Current rule wrote:

Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 6 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 6 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.

This rule will restrict some awesome maps from ranking. For example, http://osu.ppy.sh/s/47710. It will be very difficult to map a full spread mapset for this: You need to map the "Extra" difficult(which takes a lot of time/workload, even more than a 6min length calm song) and map E N H I to avoid diff gap.

So the approval criteria can be improved.

Some discussions can be found in this thread and this too, but never end this up again like those please.

Some envisagements are:
1. Move the rule to guideline. If a mapper requests an approving(for songs shorter than 6 mins), a discussion will be raised in BAT to decide whether it is approvable.
2. For maps over 30M(?) scores(Auto, None) and 3min length, mapper can choose whether it is for rank or approve.
3. For maps over a certain note density(judged by combo/length, number of objects/length, etc) and 3min length, mapper can choose whether it is for rank or approve.

wmf presents something different: (It is not about approval criteria but the purpose is similar, so I put it here)
For songs shorter than 6 mins, if a mapper requests a single diff rank, a discussion need to be raised in BAT. Then it can be ranked after 3 BATs' check. Mapper must have strong evidence to show the need for single diff rank, such as marathons that close to 6 minutes, or gimmick maps of extremely high quality.

Any discussion or better solution will be appreciate.

back up!

Weeeeeeeeeeell, I think it needs way more to be discussed since many people are absolutely against this system but also it has some logic system behind of it. Specially because things like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/42854 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/56847 can easily be mapped as full Mapset.

I find that the BPM should affect as criteria if a Map is worth to go as Approval - as popner suggested Talent Shredder with a BPM of 280 - and that the Song lenght should be more a secondary point if we do allow someone go with its Map to Approval. Also of course we shouldn't forget the point if a Song is pretty complex and hard to map (to be honest I really do not know any songs which falls under that. I just name this because there are people out which has a different sight of this.)

Stefan wrote:

Weeeeeeeeeeell, I think it needs way more to be discussed since many people are absolutely against this system but also it has some logic system behind of it. Specially because things like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/42854 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/56847 can easily be mapped as full Mapset.

I find that the BPM should affect as criteria if a Map is worth to go as Approval - as popner suggested Talent Shredder with a BPM of 280 - and that the Song lenght should be more a secondary point if we do allow someone go with its Map to Approval. Also of course we shouldn't forget the point if a Song is pretty complex and hard to map (to be honest I really do not know any songs which falls under that. I just name this because there are people out which has a different sight of this.)

One way is to rule this by maximum score. From the example you shown, 30M score seems better. Anyway, this can be discussed and solved.

I think https://osu.ppy.sh/s/42854 should be a full mapset and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/56847 should be an approved map.

This is quite an old problem and thing is mappers used to """abuse""" the approval system to avoid mapping easy difficulties because they are a pain to do for some. Obviously that rule put many mappers on a situation where they just gave up trying to get their maps approved...

I think maps should be able to be approved no matter how long/hard/easy they are. There will always be people mapping lots of songs with a somewhat proper diff spread, there is no need to force those mappers that are really good at mapping very hard stuff to give up...

Instead of maximum score, go with note density.

Gonna get denied anyway, but well, the more often we try, the higher the chance we can change this system, hm?

Zarerion wrote:

Instead of maximum score, go with note density.

I think this sounds like a good idea.

I don't wanna deny anything but since overmap is not unrankable, it's not that difficult to reach 30M points on your average high bpm song. Especially since higher difficulty settings change the maximum score by so much it's just silly (try hp9+ar9+od9, and maybe even add cs5 on your regular 20m song and see the score skyrocket).
Also 3 minutes is way too short, nearly every full size song is over that, if not even 4 minutes.

The note density seems like a good option but that would first need to be defined exactly so it's clear to everyone, however you can still create instability in maps, having some parts super dense while others are not.

I know that people want freedom, and I am not really against it, however what people never think about is how a rule or a system can get abused. Even if there is only one case of abuse, it's a fail system. It needs to be perfect.
The current system might be restricting, but there is no abuse.

Currently the Marathon Rule is 6 minutes, and I think that's fine, however just because some songs are not exactly 6 minutes and are slightly under, in my opinion they shouldn't get prevented from getting approved, if the map really deserves to be. This is another matter though.

The original Approval rule was 4:30 and/or score above 18~20m, however that got nuked because, if I remember correctly, peppy decided (and posted somewhere on these forums, can't find it now) that all maps should actually aim for rank and not for approval. Approval was only meant to be for really special and unique maps, and true marathons, however longer songs were considered to be a marathon for some reason too.

lolcubes wrote:

Approval was only meant to be for really special and unique maps, and true marathons, however longer songs were considered to be a marathon for some reason too.

It's so sad when it has only marathon.

Yes, note density seems better to describe whether a short map is "approvable". I added it in the op.

Zarerion wrote:

Instead of maximum score, go with note density.

Gonna get denied anyway, but well, the more often we try, the higher the chance we can change this system, hm?

YOU GUYS ARE ALL COPYING WHAT I SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

@lolcubes, you can't aim for a perfect system, it will never be, there always going to be exceptions, a good way is just using our own judgement, can be very subjetive, but it works better if you ask me.

at least this time the OP is updated so you wont get a bunch of people saying the same the thing

Anyway, recall why I decided to drive the nail into the other thread.

Its because with the new ranking system coming, we're going to be speculating a whole lot right now.

t/127291
Something strange is coming in...!

Why does this need to be an issue? If one chooses to map a complicated song, then they do so on their on head. Any track can be simplified to its basic groove and if the song is mapped to as many notes as possible, then a gaping hole is left below expert difficulties. If a song makes it too hard to meet the basic criteria, then don't map it and expect to polish it off straight away.

Yeah let's just promote the mapping of average moe moe kyun songs + average mapping on TV Size songs.

From personal experience, some songs are very difficulty to reduce into simpler forms. If the song is nothing by sound spam, it becomes more difficult to break the song down into simpler rhythms. It is harder, but it is not impossible. The result is rarely ever as good though. Easier difficulties on high BPM songs sometimes feel forced with slider velocities that are much slower than the beat.

I am really at the point of just letting them have their approval maps. The BATs have the responsibility of deciding whether a map meets a certain quality and this quality will be subjective rather than some specific thing. I think that is the best course of action. It could use the same group opinion process that was suggested in eph's thread. It would detail the BAT's role in the new ranking process for approval maps.

Approval Map Criteria

An approval map is nominated like any other map, but it must go through an extra ranking process by the BATs. The BATs will need to discuss and come to a consensus on whether this map qualified as being a map for approval based on any number of subjective criteria related to how the song plays. If the BATs agree that the map does not need a full difficulty spread, then it can be approved. Otherwise the BATs will provide the mapper with details about why it was denied and what it requires to be rankable.

If we include specific objective qualities, then the mapper can exploit those requirements. Mappers would exploit the rule when the drain time was only 4:30. We can be sure to see an increase in the note density of maps if we put a specific rule in place related to note density. By keeping it subjective and unspecific the BATs can decide which maps need full spreads and which do not in a more accurate manner. The process doesn't have to be fair. We have already seen that mappers will exploit opportunities. I think that the BATs have less reason to exploit power than the typical mapper and it would allow case to case judgments rather than an inefficient all or nothing rule or policy.

The initial reason for approval mapsets to exist was so that very long marathons that had millions of score which could break the rankings would be able to have a scoreboard, it wasn't intended for super fast songs that cause a lot of hitobjects to go over said maximum score, which people abused and should have been hybrid mapsets (ranked + approved diff).
The reason Approval didn't need a full spread it's because it's tiring to make a full spread for super long songs, hence why all the other songs should have gone hybrid rather than full on approval with 1 hard diff.

Right now Approval is for gimmick maps and Marathons (6 minute or more) which should suffice, why can't people just map full spreads?

I'm getting annoyed from "6 minutes or more" really. Not sure but it would be so much better if it's just over 4 mins.
6 Minutes is just way TOO LONG and regarding of a rule, 5.45 5.50 5.55 won't be allowed so that's why it's so sad.

Because it's for Marathons, not long songs.

Sakura wrote:

The initial reason for approval mapsets to exist was so that very long marathons that had millions of score which could break the rankings would be able to have a scoreboard, it wasn't intended for super fast songs that cause a lot of hitobjects to go over said maximum score, which people abused and should have been hybrid mapsets (ranked + approved diff).
The reason Approval didn't need a full spread it's because it's tiring to make a full spread for super long songs, hence why all the other songs should have gone hybrid rather than full on approval with 1 hard diff.

Right now Approval is for gimmick maps and Marathons (6 minute or more) which should suffice, why can't people just map full spreads?

Marathons are supposed to be tests of endurance. It isn't much of a test of endurance if all I am doing is falling asleep for six minutes as much as a map that is shorter (but not too short) but high in note density.

It all comes back to having a good discussion going between BATs about approvability. As I've said in the previous thread, we should get more BATs handling approval and discussing it, and providing a set of guidelines for approval category. These guidelines will take into account note density, length, and overall difficulty in a collective rating.

Sakura wrote:

The initial reason for approval mapsets to exist was so that very long marathons that had millions of score which could break the rankings would be able to have a scoreboard, it wasn't intended for super fast songs that cause a lot of hitobjects to go over said maximum score, which people abused and should have been hybrid mapsets (ranked + approved diff).
The reason Approval didn't need a full spread it's because it's tiring to make a full spread for super long songs, hence why all the other songs should have gone hybrid rather than full on approval with 1 hard diff.

Right now Approval is for gimmick maps and Marathons (6 minute or more) which should suffice, why can't people just map full spreads?

Mappers did not abuse that. They saw an opprtunity. Thanks to the Approval rule they were able to spend more time mapping a single diff using the same effort needed for a usual generic ENHI spread. If a rule turns out to have side-effects, those side-effects will not be necessarily bad. Approval maps were good. Mappers and players liked them, regardless of what they originally were supposed to be. Why taking that opprtunity from mappersl, and thus taking cool maps from the players?

let me explain this once again.

We do NOT gain anything by forcing full spreads. We only LOSE the cool 1-diff mapsets.
By allowing 1-diff mapsets (Approved or ranked doesn't even matter) we will GAIN more maps ADDITIONALLY to the full spread TV Size Nightcore uguu kawaii desu chan mapsets. Those are not gonna vanish.

Also consider that we need more Insanes than Easys. A player will not play Easy diffs once he can play harder diffs. Once he plays I/X maps he will play those forever, thus they are more needed than lowdiffs.

Sakura wrote:

Because it's for Marathons, not long songs.

Classify it as "Marathon" rather than "Approval" then.
If it's for "Marathons" then why it used to be an approval once in a past. Some amazing maps like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38697 https://osu.ppy.sh/s/22173 and so on. They don't need to be a ranked map but people can enjoy it as well.
Approval =/= Marathon , pls understand

Zarerion wrote:

We do NOT gain anything by forcing full spreads. We only LOSE the cool 1-diff mapsets.
By allowing 1-diff mapsets (Approved or ranked doesn't even matter) we will GAIN more maps ADDITIONALLY to the full spread TV Size Nightcore uguu kawaii desu chan mapsets. Those are not gonna vanish.

I feel like you're saying exactly what I've said in the previous thread again haha.

Anyways, the reasons why this is a needed change is obvious. We should start discussing what we should use instead of the length rule.

I'm currently thinking object count and note density. Is there anything I'm missing?

@Frosty: My current guess is that it's approval for both Marathons and Gimmick maps (which already got a full spread, they are just... weird in some sort of way but still fun to play)

Nyquill, in that case then you should be attacking the no single diff rule, not the Approval criteria, to begin with Approval has no point other than separating Marathons/Gimmicks from regular osu! maps currently.

Sakura wrote:

@Frosty: My current guess is that it's approval for both Marathons and Gimmick maps (which already got a full spread, they are just... weird in some sort of way but still fun to play)

Nyquill, in that case then you should be attacking the no single diff rule, not the Approval criteria, to begin with Approval has no point other than separating Marathons/Gimmicks from regular osu! maps currently.

Nyquill wrote:

Marathons are supposed to be tests of endurance. It isn't much of a test of endurance if all I am doing is falling asleep for six minutes as much as a map that is shorter (but not too short) but high in note density.

Please explain to me how this does not fall under approval discussion.

All things considered, we're not changing what approval is for. We're simply fixing the way it works, because the way it does now makes no sense.

@Everyone: Now, am I missing anything other than note density, object count, and we can take length into consideration but not as a complete parameter for approval?

Sakura wrote:

@Frosty: My current guess is that it's approval for both Marathons and Gimmick maps (which already got a full spread, they are just... weird in some sort of way but still fun to play)

I totally understand what you mean about "Gimmick maps".
But is that truly good? Why does this rule have to restrict so much.
I mean many great approval maps are in pending/grave just because their length don't fit the approval.

Speaking from a player side, I would enjoy them rather than ranked maps because they give only one specific pp which is worth and challenging to play and spend a plenty of retries to get excellent records.

Speaking from a modder, I dare to say that I would mod only one single diff and then use my playing skill mod the map rather than modding so many diffs when those diffs are consisted of Easy Normal Hard, I don't really enjoy modding them actually when an Insane is ALWAYS ended up most plays in every single diff.

Speaking from a mapper, gogogo approval ,
I will try my best on only one diff and then it becomes a great map that "people" won't argue about it.

EDIT:

Nyquill wrote:

@Everyone: Now, am I missing anything other than note density, object count, and we can take length into consideration but not as a complete parameter for approval?

I have an idea. Will we BAT try to classify only some "BATs" who are capable enough in playing these hard maps can vote and decide if the map in question is intense enough to go for approval set. That won't hurt when they can actually give an opinion and everyone trusts them. I can mention who are capable enough in BAT if you ask me.

Frostmourne wrote:

EDIT:

Nyquill wrote:

@Everyone: Now, am I missing anything other than note density, object count, and we can take length into consideration but not as a complete parameter for approval?

I have an idea. Will we BAT try to classify only some "BATs" who are capable enough in playing these hard maps can vote and decide if the map in question is intense enough to go for approval set. That won't hurt when they can actually give an opinion and everyone trusts them. I can mention who are capable enough in BAT if you ask me.

I personally think all BATs should be able to participate in approval discussion, as it doesn't really bode well for us to make a P5 sort of thing within our own team.

Even if we were, there needs to be bare minimum density/length/object count requirements.

I think the 3rdnow 1st(in the op) way may solve this: Over 6 mins song -> can be approved. Under 6 mins song(no matter it is 5:50 length, or an extremely difficult map with 3:30 length) -> go into a BAT discussion. Thus mapper can not abuse the system.

We simply give another way for mapper to get a map approved instead of limit it with 6 mins rule only, and fortunately this way can include all cases.

And all BATs should be able to join the discussion I think.

Sakura wrote:

The initial reason for approval mapsets to exist was so that very long marathons that had millions of score which could break the rankings would be able to have a scoreboard, it wasn't intended for super fast songs that cause a lot of hitobjects to go over said maximum score, which people abused and should have been hybrid mapsets (ranked + approved diff).
The reason Approval didn't need a full spread it's because it's tiring to make a full spread for super long songs, hence why all the other songs should have gone hybrid rather than full on approval with 1 hard diff.

Right now Approval is for gimmick maps and Marathons (6 minute or more) which should suffice, why can't people just map full spreads?

Because some poeple does not have fun mapping easy difficulties. You can't really go and make some really original and fun easy/normals because that's what thety are, easies, the moment you include something weird it's already over the difficulty limit. Then again hards are still way too simple, the only tier w/o a limit is Insane, and that's where you can get off with anything w/o having people cry because of difficulty.

By forcing people to map stuff they don't like you will only get bad results (or none at all).

Hmm, fair enough.

I still disagree, but I'm not going to deny this right off the bat, I still believe people should really make easier difficulties for their mapsets or else we will end up with what Taiko was doing before the enforcement came in.

Feel free to continue discussing tho.

Wishy wrote:

Because some poeple does not have fun mapping easy difficulties. You can't really go and make some really original and fun easy/normals because that's what thety are, easies, the moment you include something weird it's already over the difficulty limit. Then again hards are still way too simple, the only tier w/o a limit is Insane, and that's where you can get off with anything w/o having people cry because of difficulty.

By forcing people to map stuff they don't like you will only get bad results (or none at all).

I guess that the tone of my other post caused it to be deleted. There is nothing about easier difficulties which excuses either boringness or gimmickry. It is entirely plausible to make the entire set varied and fun. There is no excuse not to simplify a song to its basic groove. As long as the song isn't bland and awful, there will be a lot of different, simpler rhythms to map.

If you can't map good easier difficulties, then learn how to do so. Conceptually, it isn't hard. It only takes some thought about consistence and subtle variance. If you don't want to learn on your own, then ask somebody who can make them well and learn from them.

Wishy wrote:

Sakura wrote:

The initial reason for approval mapsets to exist was so that very long marathons that had millions of score which could break the rankings would be able to have a scoreboard, it wasn't intended for super fast songs that cause a lot of hitobjects to go over said maximum score, which people abused and should have been hybrid mapsets (ranked + approved diff).
The reason Approval didn't need a full spread it's because it's tiring to make a full spread for super long songs, hence why all the other songs should have gone hybrid rather than full on approval with 1 hard diff.

Right now Approval is for gimmick maps and Marathons (6 minute or more) which should suffice, why can't people just map full spreads?

Because some poeple does not have fun mapping easy difficulties. You can't really go and make some really original and fun easy/normals because that's what thety are, easies, the moment you include something weird it's already over the difficulty limit. Then again hards are still way too simple, the only tier w/o a limit is Insane, and that's where you can get off with anything w/o having people cry because of difficulty.

By forcing people to map stuff they don't like you will only get bad results (or none at all).

No, not this. If mapper don't map easier difficulty only because he "don't like to", his map shouldn't be considered to be approved because this is lazy-mapping. The new approval criteria I suggested is for those "very difficult maps that will need a lot of works to map a full spread" AND in a situation that the limit really prevent something good from ranking.

fuck i'm gonna regret this

How about this compromise.
"Mapsets need to be ranked with a full spread containing at least a [Normal] unless there is already a ranked mapsets with lowdiffs for this specific song. If that's the case, it can go for Approval with only an Insane diff."

Beginners don't care about different versions of a map, they just want to play the song. if they have one already, they don't >need< another one.
This would mean that every song mapped for this game gets it's lowdiffs (that aren't even needed) but mappers regain some of their freedom, at least for already ranked songs

Zarerion wrote:

fuck i'm gonna regret this

How about this compromise.
"Mapsets need to be ranked with a full spread containing at least a [Normal] unless there is already a ranked mapsets with lowdiffs for this specific song. If that's the case, it can go for Approval with only an Insane diff."

Beginners don't care about different versions of a map, they just want to play the song. if they have one already, they don't >need< another one.
This would mean that every song mapped for this game gets it's lowdiffs (that aren't even needed) but mappers regain some of their freedom, at least for already ranked songs

I've considered this too. This will discourage speed ranking(because for 1st ranked version, a full spread is needed). But it is something irrelevant to approval criteria actually. And the purposes are different.

Yej, approved Force of Wind!

I think the approval definition needs to change with the times. At some point it was necessary to keep approval maps only for long songs, but now there is an even more need to satisfy certain song types. It's called approval maps. BATs should have the ability to approve them. If you have a specific rule about whats allowed, they can't approve/disapprove, just follow the criteria just like any other rule. It makes no difference. Bring back the real reason the category was named approval. It will work much better with the new ranking system.

Zarerion wrote:

fuck i'm gonna regret this

How about this compromise.
"Mapsets need to be ranked with a full spread containing at least a [Normal] unless there is already a ranked mapsets with lowdiffs for this specific song. If that's the case, it can go for Approval with only an Insane diff."

Beginners don't care about different versions of a map, they just want to play the song. if they have one already, they don't >need< another one.
This would mean that every song mapped for this game gets it's lowdiffs (that aren't even needed) but mappers regain some of their freedom, at least for already ranked songs

This would be great. mapsets like http://osu.ppy.sh/s/79696 could end up ranked by just adding some generic [Normal] and maybe a [Hard] in there. Not being sarcastic, you are absolutely right, beginners don't need 5000 different [Easy] and [Normal]s. Your idea was already applied tho: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/7932 See how there is a single [Easier] diff and then you got lots of hard insanes. Inb4 people comes and cries "but a lot of people can't play that mapset because easy is boring and the other diffs are too hard!!!!!".

And D33d sorry but you are not gonna convince me, I still think Easy/Normal are just plain boring and generic at most and even Hards can barely be something else. God even most insanes are barely average.

What people forget is that old approval maps did not count towards ranked score. I believe this is why they were allowed to exist.
Today, everything counts towards pp score, even marathons, which is probably one of the reasons why the old approval criteria is gone.

Also, while we all want more good Insanes, as long as Hard diffs are statistically most played, you can't really say that Insanes are what people are looking for the most.
(I am aware that a lot of pp farmers spam those hards though, but numbers don't lie sadly)

Under that logic, then there should at least be a hard in the mapset. It's not uncalled for. Any map can have a Hard difficulty regardless of BPM.

That was my point, basically, yes.

lolcubes wrote:

Also, while we all want more good Insanes, as long as Hard diffs are statistically most played, you can't really say that Insanes are what people are looking for the most.
(I am aware that a lot of pp farmers spam those hards though, but numbers don't lie sadly)

could you show me these statistics? what are they based on?
I remember hearing the same thing - in early 2012. I'd like to know whether this still is true.

In pp system people are free to play any maps, and ranking a new map will not affect the toplimit of pp. Thus the change of approval criteria will not lead to a change in pp system.
Actually, I like to put a lot of retrys in app maps, even I can't pass some of them. Those maps are challenging enough for me to warm up.(And I expect a trail that can refresh my record during this process.) And not to mention, lots of the epic replays are in these app maps.

If we keep talking about this we will end up in the actual conclusion: a proper diff spread is required.

Maybe just add a category for maps that don't follow some "proper rules" and make them not count towards pp? Then you could rank all those insane only maps there, let them have a scoreboard, and that's it. It would be a section where all you do is freeze maps so they can't get modified, give them a scoreboard so people can compete against each other, and well there is no down side...

Approval should be reserved to Marathons and Gimmicks maps, and as now it's like this.
Approval can be for UltraInsane maps(that can in fact incorporate some gimmick!), but PLEASE create Hybrid ( One Approved, rest Ranked for example ) mapset instead of one-diff mapset if you can, since almost all songs can be "simplified". And please try to include a good spread so most people can enjoy it.

We could consider map that not respect some rules, but are still fun and entertaining to play as Gimmicks
plus, we could lift the "need one difficulty with less than 3 stars" in map that were already ranked 2-3 times ( but actually force the "minimum spread is 3" rule) as a compromise(and still consider them rankable).

And no, don't lament the fact you can't map 3 good diffs... since you can ask the 2 guest diffs as long they complete the spread ( Normal/Hard, for example ) and are mapped by different person than you (to mantain the accountability)

I'll say just leave it as it is.

I remember that it has been said (by peppy?) that the only difference between ranked and app maps are the score effect --- that is significant in terms of score ranking, but this is not the case now --- so ranked and approved are now basically similar --- and only marathon map is left approved because most of them still got ridiculous score and we want to preserve minimum order for the score ranking.

App map is no longer 'special' comparing with the ranked ones and then structually we should try to make the full spread to meet ranking criteria.

Nyquill wrote:

Marathons are supposed to be tests of endurance. It isn't much of a test of endurance if all I am doing is falling asleep for six minutes as much as a map that is shorter (but not too short) but high in note density.

Marathon maps are maps on a marathon song but not a special test --- some sort of relavent assessment when you try to master the map but not really 'supposed to'. Resist to fall asleep during gameplay is also part of endurance

Frostmourne wrote:

Sakura wrote:

Because it's for Marathons, not long songs.

Classify it as "Marathon" rather than "Approval" then.
If it's for "Marathons" then why it used to be an approval once in a past. Some amazing maps like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38697 https://osu.ppy.sh/s/22173 and so on. They don't need to be a ranked map but people can enjoy it as well.
Approval =/= Marathon , pls understand

In the past maps are approved while reached a relatively low difficulty limit or score limit. Now the rules changed. Some of them might not fall on the recent approval criteria but their status of being approved but being held. Rename the category results in inaccuracy in descibing those songs.

Very much like what Sakura said, as the nature of approved criteria stands any maps other than marathon shall be rejected, and the no one diff rule is to be attacked --- and seek for putting gimmick map(?) in the ranked side --- not the approved one.

wmfchris wrote:

I'll say just leave it as it is.

Unfortunately, something does have to be changed, or at least added, to address cases like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/93850, where the drain was 5:55.

Current rule wrote:

Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 6 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 6 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.

I'm proposing the new rule:

New rule wrote:

Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 6 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 6 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.
Exceptions of extreme cases will be handled on a case by case basis by the BAT.

Or we can do what popner said.

popner wrote:

Some envisagements are:
1. Move the rule to guideline. If a mapper requests an approving(for songs shorter than 6 mins), a discussion will be raised in BAT to decide whether it is approvable.

Either way, time based constraints are really bad in the sense that things like "oh but I'm 15 seconds off wtfffff" can happen.

TheVileOne wrote:

I think the approval definition needs to change with the times. At some point it was necessary to keep approval maps only for long songs, but now there is an even more need to satisfy certain song types. It's called approval maps. BATs should have the ability to approve them. If you have a specific rule about whats allowed, they can't approve/disapprove, just follow the criteria just like any other rule. It makes no difference. Bring back the real reason the category was named approval. It will work much better with the new ranking system.

Really does kill the meaning of the word "approval" doesn't it

If the 'exceptional cases' implies 'wtf 5 seconds short from 6 minutes wtfwtfwtf' only it make sense but others type of maps that fight for approval do not work as said above.

The grey zone should better be defined clearly as well. Today someone might want to approve a map with 5:58, tomorrow a map with 5:40, and next week we've got a 5:00 map approved, that shouldn't happen. I would suggest adding a clear cut limit where discussions for whether the map is approvable applies (like 5:30 - 6:00) and, (might not neccessary to appear on the criteria) the shorter the song is, the tougher assessment on approvability.

Make approval = no pp no need to map easy diffs. I think nobody really cares about try not to fall asleep marathon maps, there are only a few and then again approval, today, is just "if you want to map a 6 min + song you can avoid mapping easy diffs, else this is useless". I mean the whole category is pointless, how many maps got approved so far on 2013? 12, less than 4 are actual marathons, the other 8 are just long songs...