Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[invalid] [Proposal - osu!mania] Remove rule that restricts dumping

posted
Total Posts
56
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
In light of some internal discussion, this proposal will make a case for why the rule surrounding musical justification for notes should be removed. The rule in question in the mania RC is this:

“Every note should correlate to a sound present in the music. This should be a distinct sound, but can also coherently represent a continuous sound with an indistinguishable start or end. Exceptions in favour of simplification should be made when following the music completely accurately.”

This rule is used to justify mapping bursts that represent shorter, distinct sounds. Examples are the many camellia maps in ranked, where bass wobbles or wubs (the continuous sound) is represented as a shorter burst. I won’t go into too much detail on dumping to keep the post concise, but this rule excludes other types of dumping.

Another widely accepted type of dumping is one that represent a musical layer or an “intensity aura”. This is not covered in that rule but is prevalent in other rhythm games similar to mania. Examples of such maps that are ranked are AiAe, ranked in 2014 and Azure Arbitrator, ranked in 2021. Azure Arbitrator sparked discussion of the rule.

The main problem of the rule is that it is restrictive to mappers wanting to get their maps ranked. The way it is worded only suggests a specific approach towards using dumps. It is not inclusive, and I have to ask what the real point behind it is. Shouldn’t trust be relegated to the community, bns, and mappers to decide what is acceptable use of dumping rather than a rule? What does the rule accomplish other than restrict mappers towards a specific style? I think the mapping community would be better of getting rid of the rule.

Another thing to change with the RC is remove an unneeded part in the general RC about hitsounding. "In cases where hitsounds are not used, no additions may be placed, and no sample control points should be used (ie. to adjust volume)". This was added after the hitsounding change which does not really have a point to it. Why would you have to enforce the sample control point, it is benefitial to have it no matter if it has hitsounding or not.

Please keep the discussion in simple english, no one wants to read walls upon walls.
Last edited by Davvy , edited 4 times in total.
chxu
117 posts
Joined January 2019
chxu
charts are some interpretation of music. not all interpretations have to have notes that correspond to peaks in the waveform. however, the BNs should be enforcing anti-dumping insofar that it makes sense with the music. e.g. something like vocal dump would probably get a lower tolerance for error than a dump going to low frequency wubs (which a player can actually kind of "feel" if they're hitting a stream to that).

that's both a response to the OP and the impressions i got out of reading Shoegazer's doc on ghost notes.
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
i will keep it concise here.

But my point is that, what you guys should do is not about removing the entire clause of the rule, but rather "re-new" the clause of that RC into something that define what kind of dump that are qualified to go into the official content of the game.

Dump definition and their proper usage is very arbitrary as it is, and having some kind of new set of boundary guideline to follow up is what you need to actually seek in order for everyone to be on the same page. Deleting the RC not only made everyone's idea very scattered on the proper dump usage, but with the lack of proper guideline it's very easy to justify pretty much "anything" into dump, frankly speaking.

And also, How do you even delegate the trust into community, bns and mappers in the first place when pretty much everyone have different and arbitrary idea on what makes a proper quality dump in the first place? in fact, the deletion of that clause simply will only spark even more unneeded long conflict that are caused by the big ambiguity and huge amount of dissimilarity of that dump clause, which can be avoided entirely by making proper set of guidelines of defining proper dump instead of removing them entirely.

If you guys understand the nature of dump and the proper quality dump usage, i don't really see the reason of not simply "re-new" and re-implement that clause of words into the RC. But if not even you guys cannot really understand how to implement the clause rule of the proper dump into the RC, then how do you expect the rest of the community to be delegated of the responsibility to actually rank a good dump either?

My point is that, it's simply much better creating a clause of new rule instead of removing them, which i don't really agree due to the previous reason i mentioned beforehand.


But yeah, that's the only thing i want to say. I have no comment about the hitsound because i don't know who added that clause.
Eclipse-
124 posts
Joined June 2016
Eclipse-
So maps like this bad boy were wrongly ranked if we are to strictly follow the rules? I'm not sure I get it.
erased self
181 posts
Joined August 2016
erased self
.
Last edited by erased self , edited 1 time in total.
Henkayy
11 posts
Joined July 2013
Henkayy
very true
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
My question for you maxus is, why the mistrust? Why do you not trust or believe in bns? They are the main driving force behind ranked after all, no one else is really involved as much as them in the system. So if there's no trust for them to do the right thing, why even have bns at all?
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
I think you understand that the entire system isn't run by pure trust, that's why we have rule in the first place. If the system run purely on trust then why we have RC in the first place right?

Delegating trust is never be run on pure trust towards single aspect of thing (in this case, community), but also need to be balanced with responsibility and proper amount of same mind of what proper content can be made to be in the ranked section. This is not only applied on in game kind of thing, but even also from IRL aspect as well.

Is it that problematic to actually re-new and re-implement new clause of word for dump though? I felt like it's better for you to explain that in all honesty because i believe shoegazer docs already provide good start-off.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
In the end rules are for what the majority of people can agree with. If we don't have consensus on what is actually proper use of it, it is much better use to relegate the responsibility of what is considered good enough or bad enough to the bns. They have the power to veto, they have a lot of control over the official ranking section. If enough people agree with something being bad you can set a more clearly defined limit, but right now I don't see that happening any time soon.

Why we should have RC is so there's a set of standards when it comes to more important aspects that can be controlled, such as spread, song length, background size, difficulty standards and so on. Dumping is more or less a creative aspect of mapping. The community should then decide what is good or not, if there is consensus then yes a rule is better.
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
The main problem of what you said is that majority of people still don't really have proper understanding of a proper good dump, and even in the context of BNG, dump is also still too arbitrary of subject that it's very easy to set a very inconsistent standard on people. That is something that we want to avoid at all cost.

Deleting the rule will set an extremely vague standard that applies not only for current BN but also future BN as well. And because anybody from community can apply to be BN, the issue will eventually spread to the entire community instead of set limit amount of people only.

If there is an option where we are able to discuss the proper consensus with the community by implementing and propose new set of RC then i don't see the reason why we can't go for it. You did even also mention that realm will gives rule a better possibility.

The thing is that the proper consensus of discussion with the community through the new rewording proposal is something that we can do right now instead of rushing through deletion of rule. So if there is potential option for the better long term profit then we should go for it.
Drum-Hitnormal
Beatmap Nominator
1,727 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal
so I can create a program that randomly generate note without taking into consideration the actual song, and call it a dump and make a big paragraph about why it make sense, and if there's enough ppl agree with me, then it will be ranked, nice!
-mint-
652 posts
Joined September 2016
-mint-

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

so I can create a program that randomly generate note without taking into consideration the actual song, and call it a dump and make a big paragraph about why it make sense, and if there's enough ppl agree with me, then it will be ranked, nice!
bad faith interpretations and passive aggression are not welcome in this thread. say something that actually contributes or dont say anything at all
Last edited by -mint- , edited 1 time in total.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

so I can create a program that randomly generate note without taking into consideration the actual song, and call it a dump and make a big paragraph about why it make sense, and if there's enough ppl agree with me, then it will be ranked, nice!
Yeah you see the thing is, people wouldn't agree with you. So there's that. Now go away unless you have something meaningful to contribute.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
I do think you are underestimating the bng maxus. It's not the same group of people that were active 3 years ago, and things have changed a lot since. Many many dumps have gotten ranked and no one is really batting an eye at it because the bng has gotten good at judging their merit.

This vague standard that you are referring to might even be benefitial because I fear that one rule might exclude other perfectly legitimate types of mapping. It's hard to be as inclusive as possible while also excluding the bad cases. The bad cases are more up to the bng to sort themselves, either by not nominating (which is the most standard response to bad mapping) or vetoing. They have lots of power already over the ranking section. I do think more current bns should have their say on the matter before I made up my mind what the best way forward is.
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
I do believe that BNG do work hard for the rank section and of course i appreciate them (as i'm a BN as well, i understand that sentiment a lot). However i cannot help but think that the lack of criticism stems from the lack of proper knowledge about dump and also ambiguity that happens with the rule from the community side, which will be even more pronounced if the rule got deleted. I personally don't think it's a good idea of the future map to simply pass because the community doesn't have proper knowledge of good dumps.

And i do understand your concern about exception map that might get hampered there, but that's exactly more of the reason why boundary guideline about dump is needed there.

To reverse the logic of what you said, what if some great dumps turn out to be veto'd instead because of lack of proper knowledge about dump from the boundary RC? Wouldn't that make it even more unfair than the potential map that got hampered due to guideline?
At least with the proper wording of rule, those case of inconsistent judgment will be much less happened.

And moreover, guideline also being designed to be able to be broken under special circumstances, so that special case you talking about should be even less happened as long as the mapper able to explain their own logic of mapping.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
Maybe it's better to move that to general guidelines instead of rules then and reword it to clarify how dumping should be handled? I have written a lot about dumping and so have april, and we did brainstorm a few ideas a while back. What do you think about instead just moving it to guidelines?
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
Do you mean about moving it to the guideline and propose the new guideline that you and april already brainstorm about to the community?

If that's what you mean, then it sounds like cool idea for me and i do agree.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
Yes, what I suggested was something like this: "ghost notes should correlate to a musical layer, collective of musical layers, or an improvised layer. They should not distort, shift, and/or contradict the pace and intensity of the music."
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,287 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
I think since i assume you have some more ideas of the guideline that should be added after the brainstorming, how about re-post the entire proposal in the new thread regarding the new ideas of the guideline and also the proper wording for it and let's see what the community say?

I felt that discussing about the guideline in this thread will gives misunderstanding to other member of the community regarding the flow of the discussion and what the discussion tried to do, and i think creating new thread about it will solves that problem so that we can get a clearer feedback from the community
Shoegazer
osu!mania Paragon
528 posts
Joined April 2013
Shoegazer
I'll write a full-fledged response at a later point (I'm currently at school), but the main reason for not rephrasing the clause is that we don't know how every form of ghost note use works on a mechanical level. There are some established forms of ghost note use in the mapping community, but there are a few others like improvising rhythm (think ghost notes from DDR charts like Elemental Creation) that are hard to explain even by the most experienced of mappers. And I don't think a concrete guideline for dumps would help these edge case uses of ghost notes either because it's hard to explain and justify.

I understand the concern of the RC being too open-ended about how ghost notes can be used here, but the ranking criteria was never supposed to be a quality evaluation of maps. Even among BNs and experienced mappers there is a very wide range of ideas of what makes some ghost note use more acceptable than not; I think BNs tend to nominate maps that represent the preferences of the circles that they participate in more than anything else, and I think it's fine to do so, especially given what the o!m ranked sphere is supposed to be: a pluralistic hub representing various communities in the game.

edit: I think it's a very good idea to have a larger community discussion about how the clause should be formulated (if at all) though, I just don't know how fruitful of a discussion it would be
Last edited by Shoegazer , edited 3 times in total.
Syadow-
Beatmap Nominator
1,540 posts
Joined October 2013
Syadow-
  • wanna drop my opinion here on proposal context
  1. i do believe to keep the current wording.
    first i wanna take ur sentence from

    "Examples are the many camellia maps in ranked..."

    it show that not all rc can we generalize from one of song/genre type and also most of mapper/modder not really take into dump scene so not really give an impact on community. rather than wording, i think the current still enough to justify dump as a sound so no need to reword imo.
  2. other case, what ppl think if this proposal accepted ?
    i assume Ppl can be misslead something like dh's said (not really passive agrresive tho but its a fact how ppl can think the same as dh's opinion and we cant control their perception). if u can take the positive from dh's opinion which not all mapper can deal with dump. so there must be a 2 side reaction like "this is my pattern u cant understand" or "i dont know what sound did u follow can u give me the reason" (keep in mind its not a passive aggresive).

    I believe u guys are experienced but i wanna know how to deal with mapper out of nowhere claim that his/her map was a dump ? Or can u explain how to see the different between random pattern and dump without seeing the mapper first? tbh i'm being struggle when facing to mods a dump since 2years ago. anyway dump pattern is fine as long as most people know its a dump and still have correlation with the song and most people enjoy it
Mirea
417 posts
Joined May 2016
Mirea
Shifting the current subject to guidelines could be the most feasible way to reach middleground that would alllow this kind of dump approach. However I'm still seeing myself as skeptical as Maxus about how the BNs would handle such situations in ranking dump maps, and this includes the rest of the community as well.

While there has no been a clear way to define how an acceptable dump is, this way mappers can always pull out explanations and would potentially cause another hassle work and we have to argue over and over again. From what I saw mappers can be artistically creative at making up explanations towards their dump approach while it gives little correlation to the music. I don't see the point of ranking maps that can only be enjoyed and understood, in terms of music interpretation, by just a minority part of people - those who can play the map or are in the same page as the mapper.

Eventually We shouldn't rely and/or risk the concept you are offering to end up at veto, otherwise it'd be just another way to say that the new system is unstable and doesn't have a clear foundation to begin with.
Last edited by Mirea , edited 1 time in total.
Kurisu Makise
393 posts
Joined June 2013
Kurisu Makise

Davvy wrote:

Yes, what I suggested was something like this: "ghost notes should correlate to a musical layer, collective of musical layers, or an improvised layer. They should not distort, shift, and/or contradict the pace and intensity of the music."
This is much better than having no rules about ghost notes at all imo. If you already have it so nicely formulated then why even suggest to remove current rule and not replace it?

I also agree with DH and Syadow's comment on his message. There should be a rule you can refer to when modding a map that doesn't consistently follow something in the music, be it distinct sounds or sound intensity in case of dumps. This rule may not cover any possible type of dump but it would be easier for BNs to make personal justification on rare exceptions while having a rule to rely on most of the time.

Also RC is what new modders learn from, especially when they aim to become BNs. It should at least form some basic understanding on what's acceptable and what's not. If RC doesn't straight up discourage doing what DH said then why it even exists? For technical info like BG image size and spread rules? But then it shouldn't have any patterning rules/guidelines at all, leaving everything to BNs justification. Although it proved to be a bad idea in ~2013-2015. Even if you trust current BNs, keep in mind that new ones will come in the future. What's stopping them from degrading ranked section into its initial state if not RC?
AncuL
1,114 posts
Joined March 2013
AncuL

Kivicat wrote:

Also RC is what new modders learn from, especially when they aim to become BNs. It should at least form some basic understanding on what's acceptable and what's not. If RC doesn't straight up discourage doing what DH said then why it even exists? For technical info like BG image size and spread rules? But then it shouldn't have any patterning rules/guidelines at all, leaving everything to BNs justification. Although it proved to be a bad idea in ~2013-2015. Even if you trust current BNs, keep in mind that new ones will come in the future. What's stopping them from degrading ranked section into its initial state if not RC?
I don't know if this is based on data, but this already gives a bit of red flag

Apart from the absolutes like metadata, BNs should have their own opinion of maps they're going to push, and that shouldn't be affected by how other people judge them, or even the RC itself

Furthermore, there's no problem if there are people with differing opinions (ofc until some point, but then again we have people checking through qualified maps). We strive to welcome all kinds of mappers on ranked, anyway

If anything, having RC be strict, in addition to new BNs strictly learning through that document, really means we are willing to surpress the dynamic ranked is able to be. Keep in mind that the ranked isn't particularly of a good quality either, and has the RC helped all over these years?

tl;dr BN subjectivity > RC
+ Believe on your BNs

edit: 2013-2015 maps are pretty cool honestly :)
Last edited by AncuL , edited 1 time in total.
richardfeder
1,060 posts
Joined March 2013
richardfeder
I thought having notes that actually correspond to sounds is the norm... and what you are arguing for is the outlier case that should be judged on a case by case basis, carefully with bns and the mappers.

I don't understand why are you trying to adjust the rules that set the norms to accommodate for extreme cases. I think having the rule installed actually help us double check if maps that go in this direction are executed carefully and correctly, with them being the violations attract more attentions and discussions.

I don't see how current rules stop maps from ranking either. You already have plenty of examples that got ranked with people who care carefully reviewed them before they proceeded to ranked section. I think that is perfectly fine.
Last edited by richardfeder , edited 1 time in total.
Touru0711
101 posts
Joined June 2016
Touru0711
I don't think put all responsibility on "trust BNs" is a good choice because the member of BNs will change over time.

If there are no rules of dumping we can follow or at least take as a reference, the standard of "which kind of dumping is fine" will varies too much over time. Maybe in this year, more than half BNs think "Kind A dumping is fine but Kind B dumping isn't" , but in next year it changes like "Kind A dumping isn't fine but Kind B dumping is fine", and the change is just because of the member change in BNG and the standard changes, but actually the community's choice won't change so rapidly like the member change in BNG. It will be a big mess for the whole mapping community, even more for the whole mania community.

So in my opinion it's still important to have a rule as a reference for "everyone in the community" to see and follow. If we directly delete the rules then mappers should learn "what kind of dumping is accepted by the BNG now" every single time when BNG member change.

Have rules, then we can judge more fairly and clearly for everyone to see and check.

btw, actually I think is no matter rules between BNs change or not change rapidly, we still need rules since we won't say "yeah just trust government so we don't need laws", right?
Last edited by Touru0711 , edited 5 times in total.
Ryu Sei
2,900 posts
Joined October 2013
Ryu Sei
My opinion is, well, just put the 'rule that restricts dumping' to guidelines instead. Still, a proper representation of music, shown with accurate note snapping is still needed. Dumps are acceptable if they're used to map an indistinguishable set of sound (for example, wobbling guitar, static noise, or a very fast drum burst that is unreachable by normal snapping/unreasonable to play accurately).

It's a win-win solution. I'd like to see a 'good' dump maps, not just the ones that just put random notes out of nowhere where the notes misrepresents a clear sound start.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
224 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
I am going to be dead honest here but I also do not really endorse that the rule gets fully botched. Moreover, the argument that BNs should not have that high of a degree of trust is also very fair. I'll quickly now explain why:

Issues with removing the rule + Trusting BNs too much
  1. Firstly, as it was mentioned before, while I second your view that the current BNG has some great people on it that I myself would fully trust on doing a great job, times will inevitably change. This proposal in particular isn't future proofed. It should be constructive, not destructive.
  2. Secondly, this is not going to be positive for future discussions of dumping. In fact I'd argue that it might make them worse as there won't be nothing to even base yourself upon. Such a grey area will accommodate for unending discussions fully based on subjectivity. This can get accentuated for the worse if we factor in that in all technicality the userbase has to "trust" a map being qualified just because it has been nominated by a BN. And personally, this can give off a vibe of holding BNs to a greater standard that they should actually be.
Now, as AncuL said, and even if it sounds contradictory, I do fully endorse the openness that the BNG currently has when assessing maps. This is why I believe that new proposals should not be restricting creative liberties. However, this does not mean that the RC should still mention what stuff is/isn't allowed. You are not making the RC strict if you just mention that dumping is acceptable. Obviously the way you portray the wording is EXTREMELY important for this to happen, but ultimately this should be the goal.

And while I personally understand "ghost notes should correlate to a musical layer, collective of musical layers, or an improvised layer. They should not distort, shift, and/or contradict the pace and intensity of the music.", this might be way too complex for your run of the mill mapper/modder. It should be simpler than this really!

At the end of the day I am a firmly believer that the RC should document the existence of being able to represent sounds in a less "clear-cut" way. However, this should be done in a vague way so it accommodates most if not every style and concise enough for it to understand when is it "acceptable" to place notes on the not-nothingness.

This is my take however:
The current guideline (Because this is currently a guideline, not a rule, so moving it to the Guidelines section is... already technically done?) seems to be more fitting than the proposed ideas above... for now that is. While I value the discussion I think it's somewhat missing the point.

I do not want to seem like a stagnant fool that wants no change. In fact I'd heavily encourage that we come up with something better from what we currently have! But this is not about trusting BNs; This is not about restricting the RC; This is not about what kind of dump is correct or not. I believe the answers for these concerns are intertwined, but the main objective of changing the clause should be transparency. The userbase should be knowledgeable of the do's and don'ts in ranking maps, even if a clause like this should be merely informative within objective doubt. I want to argue that this transparency was really not there on some discussions pointed out above, which unchained lengthy discussions.

I believe the first step here would then be explaining why "Every note should correlate to a sound present in the music. This should be a distinct sound, but can also coherently represent a continuous sound with an indistinguishable start or end." isn't already good enough and work our way up from there! And I believe Davvy did start with a very good point such as the fact that this might not heavily account for everything.
lenpai
1,780 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai
Preface: I haven't been that much involved with 4k so feel free to correct me if I'm misinformed in some stuff.

--------------------------

When the rule is removed, with a playerbase as broad and diverse as osu!mania, what constitutes as rankable dumping can be interpreted with an extremely wide scope from o2lns, to jack dumps, to vibro elements, to anime OP speed streams, etc.

This is a bit of a touchy subject and so its very easy for people to claim bias if it ends up that one dumping style is prioritized for ranking and another is argued over. There is some good that can happen if the dumping rule is removed but there is a balancing act that needs to be observed if we have the entire community's best interests at heart.

As others have mentioned previously, there are already ranked maps that fall under the goal of this proposal. What would be different this time? To help with the case, it might be wise to link examples of charts that would absolutely be unrankable unless the rule is removed. The initial efforts are greatly appreciated and despite the early pushback, the ball has started rolling. How many dump charts went through since then without a heated discussion section?

**Should a change happen to this section regarding dumps, it would help to define what dumping is and set limitions. Although easier said than done, expectations are set -- rankable dumping becomes a less nebulous concept.

Looking forward to how this shapes up.


tl;dr read paragraph with **
Last edited by lenpai , edited 1 time in total.
Davvy
osu! Alumni
90 posts
Joined April 2017
Topic Starter
Davvy
Both me and april have written about the subject but honestly there's just a lot of text that I'm starting to believe you can't shrink down the concept into a neat set of rules, which is part of the reason I'm making the proposal in the first place. It's just way too subjective, and having rules as some kind of drama mitigation will just stagnate the game.

Let the drama happen I say. There's mapping gmts now for a reason, to make sure it doesn't go overboard (then again that didn't stop xeroa, but I doubt a case such as that will happen in some time). The only limitation that really works is simply to not have notes for periods of silences, that's it. The rest? Very subjective.
VorticalEx
66 posts
Joined January 2017
VorticalEx
So much salt around here jesus christ

Here's my take: first of all, BNs are supposed to know when a pattern is justified or not, allowing or declining dumps will change nothing in this side of the coin

In second place, BNs won't take something they don't like. By allowing them to rank dumps, if they don't like dumps they just won't do it, even if the map meets every RC requirement.

What I'm trying to state is, it will still be responsability of the BN itself, this rule makes barely any sense based on the requirements to being a BN, I could agree on this rule if the ranked scene isn't developed at all, but today by today people ranking maps are the same as always.

So we got:
- A developed ranked scene

- A team that dedicated exclusively to determine if a map is enjoyable, playable, meets a lot of requirements and overall if they agree on what the mapper did.

- The same people ranking maps over and over

Why this rule still exists? By removing it maps won't become 100% dump all the time and it will include variety in the same 50 or 60 possible ranked patters that repeats over thousands of songs. I agree on davvy's proposal.

Also, git gud, most of bns may not understand dump because they aren't able to play them even, ever fced a etterna map? Rofl
Last edited by VorticalEx , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
224 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
This probably goes way beyond drama. It is obviously necessary to have mediation if a discussion goes overboard, but you can have a civil discussion still end in disagreement, can you not? This wouldn't solve the impasse but rather make it bigger without necessarily making the risk of actual bad faith actors in discussions either increase or decrease.

And while you're correct with the whole avoiding actual notes at period of silence, there still should be a clause that mentions or hints or informs that you can still map these prolonged sounds so long they have musical validity to them. This information in a discussion is rather important to have, specially seeing how many people hold the RC to such high standards (Which personally is an issue in and out of itself but that's a conversation to be had another day).
Mirea
417 posts
Joined May 2016
Mirea
This should be a better response of mine regarding what's offered here after seeing others' perspectives and mainly about the original thread, and actually checked out the RC again.

I genuinely believe as a diverse community we should preserve the clause being mentioned. This to ensure every map doesn't go out of the place and fall under the same fundamental. This has been a condescending area that keeps the content quality within such ideal expectations among various kinds of mapping. Removing this clause from the guidelines - which can actually be neglected on certain cases under reasonable factors, will do more harm considering a plenty of potential issues that have been kept out during its long existence. All this just to justify a single mapping approach. This is basically what could occur as DH said, just in better words.

There has been multiple dump maps did get into ranked in the past year and I don't see this guideline limits the liberties in most cases. Personally this situation we are having could be interpreted either that the mapper provides a sufficient amount of justifications, or most people just failed to understand the idea of the map and opted to ignore it. Again, it's because the nature of guidelines itself doesn't obligate you to comply as it is, this is why removing the clause doesn't seem to change anything except giving a wide-open gap in ranking criteria.

However I could bring myself closer to an agreement by adding a brand-new guideline that specifically cover the area of ghost notes, as you offered on the further replies about "Ghost notes should correlate...". This would theoretically provide a better depiction of what you are aiming to achieve through this proposal and be able to prevent conflicts in the future by the actual implementation. Though you might need to revamp the proposal to push this further so it's easier to read.

What I'm telling here probably won't do much benefit to propose a better option, but rather the consequences that might take place if this proposal is applied.
Last edited by Mirea , edited 3 times in total.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker
What maps does that rule prevent from getting ranked? Let's come up with something that lets those through.

In my experience dumps are not being ranked as often because not many people know how to deal with them modding wise. You'd only see ranked quality dumps from experienced mappers, I am not even sure the couple dump maps I made would make it to ranked just because of "fundamental issues" they may have that I'm not willing to change.
Last edited by abraker , edited 2 times in total.
Shoegazer
osu!mania Paragon
528 posts
Joined April 2013
Shoegazer
I'm personally very surprised by how much people find the ranking criteria to be both a tool that can teach new mappers how to map and how it can be used as a "minimum quality threshold" for all maps. It's not something that I felt was the case for RC, but many people here seem to believe that way.

It's also understandable that some people believe that future BNs might go renegade and all that as well, though I believe that the general reason for removing this rule is that communities of mapping would then be the ones regulating what makes a map acceptable rather than a set of rules. I understand why many people here are pessimistic in that respect though..

From people I've asked about whether there are fundamental things in mapping that have to be followed, it seems that a lot of people do believe that there are things across every map that makes it a proper map (Davvy and I didn't, which is why we thought the rule was fine). As a result I can see why so many people are so vehemently against this rule on principle as well.

I'll move my beliefs of mapping aside here since it's pretty clearly a minority one. Given the number of maps that theoretically wouldn't be rankable with the current rule, there's some rephrasing that can be done. The question then is how, and there are some easy cases of how ghost notes are used, but unfortunately there are others that are hard to explain with understanding how rhythm works. I'll see if anything can be done though..
Mirea
417 posts
Joined May 2016
Mirea

abraker wrote:

What maps does that rule prevent from getting ranked? Let's come up with something that lets those through.

In my experience dumps are not being ranked as often because not many people know how to deal with them modding wise. You'd only see ranked quality dumps from experienced mappers, I am not even sure the couple dump maps I made would make it to ranked just because of "fundamental issues" they may have that I'm not willing to change.
This guideline has been a gatekeeping mechanism to a lot of maps below satisfactory and helps up modders/BNs to classify if the map is suitable for further access. If you really meant to ask, there are tons of map have not managed to fulfill the criteria we are commonly looking for in a mapset. Those that don't have a clear structural concept and/or logical emphasis to the sound (this can be exempted in extreme cases such dump mapsets that should be judged on case by case basis).

I have no idea how many mappers capable of dump mapping that could be deemed as experienced individual. At this point if you strive to make dump mapping more accessible, this shouldn't only meant for experienced mappers only, but a more inclusive set of rules that can be helpful for inexperienced ones. However it requires us to bring the idea into clarity for everyone in order to reach a good result, instead of getting rid of a single guideline to simplify everything. It is not that simple.
Noch Einen
530 posts
Joined July 2018
Noch Einen
My words tend to mislead your (anyone who read this) thought/mindset, please fully digest it with any neutral implicit meaning possible, not to mention also "cool-headed" is required. Im not trying to attack anyone here


Shoegazer wrote:

I think BNs tend to nominate maps that represent the preferences of the circles that they participate in more than anything else, and I think it's fine to do so, especially given what the o!m ranked sphere is supposed to be: a pluralistic hub representing various communities in the game.
If you meant by making the game realistic as it's brand itself "circle" game. Yes. But apparently on several cases (especially from vetos), different circle clashed to each others and "forced" to claim their opinion as the most righteous ones (beatmapsets/896368/discussion/-/generalAll#/2020576 ultimate fate one of the example). I do believe he (mapper) dumped stuffs with "buffing SR" as disguise/reason due he knows "dumping" reason is not gonna be effective like you guys did (beatmapsets/1145368/discussion/2396091/timeline#/1799643/5041842 clearly trained differently; how to dump & how to map with sound). Though indeed it was a poor execution on it (ultimate fate) & really less coherent to the music.

Anyway im not here to just saying that, but if you meant as this below. I'd like to agree with it, for the sake of myself improving stuff.

Davvy wrote:

Yes, what I suggested was something like this: "ghost notes should correlate to a musical layer, collective of musical layers, or an improvised layer. They should not distort, shift, and/or contradict the pace and intensity of the music."
However, if you're planning "to dump more responsibility to BN" by "fully trusting the BN", don't you think you're making BN worn out faster than they already? Idk if you felt this/not before, taking of other game (Quaver, BMS, Etterna, O2Jam as example), for quaver you went there before as RS & you see the stuffs that outside the RS' maps that time. Isn't current guidelines already suitable as it is? With current available BN members (on your side), wouldn't that more than enough to achieve what you want already? As Shoegazer said (words that i've picked for quote), if you want to represent the dump / how to dump correctly, you may rank ton of it & people would try to follow them (dump map) as example.
_Stan
Beatmap Nominator
777 posts
Joined June 2012
_Stan
Well, dump is something complicated I can ensure. I won’t speak too much about it cuz like Davvy said no one likes to read messages like walls, tryna keep this simple.

But first, I’ll say something before giving my thoughts.

#1. RANKED should have clear information/explanation about what suit for RANKED (as possible as we can)
Creativity is so limitless and wonderful, that’s why mania is really cool game mode, right? Everyone can create excellent works, sharing with others, this is so cool. But now we had another situation, RANKED. I believe “No rules, no standards”, if we didn’t make clear rules for things, things can go very blur, and it will lose control eventually I guess, no matter that was caused by not-well management or abuse by others. If RANKED never make clear instruction for what does RANKED should be, then I think it doesn't need to exist.

#2, Any type of pattern has its meaning if they are reasonable, but how do we decide?
The dump is a common pattern type or mapping style indeed, it worked when wobbles, wubs, or something like that. But due to the RC doesn’t have clear instructions now, that’s why BN also can’t execute better. Misunderstanding or subjective consciousness both cause debate at the end as we can see something happened recently. Rules are like laws, they are always improving. Only when new problems arise, can we solve them better so as not to repeat the same mistakes.

Okay, now back to the topic, I wanna say:

#1, “The main problem of the rule is that it is restricted to mappers wanting to get their maps ranked.”
I do believe this is happening, that’s why this conversation is valuable to discuss. But somehow I wonder does this is the best way to solve that? The consequence of just canceling them I’ll explain in #2, but the first thought in my mind is better to fix them. Given the things that happened recently, it's clear that dump is totally rankable. Improving acceptance of ranking is might be better than lifting restrictions not explained.

#2, RC can raise the lower limit to satisfy as many possibilities as possible.
I just notice you guys talking about the “BN trust issue”, I think this is what we shouldn't discuss. Human thoughts changed every time, continuous cognition and learning will gradually change previous thinking. I’d rather“BN doing things by their own judgment but within RC firstly” than “RC gives a simple/vague, all the rest things decided by BN ”, the former one can raise the lower limit, make the whole RANKED system didn’t cause problem big. The latter got a very high ceiling and a very low floor(cuz we can't make sure all the BN had similar standards), which means the range will so big. I’d love to see different styles but not things with different levels with a huge range.

-

Conclusion: I'd like to keep the state quo with clearer instruction (maybe this is what we can work on). I feel dump is cool but just we don't have enough info about it to get things clearly like grace/trill/stair/roll. If so, I think this won't happen again in near future.

I'm trying to give my view objective, please don't take out of context. I feel this conversation is valuable to discuss.
Last edited by _Stan , edited 1 time in total.
Scotty
Nomination Assessment Team
286 posts
Joined October 2017
Scotty
i'm for removing this guideline as to me its sort of like trying to have a guideline about consistency or pitch relevancy or something. dumping is just as much of a method of representing the music as those are. personally i think RC should be primarily focused on playability related aspects rather than musical representation. people's opinions of how maps represent the music change all the time while standards for playability mostly change at the highest difficulty level which RC has no restrictions for anyway.
Last edited by Scotty , edited 1 time in total.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

Mirea wrote:

abraker wrote:

What maps does that rule prevent from getting ranked? Let's come up with something that lets those through.
This guideline has been a gatekeeping mechanism to a lot of maps below satisfactory and helps up modders/BNs to classify if the map is suitable for further access. If you really meant to ask, there are tons of map have not managed to fulfill the criteria we are commonly looking for in a mapset. Those that don't have a clear structural concept and/or logical emphasis to the sound (this can be exempted in extreme cases such dump mapsets that should be judged on case by case basis).
I think you misunderstood. Perhaps I also made the question not clear enough. I am looking for concrete examples of dump maps that should go for ranked (meaning they are at or above satisfactory), but cannot be ranked because of this rule.
Mirea
417 posts
Joined May 2016
Mirea
I think you misunderstood. Perhaps I also made the question not clear enough. I am looking for concrete examples of dump maps that should go for ranked (meaning they are at or above satisfactory), but cannot be ranked because of this rule.
Apologies for quoting you and caused confusion, it was not directed to you. I was trying to somewhat elaborate your text from my perspective. Your question should be answered by the other side since what's behind it holds sort of the main factor whether the guideline should be removed or not. Regardless my point still stands the same about preserving this guideline.
Last edited by Mirea , edited 1 time in total.
RiP46
Beatmap Nominator
512 posts
Joined November 2014
RiP46
Imagine after the removal, people need to write an extremely long paragraph to justify their dumping approach for every single map. Do you guys think a good map needs a long explanation to justify how good the map is? I doubt people would like to read that and I believe a good map doesn't need a justification to make random people know the map is good.

Even if someone else manages to write a long paragraph, I doubt you guys will take a proper look at it just like what you guys did here beatmapsets/1127597/discussion/2942054/timeline#/2333625 (even tho it's not dump map case). Maybe what you guys say about BN bias is true after all and there's a hidden circle agenda inside BNG itself? spooky.

Imagine if someone says to believe in BN like this. They don't even consider your thoughts at all.



also since the GMT say "let the drama happen", I'll say this again

"Man, I am lazy to make a HS for my map, I know! let's remove the HS RC!"
"Man, I am lazy to make a proper spread for my map, I know! let's nerf the spread RC!"
"Man, I am lazy to write a long paragraph to justify my dump map and all these dramas, I know! let's remove the RC that restricts dumping!"

I wonder what's next, fully remove RC for mania?. Every day, the ranked section is getting closer to the loved section. Might want to merge it next time.
Last edited by RiP46 , edited 3 times in total.
Garalulu
936 posts
Joined March 2011
Garalulu
Partially agree. Like the map you used as an example, I don't think that current ranked scene strictly prohibits "dump" if it is followed music itself well, but changing this rule is different case. The "intensity aura" should be ranked and a supplement information about it should be added if the changing rule can support this type. But even if it is revised to allow multiple types of dump, I still disagree to types that don't follow the music itself.

Changes must occur only when music is considered.
Crumpey
565 posts
Joined October 2013
Crumpey
I feel like I should add my 2 cents here, I'll be clear from the get-go. Dump maps suck. Now let me go into some detail.

As I feel it should a rhythm game should have maps that go to, you guessed it the rhythm.
As it stands I'm almost on par with essentially what RIP has said, most of the recent rule changes have sparked a horrendous decline in map quality over the past year or so.

Not hit sounding allows people to speed rank stuff even faster than ever before.
I also read about it becoming a guideline, but honestly how is that any different from taking it off altogether?
If it can be justified as dump it can be rankable?

Not naming any names I feel this rule only affects a small minority of mappers in this community and removing this will most likely make the ranking scene even worse than it has been, it's already in shambles.

I do hope other people share the same sentiment I do.
With every rule like this being removed, all that's left to do is change the logo and we are essentially quaver...
Last edited by Crumpey , edited 1 time in total.
Furryswan
Elite Nominator
326 posts
Joined January 2017
Furryswan

VorticalEx wrote:

So much salt around here jesus christ

Here's my take: first of all, BNs are supposed to know when a pattern is justified or not, allowing or declining dumps will change nothing in this side of the coin

In second place, BNs won't take something they don't like. By allowing them to rank dumps, if they don't like dumps they just won't do it, even if the map meets every RC requirement.

What I'm trying to state is, it will still be responsability of the BN itself, this rule makes barely any sense based on the requirements to being a BN, I could agree on this rule if the ranked scene isn't developed at all, but today by today people ranking maps are the same as always.

So we got:
- A developed ranked scene

- A team that dedicated exclusively to determine if a map is enjoyable, playable, meets a lot of requirements and overall if they agree on what the mapper did.

- The same people ranking maps over and over

Why this rule still exists? By removing it maps won't become 100% dump all the time and it will include variety in the same 50 or 60 possible ranked patters that repeats over thousands of songs. I agree on davvy's proposal.

Also, git gud, most of bns may not understand dump because they aren't able to play them even, ever fced a etterna map? Rofl
Agree
MEGAtive
1,656 posts
Joined August 2013
MEGAtive
All this discussion here revolves around the paraphrasing of the guideline or outright want it to disappear, but I haven't seen anyone talking about the benefit of the technique, the strategy in using the technique, common pitfalls of it, or anything that actually encourages said technique to be used and rankable. How can the discussion progresses if the only one understands the technique are only small portion of the population here and no one bother to explain what is it, how it executes, when to use it, etc.

I'm not commenting about how the RC evolves into like some people here, that's another can of worm I won't touch.
Paran
111 posts
Joined October 2018
Paran

VorticalEx wrote:

So much salt around here jesus christ

Here's my take: first of all, BNs are supposed to know when a pattern is justified or not, allowing or declining dumps will change nothing in this side of the coin

In second place, BNs won't take something they don't like. By allowing them to rank dumps, if they don't like dumps they just won't do it, even if the map meets every RC requirement.

What I'm trying to state is, it will still be responsability of the BN itself, this rule makes barely any sense based on the requirements to being a BN, I could agree on this rule if the ranked scene isn't developed at all, but today by today people ranking maps are the same as always.

So we got:
- A developed ranked scene

- A team that dedicated exclusively to determine if a map is enjoyable, playable, meets a lot of requirements and overall if they agree on what the mapper did.

- The same people ranking maps over and over

Why this rule still exists? By removing it maps won't become 100% dump all the time and it will include variety in the same 50 or 60 possible ranked patters that repeats over thousands of songs. I agree on davvy's proposal.

Also, git gud, most of bns may not understand dump because they aren't able to play them even, ever fced a etterna map? Rofl
Disagree
lenpai
1,780 posts
Joined December 2014
lenpai

MEGAtive wrote:

All this discussion here revolves around the paraphrasing of the guideline or outright want it to disappear, but I haven't seen anyone talking about the benefit of the technique, the strategy in using the technique, common pitfalls of it, or anything that actually encourages said technique to be used and rankable. How can the discussion progresses if the only one understands the technique are only small portion of the population here and no one bother to explain what is it, how it executes, when to use it, etc.
Fair concern. Maybe a little out of scope for the RC document but good for discussion. For starters, it think it would be good to have the shoegazer docs linked in the OP to provide a general overview of the style. After all, dumping constitutes a very small % in the ranked scene and is not really understood by many.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

RiP46 wrote:

"Man, I am lazy to make a HS for my map, I know! let's remove the HS RC!"
"Man, I am lazy to make a proper spread for my map, I know! let's nerf the spread RC!"
"Man, I am lazy to write a long paragraph to justify my dump map and all these dramas, I know! let's remove the RC that restricts dumping!"

I wonder what's next, fully remove RC for mania?. Every day, the ranked section is getting closer to the loved section. Might want to merge it next time.
This is kinda uncalled for imo. HS and spreads create a barrier to entry that even experienced mappers tend to not want to deal with at times. The rule in question in this thread does not create any barrier to entry, and is intended to serve as damage control against random note spam.
datoujia
82 posts
Joined August 2014
datoujia
The only question I want to leave is, how to judge the quality of a dump chart without favor? Put it another way, how to prove that a dump map is rankable when anyone (even anyBNs) subjectively hate it and say it is unrankable?

For traditional non-dump maps, we can explain most of pattern from the perspective of consistency, music-relative, diffculty spread CLEARLY. We can prove that "this map is eligible" though anyone hate this map subjectively.

For some regular dump chart, which is combined with stable streams or jacks and follow the consistency well(AiAe, Memoria, Azure, etc...), we can write something to explain the reasonability of dump usage easily. It can be relatively objective and clear.

But dump is not always such regular things. Before I playing osumania, I played lots of irregular dumps in stepmania, even now I still map some irregular dumps. From the perspective of irregular dump player and mapper, I do feel it is really hard to explain the quality of dump chart. Mostly, we just can say "we like or unlike", "some pattern is very hard or not", "some pattern convey the music well or could be better".... When we try modding more specifically, we will find infinite space to change, such as "I think 30th burst is better than 28th", "56th is better than 48th for this grace" etc. It's almost impossible to avoid subjective favor. Dump is a chaos feel, not a certainly standard.

If you think ranked section is someone's favor section in fact, you can ignore my question. If you can't feel the awkward situation in dump modding and judging, how about try modding some irregular dumps or vocal dump(just assumpt this map is going to ranked and do a practice). If you dont want to rank irregular dumps at all, current RC doesnt restrict something like AiAe, Memoria, Transhumanist, Azure and Shinbatsu, so I think it is no need to remove it now.

For me, I very like to play and map some irregular vocal dump and think they are enjoyable, but I think there is no need to rank them. If you want to try modding irregular dump certainly, you can mod my short vocal dump b/2571925 and I'm willing to reply your mods (though I wouldnt rank it actually.)
Last edited by datoujia , edited 10 times in total.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 56