right now with its 6min+ rule bs

Teara wrote:

Maybe if its handled on a careful select basis, where like 5 bats agree to it.

Otherwise I can see a lot of 1diff mapsets coming out and they will be pointing fingers, that guy can do it, so why cant I?

Remember, perfect is very subjective term

A map for someone might be perfect but utter garbage to another player.

People who say "someone did this so I can do this as well" are stupid, sorry. Just imo.
I totally agree with you here also
Maybe when 3 bats are ok, it can be ranked. Seems fair to me.
It's similar with the old approval system, two bubbles and one flame...

Teara wrote:

Maybe if its handled on a careful select basis, where like 5 bats agree to it.

Otherwise I can see a lot of 1diff mapsets coming out and they will be pointing fingers, that guy can do it, so why cant I?

Remember, perfect is very subjective term

A map might be perfect for one player, but utter garbage for another.

I actually agree with this process being VERY careful. For one, it needs to be identifiable easily the reason of which a single diff set will prove to be beneficial to the entire set.

I think 3 bubbles and an approve would be nice, or we can get rid of bubbles altogether and have a team of BATs come to a collective agreement through discussion and voting.

I approve

many people want to bring it back like an old system.
This current system is rather bad.

D33d wrote:

That's actually my point entirely. Why not put the same amount of effort into a whole mapset?

Because then the difficulties, when treated as separate entities, aren't as good as what a single difficulty would be.
That's the idea! More time on one difficulty!

yes please. otherwise this is going to remain dead forever http://osu.ppy.sh/s/71635

Blue Dragon wrote:

It's amazing how many people that aren't supporting this find very bad ways to make their spreads perfect, having badly mapped difficulties just to fill the spread.

I hope that you're trying to scare away some birds, because that's a pretty impressive strawman. Everything about this thread's suggestion sounds like one big excuse. Everybody who knows what they're doing starts a map with the knowledge that they're expected to make a reasonable spread of difficulty. Good mappers should have enough knowledge to know what works and what doesn't, so creating an interesting an polished set should be trivial. Even so, achieving a good standard in any creation takes effort, patience and dedication. If somebody wants to pour every last squiff of effort into an unfinished product, then too bad for them.

Remember that one doesn't have to focus on one map at a time. They could finish a difficulty, polish it, make another difficulty and polish both in tandem. In fact, I find that it helps to have several difficulties on the go, as a focus on making the whole set cohesive ends up making each difficulty more cohesive in itself.

What if this notion came to pass and we were suddenly faced with an onslaught of expert-tier, single-difficulty maps? Sure, we'd have a lot of maps which a large number of people would enjoy, but that would leave out everybody who isn't capable of playing such maps. It does no good to implement a rigorous system which makes people's creations more palatable, only to bring it crashing down and leave a lot of people in the dust.

This thread's title's even inaccurate, because one map is not a "mapset."

DEEDIT: Charles, one can choose to spend more time on one difficulty if they wish. If they have a lacklustre set, then there's nothing to prevent them from shining up the whole thing. If they decide to burn themselves out on one map, then I'd regard that as an inefficient use of time and resources.

D33d wrote:

What if this notion came to pass and we were suddenly faced with an onslaught of expert-tier, single-difficulty maps? Sure, we'd have a lot of maps which a large number of people would enjoy, but that would leave out everybody who isn't capable of playing such maps. It does no good to implement a rigorous system which makes people's creations more palatable, only to bring it crashing down and leave a lot of people in the dust.

Nyquill wrote:

This isn't a step backwards, its a huge step fowards for player enjoyment. Maps which exist to teach and allow people learning the game to enjoy the game will still exist, its simply that better maps for people who have reached a point to appreciate polish will also come into light.

>>EDIT: The extra quality insurance suggested by Teara will also have to play a huge part in this. We will probably have to discuss that further.

I support this very much. Also...

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/24611 2nd spinner to increase drain time over 6:00 minutes because of marathon rule.

i just don't think the marathon approval rule really had the intended effect at all. why keep something that doesn't work?

RLC wrote:

I support this very much. Also...

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/24611 2nd spinner to increase drain time over 6:00 minutes because of marathon rule.

i just don't think the marathon approval rule really had the intended effect at all. why keep something that doesn't work?

yep
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/89912
song extended to make it long enough to be approved

Nyquill wrote:

This isn't a step backwards, its a huge step fowards for player enjoyment. Maps which exist to teach and allow people learning the game to enjoy the game will still exist, its simply that better maps for people who have reached a point to appreciate polish will also come into light.

My point is that it's very likely that we'd see a disproportionate amount of one-difficulty expert maps, thus making it more difficult for players to find proper sets with easier maps. The way that you put it implies that nobody can ever make an entire mapset polished. The fact that people don't do so is not the system's fault and I'm very confident that people would still get away with subpar, single-difficulty maps. If nothing else, people would still disagree with the map's quality.

Going further, would it not be even more detrimental that a single map would be held up to even more scrutiny? What if somebody makes a single map, pours all of effort into making that one map and then is told that it isn't good enough to exist on its own? Do we then force them to undergo the same downwards spiral that afflicted GnR's 'Chinese Democracy' and the game 'Duke Nukem Forever?' Do we merely let them get away with making a whole set that isn't that great? Do we tell them to sod off, because they simply aren't cutting the mustard? This "solution" would have its own host of new problems, when people could merely put in the effort to make one good set.

Seriously, my observations of this community tell me that somebody will always find a way to screw up something. I don't think that the removal of a key insurance of accessibility to the game would solve enough in order to warrant the negative impacts upon it.

Although I disagree with how approval is working right now, you have to remember the point of having a good spread is to increase accessibility. Mappers are providing content to these players, and if they want the widespread advertisement of ranking, they know the criteria that is before them already. Alternatives such as guest difficulties or simply putting more time into the set have already been suggested and are quite viable. To those that say the guest diffs suck, that falls under the host mappers responsibility to ensure that their set is the best it can be, be it a rigorous screening if whatever is submitted. This would better be directed towards a relaxed state of the current approval rules instead of creating an entirely new rule.

Garven wrote:

Although I disagree with how approval is working right now, you have to remember the point of having a good spread is to increase accessibility. Mappers are providing content to these players, and if they want the widespread advertisement of ranking, they know the criteria that is before them already. Alternatives such as guest difficulties or simply putting more time into the set have already been suggested and are quite viable. To those that say the guest diffs suck, that falls under the host mappers responsibility to ensure that their set is the best it can be, be it a rigorous screening if whatever is submitted. This would better be directed towards a relaxed state of the current approval rules instead of creating an entirely new rule.

Well, I was actually thinking along with mythol about this too. Simply a modification to the approval rules would be enough. Like I said before, there should be very clear lines and a lot of discussion for what can be allowed for single diffuculty approval sets.

Relaxing the approval rules is essentially the same thing as changing an existing rule, since approval is pretty much exactly the same as ranking. The only difference is that it shows on a separate page.

I still don't understand why they are separate.

Lybydose wrote:

Relaxing the approval rules is essentially the same thing as changing an existing rule, since approval is pretty much exactly the same as ranking. The only difference is that it shows on a separate page.

Good point, though personally I would like approval to remain a seperate category (as lines need to be drawn differently for them).

Any other thoughts on which of the two we should do?

D33d wrote:

...This "solution" would have its own host of new problems...

We're not navigating into uncharted waters here, or experimenting with some completely unprecedented idea. From what I can tell, this aims to be pretty close to be what Approval used to be.

And I'm pretty sure most people would agree that it used to be better.

RLC wrote:

D33d wrote:

...This "solution" would have its own host of new problems...

We're not navigating into uncharted waters here, or experimenting with some completely unprecedented idea. From what I can tell, this aims to be pretty close to be what Approval used to be.

And I'm pretty sure most people would agree that it used to be better.

The old approval system allowed for silly gimmicks and single-difficulty expert maps. However, it prevented players' scores from being affected by crazy maps. It also separated them into a different category--newer players could avoid approval maps altogether if they wanted to find accessible maps. Applying this logic to ranked maps would make it much harder to separate them from those which would currently provide something for everybody. This is why I dislike Charles' proposition.

Perhaps the entire point of this was to apply it to approval maps only and I might be okay with that. However, I still think it'd be a shame if this caused thorough mappers to focus on single-difficulty maps alone. If that happened, then they'd only end up falling out of practice in making easier maps. It's bad enough that there are mappers who can only really make hard maps as it is and this would only exacerbate that problem.

D33d wrote:

Perhaps the entire point of this was to apply it to approval maps only and I might be okay with that. However, I still think it'd be a shame if this caused thorough mappers to focus on single-difficulty maps alone. If that happened, then they'd only end up falling out of practice in making easier maps. It's bad enough that there are mappers who can only really make hard maps as it is and this would only exacerbate that problem.

Perhaps a limit to the amount of maps you can submit for the approval category should be added then? After all, the point is to make it so we have very polished approval maps, and having a lot of unpolished ones defeats the purpose of this.

Alternatively (and for me, preferably), we can just make VERY clear lines as to what can be considered for the "approval" category, which we can discuss. Additionally, we can require more BATs to confirm quality of these maps to make it so these maps are harder to get through by just being lazy.

Nyquill wrote:

D33d wrote:

Perhaps the entire point of this was to apply it to approval maps only and I might be okay with that. However, I still think it'd be a shame if this caused thorough mappers to focus on single-difficulty maps alone. If that happened, then they'd only end up falling out of practice in making easier maps. It's bad enough that there are mappers who can only really make hard maps as it is and this would only exacerbate that problem.

Perhaps a limit to the amount of maps you can submit for the approval category should be added then? After all, the point is to make it so we have very polished approval maps, and having a lot of unpolished ones defeats the purpose of this.

Alternatively (and for me, preferably), we can just make VERY clear lines as to what can be considered for the "approval" category, which we can discuss.

Frankly, I think it'd be much better to encourage people to make more of an effort and also educate people in how to make good E/N/H difficulties. On top of that, it would also a much better situation if people learned to accept the fact that mapping--good mapping--requires patience and a lot of effort. If one decides to make an intricate mapset, then it's going to require more effort. It's a very trivial issue and I don't see the need to overthink it at all.

D33d wrote:

Frankly, I think it'd be much better to encourage people to make more of an effort and also educate people in how to make good E/N/H difficulties. On top of that, it would also a much better situation if people learned to accept the fact that mapping--good mapping--requires patience and a lot of effort. If one decides to make an intricate mapset, then it's going to require more effort. It's a very trivial issue and I don't see the need to overthink it at all.

You're right. -good mapping- requires patience and a lot of effort, and an approval map will be the mass concentration of effort and love placed in a single diff for players to enjoy.

Like I said, the clear lines will make it so that trying to worm around and being abusive not possible.

I'm late to the discussion, but finding guest mappers isn't as easy as it may sound for us newer mappers that don't have good mapper friends.
- I feel like mapping this song with a difficulty I would enjoy playing
- I spend lots of time perfecting it to the best of my abilities and I feel there's nowhere left to improve on it
- I can't get it ranked because I suck ass at mapping E/N/H, since I never play those difficulties and don't know what is considered good for them.
- I can't find guest mappers because I don't know any good mappers that map E/N/H
- I don't want to create shit difficulties because it will bring the only good difficulty down
- My map never gets a chance at being publicly shown/ranked because I'm not a famous mapper and it doesn't follow the current ranking criteria mapset bs.

It's not that I'm lazy or impatient, it's that I can't map good lower difficulties because I haven't had any experience with them since goddamn 2011.

What's stopping you from playing them? Maybe even asking a question or two in #modhelp?

Edit: How about, "I don't know what to do with the difficulties, can someone check what I have and give advice?" for starters? Also your pleas of bad other difficulties is all about practice. Even your "good" difficulty will probably be crap the first few times you try. Just like any other skill, it takes time and a lot of repetition to create something decent. The modding process can help guide you on this path. Scrapping maps is not anything new to this community.

What question is there to ask?

@Azer: You forgot to add "I can't get guest mappers because my map isn't based on anime or touhou." on that list.

I can map anything from any genre at any difficulty level. If you need a guest difficulty just ask.

That'd be nice, but I'm just one out of the river of people like me

I'm torn. As someone who has always had a lot of focus on proper difficulty spreads, I don't want this allowed, because there won't be many proper difficulty spreads anymore... But I am also part of the mappers who spent insane amounts of time onto a single difficulty to make it perfect, then map the rest of the spread in a much shorter time...
The biggest problem I can see with this is the complete disappearance of easier difficulties.

Azer's problems are easy to solve, at least by concept. Be sociable and philanthropic. Make people wnat to give you the time of day and ask people to show you good examples. Hell, if you like a mapper's style, then ask them for a difficulty. Ask knowledgeable people for advice.

This game revolves entirely around its community, so it's important to learn to thrive in it. As long as you can approach and be approached, good things will come your way.

Also, I'm an advocate of quality as much as others, if not moreso, so I'm not trying to detract from the importance of putting effort into one map. What I am trying to say is that people shouldn't be given gold stars for not sucking from the outset. Anybody who's worth their salt can make one good difficulty. Being able to make an entire mapset that's cohesive and interesting is a different matter. There's a good outlet for those who prefer to put effort into single difficulties, which is offering guest difficulties for others. I don't see it as a good excuse that many people suck at making full spreads, when there are alternative approaches for those who can't.

DEEDIT: This forum sucks for mobile use. I had to go on my PC just to edit this post and delete an accidental quoting of this post.

Shiro wrote:

I'm torn. As someone who has always had a lot of focus on proper difficulty spreads, I don't want this allowed, because there won't be many proper difficulty spreads anymore... But I am also part of the mappers who spent insane amounts of time onto a single difficulty to make it perfect, then map the rest of the spread in a much shorter time...
The biggest problem I can see with this is the complete disappearance of easier difficulties.

I can guarantee they will still exist because not every song can go for approval. You can't just put unnecessary streams in a tv sized map to attempt to go for approval. This would mean slow songs and just about every tv sized song would still require a reasonable spread. While other songs from artist like Demetori, t+pazolite, Goreshit, etc. would mostly fall under the approval category for various reasons (note density, song length, difficulty, bpm).

hmm, my maps with single difficulties are the maps i don't try to get ranked

if a map is really for ranking, the mapper can spend the time window to perfect the one diff and spend a little more time for 'just acceptable' unpolished other diffs
because mapping easy diffs are actually easy, but getting a map ranked is 50x effort than making it

I think the reason why they (/me) don't make full sets is that the map won't get ranked anyway, for which easy diffs are only waste of time
therefore going to graveyard is the mapper's original wish, that's no problem

and the real problem the 4:35 4diff maps don't get ranked is no one wants to mod long maps, they can't get bubble/rank, so graveyard

wwww

As a mapper, it's an appealing idea. However, I can't help but to fear other side effects, mainly dramas. We are trying to rank a map purely based on their quality (well, that's the whole point, right?), relying on BATs decision. Unfortunately, this means there will be mappers who will get a disapproval and possibly result in a bit of an argument even involving few players.

We have had a bunch of conflicts revolving around quality vs rank-ability even leaving the difficulty spread problem aside.