forum

[Rule]Approval criteria

posted
Total Posts
81
Topic Starter
popner

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.
DingGGu
back up!
Stefan
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.)
Topic Starter
popner

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.
Wishy
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...
Zare
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?
theowest

Zarerion wrote:

Instead of maximum score, go with note density.
I think this sounds like a good idea.
lolcubes
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.
Frostmourne

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. :cry:
Topic Starter
popner
Yes, note density seems better to describe whether a short map is "approvable". I added it in the op.
Nyquill

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
eldnl
@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.
Makar
at least this time the OP is updated so you wont get a bunch of people saying the same the thing
Nyquill
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.
xxbidiao
t/127291
Something strange is coming in...! :D
D33d
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.
Wishy
Yeah let's just promote the mapping of average moe moe kyun songs + average mapping on TV Size songs.
TheVileOne
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.
Sakura
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?
Frostmourne
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.
Sakura
Because it's for Marathons, not long songs.
Nyquill

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.
Zare

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.
Frostmourne

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
Nyquill

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?
Sakura
@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

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?
Frostmourne

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.
Nyquill

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.
Topic Starter
popner
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.
Wishy

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).
Sakura
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.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply