those wrote:

How will this tie into the new modding system that peppy is coming up with?

Unranks over quality concerns can be made in the provisional ranking period when a map is first ranked, under similar circumstances and with identical restrictions.

Are we going to assume that 8 BATs will review a map under the new ranking system? That seems like a lot of attention for a single map. Perhaps there should be some internal policies/ guidelines before we start making such assumptions.

The new ranking system will likely change a lot of things - this included. Consider that a discussion for another time. Imagine this rule is only going to apply to the current system for now.

Will inevitably end up causing arguments over excuses like 'but it's fun!'. I support this but unfortunately opinions on what makes a map good very way too much. It'd be better just to be less flexible with some of the guidelines.

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.



Beatmaps must be assessed by the presiding BAT and community modders as being of sufficient quality at a general level before they can be considered ready for ranking.

Don't use "presiding" in a multinational community. Very few people will actually know what this means unless they already are fluent in English. Also this statement should given as BATs and modders should be quality checking as part of their responsibility. Why do we need a rule pointing this out unless it is an instruction for BATs and modders to do as such? The mapper can do nothing about what the BATs and community modders do.

This means that maps which are technically rankable under the criteria but are widely considered (8 or more members of the BAT) by the staff to be unrefined or in considerable need of improvement may be unranked or rendered unrankable if no suggested changes are made in an appropriate timeframe.

This sounds like a ranking policy rather than a rule. It also just seems like a workaround for a broken system. If the modders are making mistakes and the system is allowing such maps to get through, shouldn't we be addressing the problem directly? This seems to me to be a damage control policy. It has the vibe of "We know we're not doing our jobs properly, so be prepared if we need to unrank your maps because we're incompetent". Is management actually preparing for the incompetency that will come with the new system?

Additional thoughts:

"if no suggested changes are made in the appropriate timeframe" is vague and doesn't really go along with how rankable issues are handled under the current ranking system. Subjective issues that prevent a map from being ranked are considered to fall under unwritten rules. They are subjective only because not all BAT agree with the rules. The ranking criteria isn't really complete. There is no specification in this draft about what a mapper needs to do to ensure their map will not get unranked apart from do whatever the BAT says, but only if 7 other BATs agree. This is not a quality standard criteria that mappers can easily grasp and understand. If this is going to be that criteria, then it should be more focused towards a mapper's responsibility and it needs to be specific. Currently if a map is not rankable it just doesn't get bubbled or the bubble gets popped until further changes are made.There is no specific timeframe for a mapper to respond to changes. If a mapper refuses to make certain changes that are unrankable, then a map is nuked.

These questions should be addressed at some point.

What is the timeframe that we are considering? How long will BATs have to discuss changes? Since when have mappers been given a specific time before changes have to be made?

Under the new system a map will sit in a preranked state for a week's time. Does this mean that 8 BATs have to come up with a conclusion within a week? we're considering that a maximum of 8 maps will be ranked a day. A worst case scenario would require 8x8 = 64 individual BAT interactions for a single week, and that doesn't factor in songs that get ranked during the week. If overall quality is an issue, then I'm not sure how this will motivate the BATs to try to fix the issue if they have the ability to make this decision already. Taiko maps have already been unranked because of lack of mods.

If we do not define a specific timeframe and due process for these discussions, then I will remain skeptical that BAT/ current modder behavior will change or that a larger part of the team will take part in discussions. It will be the same 4-5 BATs making the decisions for the rest of the team. This applies to both systems.

This rule doesn't specify whether a BAT can pop a bubble before a consensus is reached. I think there needs to be a discussion amongst the BATs about how to handle a rankable discussion. If you don't pop a bubble because there is a rankable discussion, why can't any BAT just rank a map because they feel it is rankable? It's going to be very hard to gather 8 BATs to all say the same thing and it's much easier to just get a couple extra opinions and take action. Are we considering a map rankable until the census says otherwise? This will mean that maps will be ranked before this will happen if the BATs aren't quality focused. The new system will be better suited, but the culture issue will still remain.

Thoughts?

agreeable

o_o

I agree with the who idea of the OP that map quality is dropping in favor of quantity and something has to be done to maintain quality. Thing is, how can you do this when BATs are merely highly biased humans? There will never be a system that can objectively judge what map is "of quality" and what isn't. While the idea might be good in theory, I fear that in practice it would only restrict mapper freedom...

Quality is always subjective, since maps are a kind of "interpretable art". You can't ask for objectivity. That's why this rule asks for intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is no objectivity, but includes a wide spread of opinions to be "commonly agreed to".

To make 8 BATs agree that the map in question sucks is clearly an ensured establishing of an intersubjective agreed fact. Moreover the BATs are BATs because they usually know what they are talking about. Yes, opinions may vary, but the high amount of required BATs for this rule cause to kill this bias, or at least reduce it heavily to an acceptable minimum.

This is not killing mappers freedom. It's making people think about what they map. Therefore the rule appears fine to me. Just some wording tweaks are required to fix vague or misunderstandable wordings.

Loctav wrote:

...

if it's just a general concept of "don't rank bad maps" then why don't BATs already do this now? since this is basically the basic role of BAT... to check the quality of a map before deciding to rank it. Isn't this rule redundant with BAT-selection-process if that's what it is?

i.e. isn't the role of a BAT to begin with, to check that a map is of an agreeable level of quality before ranking it, and if this isn't happening then isn't this rule basically a hint towards BATs not doing their jobs correctly?

Because "bad maps" are also seen subjective.
You know, we DID unrank over bad quality in the past. But mappers tend to be very stubborn and offended lately, if you do so. They turn against you like "BUT IT IS RANKABLE, READ RULES".
This rule is something that needs to be settled, since it should've been done this way for a long time. It's just something that wasn't written down somewhere. And now it finally happens.

My point is, I agree that maps need to be of quality, but how do you want to draw the line with this rule?

If it's just "people's opinions" then this rule doesn't really change anything at all.
Otherwise if you want to write specific standards for what's "quality" mappers might get restricted unfairly.
I just don't see what positive outcome this can lead to

The idea of keeping map quality high is good; but this rule is not the right way to go about this imo. Instead it would be better for the BAT team to talk with each other and put more thought into ranking.

I feel that this would be feasible if enough BATs could qualify specific reasons for a map being sloppy. For example, if enough people agree that the flow of a specific section bears little to no relation to something important to the music, then it's probably bad. Other things, such as something being flat-out boring and uncreative/barely varied could also be grounds upon which subjectivity can become objectivity.

I think that this would be great as a general mode of practice. Enforcing it completely would probably be impossible, but we really need to see a shift away from "oh somebody enjoys this, therefore there's no need to make it better." That kind of attitude is a disgrace to almost six years of progression and the entire notion of refining something via modding.

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

SapphireGhost wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

But there's the notion that as time goes on, map quality should steadily be increasing. Granted, quality is very negotiable and objective, but we should all have a sort of fine line with what is "good" and what is "barely rankable", should we not?

No one will be happy if a map is unranked for this reason, but the thing is, a map shouldn't be ranked if it doesn't meet quality standards. I'm sure as all staff members, if not regular modders, we know what is "quality" and what is "barely rankable" as it stands, do we not?

SapphireGhost wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

Well, my opinion on this: ..yeah

Because it actually happens pretty often that BATs say: weird rhythm, change it bad flow, change it and that's it. People can't learn of that, and if that will happen 8 times, well then, gz for your unrank?

If this would get implemented, you should make at least a rule, that the BAT's show the things which are wrong, and help to get it back to rank 'fast', or at least give them feedback which is helpful. Also this with the timeline - maybe we shouldn't do that with maps from 2009, hm? xD (did never say that all maps from there are bad :C)

+1 dkun
"wow this map is so good it should be ranked" is different from "well, this map has ~no mistakes anymore~, time to get this shit ranked already"
Even if quality is subjective everyone knows the difference between poorly mapped but still following the rules and a really good (in any aspect) map

btw isn't it too late to think about old maps? lol let them be, past is past
we have a lot of new pending maps waiting for modders

I can already see this discussion stuck on "quality is subjective" argument... again.

I have nothing against this rule, it's a good way to prevent very horrible maps to get ranked. But it's not going to fix the problem at all. It can't be fixed just by adding a rule that allows BAT to unrank bad maps, it'd just create frustration on the mappers' side and would demotivate them when it happens.

We have to think in the long term, in my opinion, we should try to promote the good maps in some way, for example by getting a proper map rating system (this role could be given to the CATs, they'd rate every map they play on a 1-10 scale, unlike the normal users, they'd vote for the map itself and not the song, it'd be much more accurate than the current user rating system). We could also give a "This is a good map" icon to maps that deserve it.
I'm just throwing some ideas here, nothing really concrete, however if something like this is done, mappers would probably try to aim for quality instead of quantity.
In short : Mapper makes a bad map → map gets ignored → mapper is sad → mapper makes a better map → repeat until mapper is awesome.

who would give this "good map" icon?
inb4 biased

I don't know, the CATs ? or a monthly poll to promote the 10 best maps of the month (people would still vote on songs instead of maps D:) ?
I haven't given much thought on how this could be done, but imo promoting the good maps is the best way encourage mappers to focus more on quality rather than quantity.

this whole thing as a rule is pretty hilarious, but you know lets make things even worse and piss off even more I mean this rule just sounds wrong in every sense. Just my 2 cents I really don't think this is the right way to take things.

Kurai wrote:

I don't know, the CATs ? or a monthly poll to promote the 10 best maps of the month (people would still vote on songs instead of maps D:) ?
I haven't given much thought on how this could be done, but imo promoting the good maps is the best way encourage mappers to focus more on quality rather than quantity.

This^

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Can't agree more with this.

Andrea wrote:

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Can't agree more with this.

Can't imagine why. *cough*
inb4 silence

I don't think it needs to be fair. The BATs have the final say on what is good enough to be ranked. The BAT should have the responsibility to not be corrupt and give mappers a fair opinion and I wholeheartedly support giving them that privilege. A strong will makes a strong foundation of reason. The amount of say that mappers have in the ranking process is a huge reason why the ranking system is not effective. It is a mockery of the system when a mapper can get something ranked just by disagreeing with the BAT. It takes a group of BATs to fight off a single mapper's opinion.

The BATs are not there to kill mapper freedom. They are there to uphold quality standards. If a BAT says something needs more mods, it needs more mods. If something plays bad to a reasonable majority then it should be changed. It's not hard to tell when a map lacks polish. Mappers should not be able to push the voice of reason away so easily. A rule like this will encourage BATs to defend their thoughts and opinions and encourage unified discussion.

At least I hope that will be the result. It wont change anything unless the BATs start taking what they believe is correct more seriously.

TheVileOne wrote:

The BATs are not there to kill mapper freedom. They are there to uphold quality standards. If a BAT says something needs more mods, it needs more mods.

Just saying, if a map sucks so hard that 8 BATs agree it needs to be unranked, there is a chance that more mods won't help at all. In such cases, to really fix the map, usually a complete remap is needed.
and i can imagine lots of rankmappers will dislike that idea

If this is the case, then link maps that were ranked recently that are deemed to have a level of quality that is too low for ranking so we can see what the problem is.

Zarerion wrote:

Can't imagine why. *cough*
inb4 silence

Is this some kind of personal attack or something? You should refrain from making such posts if they're not helpful or constructive.

Anyways, if a map is that bad to not be fine with being ranked, it shouldn't ranked in the first place, obviously.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Mapping should be fun but playing the map should also be fun. If the map is not of good quality, then it's not going to be fun to play for the average user. And it's important to have maps of good quality that are also fun because we want to appeal to new users, not turn them away.

I agree with Kurai's idea that something needs to be done. Something like a rating system (from 1-10 would be pretty neat.)

Also, I don't know if it's just me and my somehow biased observations, but I've noticed there is some type of "Matthew Effect" going on in terms of getting maps ranked where it seems that people who already have maps in the game that are ranked usually have their maps rated more quickly and easily than those starting out (in other words, the maps of users get more recognition simply because of the fact that the user has more recognition.) Because of this, it seems like this system is discouraging to newer mappers because even if they do produce a quality map, the fact that they are a "new mapper" would make it harder for them to get their maps ranked.

Anyways, I'm not too familiar with the system in which maps get ranked, but this is the way I'd like to see it be done to solve the two issues above:

-Each mapper is originally alloted to submit a mapset for ranking once every [insert time period here].
-As such a mapper gets more maps ranked into the game, the mapper gets "points." The number of points the mapper has determines the number of mapsets they are allowed to submit in the above time periods, but only up until a certain point. This allows mappers to focus on the quality of their maps instead of quantity and trying to push out new mapsets every 5 minutes; while also providing a small reward for those who do get their maps ranked.
-Every time a mapset is submitted for ranking, the mapset is "sent out" to [insert number here] BAT's at random for judging. The BAT's have [insert time period here] to give the map a rating of 1-10 as well as notes on how to improve the quality of the map. If the average score of all the BAT's iis above [insert number here] for that mapset, then the map is allowed to be ranked. Otherwise, such a map is denied from being ranked and the mapper must wait until his submission period expires if he wants to "fix-up" and re-submit the mapset (this will count as a "brand new" submission).
-An alternative for re-submissions is that re-submissions could be given a separate, shorter time period which are treated slightly different than original submissions. This would be good if the map only has a few errors that need fixing since it would be kinda silly to force the mapper to wait a long period of time when there were only a few minor things that needed fixing.
-Mappers get "bonus points" if their maps are rated really high amongst the set of BAT's (like an average score of above 9.0 for example) which provides more incentive for mappers to attempt to map with quality in mind.

This is the most fuck retarded argument in mapping, I swear

There is no "drop" in map quality

There is an increase in maps, which leads to a decrease in density of originality (does that make sense?)

Every map ranked, that I have seen, is solidly built and well timed, enough so that ranking isn't a problem.

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best? Please, tell me this. With the large quantity of maps being ranked nowadays, obviously fewer and fewer maps will bring something new to the table. Just because a map isn't original, does that mean it's bad, or lacks quality? Along with that, can you even explain what you mean by this "quality drop"?

As far as I can tell, you're not even arguing anything. You say there's a drop in quality, but what do you even mean by that? I know a lot of people say that, but what is the real issue? As far as I can tell, more maps = more songs, and regardless of this "map quality", more songs will make osu! more enjoyable for everyone.

In any case, this thread is shit and you should feel bad for making it. Thanks.

I hope this post was coherent, because I'm really mad.


edit: if you really care about map quality, how about getting rid of a few fucking useless rules that are restricting creativity and have no reason for existing

Silynn wrote:

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best?

You only have this way of thinking due to the two or so years of increased leniency in the ranking process. If the BAT was as strict as they should be, this way of thinking would never have entered your (plural) minds.

those wrote:

Silynn wrote:

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best?

You only have this way of thinking due to the two or so years of increased leniency in the ranking process. If the BAT was as strict as they should be, this way of thinking would never have entered your (plural) minds.

Why should ranking be more strict?

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

stricter ranking means fewer ranked maps, which means fewer songs.

Also, I don't see any particularly large flaws in pretty much all of the maps ranked recently. All I see is whether or not it's boring or fun to me, which completely depends on the style of map, not if it's good or bad.

Also, considering how much everyone's opinions differ on what a "good" map is, you have to leave a lot of room for those opinions.

There are many maps that I'm sure you consider bad, that many other people enjoy for what they are.

Silynn wrote:

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

This isn't necessarily true. If we got a flux of a ten thousand new ranked maps that were of 2007-2008 quality as of right now, I wouldn't find osu to be any more "fun"

I think the mapping charts already attempt to do what this attempts to do: pick the best maps and give them a special "these are actually quite good" category of their own.

The only way I can see this working out and pissing off the smallest number of people is to do a two-stage ranking system: the current one is left as is, and "exceptional" maps are taken out of that pool and promoted to the second ranking tier.

The ranking tiers are functionally identical, but one tier is considered to be of better quality than the other. The largest objection I see being taken with this approach would be people thinking their maps deserve that elevated tier of regard (when they in fact don't)

benguin wrote:

Silynn wrote:

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

This isn't necessarily true. If we got a flux of a ten thousand new ranked maps that were of 2007-2008 quality as of right now, I wouldn't find osu to be any more "fun"

Do you even know what I'm arguing?

Please, don't say things that aren't relevant. It's not particularly helpful.

Obviously ranking incorrectly timed maps with bad rhythm and no sense of flow is unacceptable.

There is a certain quality standard currently in place, and at the moment, it is mostly agreeable. There is no reason to increase the threshold to some random level of "quality"

Keep in mind that no one is exactly sure what this quality is supposed to be, either


Also yes, I'm mad. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and an admin at that, made a shitty pointless thread that doesn't even know what it's trying to argue. Everything stated in the OP is horribly horribly horribly vague and doesn't know what it wants to accomplish, other than getting rid of something that is probably bad, but also does not exist.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I'm neutral about the ranking system as of right now, it's not all that bad and the quality of maps that come out of it are acceptable, at least to me. It's not the best ranking system out there either in my opinion, there is always room for improvement and people shouldn't be too quick to bash on possible changes. I'm satisfied with the way it is now though *shrugs*

There are reasons to give privilege. If a dev and admin says that it's a problem, we should be giving the BATs the tools to manage it. Stop acting like BATs are mindless idiots trying to ruin your experience. This is how it should be. This is for the worst case scenarios and will not be used unless there is a reasonable amount of support. The BATs will need to come to some level of agreed quality and learn how to come to a consensus and this is probably how that consensus will be carried out.

I still agree it shouldn't be public other than the already known statement is that BATs will be checking for lack of quality maps and ranking accordingly. The current system has no policies in place to unrank maps that could be improved before the rankable criteria. This would allow such a process. I'm pretty sure the BATs are going to provide a good reason to derank a map. You should give BATs more credit and let them handle their responsibilities the way the administrators and developers want them to.

Again I do not think we need specific criteria that defines quality that BATs will be bound to. BATs should have the freedom to evaluate each mapset individually and decide as a team whether it is acceptable or not. That is how subjective criteria is handled already, but this would formally clarify that responsibility. It is an improvement.

BAT's can do whatever they want.

However, this has no place being a rule. We do not need more restrictive rules creating issues for mappers.

If you think there is not enough quality checking going on before maps are ranked, then increase the number of bubbles required or something. Or send it off to a team of judges before ranking. I don't know.

Don't make useless fucking rules.

I have the same feeling like you Silynn, something like why it must even be higher than it is but question is must it be higher than "what"?.
The rule is so vague but I do believe it won't happen so many times like unranking everyday or something unless the song is really popular (most of people including many BATs would play) or the map is sooo questionable (in case it has negative feedback based on "Player").
Watching the map only won't help unless one has to play them and is able to play them.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Having a map ranked is not a right. It's a privilege. The entire point of having a ranking system is to ensure that only good maps end up becoming official. If there are no technical problems and the map is fair, then great--however, if lots of BATs agree that certain aspects are in desperate need of sprucing up, then why not let that happen?

In a worse case scenario, what if the map's a pile of slop that only slipped through the net because of subjectivity? Surely, if somebody's given the pleasure of their own ranked map and yet it's bad enough to attract a lot of BAT attention, measures should be taken to improve it? Remember that anybody can access ranked maps very quickly and if they're deemed as such, they'll be what represents the game as a whole.

Yes, the beauty of osu! is that it's driven by the community, but ultimately, the point is still to provide something which people will actually enjoy and then make them feel compelled to keep playing the game. Can you imagine if you ran this and saw loads of terrible content being approved? I'd be going all Gordon Ramsay on the staff.

Also, I think that I've made myself clear about where I stand with the voting system. People will give generous and poor ratings for the song choice alone, so the map's rating is not a clear indicator of quality. Before I knew who made decent maps, I found myself lost in a sea of 9+ maps which I flat-out didn't like. The ratings are an application of end-user subjectivity, so it's up to the staff and other members of the community to ensure that maps are at least good.

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues. The BATs had the privilege to do everything else already mentioned in the description.

TheVileOne wrote:

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues

It's not a change

those wrote:

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The title of the thread ([Rule] Maps must be of an agreeable level of quality) implies two things.

1. Current quality standards are not high enough
2. A new rule should be made to address this

I am arguing that current quality standards are fine, and that we also don't need more useless rules.

Also, again, what are you increasing these quality standards to?

It's all very vague and very pointless. It seems to me, again, that you have no idea what you are trying to argue, you just know what you're arguing against.

Which, coincidentally, is something that is a non-issue.

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

I think a model like the critic/user score split on Metacritic could be useful here. Just abandon "standards" altogether and rank any map that isn't technically crippled in some obvious way when the mapper decides it's finished. Then the BATs' ratings (and comments/reviews?) go into a prominent "critic" category and all the other users' ratings go into a "user" category. Then add critic/user scores to the filters on the map listing, and have the filter default to critic score >= 70% or something... whatever would correspond to what the BATs think "rankable" should be.

If people make shitty maps, they'll fall off the "critic approved" filter, and people adventurous enough to download the map anyway will downvote the map and move on if they don't like it. People are pretty good at deciding whether they like something, so let them handle that decision themselves.

tl;dr get some free market up in this bitch.

Insane suggestion that most people will just roll their eyes and ignore aside, I like ErufenRito and awp's posts. Don't restrict the "bad" maps. Just give extra spotlight to the "good" ones.

TheVileOne wrote:

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

Of course the levels of quality will be inconsistent.

You have so many ranked, some will stand out and others will fade away.

This doesn't mean that those in the latter category are bad, or undeserving of ranking.

There is currently no problem with the current quality standard, but this thread is implying that there is. If there isn't a problem with it, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a problem.

However this thread does clearly that.

So I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding.


Edit: What I'm trying to say is, don't imply there's something wrong with current criteria, when what you actually want is more thorough checking by staff before maps go off to be ranked.

I think Eph is trying to prevent mapsets that can be easily improved getting ranked prematurely. If the map isn't the greatest map in the world, that's okay. It doesn't have to be! It should at least exhibit a basic level of polish. BATs make mistakes too and this will be damage control when inexperienced BATs happen to let something get ranked that wasn't ready. They already do this for taiko maps. it will also be used for specific subjective patterns. They already have such discussions before a map gets ranked, and it removes the limitation when a map gets ranked with such a pattern before proper discussion can be made.

Silynn wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

Of course the levels of quality will be inconsistent.

You have so many ranked, some will stand out and others will fade away.

This doesn't mean that those in the latter category are bad, or undeserving of ranking.

There is currently no problem with the current quality standard, but this thread is implying that there is. If there isn't a problem with it, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a problem.

However this thread does clearly that.

So I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding.


Edit: What I'm trying to say is, don't imply there's something wrong with current criteria, when what you actually want is more thorough checking by staff before maps go off to be ranked.

The thing is, some mappers refuse to change stuff in their map for whatever reason and because these changes are technically subjective, they are not unrankable. However, they should be fixed (for whatever reason) and this rule would allow the BAT to enforce these changes.

This rule will change nothing at all, just make BATs life easier.

IMO, this is already an unwritten rule among BAT's. rubbing it on everyone else's face would just discourage mappers to do something new and forces them to create those same old clones.

i for once wants to see a DJpop-styled map on the latest ranked maps again (yeah it's an old concept, but it would be refreshing if done again), too bad it would just be shut down because it's "sooo 2009's"

Do you guys realize that nothing changes with this rule? It just gives our permissions a written down definition that is more specific. Honestly I don't even see why this was put in public because it's more directed towards us and not mappers, and shouldn't be in the rule list itself.

EDIT: well it seems like later posters are understanding now

Koko Ban wrote:

i for once wants to see a DJpop-styled map on the latest ranked maps again

um.

ErufenRito wrote:

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Gonna comment on this (Was gonna do it when it was first posted, but 5 hour silence <__<). I think we've forgotten that mapping is making content for a game. Now, I map for the hell of it, I'll map fun little one diff maps and share them with some friends and upload them on the site. However, when it comes to RANKING, that's when it becomes game developer time. Sure, it may not always be 100% fun to have to change some things in your map, to have to do more work, but quite honestly, mapping to rank isn't 100% about fun, but rather developing content so the community can play songs that they enjoy listening to. Now, mapping can still be fun, and should be fun, but you can't put fun over putting out quality content for an almost 3m player game.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyways, hurr durr input even though I'm probably regurgitating everything that's been said.

I see the point of this. There's been a lot of maps that I've seen ranked that aren't of highest quality. However, the rule is too general. What is "low quality" and what is "high quality." For instance, I'm one of those mappers that is seen on either end of the spectrum as a "Godly omg mapper" or one of the worst active mappers since 2010. With this rule in place, mappers who are shoved in all ends of the spectrum will end up actually submitting nice quality maps, but being taken down because 8 BATs find the map on the wrong side of the spectrum.

I guess the main issue here is that it gives BATs too much power, the power to take down maps for no reason other than a vague quality clause.

However, I'm not against the need of regulation against quality. Mostly because I always see crap get ranked that shouldn't, and it's really sad to see. This mostly happens because of a laxness in the BATs. I see a lot of "Oh well next time fix this major this OK RANK YAY." Plus, people can get away with cheap tricks that allow them to produce maps faster, get mods faster, and put out a bunch of mediocre maps to the ranked playlist. So if we're going to fight for quality, we can start by putting in little rules that help cut out the things that cause low qualityness.

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

Same with like guest diff maps. I swear there was a rule where mappers had to map at least 2 of the diffs in a map (Or at least participate like in a collab diff or something.). But there's a lot of maps where people are like "MAP ONE DIFF LOL OTHER DIFFS ARE DUMB IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUBLISHING THIS FOR A GAME OR ANYTHING", which is totally a sign of low quality. A rule can be made easily.

So this rule wouldn't be helpful at all. However, rules can be added to ease in quality control. We can't fix it entirely, but a lot can be done to minimize it, so it'll be the job of the modders and BATs to extingush it.

I'm running on four hours of sleep so if I don't make sense on some parts then sorry, I'd be happy to like explain it better~.

and I didn't read through the thread in full depth so you can just ignore the parts where I discuss something that's already been discussed.

I think I'm getting where this measure comes from.

I've been seeing a lot of very uninteresting mapsets lately, 2-diff mapsets that clearly have no gameplay experience to bring, very low user rated beatmaps, and just maps that are boring and uninspired and get very few plays. I think these are the one that the "level of quality" is aimed at. I don't think we're talking about "this is fun but dodgy, let's see if we can get 8 BATs to change it" but more like "hey, this really brings nothing to the game, why is it here" type of deal. Of course, that's a very blunt way of putting things, but it is true. You have no idea how few beatmaps I download these days because at least 1/3 of them are 2-diff mapsets or clearly show no effort in making them. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone.

So is it a good thing or not? Meh, I dunno. What I am afraid of with this rule is circlejerking, which even inside the BAT is a thing. I would hate to see crap like "I don't like this, let's get my other 7 BAT friends to derank" happen, and I can definitely see it happen. This also could make for very heated discussions that I do not wish to see devolve into sissy fights like I've seen in the past.

it always impresses me how spot on can CDFA be on things like these

CDFA wrote:

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

Then I guess you want the faq to be removed, in case a newbie mapper decides to read it.

This bit is incredibly outdated I think and goes back to when score would dictate a map's length. I don't think the advice applies anymore given that you use breaks accordingly.

Plus, people can get away with cheap tricks that allow them to produce maps faster, get mods faster, and put out a bunch of mediocre maps to the ranked playlist. So if we're going to fight for quality, we can start by putting in little rules that help cut out the things that cause low qualityness.

This is what bothers me about many recent maps more than anything else.

It would be much more producitve to see a series of guidelines in regards to increasing map quality in general. Removing 2 diff mapsets except in relatively rare situations, disallowing the editing of mp3's to be shorter without an EXTREMELY valid reason, and increasing the amount of input an uploader has to put into their own mapset would go alot farther to incubating a mentality of 'quality over quanitity'.

But honestly, I don't really see a point for this thread at all. Doesn't un-ranking maps already take a consensus between several BATs anyways?

In either case, we should be focusing on how to solve the problems BEFORE ranking, not after it.

Please limit discussions in this thread to discussions actually relevant to this rule, and not the suggestion of tertiary systems to identify map quality. For the purposes of this rule, the BAT is considered able to actively discern what is a good map and what is not.

TVO: As far as instating this as a rule goes, I somewhat agree with you. This is not something a mapper can overtly adhere to as it does not detail a specific criterion that they must meet. In that sense, it is better suited as a guideline. However, guidelines do not carry the same imperative earnest that rules do, and as such, could easily be circumvented and/or forgotten. It also goes without saying that maps should be of a standard level of quality before attempting to be ranked - and this definition of quality varies from player to player.

Silynn: You clearly do not fully grasp this issue. A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking. The criteria is an objective assessment of what maps a map structurally correct as opposed to of high quality.

A provision would need to be made in the staff's internal ranking policy for this to occur, and that is likely what will happen should this go ahead. In the interests of transparency, I am listing it as a "rule" in the sense of this forum in order to gather opinions and thoughts on the matter before progressing further. Consider the rule/guideline distinction for this issue irrelevant for the time being.

The simple fact of life is that most guidelines are not followed as they are not enforceable. Every guideline of note so far has been revised to become a rule shortly after its induction as mappers are simply unwilling to adopt them into practice for the most part. Therein, suggesting further guidelines to improve map quality appears as if it is a logically sound idea, but in reality, will affect almost nothing. Indeed, the abject description of "quality" is nearly impossible to pin down in an objective ruleset as it is a subjective concept - apples and oranges. I am all for further suggestions for guidelines despite their apparent uselessness, but let's not kid anyone by thinking they are anything beyond idyllic concepts of what mappers should do, or at least the ones whom are far removed from common sense.

What I wish to seek with this rule is a provision that will permit maps to be suitably revised if a significant majority of the team all agrees on a set of specific issues and their solutions beforehand. It is not simply "8 BAT hate this map and thus it is unranked". These 8 BAT will be required to work intensely with the mapper to resolve the quality concerns before the map may be reranked, and any violation of this process on the BAT's part will be met with severe disciplinary rebuke. Indeed, any BAT that rank a map which requires this provision to amend will have their candidacy amongst the team discussed by the BATmanagers as a part of this process as well, as this is something which should only be used in circumstances where it is absolutely required.

Ephemeral wrote:

8 BAT

I just read all from this,why 8?and not 6? or 4? o dunno is more a discutible number... tell me how 8 BATs will check the map, because it's really hard to find atm 1 for a mod or for a simple check

ErufenRito wrote:

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Agree 1/2 of this; BATs should judge the map quality, BUT the mappers should not please a group for checking a map,for personal experience i know what this means,and searching for someone who is not busy/lazy/like the song is hard, it will be just a priviledge to have a ranked map and ppl will wait more and more for a rank.
if something like this should be implemented, osu will need more BATs .w. i do not totaly agree about this rule

Honestly, I don't see what exactly you people are discussing.
This rule would only set a definition for what happened before already.
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/79149 Look at that map, it was unranked because many people agreed it wasn't playable properly.

This wouldn't really change anything. The only thing is that mappers couldn't complain about unranks anymore, because BATs are following a rule. and less discussions result in faster mods and thus in faster reranks.

Eph, it sounds to me what you actually want is a restructuring of the ranking process to include more thorough quality checking.

Don't try to pass this off as some shitty vague rule. And don't say that it being a "rule" is irrelevant to discussion, that's probably one of the major problems with what you proposed.

I'm sorry, but please choose your words more carefully and say what you actually mean.

It's not helpful to anyone if you try to make rules that aren't necessary.

Also:

Ephemeral wrote:

A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking

Where does this happen? It doesn't. Why is this relevant if it doesn't happen? It isn't.




Anyways, it doesn't matter, because it seems what I'm arguing and what you're arguing are different things.

In any case, I still feel it's relevant to point out that this "decrease in map quality" doesn't really exist and we don't need an increase in current quality standards

because that's what it seems like you're saying and that's what a lot of other people think you're saying too

Silynn wrote:

Also:

Ephemeral wrote:

A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking

Where does this happen? It doesn't. Why is this relevant if it doesn't happen? It isn't.

t/92080&start=0
read the thread starting with the first rank until the rerank

Soaprman wrote:

I think a model like the critic/user score split on Metacritic could be useful here. Just abandon "standards" altogether and rank any map that isn't technically crippled in some obvious way when the mapper decides it's finished. Then the BATs' ratings (and comments/reviews?) go into a prominent "critic" category and all the other users' ratings go into a "user" category. Then add critic/user scores to the filters on the map listing, and have the filter default to critic score >= 70% or something... whatever would correspond to what the BATs think "rankable" should be.

If people make shitty maps, they'll fall off the "critic approved" filter, and people adventurous enough to download the map anyway will downvote the map and move on if they don't like it. People are pretty good at deciding whether they like something, so let them handle that decision themselves.

tl;dr get some free market up in this bitch.

Insane suggestion that most people will just roll their eyes and ignore aside, I like ErufenRito and awp's posts. Don't restrict the "bad" maps. Just give extra spotlight to the "good" ones.

This is exactly what I was trying to push a while ago. In fact, I believe that you posted in my suggestion thread about that. I certainly think that we should still try to get all maps up to a certain degree of polish, but being able to give the best maps a further stamp of approval would help the end user to find better maps. Here's hoping.

Seriously, though. Let's not abandon standards.

Silynn, the entire point is that, if staff members think, "Why the Hell wasn't this map refined" at something being ranked, they'd be able to do something about it. Currently, it only takes one BAT to rank something and then, even if there are clearly ways in which a map could be improved, it's "good enough." Why not improve something if there's clearly room for it? We shouldn't fall back on user ratings as the be-all and end-all, because we'd either see loads of sloppy maps being upvoted because of the song choice, or a load of sloppy maps with negative ratings--but still a load of sloppy maps. Neither of those outcomes sound good to me.

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

CXu wrote:

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

If 8 BATs actually think, it is bad, there must be something bad, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 20 of them think, it is fine, 8 is a good number to say that there is at least something heavily wrong.

I hope you get this logic. lol

Loctav wrote:

CXu wrote:

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

If 8 BATs actually think, it is bad, there must be something bad, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 20 of them think, it is fine, 8 is a good number to say that there is at least something heavily wrong.

I hope you get this logic. lol

so if 8 BATs don't like the map, but all the others do and the community likes it and everybody is happy and everything is wonderful, it still could get unranked?

that seems illogical. I think it should rather be that 8 BATs are the minimum amount you need for an unrank, but if they are by far in the minority, they can't unrank the map.

Ensuring quality is not about majority or popularity contests. If 8 BATs, who have an idea, what they are talking about, think that the map is that bad that it needs to be unranked, then there is probably something wrong FOR REAL - regardless what the other majority says.

Personally, I am quite astonished at the large variance of map quality present these days. Mappers are increasingly playing the quantity over quality game for whatever reason, and overall map quality is beginning to suffer for it.

Mappers
Why dont you tell us the names of those mappers
overall map quality
Pick few maps from the first page that you considered to be *badly mapped* and lets ask those BATs why did they bubble/rank it if its so bad

You almost all are talking about it, and talking about it and herpiderpiderp it. But the thing is: Can you even imagine the position of a new Mapper which may has potential to make nice Maps in the future but stucks for now in a low Level? Because nobody did that. Just say that if x BATs dislike it it isn't worth to rank it or to keep it ranked. Because the Title is saying that subliminal.

Now let's think about it: If someone made a Beatmap which has actually no problems - which means that it has no unrankable issues and it isn't so bad at all - but it still does not reach the minimum of Quality how these BATs who judges about it wishes, how does should the new Mapper feels? I can tell it to you: The Mapper will be mostly sad, angry or disappointed about itself and/or on his work. You're trying to limit the numbers of Opinions to give a final result to a Beatmap but the truth is: You can't be everybody's darling. Whetever if it's a Mapper, Modder, BAT or a Player. You just can't do that. For the sake of the future, please stop trying bring something forward which cannot be moved for now.

You - which means some people - may have been mad because you see that you made some great works while other people makes worse things - according to your Maps - and getting them ranked too. This, is just how I think how some people acts. However, to describe Quality into Rules, criterias or something else is the same shit how you define effort. And many people simply don't know that. This thread is trying to split the good Mappers from the (currently) bad Mappers more and more and you know this won't go well. For now I am done what I want to say. I might give more stuff what I've thinking in this moment. :p

Stefan wrote:

You almost all are talking about it, and talking about it and herpiderpiderp it. But the thing is: Can you even imagine the position of a new Mapper which may has potential to make nice Maps in the future but stucks for now in a low Level? Because nobody did that. Just say that if x BATs dislike it it isn't worth to rank it or to keep it ranked. Because the Title is saying that subliminal.

if you're a new mapper and your maps are shit dont expect to get them ranked, try to improve first.
getting bad maps ranked just because "its their first map" is a horrible excuse

If it's like this , then how about limiting 1 or 2 new beatmaps per day? BATs can make a voting or something like that to determine which map has to be ranked today. If there are no beatmap that met their criteria, then no ranked beatmap that day. imo

silmarilen wrote:

getting bad maps ranked just because "its their first map" is a horrible excuse

That's not an excuse, yes. Also I've never tried to lead on this way.

silmarilen wrote:

if you're a new mapper and your maps are shit dont expect to get them ranked, try to improve first.

Improving cannot only come by saying "bad" "boring" "stop mapping". There must be a balance between that. As I said this Discussion doesn't really focused on newer Mappers. And with this Rule - what's kind stupidity - you're giving more like 70% of the Mappers no chance. Sure, try to improve yourself. But being demotivated if someone says "Your Map does not fullfil our personal criterias." is just normal then.

Stefan wrote:

If someone made a Beatmap which has actually no problems - which means that it has no unrankable issues and it isn't so bad at al

the only maps that get unranked will be the ones which ARE "so bad at all"
That's the whole point, y'know.

Stefan wrote:

Sure, try to improve yourself. But being demotivated if someone says "Your Map does not fullfil our personal criterias." is just normal then.

why do you assume it's gonna be like that? If a map sucks that badly it gets unranked that's for some actual reasons. BATs tell the mapper these reasons, e.g. "you have only 2 different patterns in the whole map, this is not fun to play, try some more creative stuff, like XYZ".
That's somethin mappers can work with, that's giving them the opprtunity to improve. Assuming they want that.
Allowing them to keep their shitmaps and not telling them they're shit will not help them.

Stefan, your points are completely invalid.

Otonashi Yuzuru wrote:

If it's like this , then how about limiting 1 or 2 new beatmaps per day? BATs can make a voting or something like that to determine which map has to be ranked today. If there are no beatmap that met their criteria, then no ranked beatmap that day. imo

We already have enough problem with the 8 limit. The amount of new maps is way too high for your idea, since it'd cause millions of good maps still pending.

That Thread is completely invalid. my 2ct

I am out here because this Thread is mostly represents how osu! shouldn't be: unfunny and strict with tons of rules.

Stefan wrote:

That Thread is completely invalid. my 2ct

I am out here because this Thread is mostly represents how osu! shouldn't be: unfunny and strict with tons of rules.

"Unfunny and strict?" I think it's safe to say that the staff are capable of having a laugh. With the rules and guidelines, there is also plenty of room for self-expression and personal style. If we didn't have "tons of rules," then we'd have ranked maps which are far worse than they are at the moment. Making a beatmap is simple enough as a concept, but it takes a lot of effort to make something that feels cohesive. There's a reason as to why new mappers are usually bad and 2007 maps are usually inferior--they need time to develop.

Please somebody (of course BAT is better) drop here

large variance of map quality present these days

and maps from this week\month\two which could be handled by this rule.

I think some examples can bring this thread to a new level.

As Sieg said - giving few examples would bring this thread to whole new level, so I do.

Because I mostly agree on what CDFA said, I'm going to drop my 2 cents here

CDFA wrote:

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/88299

Same with like guest diff maps. I swear there was a rule where mappers had to map at least 2 of the diffs in a map (Or at least participate like in a collab diff or something.). But there's a lot of maps where people are like "MAP ONE DIFF LOL OTHER DIFFS ARE DUMB IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUBLISHING THIS FOR A GAME OR ANYTHING", which is totally a sign of low quality. A rule can be made easily.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/94623
(Sorry Andrea for using you as example)

Mr Color wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of very uninteresting mapsets lately, 2-diff mapsets that clearly have no gameplay experience to bring, very low user rated beatmaps, and just maps that are boring and uninspired and get very few plays. I think these are the one that the "level of quality" is aimed at. I don't think we're talking about "this is fun but dodgy, let's see if we can get 8 BATs to change it" but more like "hey, this really brings nothing to the game, why is it here" type of deal. Of course, that's a very blunt way of putting things, but it is true. You have no idea how few beatmaps I download these days because at least 1/3 of them are 2-diff mapsets or clearly show no effort in making them. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/76731

I don't want to actually start a flame war - And I could be wrong - but these maps fits their quotations very good. And I could even provide at least one problem with them if you don't agree with me.

"Quality checkers" should be a separate group of people from BATs, they shouldn't look at the technical side, just the playing side. The biggest problem for me with this is that a lot of BATs can't understand the playing quality of a map because they can't play it. This rule seems like it's aimed at maps which are hard to play because let's face it, a typical hard difficulty is a typical hard difficulty (9 times out of 10), a normal is always a normal and an easy is an easy, it's uncommon to find exceptionally interesting maps in there difficulties. Insane+ maps however tend to vary GREATLY and you need to be able to understand the appeal of each part of the variety if you want to regulate it.

People are too uppety about this kind of thing though, I mean the opposite isn't true so why should it work this way? Why can't maps of an exceptional quality be ranked without going through opinionated mods? I like mappers having freedom but I don't like bad mapping. Trying to regulate an opinion is difficult, if this passes AT LEAST make the decision require a rather high quantity of BATs to agree (a voting system on nominated maps in some hidden away BAT area perhaps?)

If this is aimed at "generic" difficulties, I don't agree. They always have been generic and always will be and in my eyes they will always be there for people to jump on, just more maps for me not to play.

^What I've been saying for years. But apparently most people is unable to understand that pretty much anything below Insane = generic maps that will always be the same. You can't do much on an easy or normal, you can barely do anything cool on Hards (and when you do they usually end up being Insanes) and then again even low tier Insanes are almost always the same, it gets interesting when the level goes really high and then it stop being technical. There are tons of high level insanes that got ranked after rotting for ages without any real change happening, they were there just because they used to get avoided by BATs because they were complex, hard to mod probably and of course THEY COULDN'T PLAY THEM.

I still hold my idea thjat if you can't play a map then you are not able to properly feel how it plays, how good it is and what should be changed, minor technical things like offset, maybe some timing, and that stuff is ok, but anything else is just no, you can't do it. Any good player can test and judge a map in a matter of 10~15 minutes (leaving aside some technical things no one really cares about other than mods) yet whenever some hard maps goes for ranking it takes months if not years of "work" to get them ranked.

I think I could make a list consisting on more than 100 maps that are all more interesting, original and fun to play than most maps getting ranked nowadays, and I'm sure any somewhat good active player can do the same thing (assuming they kind of explore the world of unranked maps).

Peoples are keep saying, and things are going their old way as always.

tl;dr: A bunch of very basic rules is enough, rest is not necessary. You can't judge how good a map's quality is if you can't properly play it, therefore many maps can't be judged by BATs because they are not good enough to play them and understand how good/bad the map is, ergo this rule makes little sense, but w/e some things are never gonna change.

Loctav wrote:

CXu wrote:

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

If 8 BATs actually think, it is bad, there must be something bad, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 20 of them think, it is fine, 8 is a good number to say that there is at least something heavily wrong.

I hope you get this logic. lol

If 20 BATs actually think, it is good, it must be good, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 8 of them think, it is bad, 20 is a good number to say that it is good.

Just used your words, inverted the numbers and +/- terms, same logic, just to show you that's just a very poor argument.

I got a question for you:

If 2 BATs think a map is bad and it shouldn't be ranked, and you get like 50 active good players telling you the map is fine, really fun and it would be really cool that it got ranked, what would you do?

If the BAT can't play it, then they aren't qualified to rank it either. If we want to go this route, then we could say that it is unrankable because it's too difficult.

This rule doesn't change anything. If a BAT cannot beat a map, they should be seeking advise from people who can or we should be recruiting BATs who are better players. Limiting power because of physical capabilities is silly.

Edit: There are BATs that can play super difficult maps. SapphireGhost being the example that comes to mind.

Thing is the BAT recruiting is usually based on stuff that good active players don't usually do. Like if I want to be a BAT I gotta go mod lots of maps, maybe even map, etc, what does that have to do with being a good player able to judge how good/fun a map is? I think it's more something like a base problem.

Edit: I don't really know who's a BAT and who's not, I know there are some very good players there, yet they are just a few, not enough. Maybe make a special division within BATs where you get like the pro player BATs just mod specific maps (very hard ones) while the rest work on easier ones?

The more you're able to play, the less able you are to tell if something is bad.

those wrote:

The more you're able to play, the less able you are to tell if something is bad.

Behold, our new BAT master, the ultimate quality checker...


https://osu.ppy.sh/u/1585937


Just jokin' with ya', but I disagree with this, I'd argue that they can just understand more aspects of playing.

those wrote:

The more you're able to play, the less able you are to tell if something is bad.

You are very funny.

Wishy wrote:

But apparently most people is unable to understand that pretty much anything below Insane = generic maps that will always be the same. You can't do much on an easy or normal, you can barely do anything cool on Hards (and when you do they usually end up being Insanes) and then again even low tier Insanes are almost always the same, it gets interesting when the level goes really high and then it stop being technical.

Does anybody have a reaction image? I could really use one right now. There is loads that can be done with easier maps. The only issue is that most people are apparently unable to understand how to use simple, consistent and interesting phrasing.

By the way, those is right in a sense. I always feel like experienced players and mappers have became conditioned to certain quirks, simply because they've encountered them so many times. Does this mean that the quirks should be deemed as acceptable? I don't think so. There's a reason why older people come back after a hiatus and whinge about certain things in newer maps. It''s because they haven't been around to get used to them as trends.

Uh I don't really have much to say here that hasn't been said already (from the both sides actually), but are we really gonna derail this into another "BATs can't play this game" argument?

Come on guys... :/

those wrote:

The more you're able to play, the less able you are to tell if something is bad.

Or you're more able to tell what's actually good, and regarding some "bad" patterns for inexperienced players as "good" patterns from an experienced player's POV.

I mean, an inexperienced player may regard With a Dance Number as a shitmap (and maybe some BATs, idk), but try unrank that and see the shitstorm, lol.

Well, you still need to figure out where your own skills are in regards to the general playerbase that's going to play said map. If there is one awesomely cool, but very difficult pattern in a [Hard], you don't leave it, you point it out. Same if you have an easier [Insane] with some ridiculous pattern (even if you are able to play it).

Well, what I mean is basically: you kinda need both experience in modding and playing when judging a map.

CXu wrote:

Well, what I mean is basically: you kinda need both experience in modding and playing when judging a map.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But too much experience playing hinders your modding credibility.

More experience = more skill = you can judge more maps because you can play them.

D33d, people who quit for years and came back whine because most of ranked maps are average crap (yes, they are) and then cry about the hard maps because they haven't played the game for like 2 years and hard maps today are too much for them. I almost never download maps and have personally "quit" for periods of months (from 1 to maybe 5) and yet whenever I download new maps usually I'm amused because they are really fun an intense, that's one of the few reasons I keep coming back to this game....

I stopped playing a lot of times (even if I played a little all I did was play old maps I hade played 500 times), came back, looked for some new maps that didn't exist back then when I was playing, and then proceed to have lots of fun with them, then the cycle repeats... of course, not talking about ranked maps, those are still the same, some are decent/worth the time but most are just boring/plain/average. If I had to say what I think about how BATs are doing their job, from my POV: not good, it's been years since some problems arised and they remain unsolved.

This discussion has nothing to do with the proposed rule. The rule still barely changes what BATs can already do. What they are doing now will still be what they will be doing after this gets written down somewhere. I highly doubt old maps will be unranked. There is an unwritted rule that maps that are ranked for a certain period of time are barred from being unranked unless there is a serious unrankable issue found.

those wrote:

CXu wrote:

Well, what I mean is basically: you kinda need both experience in modding and playing when judging a map.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But too much experience playing hinders your modding credibility.

That probably depends on the map itself, and what it's supposed to be. If the map is supposed to be difficult (of course, fitting the song), then difficult patterns that an inexperienced player would deem unreadable might be perfectly readable for anyone at a certan skill-level. If a modder with enough experience plays that map, then they can also much easier suggest changes to a hard pattern so that it still retains the same flow/pattern/whatever, while improving it at other aspects.

If you can't play it, it's really hard to understand how some flow or pattern work. Not that you can't learn how they work to an extent just through modding and watching, but having the experience behind definiely helps, atleast imo.

Let me provide a good example.

It takes an ear to listen to the objects on the timeline and match it with what's in the music; so far, over the past many years, maps have been ranked without going through this check. Surely that doesn't take playing experience; and on the contrary, playing experience will deem this fine when it is actually not mapped to the music, making it not fine.

Just because a pattern consists of objects matching what's in the music, which yes, someone who doesn't play the game can do, doesn't mean said modder can figure out if that pattern is actually readable or not, especially when going up to higher difficulty.

Also, I don't agree with the "maps should follow the music 1:1" but let's not go there as it doesn't really matter, and is more a different opinion on what a map is.

Actually, I don't even know if this modding discussion is that relevant to this topic.

Makar wrote:

Do you guys realize that nothing changes with this rule? It just gives our permissions a written down definition that is more specific.

I guess nobody read this? Ephemeral even added that the BATs in this group of 8 will each be required to help the mapper with getting it re-ranked quickly, though this almost always happens. This thread is derailing and going nowhere.

peppy wrote:

Keep in mind that as much as you disagree with the rules, if you are able to take a step back and look at the outcome of setting stricter rules, you will realise they will only do the community good. Try to think about these things objectively rather than how it may affect or offend you personally.

Basically, I am just posting this to say that while I also have a few problems with some of the rules here, it is a working document and changes can be made. If you don't agree with something:

* State the exact rule you do not agree with (do not focus on the new rules as an overall "bad" thing).
* State why you do not agree with it. Make sure you have a better reason than "I don't like it" or "that's not how I roll".
* State how you would reword or change the rule in order to make it work better for the good of the community.

Do not attack other people. Do not criticise how this thread was made, or who was and who wasn't included in its creation. You are all here now to help us shape these rules into something that will increase the quality of mapping to a new level.

Yes these rules are in place, but if they are stopping you from getting your existing beatmap from being ranked, your map isn't suddenly going to explode. We can talk these things through and if the result is an unrankable map, you *can* decide to change your map.

It's a bit late to say this, but please only post if you can abide by the points I have mentioned above. So far only a small portion of posts have managed to do this. Feel free to delete your posts if you didn't, as you are not being productive.

those wrote:

Let me provide a good example.

It takes an ear to listen to the objects on the timeline and match it with what's in the music; so far, over the past many years, maps have been ranked without going through this check. Surely that doesn't take playing experience; and on the contrary, playing experience will deem this fine when it is actually not mapped to the music, making it not fine.

Not really, playing experience makes you understand some of those checks are not necessary, if the map feels fine and has a good flow some 1/4 mapped over some 1/3 thing is not a major problem, of course each case is different, but when it's clearly "wrong" you can usually notice it by just playing it.

Wishy wrote:

some 1/4 mapped over some 1/3

show me a 2013 map doing this, please.

imo mappers are finally understanding that they at least should follow the song. Not talking about overmapping, which is still done FAAAR too often, but only about simplifying stuff which is not the way to go.

I'm not saying that ALL bats should be able to play ALL maps, just that that harder and more complex maps should at least get some input from the better players in the team.

I'm neither in support or against the proposal, if it works then great but I'm not so sure it will.

Zarerion wrote:

Wishy wrote:

some 1/4 mapped over some 1/3

show me a 2013 map doing this, please.

imo mappers are finally understanding that they at least should follow the song. Not talking about overmapping, which is still done FAAAR too often, but only about simplifying stuff which is not the way to go.

It was just an example, same way I don't care if they put some 1/2 that doesn't really fit with the song perfectly but goes really good with the gameplay. I'd like to provide an example but I rarely download maps at all.

Wishy wrote:

More experience = more skill = you can judge more maps because you can play them.

D33d, people who quit for years and came back whine because most of ranked maps are average crap (yes, they are) and then cry about the hard maps because they haven't played the game for like 2 years and hard maps today are too much for them.

Actually, citing Remmy and Roddie as examples, the complaints were more along the lines of "Nobody cares about spacing, actual readability etc." You know, certain guidelines which ought to be followed and not excused with "oh, just read by the hitcircles" or any other flimsy excuse. This sort of thing--the sorts of good habits which can actually make it possible to be more creative with patterns--could easily be scrutinised by staff members who know what they're doing. I don't necessarily making all of a map's spacing consistent either; rather, taking some form of action when a ranked map has loads of gimmicks which don't actually relate to the music. Other than that, a map which overdoes certain quirks--whether it's sloppy jumps everywhere or annoying SV changes--could surely be questioned in regards to its quality.

These are the types of things which could make me wonder why something was ranked, but there'd be plenty of other reasons to think that something has failed on a technical level. There may also be reasons to think that something has failed on a musical level, or simply on an appropriateness level, but my point is that there are those with experience who have valid reasons to complain about quality.