As of right now, the ranking criteria reads:
Individual 1/3 and/or 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (4 and 5 objects respectively).
Given a bpm of 180 as the standard for the ranking criteria, this means that 1/3s at a lower bpm are technically unrankable while 1/4s of the same spacings are at a higher bpm
For example, on this map beatmapsets/747341#fruits/1719036, the salad has a technically unrankable 1/3 chain at 02:04:804 (3,4,5,6,7) - while on another map beatmapsets/1404850#fruits/2913079 00:32:761 (1,2,3,4,5) - the same chain, albeit mapped at 1/4, is considered rankable even though at a much higher bpm
For a bit of reference, the gap between each note in sadistic music factory's salad is 121ms while the gap between each note in dreamin' attraction's salad is 73ms.
This creates a bit of an inconsistency between the ranking criteria based on what bpm and time signature you're mapping (which really shouldnt happen)
My proposal would be to move the 1/3 part of the rule unto the guidelines instead of having it be a rule. This would leave it up to the beatmap nominator's discretion as to whether it destroys density as much as the 1/4 (more standard) version of the rule.
The proposal would be as follows:
Rules:
Individual 1/3 and/or 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (4 and 5 objects respectively).
would change into
Rules:
Individual 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (5 objects respectively).
Guidelines:
Individual 1/3 patterns should not persist for more than one bar (4 objects respectively).
I couldnt personally find a wording that would make it so that 1/4 and 1/3 would be equal in terms of ruling while keeping similar ranking criteria restrictions so I think this would be the best solution going forward. If someone does find a solution that does work (without limiting 1/4 mapping as is currently) that would probably be the better solution.
Individual 1/3 and/or 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (4 and 5 objects respectively).
Given a bpm of 180 as the standard for the ranking criteria, this means that 1/3s at a lower bpm are technically unrankable while 1/4s of the same spacings are at a higher bpm
For example, on this map beatmapsets/747341#fruits/1719036, the salad has a technically unrankable 1/3 chain at 02:04:804 (3,4,5,6,7) - while on another map beatmapsets/1404850#fruits/2913079 00:32:761 (1,2,3,4,5) - the same chain, albeit mapped at 1/4, is considered rankable even though at a much higher bpm
For a bit of reference, the gap between each note in sadistic music factory's salad is 121ms while the gap between each note in dreamin' attraction's salad is 73ms.
This creates a bit of an inconsistency between the ranking criteria based on what bpm and time signature you're mapping (which really shouldnt happen)
My proposal would be to move the 1/3 part of the rule unto the guidelines instead of having it be a rule. This would leave it up to the beatmap nominator's discretion as to whether it destroys density as much as the 1/4 (more standard) version of the rule.
The proposal would be as follows:
Rules:
Individual 1/3 and/or 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (4 and 5 objects respectively).
would change into
Rules:
Individual 1/4 patterns must not persist for more than one bar (5 objects respectively).
Guidelines:
Individual 1/3 patterns should not persist for more than one bar (4 objects respectively).
I couldnt personally find a wording that would make it so that 1/4 and 1/3 would be equal in terms of ruling while keeping similar ranking criteria restrictions so I think this would be the best solution going forward. If someone does find a solution that does work (without limiting 1/4 mapping as is currently) that would probably be the better solution.