As soon as you integrate "player skill" into your argument, it nullifies it entirely.
I don't fully agree with this. Wishy was stating that these are readable by some others, which means that the others were able to pick up on the cues presented by it.those wrote:
As soon as you integrate "player skill" into your argument, it nullifies it entirely.
Here we go. Exactly the thing I wanted to write in this thread. The problem is that you obviously can concretize the rule, but that is the best way to kill this kind of sliders which may be either good or bad. There're a lot of experienced BATs who can judge these silders on a case-by-case basis.popner wrote:
It is still a case by case issue. I find that many maps use this wisely, like 0108's maps. If you can't prove that all this kind of slider are bad use then why make a rule to forbid it? Most maps that use over 3.0x SV sucks, so are we going to forbid 3.0+x SV? No. This is a silimar case.
If you find a map use terrible sliders, tell the mapper that "You think the slider is terrible", not "The rule says the slider is terrible". Please think more about what BATs are exist for.
The rules shouldn't be black and white, but a colorful book that's open to interpretation when needed.Scorpiour wrote:
The existence of BAT is to judge these kinda cases.
I was answering to your argument about being able to read the slider properly, you are the one who got into that area, are you saying your argument nullifies itself?those wrote:
As soon as you integrate "player skill" into your argument, it nullifies it entirely.
+1Scorpiour wrote:
i don't think there's any strong reason to set it as a rule. The existence of BAT is to judge these kinda cases.
Or just don't rank them so that there's no risk of people losing points over them.Ephemeral wrote:
i think the best approach is to delegate maps with features like these into a "free" category with a warning pinned to them that they exhibit techniques and features not normally allowed by the ranking criteria: aka they have a high chance of being bad. this would open up a whole new can of worms, though. maybe a topic for a different thread
approved 2.0? we can put stuff like tag maps, jubeat authentics or whatever else into this category too.Ephemeral wrote:
[...] into a "free" category with a warning pinned to them that they exhibit techniques and features not normally allowed by the ranking criteria [...]
The obvious solution would be to have the mapper reconstruct the slider, in a manner which is much more obvious and... Well, has a bit more motion. It can still be a tight wiggle without looking like a sluggish python trying to swallow a boar.Irreversible wrote:
But if it has like only 1 of those sliders, does it really have to be approved? That sounds rather .. weird
You could just put a warning in the begin or something..
When you talk about readability you are talking about skill, that slider which those considers unreadable is readable to me.D33d wrote:
Isn't the point to, you know, create a tight wiggle which is actually readable? That sort of thing's cool, but making a slider which thickens ever so slightly can often be incredibly ambiguous.
Just posting to +1 this idea, don't mind me.Ephemeral wrote:
i think the best approach is to delegate maps with features like these into a "free" category with a warning pinned to them that they exhibit techniques and features not normally allowed by the ranking criteria: aka they have a high chance of being bad. this would open up a whole new can of worms, though. maybe a topic for a different thread
^Soaprman wrote:
Just posting to +1 this idea, don't mind me.Ephemeral wrote:
i think the best approach is to delegate maps with features like these into a "free" category with a warning pinned to them that they exhibit techniques and features not normally allowed by the ranking criteria: aka they have a high chance of being bad. this would open up a whole new can of worms, though. maybe a topic for a different thread