forum

[Discussion] Remove spread requirements for all gamemodes

posted
Total Posts
87
show more
Doyak

clayton wrote:

Doyak wrote:

Do we want to let many potential new players feel ignored and quit, and think that this game is only for talented players?

I also highly doubt if there are even a few mappers who are willing to map lower diffs "when they feel necessary", like for most of the songs. Of course, there are very calm songs that many people do consider lower diffs proper, but we don't want new players to play such songs only, right?
no and no, stop doomposting

see community/forums/posts/8313322 too. and viewed a different way, this is more of a potential benefit for new players than anything, said in other posts.
There's no way to prove how beneficial / disadvantageous to remove the rule since it hasn't happened yet. Yes, that could be a little extreme assumption, but it's totally a possible scenario which we should take in consideration when discussing a huge change in RC like this. I think Nao's post explains this point pretty well. Calling it a doompost and just telling me to stop doesn't help.
AutotelicBrown
I'm strongly against dropping spread requirements altogether (or a trial period for that matter) but I think relaxing some requirements would be beneficial (at least for o!m). I'll focus more on the dropping part with my perspective as someone well acquainted with the mapping/charting scene of o!m equivalent games that never had spread requirements (or some equivalent rule to force the creation of easier content), and share some quick thoughts about potentially relaxing some requirements.

My experience as a 4k player & charter for FFR/SM/Etterna/o!m* and someone who actively kept track of was being released on these games through the years (including stuff from the various subcommunities across the world) only shows me that mappers/charters are strongly biased towards making content that serves either themselves or the people they directly engage with in the community (forums, discord, etc). As people are more likely to engage in the community or consider charting after investing a considerable amount of time with the game, this usually means content for a skill level way above the general o!m population's skill level** and almost always single diffs.

I can compile concrete evidence from these games if needed but it's pretty clear the influx of new charts in both FFR and Etterna that would be playable for most of the o!m community is lacking in both quantity and quality. I mention the o!m community specifically because both FFR and Etterna nowadays have skewed demographics due to low influx of fresh beginners (lack of content is not the only reason but it's definitely a big one). On that note, I think even having the 'half-assed' lower level content some people mentioned as a potential negative from spread requirements is still better than the situation those games (FFR/Etterna) are in, not to mention I think any competent mapper who respects their own work would still try to make decent lower diffs even if it's out of obligation (if you disagree you should probably reread the sentence).

Returning to o!m specifically and together with what I mentioned about the general population's skill level**, I think there's strong evidence that difficulty spreads should still exist in some shape or form if ranking criteria wants to keep the general community best interests in mind. This is not to say I don't think there's an issue with good high-end content not being ranked (sorry for the triple negative), at least on o!m, but I think removing spread requirements is not the way to go about it.

* - I've been playing since 2009 and started doing it competitively + charting in 2014, focusing mainly on FFR & SM/Etterna where I'm a more known figure and where most of my content currently is (only ~30% of those are converted/uploaded to o!m). I also played various others rhythm games (especially VSRGs) other than the ones I mentioned, but the only notable one fueled exclusively by community created content that I'm more familiar with is BMS (LR2), where spreads for most songs already exist from the original event submissions.

** - In the osu website, if you hover at the success rate % of any difficulty, you can see the number of plays for that particular difficulty. If you pick almost any o!m mapset with a full spread where the highest difficulty is an insane or higher***, the highest number of plays is either a normal or hard (usually a low hard around 3*) and decays in both directions like a gaussian distribution. This suggests the community at large is or prefers to play things at that skill level and this is valid for newer maps as well. The number of plays should be highly correlated with the number of unique players but it'd be nice if someone on the dev side could provide that number to make a stronger case though.

*** - A similar and stronger argument could be made using data from multiple mapsets together, but it'd take way more work to make a reliable statistical argument that accounts for other variables such as song length, popularity, spread structure, etc. While I have no intention of making that kind of analysis, I'll note that the existence of a lot of mapsets where the top diff is lower than insane suggests that the numbers I used for the lower end in my original analysis underestimates the number of lower level players as those have more content available and their plays will be spread across more sets. This also goes against some claims that the game "doesn't need" more easy content or that players grow out fast from that difficulty range.
I like the idea of both reducing the song length thresholds a bit (I think 3:00/4:00/5:00 for a minimum Hard/Insane/Any would be great for typical song lengths of various genres) and most notably, Mokobe's suggestion of bracketed spreads (not necessarily with those specific values). I think the latter is very beneficial in two ways: makes the more extreme/niche music characteristic of harder content more viable for ranking (at least on o!m, making decent lower diffs for that kind of music tends to be pretty hard unless it's rgcore), and makes a compromise between serving the general community vs self-serving interests for mappers focused more on the higher end.

In regards to the particularities of o!m, I don't plan to go too in-depth in this but, on top of what various people mentioned in the original o!m thread about its interaction with multiple external game communities (which I think is relevant but not the crux of the issue), I think there are differences in the o!m mapping paradigm when compared to other modes that makes it more sensitive to song structure if you want to make an interesting and balanced map. Most notably, you have less flexible tools for tuning difficulty on both the lower and higher end of the difficulty spectrum, and when dealing with less or more intense parts of the song.

Lastly, as some extra comments. I won't pretend to not be biased on this matter, I have always been a fierce proponent of mappers/charters putting more effort into making more good accessible content for the playerbase at large and this also shows in the work I put forward myself in all the games I've contributed to. That being said, I'm also someone who values very hard stuff (in fact, people in the o!m community have known me more due to my hard maps featured in various o!m tournaments), and I know firsthand how painful it'd be to rank those due to existing RC.

Additionally, I don't think OP makes a good case for what is the so called consensus of the original o!m specific thread, a lot of posts in there were advocating for just relaxing spread requirements but were against dropping it altogether.
z0z

wafer wrote:

Hold on, have an idea here

What if we further reduced spread requirements based off drain time?

Purely hypothetically (literally just throwing random draintimes out there), 0:00-1:59 could be Normal minimum, 2:00-3:29 could be hard minimum, 3:30-4:14 could be insane minimum, and 4:15+ could be any diff

Something along these lines would still keep a steady supply of lower diffs, but would help alleviate some of the pressure for making lower difficulties.

Finding the right drain times for each minimum required diff is a bit of work but pretty sure we can just tweak what we have right now.
imo, i think 1:45, 2:45, and 3:30 for minimum ranges would work better

based on what i know:
rhythm game songs are around 2:00 but can deviate a bit, lower or higher
the shorter full-length songs seem to be around 3:00, can also deviate
the regular or longer full length songs are generally 3:30 and above

so i think the ranges of <1:45 for normal minimum, <2:45 for hard minimum, <3:30 for insane minimum, and no limits above 3:30 are more fitting
clayton

Doyak wrote:

There's no way to prove how beneficial / disadvantageous to remove the rule since it hasn't happened yet. Yes, that could be a little extreme assumption, but it's totally a possible scenario which we should take in consideration when discussing a huge change in RC like this. I think Nao's post explains this point pretty well. Calling it a doompost and just telling me to stop doesn't help.
it's a shame nobody in this same thread mentioned what related data we could look to to help predict what would happen! -_-

we can use beatmapset search as a good visual aid for some stuff. let's look at all the mapsets with non-required diffs people made since the last time spread rules were updated:

EN over 3:30 beatmapsets?q=ranked%3E2018-07-29%20length%3E%3D210%20stars%3C2.7&s=ranked
ENH over 4:15 beatmapsets?q=ranked%3E2018-07-29%20length%3E%3D255%20stars%3C4&s=ranked
ENHI over 5:00 beatmapsets?q=ranked%3E2018-07-29%20length%3E%3D300%20stars%3C5.3&s=ranked (this one isn't as relevant to discussion but included cuz u can see that requirement and song type alone is not dictating the difficulties ppl choose to map)

I'm showing annoyance in my posts because you skipped over or discarded what people are saying. don't mean to be (that much of) an ass but it's annoying to have to re-explain what others already said just because you think there was no counterargument or something.

---

kinda unrelated because different context and ranking process setup but in poking around I stumbled across community/forums/topics/131288 again, has some opinions not included in this thread yet, good thinkers
Doyak
Compare EN over 3:30 to just over 3:30 beatmapsets?q=ranked%3E2018-07-29%20length%3E%3D210&s=ranked

Counting since July, there are around 70 EN over 3:30 mapsets, while the total number of over 3:30 mapsets is around 450. This means only around 16% of mappers have made unrequired diffs for such songs. We can expect that this rate would be a little higher for shorter songs, but that's still going to be a huge drop.

Nao Tomori wrote:

to your points about doing more work - yes, it makes sense for rc to tell you to make more maps. rc sets a bare minimum standard for a ranked section that contributes to the overall health of the game. low diffs are included in that overall health as a game with a greatly reduced amount of lower difficulties will fail to attract new players as songs they want to play are not mapped for their level or maps at their level are sparse enough that they can't find new content (relevant for taiko and ctb, not as much standard).
^ is my main point of view. I'm not saying there will be no maps new players can enjoy at all. However, it still highly limits what these people can enjoy. Even the current rules do limit player experiences at some extent (like a set with a single 8* difficulty which only a few thousand players can try). And in the long run, we lose potential "skilled" players who can become good enough to play these harder diffs as well, who would keep playing if they had been able to enjoy the game early in their experience in osu!.

I can see people's point of filler difficulties having lower quality but honestly the difference isn't that huge and newer players tend to care less about quality, instead they want more contents and want to be able to play while listening to their favorite songs.
Mokobe

mrowswares wrote:

general quality of low diffs will increase if only the people who want to map them map them, out of interest for it rather than a necessity. I saw some random point about innovation and you're not gonna get innovation by forcing people to map low diffs as FILLER. because that's what forced spread mapping typically results in - FILLER.

looking into data relevant to the prior spread changes (with the flexible lengths), and assuming the same will apply for a "no spread requirements" rule, YES the quantity of these diffs is going to drop (by about half), but nowhere near as much as some of the people in this thread are trying to tell you
preach

agree with clayton again, also refer back to my previous point as i feel like this thread overlooked it a bit



Mokobe wrote:

proposed RC wrote:

If the highest difficulty within a set is...

...an insane, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...an extra, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...an Extreme, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.
or

proposed RC wrote:

If the highest difficulty within a set is...

...4.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...5.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...6.5, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.
this approach to having bracketed spreads is a much better approach and helps tackle most qualms people have with it now, with this you are able to have a ranged audience access your maps, whilst appealing to that specific audience, this will help push forward the agenda of mapping higher difficulties as maps slowly progess into becoming harder and harder, this will make the burden on both BNs and mappers for mapping higher diffuclties much less.

Some maps are targetted generally at higher levels of expertise, this is fine. Can we stop breaking the mappers intention by forcing them to adhere to lower levels of play? if for example, we had a 9* map going for ranked, and there would be a difficulty for each star up to normal, that would require the map to have 8 difficulties. With my proposed change, we would only need to see such map with a 4-5* lowest, which better targets this set at higher levels of play whilst encouraging and removing the burden for those who want to push harder maps that test the limits.

Are you really for keeping normal maps to hinder the progression of higher-difficulty mapping and a higher level of play?
Serizawa Haruki
One of the main arguments in favor of this proposal is that the spread requirements are forcing mappers to make more than one diff or get GDs for a song. But the discussion has shifted specifically towards the topic of high diffs vs. low diffs, with the general assumption being that a mapper creates an Insane/Extra diff and then proceeds to make a spread for the sake of rankability, and with these requirements being removed, they would no longer need to do so and could simply rank their single diff regardless of length.

But let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a lot of mappers would start doing the opposite - only map an Easy/Normal diff and rank it. Would the discussion still be the same and would the people supporting this change still have the same views on the topic? I'm quite confident that the answer is probably no. Many (if not most) people seemed to be against this type of maps being ranked because they "provide no actual content". But purely from a content perspective, a single Normal diff and a single Extra diff are equal if they have the same length. So if the ranked section hypothetically saw a significant increase in this type of maps along with a decrease of higher diffs, many people wouldn't be satisfied with it because these maps are not interesting for them as they have a higher playing skill and no interest in playing easier maps. The exact same argument can be made the other way around though - a significant increase in single Insane/Extra diffs along with a decrease in lower diffs would make many players feel excluded from new content, and not only beginners would be affected because they are not the only ones playing ENH maps.

This makes me inclined to think that it's not so much about providing more content for players or making it easier to rank maps for mappers, but rather about a personal lack of interest in low diffs and the people who play them. But this opinion should not be projected onto everyone else and should not be a reason to change the type of content being added to the ranked section so drastically.

And to counter the commonly used argument that low diffs don't represent a song fully and are therefore not comparable to a higher diff - this is irrelevant to the discussion because the main reason to implement this proposal is so that mappers can create a map and rank it without having to go through the extra effort of making a spread. So if someone wanted to do that with an Easy or Normal diff, they should be able to, just like someone who is doing the same thing with an Extra. If you don't agree with this logic, it would prove my point that the actual reason for supporting this proposal is the belief that low diffs have little to no value, not that mappers should have more freedom and less work to do.

As you can see, having a disproportionate difficulty distribution in either direction could affect the game's development negatively. This is why the ranking criteria tries to find a balance between all types of difficulty. And the current rules are already a compromise to make it a bit easier for mappers to create spreads for longer songs. You could argue that it's still too much work but in reality you don't have to map more than one diff for a song at all, as stated previously guest diffs are extremely prevalent and an easy way to get a rankable spread.
Project Railgun
As a mapper I can respect high quality high diffs (the ones that win contests), but as a player I just want to chill and play easy maps of songs I like. Usually the songs I like are also those that support low diffs (vocal music) but mappers don't map those diffs since it's not a requirement.

Lower diffs allow players to focus on the song more since only the most important sounds are mapped. Since mappers are expected to make high diffs, it doesn't matter how good your low diff is unless your set also has high diffs. One of the main reasons I started mapping high diffs was to push my low diffs, although I enjoy appealing to a larger audience now.
Stixy
Generally disagree with this, as many others already said having low difficulties is quite important for maintaining the game in a good state and to introduce new players to the game. As others have said tho, not only beginners play lower difficulties as many more experienced players play them as well, be it of pure enjoyment or to maybe farm a #1 on the leaderboard who knows.

Also, lower difficulties are played a lot. Looking at my most recent ranked set, the combined playcount of the easy, normal and hard accounted to about 35% of the total playcount. Not that plays technically matter, it just shows that they are actually pretty popular. Similar results happen when comparing a randomly picked newer ranked map (https://old.ppy.sh/s/1476172), the lower difficulty playcount is about ~40%.

And doesn't it seem much better when you have a consize package of content with hitsounds etc. Idk it just appeals to me more as a whole spread.

Mokobe wrote:

mrowswares wrote:

general quality of low diffs will increase if only the people who want to map them map them, out of interest for it rather than a necessity. I saw some random point about innovation and you're not gonna get innovation by forcing people to map low diffs as FILLER. because that's what forced spread mapping typically results in - FILLER.

looking into data relevant to the prior spread changes (with the flexible lengths), and assuming the same will apply for a "no spread requirements" rule, YES the quantity of these diffs is going to drop (by about half), but nowhere near as much as some of the people in this thread are trying to tell you
preach

agree with clayton again, also refer back to my previous point as i feel like this thread overlooked it a bit



Mokobe wrote:

proposed RC wrote:

If the highest difficulty within a set is...

...an insane, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...an extra, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...an Extreme, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.
or

proposed RC wrote:

If the highest difficulty within a set is...

...4.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
...5.5~, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Hard.
...6.5, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than an Insane.
this approach to having bracketed spreads is a much better approach and helps tackle most qualms people have with it now, with this you are able to have a ranged audience access your maps, whilst appealing to that specific audience, this will help push forward the agenda of mapping higher difficulties as maps slowly progess into becoming harder and harder, this will make the burden on both BNs and mappers for mapping higher diffuclties much less.

Some maps are targetted generally at higher levels of expertise, this is fine. Can we stop breaking the mappers intention by forcing them to adhere to lower levels of play? if for example, we had a 9* map going for ranked, and there would be a difficulty for each star up to normal, that would require the map to have 8 difficulties. With my proposed change, we would only need to see such map with a 4-5* lowest, which better targets this set at higher levels of play whilst encouraging and removing the burden for those who want to push harder maps that test the limits.

Are you really for keeping normal maps to hinder the progression of higher-difficulty mapping and a higher level of play?
I'm not entirey sure if this would work out this easily.

First of all, I could see people purposely making harder diffs. To elaborate: Imagine mapping a 170 BPM song, it being around 5.4* and the mapper is thinking: "Hm let me just increase the spacing of everything even tho it doesn't fit so I reach the needed SR limit to not map a hard etc."

Also, making a cut between when you are allowed to not map a (e.g.) Normal etc. would be really hard, as SR isn't representive of the actual difficulty. I could see a lot of unncessary discussion being created through this, whether something is an insane or maybe a low extra and so on. Would generally come out with inconsistent sets imo.
wafer
Bumping this cus again I think its a very good idea (with proper tweaking) that allows extra content to be pushed while not changing our current system drastically

wafer wrote:

Hold on, have an idea here

What if we further reduced spread requirements based off drain time?

Purely hypothetically (literally just throwing random draintimes out there), 0:00-1:59 could be Normal minimum, 2:00-3:29 could be hard minimum, 3:30-4:14 could be insane minimum, and 4:15+ could be any diff

Something along these lines would still keep a steady supply of lower diffs, but would help alleviate some of the pressure for making lower difficulties.

Finding the right drain times for each minimum required diff is a bit of work but pretty sure we can just tweak what we have right now.
Nao said something about the current system being fine & that we have the most amount of ranked maps ever, and while the latter is true, this is partially due to an influx of new users, therefore new mappers. However, the influx of users & maps doesn't mean our system works perfectly.

We can fuel the content in this game for many more months and years by loosening spread rules further, not completely removing them.

of course this definitely helps other game modes a lot more than standard, as standard is the most saturated mode, but I think it would still be a nice addition for standard + it would keep confusion for spread rules between modes at a minimum
clayton
fwiw community/forums/topics/1145030 is still open and may serve similar purpose if you are in support of relaxing spread requirements, but not removing them.

personally I don't have a strong opinion about that; my main issues with spread requirements wouldn't be solved with leniency. seems logical enough though if the argument is focused on the current rules being unnecessarily strict (?)
yaspo
I've been trying to squeeze in another post here with my actual thoughts on removing spread requirements
but I kinda hate how fundamentally much there is to say and consider when aiming to abolish these requirements entirely
I still wrote a shitton this topic is impossible

---

so I'll start here, suppose "ranked is meant to immortalize maps that players enjoy" and maps shouldn't be missing out on that right to get immortalized because of hindrances
immortalize is a good word because that's what happens, most maps quickly grow into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of plays (unique player count when) and some of those players will remember the map as enjoyable, as seen in newly ranked maps seeming to hit up to 100 favorites decently often

it's when you consider what it takes to get to those milestones a different platform, like idk youtube or soundcloud, that you really realize the significance of those numbers. These platforms are more competitive settings where what it takes to get any amount of traction is building and maintaining an audience, putting out regular content and potentially playing into the algorithm

in other words, if someone wants to "immortalize" their own content that'll take some degree of effort and longterm time investment. Simply uploading vs gaining the spotlight are just not the same thing.

And for me it's there that spread requirements stop seeming like this unnecessary roadblock but kindof hidden gem of a balancing system that holds together a lot of the things that make ranked what it is right now.

The effort required to make a spread is rewarded by gaining a notable amount of attention - without really needing to go through the struggles of a creator out in the wild. This makes ranking maps really cool and accessible for newer mappers, they don't have to feel like they're up against some giants.

This is supported by that yes, spread requirements are in some way a hurdle needing to be crossed to enter the "official" content stream. By slowing down the amount of content released, maps that do get ranked get appropriate attention.
On the flipside, spike it up as I mentioned before and it'll become this competitive environment where even after finding BNs your map likely still won't get played unless you've made a name for yourself.
This especially so if the ranking queue is uncapped to cover the much larger availability of rankable content.

From there it's a choice between this competitive environment and spread requirements .. personally I prefer the latter, because the give-and-take nature of it fits the community/volunteer-ran nature of the game really well. We can all enjoy our hobbies and learn how to map rather than purposefully trying to build an entire career or accepting that your content won't see the light of day.

---

There's another line of thinking that I went through quite a bit which I'll call "The TUYU Problem".
TUYU is an artist that has been absolutely booming on osu! throughout 2020-2021, with multiple mapsets that have millions of plays. This alone is aimed to offset VINXIS' "all genres have coverage", because ideally players have the right to be excited about new artists (not genres) and live alongside their releases just like mappers do.

The real issue in The TUYU Problem is that a lot of top diffs of these sets are 6-7* - completely inaccessible to large portions of the playerbase. And like, honestly .. if I were to map any of these bangers without spread requirements .. I'd just stop at that and try rank them as the solo 6-7* diffs they are.

Mappers fearing that low diffs will be underrepresented because of this kind of approach isn't really doomsaying, but more-so these mappers acknowledging that they know themselves and/or their peers well enough. They'd like to avoid this scenario alltogether because locking out a few million plays and potentially making a banger artist unnecessarily high-difficulty exclusive is kinda bad.

Ideally, any approach to the ranking system is "TUYU-complete" (hah) to prevent this from happening at all.

---

In the end removing a balancing tool like this without a constructed plan just causes imbalance, it throws things into chaos. I think it's kindof obvious why people don't want to step into a system with so many uncertainties, they just don't see it work out for the better.

For what it's worth, it's not like the people pushing for this actually care about the spread requirements. They just want to see cool maps have leaderboards and this "hurdle" for ranked is just another target of that frustration. I'd agree on that much, but extending from the "immortalize" thing:
If the community wants to immortalize content it's up to them to put in that effort. This is what Loved does really well and maybe all we need is other systems that fill in niches Loved doesn't. I'd personally be all up for the Tournament community getting their own system in any case, since it naturally answers the custom mapping trend and mania OWC relying graveyarded so much.

So, yeah, if I have any say in this, we're not removing spread requirements.
VINXIS
i dont really follow the first part as a reason to keeping spread requirements because if we are considering it as a stopping mechanism/a tool to slower the flow rate of content, then while there would be a higher flow rate of ranked content, it would be perceived as negligible to most due to the content rate currently being very high as it is already, or in essence, that the increased difference would be minimal compared to the amount that there was and would be

but the second point i can see yea thats fair, i think lower diffs would very unlikely happen otherwise for them (icdd for ex)
yaspo
interesting that you think the increase would be negligible, I'd more or less expect an exponential increase based on ranked mappers already uploading individual diffs very regularly, see osusearch. Let alone if other mappers didn't take time to plan and finish their spreads because they're not needed.
VINXIS
I was thinking itd moreso spike a lot at first and then chill out to some amount where it's kind of higher than originally; where mans would start off rushing to get their maps in grave they were too lazy to make a spread for into ranked since itd be a free ticket now, and then just go back to their own typical pace in ranking stuff, since the majority of the mappers ranking marathons are rarely going it right out of upload currently either

looking at my own graveyarded maps id probably only push 3 maps anyway from this
clayton
the part about spread reqs acting as effort barrier to immortalize/promote maps doesn't feel to me like a good reason to argue for them, wouldn't any other systemic thing that requires effort also meet this end? why does it have to be a spread requirement?

I'm not sure it even makes sense. we're just talking about the requirement to make extra diffs in some cases. removing this wouldn't change anything about the ranked process regarding the map(s) that mapper wants to have promoted in ranked

yaspo wrote:

This is supported by that yes, spread requirements are in some way a hurdle needing to be crossed to enter the "official" content stream. By slowing down the amount of content released, maps that do get ranked get appropriate attention.
wht vinxis said, i think the change in rate is both exaggerated and not meaningful.

I'm fairly certain that the popularity of newly-ranked maps these days does not come from their limited time exposure near the top of the ranked listing or w/e, there is a LOT that factors into new maps rising to popularity and having done some related study for Loved I am biased to thinking it is more social reasons than osu systems, for maps that already share the same ranked status.

but source required on that one lol so maybe I will do some more lookin into stats more to make sure that's not a dumb assumption

---

can definitely see some artists or types of music having significantly less or even no low diffs mapped without some extra incentive or requirement.

this, along with some things Nao and Serizawa mentioned in their last posts, I can understand as justification for spread req. from the viewpoint of defending to keep a system that already meets some desireable outcomes, but I don't see why it is treated like only option to do the same things or why it has to be exactly like this

let's say spread req. wasn't a thing already and then we ran into the above issue. I feel like my thoughts to address it wouldn't be to mandate more low diffs from people who don't give a shit lol. ranked doesn't need to be analogized to a public works system to be a useful construct as-is, just a way to freeze maps for leaderboards, promote them a bit, and ensure minimum level of technical "quality"

actually i think the way ranked tries to do all of these at once with no clear split or reasoning is why this category is dumb as hell and generates a different negative reaction to almost everybody but that's not a topic for this thread /me runs

I think the extra inventives or requirements to meet additional goals like this should be addressed as just that-- extra things. i made a little joke abt mappers' guild in earlier post cuz i think it actually makes sense: mappers that are passionate (or endorsed ig) to solve perceived content availability issues can and should create groups/systems/etc to solve them. nobody complains that mappersguild can require or give more points to full spreads, cuz it's a separate project, with goals that are separate from ranked, and that is an obvious thing to all participants.

there could just as well be more groups involved in tackling the specific concern about volume of low diffs. especially since a lot of ppl in this thread literally say it would be a benefit for the game, i have no doubts there could be "official" incentives given too.

or another idea off the top of my head, with less of altruistic basis; make something that gamifies ranking of low diffs a bit. provide literally any way to gain "clout" from ranking ENHs and u will never not have enough of them :^)
according to thread, the "quality" of low diffs that are already capable of making it into ranked doesn't really matter for the perceived problems at hand, so the not-so-pure motives here probably(?) wouldn't matter.

anyway just feels wrong to me to defend spread requirements specifically when it's not the only way to solve concerns (I think). this is all assuming that there's any real danger to axing spread requirements with no other compensation, I still think that's a big assumption, but I suppose I'm in the minority for this thread at least

---

idk about "chaos" lol but I can understand uncertainty alone as a concern, sucks that it's really hard to predict how thigns would go here cuz the data we have is either debatably irrelevant or only has small portions that definitely make sense to look at and ud have to mega extrapolate to conclude anything about whole community effect
i mean even right above me here, u and vinxis have super different conclusion both based on what actual mappers do right now, so... ya

yaspo wrote:

For what it's worth, it's not like the people pushing for this actually care about the spread requirements.
? mfw

yaspo wrote:

If the community wants to immortalize content it's up to them to put in that effort. This is what Loved does really well
loved is a whole other beast with similarly messed up grouping of concerns like ranked, and if u trace it back it exists literally only because ranked(or ranked categories altogether) failed to adapt to anything in the years leading up to it, u gotta be very desperate or not payin attention to see loved like a proper answer to handling "immortalization" of maps in its current state. not to mention the concept of "immortalization" doesn't apply to loved, mappers can just remove and delete their maps, among other things. got to save myself from going on a wild tangent about this stuff :x

this is just very detached from the thread too. I can go on about issues & solutions regarding organizing osu for effective freezing/promotion/competition/"immortalization"/etcetc, but we're trying to hash out spread requirements here... not that
UberFazz
feel like a "featured" system with different rules/incentives would solve most if not all problems brought up in this thread, similar to clayton's idea of "providing other incentives (for low diffs)"

having ranked be a form of immortalization *and* a form of promotion/publicity seems to be the main issue gathered in yaspo's post

not the first time this is being brought up but it feels appropriate to bring it up again here

mpg is a great example of incentives done right but it could be even more effective if it was more integrated and obvious (like if mpg points displayed on your profile as a quick brainstormy example)

u want plays/recognition --> make a full spread, it'll likely get featured

u just want a map immortalized --> make a diff or two and go for rank

i think it could work but it would need discussion and dev time. as for current, yaspo is right. the proposal is too divisive

p.s. pls stop offering loved as a solution because that category isn't in a great state either, nor is it meant to be a category for stable map income. think of it as a "hall of fame" of sorts. see the bottom of clayton's response for reasoning; this turns into band-aid on top of band-aid on top of band-aid...

get owned yaspo
yaspo

clayton wrote:

why does it have to be a spread requirement?
That's the crux of this thread right, the originally discussed topic was the binary idea of removing spread requirements or not as a solution to the issue of certain maps not getting leaderboards. I can defend against their removal but not so much against new ideas.

All the other things you suggest seem cool ideas but also way out of scope lol. We can both probably think of dozens of alternative solutions but it's never been on-topic.

It is the next productive step in trying to solve the proposed issue though, if we're willing to acknowledge that plainly "remove spread requirements" does not seem a desirable solution.

As to what values of spread requirements I'd like to personally keep around it's along the lines of
- a distinct trade-off or cutoff for getting your map into the spotlight
- maintaining high artist availability for all skill levels, ideally song availability
- a give-and-take mentality, I feel like that fits "volunteering for a game" best
- .. ? maybe more but I can't think of them rn

Fwiw, I'd prefer looking at Ranked as a content stream and considering what it can provide to the playerbase that consumes that content stream. I do agree that leaderboards being absolutely glued to Ranked sucks, but I also dislike potentially bulldozing over goals that Ranked currently achieves as a content stream purely for the sake of leaderboards.

ie. I don't like thinking in function alone for this like you (seem to?) do cuz it sucks out all the values that can make things unique and interesting to interact with. It's like how tournament mappools can't be about skillsets alone cuz it'll suck to play them

god damn uberfazz sniped me
Serizawa Haruki
I think incentives/rewards for mappers who put in extra effort into their maps or simply create more content than the bare minimum are a good idea but whether that is enough to remove the spread requirements depends a lot on the type of reward. After all, mappers have been making hundreds of maps without any incentive for a long period of time (other than the personal satisfaction from ranking a map or other aspects like popularity, but these wouldn't change) so I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions before actually implementing such a system which is unclear if it will ever happen. Mappers might choose to miss out on these rewards if they don't think it's worth it and instead go for the easier option, just making one diff and ranking it.

There's a similar issue with BNs, they have no incentive to mod and nominate bigger mapsets because a single diff 4:15 map gives them the same activity as a 3:00 map with 7 diffs even though the latter takes much more time to check. That's why many BNs choose smaller sets and rarely accept bigger ones because it's so much extra work, which makes it harder to rank these maps with more content and as a consequence, discourages mappers from creating them in the first place. If BN activity depended on the total drain time of a mapset, it would encourage people to also rank sets with more diffs, including low diffs when they are not necessary for rankability.
SilentWuffer
man this is the worst one i've seen in a while tbh

As many have stated, if this is passed, most content will be catered towards the harder end, and this leaves newer players with only maps with outdated meta in the future.
Topic Starter
abraker
Archiving due to overwhelming consensus not to go with this proposal
Please sign in to reply.

New reply