The only compromise that sounds reasonable to me is ignoring spread, but still requiring an Easy/normal level difficulty if you map is longer than 4 minutes draining time. Instead of mapping 3 difficulties you would only need to map 2.
forum
Single Difficulty Mapsets and Spread Removal
posted
Total Posts
150
I totally agree!
below are just some personal experience/thoughts.
My hardest diff takes me a week at minimum. (for songs that are 3:30~4:30 in length and has 200~290 BPM)
And it always gets harder than the normal insane level, so it comes out that i have to either make a lighter insane myself, or ask for a gd.
that takes about an extra 3~7 days or even longer (depends on the gder), and during that time, i map hard, normal, and easy.
Worst case, I have to map that lighter insane myself. This one is likely to be a lower quality map than the first diff i made, because I am intentionally trying to make the diff easier, by using simpler rhythms, using simple sliders, which is not what i do usually. It also gets harder and tiring to come up with patterns because I already put my best ideas and thoughts in the first diff in ways that I think best fit the music.
Well,
let's say we got passed that phase. Now we move to pending, but hey, modders run away right when they see 5 diffs with drain time around 3~4 min.(<- my case)
good example :can anyone plz mod this map ;_;
plus, nowadays the modding queues are dead. I haven't seen a single queue that offered a normal modding for 3 days now. (I might've missed it ofc, but you can really feel how inactive those queues are. Even m4ms) Hm? yeah right. #modreqs is helpful
so yeah. i wish i could star
tbh I think it's cool. Good idea.
below are just some personal experience/thoughts.
My hardest diff takes me a week at minimum. (for songs that are 3:30~4:30 in length and has 200~290 BPM)
And it always gets harder than the normal insane level, so it comes out that i have to either make a lighter insane myself, or ask for a gd.
that takes about an extra 3~7 days or even longer (depends on the gder), and during that time, i map hard, normal, and easy.
Worst case, I have to map that lighter insane myself. This one is likely to be a lower quality map than the first diff i made, because I am intentionally trying to make the diff easier, by using simpler rhythms, using simple sliders, which is not what i do usually. It also gets harder and tiring to come up with patterns because I already put my best ideas and thoughts in the first diff in ways that I think best fit the music.
Well,
let's say we got passed that phase. Now we move to pending, but hey, modders run away right when they see 5 diffs with drain time around 3~4 min.(<- my case)
good example :can anyone plz mod this map ;_;
plus, nowadays the modding queues are dead. I haven't seen a single queue that offered a normal modding for 3 days now. (I might've missed it ofc, but you can really feel how inactive those queues are. Even m4ms) Hm? yeah right. #modreqs is helpful
so yeah. i wish i could star
hmm so easy, normal, 0108 <- like this?TheVileOne wrote:
The only compromise that sounds reasonable to me is ignoring spread, but still requiring an Easy/normal level difficulty if you map is longer than 4 minutes draining time. Instead of mapping 3 difficulties you would only need to map 2.
tbh I think it's cool. Good idea.
But with new rank system this gonna be easy i thingFrostmourne wrote:
it's easy to make but I think it's hard to find a mod ._.
I agree with whymemanwhymeman wrote:
Like I said before, serious thoughts have to come into play.
Referring to those's question on scenario #1. What about those that WANT to play the map, but it's too difficult to play which leaves them utterly frustrated that they can only sit and watch? It pains me to see beatmap comments like these....
I can understand the concept of "approving" highly difficult maps, but what I do not want to see is that being a frequent thing happening because of this suggested rule/guideline since it attempts to cancel the "must have an easier difficulty" rule which caters to novice players.
TheVileOne wrote:
The only compromise that sounds reasonable to me is ignoring spread, but still requiring an Easy/normal level difficulty if you map is longer than 4 minutes draining time. Instead of mapping 3 difficulties you would only need to map 2.
it is also reasonable, btw you guys are forgeting new players what happen with people with really love a song then cant play it cuz the mappers just make one extreme diff since you can ask for GD if you are lazy to make the others also with new system get mods dont gonna be a problem. sorry for bad english orz
Thinking about it now, if his rule does become set, then I would at least expect up to 10 or so versions of the same song mapped and ranked every month with 1 difficulty each. It would be a bit silly to see that. Also, as "unconcerned" this other possible matter would be, it would bloat storage space consumption in the DB. Also, there would have to be a hard-adjustment to the beatmap packs as well.
Before I give my feedback on this issue, it would be really nice if the OP was completely edited to cover it's current state in the discussion (which seems to be adjusting approval criteria to max score, note density, 5 min length, etc.).
I have read over this thread but I feel like I don't understand completely what has changed in the discussion due to reasons only one person here understands
I have read over this thread but I feel like I don't understand completely what has changed in the discussion due to reasons only one person here understands
Don't know how you got that impression, this is very unlikely.whymeman wrote:
Thinking about it now, if his rule does become set, then I would at least expect up to 10 or so versions of the same song mapped and ranked every month with 1 difficulty each.
If 1-diff-mapsets were allowed to get ranked, this is the kind of maps you'd expect to see run for ranking:
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/193593
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/196957
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/181531
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/167386
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/177456
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/162831
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/162405
It's really not that hard to get guest difficulties, and guest difficulties don't really take that much time to complete if you compare to the time it takes to make the difficulty yourself. Approval will not be here in the future, and we should not be adjusting the rules to change how maps are approved, especially since the new ranking system doesn't specify how approval maps are ranked. We can only assume that it either wont exist/ in the process of being restructured in the near future.
A lot of people think that it is difficult, but the only difficulty is asking people to make one. And the time it takes to make is irrelevant, because mappers shouldn't be trying to cut as many difficulties as they can get away with just to get their map ranked faster. A map should take however long it needs to take to meet quality standards. I don't believe that people are spending their time efficiently by spending more than 30 hours on gameplay elements of a single difficulty.
Storyboarding, hitsounding, and skinning can take lots of time, but once they are completed, then that time spent does not apply to the effort and time required to make the other difficulties. It's also not fair that so much time and effort is being spent targeting one audience of players that share the same skillsets as the mapper. How can we say the mapper is not being selfish by refusing to learn how to perfect all tiers of difficulty design, and instead focusing primarily on his own preferences? Selfish tendencies shouldn't be praised with a rank, regardless if it is a quality playing experience.
When a map is ranked, it is intended to be a contribution towards the community. A single difficulty cannot represent all levels of the community and that is why maps were approved. They were hidden from the rest of the community because the administrators did not want maps that did not meet standards to get full recognition by the public.
Why should we allow the mapsets with the most effort put into them only reflect a certain part of the community? It would only continue to support the degradation of the osu! community. It only promotes people to continue to vote for single difficulty maps as best maps of the year instead of more balanced examples. I disagree that mappers are forced to make lower quality difficulties in their sets, they choose to make lower quality difficulties and careless modders let these maps get ranked. It is going to be an even bigger problem when the new ranking system comes into play. Instead of standing up for high standards for everyone, people will act selfishly as always and press the maps through because the Insane is fun to play. I think it would be incredibly damaging to now officially admit that we do not care as a community about the non-Insane tier of players, and that maps are judged and rated solely on how good the hardest difficulty is.
Is that the kind of culture we should be supporting? Consider this.
A lot of people think that it is difficult, but the only difficulty is asking people to make one. And the time it takes to make is irrelevant, because mappers shouldn't be trying to cut as many difficulties as they can get away with just to get their map ranked faster. A map should take however long it needs to take to meet quality standards. I don't believe that people are spending their time efficiently by spending more than 30 hours on gameplay elements of a single difficulty.
Storyboarding, hitsounding, and skinning can take lots of time, but once they are completed, then that time spent does not apply to the effort and time required to make the other difficulties. It's also not fair that so much time and effort is being spent targeting one audience of players that share the same skillsets as the mapper. How can we say the mapper is not being selfish by refusing to learn how to perfect all tiers of difficulty design, and instead focusing primarily on his own preferences? Selfish tendencies shouldn't be praised with a rank, regardless if it is a quality playing experience.
When a map is ranked, it is intended to be a contribution towards the community. A single difficulty cannot represent all levels of the community and that is why maps were approved. They were hidden from the rest of the community because the administrators did not want maps that did not meet standards to get full recognition by the public.
Why should we allow the mapsets with the most effort put into them only reflect a certain part of the community? It would only continue to support the degradation of the osu! community. It only promotes people to continue to vote for single difficulty maps as best maps of the year instead of more balanced examples. I disagree that mappers are forced to make lower quality difficulties in their sets, they choose to make lower quality difficulties and careless modders let these maps get ranked. It is going to be an even bigger problem when the new ranking system comes into play. Instead of standing up for high standards for everyone, people will act selfishly as always and press the maps through because the Insane is fun to play. I think it would be incredibly damaging to now officially admit that we do not care as a community about the non-Insane tier of players, and that maps are judged and rated solely on how good the hardest difficulty is.
Is that the kind of culture we should be supporting? Consider this.
You're not thinking wide enough. There has been cases where even up to 4 sets of maps from the same song was ranked. Plus, this would allow mostly "Hard-Only" sets as I've already said from before. The whole "how often do you hear/see this" thing can be an invalid excuse to ignore the problem since it's not just in beatmaps you would see it, but also in the chat and forums. Not everyone has to say "I wish I can play this map, but it's only made too hard" to actually pay attention to the problem.Aqo wrote:
Don't know how you got that impression, this is very unlikely.whymeman wrote:
Thinking about it now, if his rule does become set, then I would at least expect up to 10 or so versions of the same song mapped and ranked every month with 1 difficulty each.
Honestly, I don't like one-sided discussions that only seek out the "gains" without looking at the "losses". As far as I see this idea of the rule, there's going to be some major losses even if we don't feel they are going to be. Especially since they are not fully thought out long-term.
Surely, it makes more sense to think of the whole mapset as the final boss, with its final form being the hardest map. At the very least, players should be able to familiarise themselves with the entire song, while being able to actually interact with it. I remember Sandpig's set of 'Nuclear Fusion' being very challenging to me throughout, so I was able to enjoy the whole song and build up my skill gradually. It felt much better that I was able to work my way through its harder maps, as I was allowed to build up my ability to react to an increasingly dense representation of the same rhythms.Aqo wrote:
also, when I was a complete beginner, seeing approved maps for songs that I liked motivated me to play more and try to improve. It had its own charm, those maps felt like a boss that I need to work towards. Surely there's more people that feel like that.
I don't see a single loss here.whymeman wrote:
Honestly, I don't like one-sided discussions that only seek out the "gains" without looking at the "losses". As far as I see this idea of the rule, there's going to be some major losses even if we don't feel they are going to be. Especially since they are not fully thought out long-term.
Let me be blunt, I find the whole "noobs won't be able to enjoy song X if it doesn't have lowdiffs" argument incredibly stupid since the alternative is that it won't get ranked at all and then /they still don't get to enjoy song X/.
The fact that freedom dive and mythologia got rated so high in best of 2012 voting only shows that even beginner players enjoy playing maps that are hard for them with NoFail and having a lack of lowdiffs does not stop them from enjoying it. I'm pretty sure more than 90% of the voters who voted for freedom dive voted for the [FOUR DIMENSIONS] difficulty and not for the [Another] difficulty, when at the same time less than half of that group of voters can even pass Another.
I also know quite a few beginners who, if you'd look at their profile, you'll only see their plays on [Normal] diffs with HD/HR, but when I talk to them and spec them they actually spend a lot of time of NFing high diffs and have fun doing so.
Not every single song needs a lowdiff. Lowdiffs were necessary in the beginning of the road for osu when there was literally nothing to play on, but today there are over 20 thousand ranked lowdiffs. There is nobody that would get to play even a quarter of those before already being able to play the much higher diffs.
Can't enjoy Just Awake right now because it's too hard for you? No problem, be patient, in a month you'll be able to play it if you keep on playing. I haven't seen any single beginner cry about that song having no lowdiffs, instead they just NF the approved diff and they still like it (often much more than the lowdiffs that they can play better).
-
As for the "many maps will be ranked with only one high diff for the same song", I don't see how is this a problem?
I rather see 5 different ranked maps with a single high-diff for Houkago Stride that is well thought-out and has a solid design with a different mapper style per one, instead of multiple TV size "full spreads" where each one is the exact same generic map that plays the same
I absolutely love answering thisAqo wrote:
Not every single song needs a lowdiff.
I gave my reason for why maps don't need lowdiffs, what's your reason?those wrote:
I absolutely love answering thisargumentstatement with "Not every single map needs to be ranked"
Ranking a map gives it a scoreboard and creates competition on it. For people who like the map, this is HUGE and plays a giant role in the map's existence. It makes people play the map a lot more, advances the playerbase forward, and leads to faster progress of the entire metagame. This game should encourage mappers to make great maps for ranking, not discourage them from trying to rank good maps. When graveyard is the current equivalent for a favorites tab, the ranking system is heavily flawed.
Ranking a map also encourages the mapper to map more. It brings his map out to the general audience and this is what mappers map for. There is nothing that pains me more than knowing mappers who make great maps and don't even bother submitting them on bancho because they know they don't have the time to rank them due to RL and the unsupportive ranking process.
Which is stupid as it is. Why not all songs have the right to be ranked? Just because "not all players can play it"? This isn't so intelligent.those wrote:
I absolutely love answering thisAqo wrote:
Not every single song needs a lowdiff.argumentstatement with "Not every single map needs to be ranked"
Just like how all songs have the right to have a low diff. Sound similar?Blue Dragon wrote:
Why not all songs have the right to be ranked? Just because "not all players can play it"? This isn't so intelligent.
While one idea can satisfy the group of players only above a group of skill, the other idea satisfies the group of players that play this game, regardless of skill. I rarely enter these discussions from the mindset of the player only, otherwise I'd agree with this entirely.
those you're trolling. stop.those wrote:
Just like how all songs have the right to have a low diff. Sound similar?Blue Dragon wrote:
Why not all songs have the right to be ranked? Just because "not all players can play it"? This isn't so intelligent.
Face it, nobody wants to mod a full spread for a 4 minute song over 200bpm. Adding lowdiffs to a map like that is just as good at preventing it from getting ranked as not mapping them, with the only exception being if you're a person that has many BAT friends.
It would make far more sense if maps were rankable based on total object count and effort spent on the map, and actual map QUALITY, instead of quantity of (half-assed) diffs.
And let me say this again, the assumption that players who can't play the top diff of a map are unsatisfied by the ranking of that map is simply wrong. You're wrong, lol. Look at freedom dive's position on 2012 voting. You're just WRONG about this. Beginner players don't hate one-diff-crazy maps, they love them.
i agree with this what is the point of make a map if you dont have the time to make the others diffs actually just 15 k down play insanes what about the other rest of players maybe 80 or 90% cant enjoy the sound cuz the mapper is to lazy for make a fullspread mapset, also Aqo say a thousand of easy map ranked that is true but what beginner see when they start in osu? they see this page https://osu.ppy.sh/p/beatmaplist lol they dont know how to search maps... then i guess with this rule people who start playing osu cant find maps to play orz if you wanna make a good nice diff since you can and ask some other who love the song to make an awesome GD imo all the mapset should have atleast a normal diff.those wrote:
I absolutely love answering thisAqo wrote:
Not every single song needs a lowdiff.argumentstatement with "Not every single map needs to be ranked"
I don't see why you see that being the players' fault or the mapper's fault. Try again.Aqo wrote:
nobody wants to mod a full spread for a 4 minute song over 200bpm
It's the ranking system's fault.those wrote:
I don't see why you see that being the players' fault or the mapper's fault. Try again.Aqo wrote:
nobody wants to mod a full spread for a 4 minute song over 200bpm
The argument is not "nobody wants to mod [...]", the argument you've presented is "the community doesn't want 'a full spread for a 4 minute song over 200bpm' ranked".
thanks for the popcorn Ekaru
Hm. Why is the ranking system at fault for requiring mods on maps regardless of length?Aqo wrote:
It's the ranking system's fault.
thanks for the popcorn Ekaru
*grabs popcorn* This is a very entertaining thread. Do keep it up, guys. 
EDIT: No, really, it's like you guys are arguing in a circle. TBH any debate over how hard it is to get things ranked should be saved until *after* the ranking system overhaul.
EDIT: No, really, it's like you guys are arguing in a circle. TBH any debate over how hard it is to get things ranked should be saved until *after* the ranking system overhaul.
Blue Dragon wrote:
Which is stupid as it is. Why not all songs have the right to be ranked? Just because "not all players can play it"? This isn't so intelligent.those wrote:
I absolutely love answering thisargumentstatement with "Not every single map needs to be ranked"
Then put the effort into getting it ranked if it's that important to you, instead of lowering the requirements for ranking. In response to Aqo allowing these to be ranked: You are not thinking enough about -all- consequences of this change. Do you really think nobody is going to abuse this system and rank maps that normally would be easy to rank as a mapset? Every map for ranking needs a lower difficulty, as one of the purposes of having a -ranked- map is to provide a beatmap listing of generally decent quality maps for all players to -be able- to play, including new ones. If you don't like this idea, then don't try to rank maps; it's not the end of the world if you can't get this "fame" of having one of your maps in the beatmap listing page.Aqo wrote:
I gave my reason for why maps don't need lowdiffs, what's your reason?those wrote:
I absolutely love answering thisargumentstatement with "Not every single map needs to be ranked"
Ranking a map gives it a scoreboard and creates competition on it. For people who like the map, this is HUGE and plays a giant role in the map's existence. It makes people play the map a lot more, advances the playerbase forward, and leads to faster progress of the entire metagame. This game should encourage mappers to make great maps for ranking, not discourage them from trying to rank good maps. When graveyard is the current equivalent for a favorites tab, the ranking system is heavily flawed.
If you really want to get more single difficulty mapsets with a scoreboard, Aqo, then I suggest supporting the approval idea discussed in this thread already (lower to 5min drain, max score, note density, etc).
The idea that "if mappers are only required to make one difficulty, then they will put more focus and effort on that difficulty, and it will be better quallity that a full mapset" might seem right in theory, but is completely invalid in practice. Today, a large portion of maps get ranked with an insane by the creator and guest easy/normal/hard. This is the same thing as having a single difficulty map, since you only have one map to focus on. The only extra time is for the creator to ask a few people for guest difficulties, which leads to the idea that supporters of having 1-diff sets in -ranked- category are just wanting to not be required to ask people to guest for them.
If you want higher quality maps to be ranked, then raise the standard requirements for ranking rather than lowering them. This is truly not a step forward or backward, but a large step in simply wrong direction. If this were to be put in place (even if they are all allowed to be in just approval category) then with these "higher quallity 1-diff sets" that you expect, there will be a even larger increase in "decent" or "semi-good" sets unless the standards themselves also increase, because yes, there are many lazy mappers on this game. Raising the number of staff required won't change anything either, I think.
Sounds like we need more modders that are not lazy. I certainly have no problem with it.Aqo wrote:
Face it, nobody wants to mod a full spread for a 4 minute song over 200bpm.
Seems to me like you are saying it's pointless to map something that can't get ranked. Oh dear, that's a problem.Aqo wrote:
Adding lowdiffs to a map like that is just as good at preventing it from getting ranked as not mapping them, with the only exception being if you're a person that has many BAT friends.
tl;dr change approval criteria to be lower (but not free-for-all) like many people here are suggesting; not the ranking criteria.
Also, I suggest looking at TVO's posts rather than ignoring them just because they are long or because he is TVO.
PLEASE FIX THE OP - seriously
I suggested this in another thread for this discussion already.Makar wrote:
If you want higher quality maps to be ranked, then raise the standard requirements for ranking rather than lowering them.
Why is [NM][HD] rankable right now? Why can't the mapper wait for a guest difficulty to add an [Insane] at least? (And the suggestion that some songs cannot have a fun insane done to is just about as ridiculous as suggesting that a 360bpm Renard song needs lowdiffs) I'd be fine with the current state of the rules if they worked both ways.
If this were enforced, then E/N/H/I would be required for ranking (since E -> H and N -> I). Also, it's because extreme over mapping to make a insane for a low bpm song is not okay but undermapping a high BPM song is (if it wasnt then there would be no easy maps for any song really).Aqo wrote:
Why is [NM][HD] rankable right now? Why can't the mapper wait for a guest difficulty to add an [Insane] at least? (And the suggestion that some songs cannot have a fun insane done to is just about as ridiculous as suggesting that a 360bpm Renard song needs lowdiffs). I'd be fine with the current state of the rules if they worked both ways.
If you want to further support/discuss this, make a new thread please.
It actually exist but eh.. I am just saying what I've said before: It's the mapper's decision and not the from the criterias or from the criteria maker how much and what does he maps. Please respect that.Makar wrote:
If this were enforced, then E/N/H/I would be required for ranking (since E -> H and N -> I). Also, it's because extreme over mapping to make a insane for a low bpm song is not okay but undermapping a high BPM song is (if it wasnt then there would be no easy maps for any song really). If you want to further support this, make a new thread please.Aqo wrote:
Why is [NM][HD] rankable right now? Why can't the mapper wait for a guest difficulty to add an [Insane] at least? (And the suggestion that some songs cannot have a fun insane done to is just about as ridiculous as suggesting that a 360bpm Renard song needs lowdiffs). I'd be fine with the current state of the rules if they worked both ways.
Exactly. But whether or not it can get to ranking is the criteria's decision.Stefan wrote:
I am just saying what I've said before: It's the mapper's decision and not the from the criterias or from the criteria maker how much and what does he maps. Please respect that.
Please move further discussion to a new thread.
Except, I don't actually want [Insane]s for 80bpm songs. I just want the ranking process to have some logic and be fair to all mappers.Makar wrote:
If this were enforced, then E/N/H/I would be required for ranking (since E -> H and N -> I). Also, it's because extreme over mapping to make a insane for a low bpm song is not okay but undermapping a high BPM song is (if it wasnt then there would be no easy maps for any song really).Aqo wrote:
Why is [NM][HD] rankable right now? Why can't the mapper wait for a guest difficulty to add an [Insane] at least? (And the suggestion that some songs cannot have a fun insane done to is just about as ridiculous as suggesting that a 360bpm Renard song needs lowdiffs). I'd be fine with the current state of the rules if they worked both ways.
If you want to further support/discuss this, make a new thread please.
No matter how much you say that modders should be less lazy, modders are human, and nobody is getting paid for modding, this is a hobby you do on the side. When one mapset is required to have more than 3x the amount of objects compared to another one, it's not surprising that it takes much more than this much effort to rank it.
In the past, a bunch of one-diff maps got approved. They were not necessarily even hard maps. You have stuff like the Leia collab, dragons, cruel clocks, nature of dying, chain destruction, and so on. This was FINE. It did not stop mappers from making lowdiffs in general, and at the same time it allowed mappers who put extra effort into designing a really nice standalone map to bring it to the public. This system was fine. When it got changed, you began to see much less of those maps, and now they tend to rot in the graveyard instead of seeing the light of day.
All of the arguments anybody has brought here for "one diff mapsets causing any sort of loss" are invalid and were already proven to be wrong in the past. One diff mapsets only add to the map pool, and, as a whole, regardless of whether they're complete beginners or long-time players - players love those maps.
Chain destruction, for example, is a very popular song, and to this day I have not seen a beginner player complain upon seeing Shiirn's map that it doesn't have lowdiffs. They like the map as it is regardless of their player level.
If you stop looking at theory for a second and look at what happens in practice, those one-diff-mapsets make everybody happy; both players and mappers. There is only gain to be had in having them.
That image whymeman linked before. If it can happen to one song, it can happen to another. We're not trying to count the number of these people; we are trying to prevent this case from happening to any amount of people.
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/742143
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/742143
This post says everything.Aqo wrote:
Except, I don't actually want [Insane]s for 80bpm songs. I just want the ranking process to have some logic and be fair to all mappers.
No matter how much you say that modders should be less lazy, modders are human, and nobody is getting paid for modding, this is a hobby you do on the side. When one mapset is required to have more than 3x the amount of objects compared to another one, it's not surprising that it takes much more than this much effort to rank it.
In the past, a bunch of one-diff maps got approved. They were not necessarily even hard maps. You have stuff like the Leia collab, dragons, cruel clocks, nature of dying, chain destruction, and so on. This was FINE. It did not stop mappers from making lowdiffs in general, and at the same time it allowed mappers who put extra effort into designing a really nice standalone map to bring it to the public. This system was fine. When it got changed, you began to see much less of those maps, and now they tend to rot in the graveyard instead of seeing the light of day.
All of the arguments anybody has brought here for "one diff mapsets causing any sort of loss" are invalid and were already proven to be wrong in the past. One diff mapsets only add to the map pool, and, as a whole, regardless of whether they're complete beginners or long-time players - players love those maps.
Chain destruction, for example, is a very popular song, and to this day I have not seen a beginner player complain upon seeing Shiirn's map that it doesn't have lowdiffs. They like the map as it is regardless of their player level.
If you stop looking at theory for a second and look at what happens in practice, those one-diff-mapsets make everybody happy; both players and mappers. There is only gain to be had in having them.
I completely agree with you here
You are forgetting that there was a limit on those maps too, and a reasonable one at that. So your example proves nothing "in practice"Aqo wrote:
Except, I don't actually want [Insane]s for 80bpm songs. I just want the ranking process to have some logic and be fair to all mappers.
No matter how much you say that modders should be less lazy, modders are human, and nobody is getting paid for modding, this is a hobby you do on the side. When one mapset is required to have more than 3x the amount of objects compared to another one, it's not surprising that it takes much more than this much effort to rank it.
In the past, a bunch of one-diff maps got approved. They were not necessarily even hard maps. You have stuff like the Leia collab, dragons, cruel clocks, nature of dying, chain destruction, and so on. This was FINE. It did not stop mappers from making lowdiffs in general, and at the same time it allowed mappers who put extra effort into designing a really nice standalone map to bring it to the public. This system was fine. When it got changed, you began to see much less of those maps, and now they tend to rot in the graveyard instead of seeing the light of day.
All of the arguments anybody has brought here for "one diff mapsets causing any sort of loss" are invalid and were already proven to be wrong in the past. One diff mapsets only add to the map pool, and, as a whole, regardless of whether they're complete beginners or long-time players - players love those maps.
Chain destruction, for example, is a very popular song, and to this day I have not seen a beginner player complain upon seeing Shiirn's map that it doesn't have lowdiffs. They like the map as it is regardless of their player level.
If you stop looking at theory for a second and look at what happens in practice, those one-diff-mapsets make everybody happy; both players and mappers. There is only gain to be had in having them.
Again, mapping can still be a hobby even if you can't rank your map. How many times do we have to say ranking isn't a requirement for you to do what you enjoy? Ranking requires a little more effort. Doing this is completely up to you.
Because sometimes we want people to enjoy our maps, and absolutely no one plays graveyarded maps. You can name about 10 people at most, and that's hardly 0,00001% of the community.Makar wrote:
Again, mapping can still be a hobby even if you can't rank your map. How many times do we have to say ranking isn't a requirement for you to do what you enjoy? Ranking requires a little more effort. Doing this is completely up to you.
Then put the effort to do soBlue Dragon wrote:
Because sometimes we want people to enjoy our maps, and absolutely no one plays graveyarded maps. You can name about 10 people at most, and that's hardly 0,00001% of the community.Makar wrote:
Again, mapping can still be a hobby even if you can't rank your map. How many times do we have to say ranking isn't a requirement for you to do what you enjoy? Ranking requires a little more effort. Doing this is completely up to you.
There is nothing that -prevents- you from getting your map ranked, it is only yourself and how much work you are willing to put into it.Makar wrote:
Ranking requires a little more effort. Doing this is completely up to you.
this is not true, many people play graveyard maps, just you can't see the playcountBlue Dragon wrote:
Because sometimes we want people to enjoy our maps, and absolutely no one plays graveyarded maps. You can name about 10 people at most, and that's hardly 0,00001% of the community.
big money is graveyard map too
------------------------
so, as for both encouraging all diff mapsets and let the "good single diff maps" get rank
what about removing the diff limit, and lower the ranking standards (?) for 4diff long maps so "can't find modders" is less a problem
0,0
A good 1/4th of my library is graveyarded/pending maps (not counting taiko originals). I play maps regardless of their ranked status. If it's a good map that is fun and enjoyable to play, I'll play it and recommend it as a "must download song".
Single Difficulty mapsets shouldn't be allowed to be RANKED simply because there will be less reason to complete a mapset, and MUCH more lazy maps will get ranked. The only reason non-marathon/uberridulous maps don't get ranked is because the mapper doesn't want to go through the modding process. It takes a while to get through it, and editing multiple difficulties is harder than one, but it really isn't impossible. It really bothers me that you are asking for this, simply because of how many lazy one-diff TV sizes will get pushed through.
The counter-argument I could see coming from that statement would be "why not raise the standards for 1-diff mapsets?" My response to that would simply be "why do we not expand approved to include the 1-difficulty works of art that plague the graveyard?" I agree with the need to give these maps a good, recognized home, but it shouldn't open the floodgates to 27 more Lisa - Crossing Fields (TV Size) [Insane]'s.
Single Difficulty mapsets shouldn't be allowed to be RANKED simply because there will be less reason to complete a mapset, and MUCH more lazy maps will get ranked. The only reason non-marathon/uberridulous maps don't get ranked is because the mapper doesn't want to go through the modding process. It takes a while to get through it, and editing multiple difficulties is harder than one, but it really isn't impossible. It really bothers me that you are asking for this, simply because of how many lazy one-diff TV sizes will get pushed through.
The counter-argument I could see coming from that statement would be "why not raise the standards for 1-diff mapsets?" My response to that would simply be "why do we not expand approved to include the 1-difficulty works of art that plague the graveyard?" I agree with the need to give these maps a good, recognized home, but it shouldn't open the floodgates to 27 more Lisa - Crossing Fields (TV Size) [Insane]'s.
outside of big money, some caren_sk maps, and a couple others, the visibility of graveyarded maps is zero; practically nobody plays them
lowering standards is only going to make things worse in terms of map quality, while allowing these sorts of maps for approval would arguably improve it instead
Can't honestly see this hurting anyone.
lowering standards is only going to make things worse in terms of map quality, while allowing these sorts of maps for approval would arguably improve it instead
Can't honestly see this hurting anyone.
The graveyarded maps that deserve their popularity already have it, and will continue to have it as new maps come. I don't get it..? And you contradicted yourself in that second line. The third line tells me you might not of read some of the responses here.apaffy wrote:
outside of big money, some caren_sk maps, and a couple others, the visibility of graveyarded maps is zero; practically nobody plays them
lowering standards is only going to make things worse in terms of map quality, while allowing these sorts of maps for approval would arguably improve it instead
Can't honestly see this hurting anyone.
A good way to look at this is to look at the taiko community. There are TONS are unsubmitted or graveyarded taiko maps that are not ranked since they are only 1-difficulty (and the lack of taiko modders), yet they are all widely known. They are on their userpages, their own threads, always played in multi rooms, etc. In fact, graveyarded taiko maps are probably played more by the upper-tier players than ranked ones, just because they are fun to play for them and they don't mind not having a scoreboard.
Shohei Ohtani
HEY I HAVEN'T READ THE THREAD
LET'S COMMENT ON IT.
Anyways like as much as I'd LOVE to say "Yeah go ahead let's do it!", since I'm the king of single-diff mapsets, you have to realize that songs must be accessable to everyone.
Idunno, I think it'd be a bit unfair if someone found a song they really liked get ranked and ended up not being able to play it because it only has 1 diff.
Plus, honestly, who would make an easy diff is it wasn't required by the game to do so? Like, nobody did it for Taiko, because it was pointless, when you could edkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkddkdkkddk all the time instead of having to tone it down. If rules are removed, practically nobody will make easies.
However, I do agree that single diff mapsets should be allowed back into Approved. I have my official two best maps (Both collabs) in approved, and I get to trade off less playcount and a more intense ranking system to being able to rank a single diff mapset.
Idunno, when I see this game, I see mappers as developers. Wouldn't it suck if developers were like "Hey, we got lazy, so let's just only make content for one group of people, sorry newbies, lool xdd." I also always saw that people mapped to get their favorite song out to the community. I started off mapping because I really liked the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and wanted to share it with the community. That didn't work out, but I eventually got my first map ranked, I.M. Crazy. People loved it. Some people even joined the game to play it. And they played it on easy mode, because that's what was accessable to them. And they loved it. Because it was accessable to them. They could work harder to hit the higher diffs, sure, but for that moment, they were able to enjoy content at a level that they could handle.
I find it silly to extend the single diff mapspread over to the ranked section, quite honestly, especially for the reason of "Oh, nobody wants to mod it / map it!" This is a game, a fairly large game at that, and as developers of content, mappers need to look at appealing to EVERYONE. Approved is a different story since it is told that it is for harder maps / special maps, and it is harder to get things approved for there, but for the general ranked content, it's just silly. If you want to do things lazily and expect a reward at the end, then this is not the game for you.
inb4 "wow cdfa rl ironic xdddddd ur fkn"
LET'S COMMENT ON IT.
Anyways like as much as I'd LOVE to say "Yeah go ahead let's do it!", since I'm the king of single-diff mapsets, you have to realize that songs must be accessable to everyone.
Idunno, I think it'd be a bit unfair if someone found a song they really liked get ranked and ended up not being able to play it because it only has 1 diff.
Plus, honestly, who would make an easy diff is it wasn't required by the game to do so? Like, nobody did it for Taiko, because it was pointless, when you could edkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkdkddkdkkddk all the time instead of having to tone it down. If rules are removed, practically nobody will make easies.
However, I do agree that single diff mapsets should be allowed back into Approved. I have my official two best maps (Both collabs) in approved, and I get to trade off less playcount and a more intense ranking system to being able to rank a single diff mapset.
Idunno, when I see this game, I see mappers as developers. Wouldn't it suck if developers were like "Hey, we got lazy, so let's just only make content for one group of people, sorry newbies, lool xdd." I also always saw that people mapped to get their favorite song out to the community. I started off mapping because I really liked the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and wanted to share it with the community. That didn't work out, but I eventually got my first map ranked, I.M. Crazy. People loved it. Some people even joined the game to play it. And they played it on easy mode, because that's what was accessable to them. And they loved it. Because it was accessable to them. They could work harder to hit the higher diffs, sure, but for that moment, they were able to enjoy content at a level that they could handle.
I find it silly to extend the single diff mapspread over to the ranked section, quite honestly, especially for the reason of "Oh, nobody wants to mod it / map it!" This is a game, a fairly large game at that, and as developers of content, mappers need to look at appealing to EVERYONE. Approved is a different story since it is told that it is for harder maps / special maps, and it is harder to get things approved for there, but for the general ranked content, it's just silly. If you want to do things lazily and expect a reward at the end, then this is not the game for you.
inb4 "wow cdfa rl ironic xdddddd ur fkn"
yeah, retardedly impossible and infamous maps get attention[CSGA]Ar3sgice wrote:
this is not true, many people play graveyard maps, just you can't see the playcountBlue Dragon wrote:
Because sometimes we want people to enjoy our maps, and absolutely no one plays graveyarded maps. You can name about 10 people at most, and that's hardly 0,00001% of the community.
big money is graveyard map too
------------------------
what about actually good ones that can't get ranked s because of tupid spread rules??
Who's to say that we won't also see an influx of single Easy and Normal diffs by novice mappers if this rule were to be relaxed? Allowing 1 single diff to be ranked can actually be a good thing for novice mappers who see creating an entire mapset as a dauntingly huge task. If a new mapper gets the chance to create a single diff at any difficulty level they feel like and can get a chance to get is ranked, that creates a much more fine grained incentive for them, since they could then say "well, I only made a Normal that time, now I'll try for a Normal and a Hard". It makes creating a map seem like a much smaller thing than it currently feels like.
It supports the already bad trait of only valuing the hardest difficulty and ignoring the rest of the mapset when it comes to determining the quality of a beatmap. Administration should keep a neutral/ all encompassing standard. Allowing this would go against that standard.
Also approval is being discontinued, replaced with a new system. We don't know how approval maps will be handled under the new ranking system. We shouldn't be testing out new rules/policies when inexperienced people are going to be responsible to following such rules.
Also I find an influx of single difficulties as a bad thing. If it's not the hardest it can be, then it's going to get rated poorly, because of how osu! playerbase values maps. It's also going to be just be lowered quality in general to have people just making single difficulties all over the place. If there is not going to be a map in which I prefer playing and the mapper could have easily included one, then I consider that mapset of lesser quality than a fullset version. It's different if the map is well suited for fast gameplay, but if it is just a common regular beated song, then I expect a full set and usually if your song is over 80 BPM you can create a full set if you can create an easier difficulty.
Also approval is being discontinued, replaced with a new system. We don't know how approval maps will be handled under the new ranking system. We shouldn't be testing out new rules/policies when inexperienced people are going to be responsible to following such rules.
Also I find an influx of single difficulties as a bad thing. If it's not the hardest it can be, then it's going to get rated poorly, because of how osu! playerbase values maps. It's also going to be just be lowered quality in general to have people just making single difficulties all over the place. If there is not going to be a map in which I prefer playing and the mapper could have easily included one, then I consider that mapset of lesser quality than a fullset version. It's different if the map is well suited for fast gameplay, but if it is just a common regular beated song, then I expect a full set and usually if your song is over 80 BPM you can create a full set if you can create an easier difficulty.
Shohei Ohtani
That would be greatBobbias wrote:
Who's to say that we won't also see an influx of single Easy and Normal diffs by novice mappers if this rule were to be relaxed? Allowing 1 single diff to be ranked can actually be a good thing for novice mappers who see creating an entire mapset as a dauntingly huge task. If a new mapper gets the chance to create a single diff at any difficulty level they feel like and can get a chance to get is ranked, that creates a much more fine grained incentive for them, since they could then say "well, I only made a Normal that time, now I'll try for a Normal and a Hard". It makes creating a map seem like a much smaller thing than it currently feels like.
If it worked like that.
But it doesn't.
Most novice mappers as well as experienced mappers are like "I'M GONNA MAP AN INSANE AND IT'S GONNA BE SO COOL OMG", mostly because Insane is where people can mostly utilize their stuff. Plus, it's the most appealing.
Plus, think of it like this.
I'm a new mapper and I make a really bland diff and call it "Normal." I get it ranked by the system.
I'm not gonna put in more work now that I've found out how to get maps ranked fairly easily. I'm gonna keep on making normal diff maps. Because if I care more about getting things ranked than the enjoyment of mapping (Which a lot of mappers do), then I'm gonna mill out normal diff maps because I want to get a lot of ranked maps and be the best mapper like Cookiezi.
Look, more examples on how you're wrong!TheVileOne wrote:
usually if your song is over 80 BPM you can create a full set if you can create an easier difficulty.
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/92258
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/19536
These are over 80BPM. The second is a regular beated song. There you go!
How am I wrong? I could create a three difficulty set for the first song and at least a 4 difficulty set for the second song. Also Normal+Hard qualifies as a full set under the rules. How is this relevant? I was speaking in the vast majority of cases over 80 BPM you can create at least 2 difficulties. Songs vary though. Not every song can/should be mapped.
This is not even a point worth validating. It doesn't matter whether there are cases where we can't map a rankable set under the rules. A fullset is defined as at least 2 difficulties mapped in sequential order.
This is not even a point worth validating. It doesn't matter whether there are cases where we can't map a rankable set under the rules. A fullset is defined as at least 2 difficulties mapped in sequential order.
I thought we were talking about "full sets" here.TheVileOne wrote:
Also Normal+Hard qualifies as a full set under the rules. How is this relevant? I was speaking in the vast majority of cases over 80 BPM you can create at least 2 difficulties. Songs vary though. Not every song can/should be mapped.
Man, this thread is awesome! It's like I'm really reading the same arguments over and over! It's like a perfect circle.
Yes, this is pretty much a shit post. My point still stands.
Yes, this is pretty much a shit post. My point still stands.
Shohei Ohtani
When you have two sides that are stubbornly set on an issue, and leave them to open debate with the mindset that they'll convince the other side why they're right, then that tends to happen, lol :3.Ekaru wrote:
Man, this thread is awesome! It's like I'm really reading the same arguments over and over! It's like a perfect circle.
Yes, this is pretty much a shit post. My point still stands.
But I still haven't really heard a good argument for the other side. "its 2 fkn hard 2 mak a ful set" doesn't count as an argument. People are too lazy to mod maps, let's remove the modding system since nobody wants to mod.
But as a note, I'd consider "full mapsets" maps that can be ranked without questioning the spread. I know there's been some trouble with 2 diffs being rankable or not. Not saying TVO is wrong, but it might be a bit of a weird area calling 2 diff maps "full sets"
Also I like how this thread is pretty much "BD advertises every map he has ever submitted"
more like "how a single mapper can provide examples that go against every argument opposing this thread's OP"CDFA wrote:
Also I like how this thread is pretty much "BD advertises every map he has ever submitted"
Shohei Ohtani
A lot of maps posted though look like they're intended to go to approval
Which I've had Equal frustrations regarding that aspect, and I do agree that restrictions should be taken off of the approval area. However, I don't see why this should be applied to the ranking system as well.
Which I've had Equal frustrations regarding that aspect, and I do agree that restrictions should be taken off of the approval area. However, I don't see why this should be applied to the ranking system as well.
NiceEkaru wrote:
Man, this thread is awesome! It's like I'm really reading the same arguments over and over! It's like a perfect circle.
Yes, this is pretty much a shit post. My point still stands.
But he does have a point, y'all keep arguing in circles about the same thing but it's not really as complicated as it seems.
Approval maps shouldn't have to follow the spread rule and the time requirement to be a marathon map should be lowered by 1 minute
Maps over 5:00 minutes are already quite long and can be tiring, (especially in taiko because there are usually no breaks in Ura Oni diffs
) but the fact of the matter is the requirement to be a marathon map is too high. Most long songs are only 4 - 5 minutes long. Anything over 6 minutes is usually extremely repetitive or are multiple songs in a beatmap.# of diffs should be proportional to time or note density(as Aqo suggested)
- 5:00 Drain Time/1000 notes > 1 Diff (2nd easier diff optional)
- 4:00 Drain Time/800 notes > 2 Diffs
- *Anything less than 4 minutes should follow normal criteria for ranking
There, now we have an Insane and a Normal/Easy everyone is satisfied.. there shouldn't be any problems and noobs should be able to at least play the normal/easy. Mappers only need 1 or 2 diffs and can have their Insane (and easier) diff, depending on the situation.
That's it that's all
My 2 cents
Shohei Ohtani
lol, practiceCDFA wrote:
but I play on hard what do i do.Kuro wrote:
There, now we have an Insane and a Normal/Easy everyone is satisfied.
EDIT: Or be satisfied with the normal/easy diff
I left this thread for a while because of various things I'd rather not discuss, but I'm going to go ahead and say a few things because the current discussion is not so much "discussion" as it is "listen to me I'm right", and constructive and useful discussion has practically ceased to exist.
In the future, discussion of single difficulty maps will most likely continue, but now is not the best time since we don't know what to base our assumptions off of.
Perhaps with the new system, this topic will be addressed in other ways that peppy has already thought of, who knows? So I think we should end this pointless discussion here until the time is right again.
I thought about this for a while, and began to think that maybe it is actually the best idea to leave things for now until the new ranking system is in place, as things won't quite ever be the same again.TheVileOne wrote:
Also approval is being discontinued, replaced with a new system. We don't know how approval maps will be handled under the new ranking system. We shouldn't be testing out new rules/policies when inexperienced people are going to be responsible to following such rules.
In the future, discussion of single difficulty maps will most likely continue, but now is not the best time since we don't know what to base our assumptions off of.
Perhaps with the new system, this topic will be addressed in other ways that peppy has already thought of, who knows? So I think we should end this pointless discussion here until the time is right again.