[Discussion - osu!standard] Slightly relaxing rules regarding sliders

Total Posts
Topic Starter

Current rule
Every slider must have a clear and visible path of movement to follow from start to end. Sliders that overlap themselves without straightforward slider borders and sliders whose individual sections are unreadable cannot be used. A slider's end position must be clear under the assumption that a player has a skin which makes slider end circles fully transparent.

I think that the wording of this rule, combined with the fact that it is a rule and not a guideline, is a slightly outdated way of governing what we can do with sliders. It has remained the same for a long while despite increasing innovation of sliders and increased player skill. The gist of it seems effective enough, but it can often lead to interpretations which prevent innovation in maps whose design completely supports the sliders used. I personally don't think that policing sliders in this way is a practice which benefits anyone since sliders that are actually fine usually end up getting through after some pointless arguing, which leaves the BN who opposed them somewhat disillusioned since the RC seemingly would not allow them, whilst leaving others feeling like they wasted their time since the sliders are clearly fine in the context of the map. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.
(Note that in the last example the vetoer even agrees that the sliders are perfectly playable and is hence relying on the overly restrictive phrasal of the RC in this area which helps no-one)

I do completely understand how the current wording of this rule can give rise to situations where BNs think certain sliders should not be able to get through, however, with the increasing usage of tools like sliderator (or even manual creation) which mappers like Mazzerin have proven to be able to use in a sensible way, combined with the fact that people playing maps with sliders like these should be presumed to have enough skill to not be harmed by their existence, I think that we should do one of the following:

i) Change the rule to a guideline instead. This could then be followed by an addendum such as

Sliders that are not detrimental to gameplay and are fair/intuitive to play in the context of their map are permissible.

This provides BNs an opportunity to use their discretion to veto actually unreasonable sliders if such a situation arises, whilst also providing official support for more reasonable ones, which I think is a net positive for innovation. I do recognise that the wording of this addendum is a bit ambiguious and would require an unprecedented amount of discretion compared to other guidelines, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps some more elaboration could help too.

ii) Change the wording of the rule itself to more explicitly imply that certain sliders would be allowed (open to suggestions on how to word this)

Would like some thoughts on this.

(TL;DR - relax slider rules to aid innovation and prevent useless semantic discussions about what constitutes an "individually readable section")
how do i +1
yes please mate

first option sounds the best for me, since still having it as a rule makes it more discouraging maybe?
not much to add here otherwise
yea i definitely feel like this rule has becoming more and more arbitrary nowadays

judging hitobjects based on their intention/context and fairness to play instead of on a certain rigid "this is what you can and can't do" limitation seems to be much more preferable for me — this is also the kind of approach that has been taken by many successful rhythm games out there such as Arcaea or Cytus II when it comes to their charts for years, iirc

+1 good change
Zelzatter Zero
We already went to the point where rules like this would be unnecessarily restrictive to edge cases like these already.


Don't know why this isn't a thing already
Ryuusei Aika
gogoggogoo +1
Miyoshi Takane
100% agree

The rule currently hinders a lot of potential regarding slider creation because it’s simply too outdated to be uncompromising
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply