Regarding http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/158947 , the mid-slider SV change discussion, and my former post http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/127291 , I think it should be the chance to re-pickup this one.


Rather than graveyarding these pretty maps which make them being deleted by peppy in the coming future (Attention here that I didn't say playable or reasonable), it seems that maps having these features would be possible to fall into a new category "Approved v2" (or something else):

-mid-slider SV changes
-osumania pressing-7-keys-at-the-same-time map

They are both highly argued mapping styles and don't have one-sided opinion on ranking them or not. Since it's not on common agreement, it shuold be better to put them in another category with warnings, but not in ranked category unless they reach common agreement.

Furthermore, it would be a good idea to even put showcase map into this category like:
-map w/ beautiful patterns but are completely unrankable (2 note at the same time, unrankable sliders, etc)
-KUSO maps that are just for fun and unreasonable at all,like maps having only spinners
-maps that simulate other games (JBT, DMT) but are unable to rank in current criteria

Whether scored or unscored (This category is unnecessarily scored;unscored category is also OK), with mapper's considerable effort making these exciting maps, it should not be eventually deleted. These of high quality (Yeah I personally think that this category need even higher standard than normal rank ones) should even make it to the public.

Not to say that this kind of maps should be encouraged, but for these who want to challenge their map technique and want to be creative, this category is for them. These maps which are just regular and just want to bypass ranking criteria are not eligible for this category.

What do you think?

I think the problem with "good" graveyarded maps is not that they use "one or two" weird sliders or a few unrankable patterns. It's just that they don't have a proper diff spread and that the ranking process disencourages the mapper from getting it ranked. Two notes at the same time is not rankable for obvious reasons (and I don't really think it should be...). I would agree with the KUSO point but I don't really get it. Also, the point about other games getting simulated would be nice.

"Mid-slider SV changes" are rankable, a lot of maps use this, many are on the best of 20XX charts, the most popular mappers use this a lot and it hasn't really been addressed at all for years because it works fine.

Wishy wrote:

I think the problem with "good" graveyarded maps is not that they use "one or two" weird sliders or a few unrankable patterns. It's just that they don't have a proper diff spread and that the ranking process disencourages the mapper from getting it ranked.

Actually when I said that this category need higher standard, these maps which their mappers are just too lazy to make enough diffs are instantly disqualified. Only maps which their most interesting part is unrankable suit this category, in this case.

And yeah which kinds of map are suitable to go into this category should be discussed further.

IMO it's counter productive to provide official support for maps that are not ranked because of quality issues. Any song that is good enough to be ranked should be compliant with the ranking criteria. If this is shown to not be the case, then the ranking criteria is flawed and doesn't truly represent acceptable standards of quality.

Ranking criteria should not be something ignored. The specificity of the criteria should reflect any map that is defined as rankable and any map that does not follow such criteria is unrankable until it is decided that it is compliant with rankable criteria. In other words in order for a map to have a ranking chart it must follow all criteria to have a rankable chart or the definition of a rankable chart needs to be well defined to separate the two types of maps.

Approved 2.0 maps

1. -Should not give pp
   -
2. -Should not count towards accuracy or total/ranked score
   -
3. -Should be based on maps that are necessarily different and could not be considered rankable by just mapping it differently (TAG2/4, Osuka, DeltaMAX, Troll storyboard maps)
   -
4. -Should follow all quality related non mapset specific criteria. (Any criteria that is not necessarily different should comply with normal ranking criteria AKA random burais/unrankable wigglies would not be allowed)
   -
5. -Should not include marathons. Marathons are rankable.
   -
6. -Should not break important gameplay mechanics (2B maps would need to be given official support before they should be allowed, touchscreen based maps as well)
   -
7. -Should be theoretically FCable on all playable gamemodes (CTB on a 2B map is impossible)
   -
8. -Should show a strong reliance on whatever unique gimmicky involved. The gimmicky must not appear tacked on to get around the ranking criteria)
   -
9. -Should not be based on the number of difficulties/ how hard those difficulties are. (Modders still need to mod it. There are no shortcuts to getting things ranked.)
   -
10. -Should be able to be packaged with ranked mapsets for convenience.
    -
11. -Should be distinctly identified as not applying to score (The only benefit will be a ranked chart and nothing else)
    -
12. -Should be handled by BATs under the new ranking system. (Qualifiers should report any approved maps to BATs and maps should not get ranked until such maps are thoroughly checked over)

xxbidiao wrote:

Wishy wrote:

I think the problem with "good" graveyarded maps is not that they use "one or two" weird sliders or a few unrankable patterns. It's just that they don't have a proper diff spread and that the ranking process disencourages the mapper from getting it ranked.

Actually when I said that this category need higher standard, these maps which their mappers are just too lazy to make enough diffs are instantly disqualified. Only maps which their most interesting part is unrankable suit this category, in this case.

And yeah which kinds of map are suitable to go into this category should be discussed further.

I honestly fail to see the point of this then. I play unranked maps mostly and they are usually completely rankable, the problems are the lack of a proper diff spread and laziness. Most of the "wtf this is unrankable" good maps usually fall under that category too, talking about standard. I can think of a lot of examples to be honest.

TheVileOne wrote:

Ranking criteria should not be something ignored. The specificity of the criteria should reflect any map that is defined as rankable and any map that does not follow such criteria is unrankable until it is decided that it is compliant with rankable criteria. In other words in order for a map to have a ranking chart it must follow all criteria to have a rankable chart or the definition of a rankable chart needs to be well defined to separate the two types of maps.

The problem is ranking criteria have a lot of very questionable rules. Some experienced mappers can break them and create very fun and playable maps, also most of those maps are very loved & popular in community. And for those exceptions this approval category should exist.

My opinion - would be better just re-adjust rules for current approval category. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say that we should remove diff spread rule or so for new approved maps. Keeping it just for long maps is weird, imo. As long as mapper can create fun & playable map with proper diff spread, interested to get it approved and if playability was already confirmed by a lot of people - why should we stop him from approval? IMO, that's why we should have this category - to let people enjoy NON-standard maps.

Actually, some examples what i will be glad to see in new approval category:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/77871
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/83472
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/156031
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136819

All those maps breaks current ranking criteria rules, but they fun and playable enough, and have proper diff spread. Why we should stop them from being approved?

Administration has already denied approval being for anything other than for marathon maps. Maps that get added to this should be necessarily unrankable.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/77871 <- This falls perfectly under that criteria.
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/83472 The reason this is not rankable is silly. there is a feature request that would make this possible to do in the editor.
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/156031 I don't see what is unrankable about this.
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/136819 Eh indifferent about this. It could be ranked IMO.

Yeah TheVileOne, you summed up that perfectly.

Though actually "theoretically FC-able" - Does this include touch pad situations? If using a touchpad, it would be possible to FC a song with 2 notes at the same time.
It would be better to define that more accurately, though.

IMO:
Ranked maps: stay the same;
Marathon maps: over 6 minutes maps, and the only difference from ranked maps is spread requirement;
Approved maps: gimmicky maps, tag maps. The only limit is the map should be "technically playable", no readability requirement. As a consequence, the maps don't affect pp, ranked score, accuracy(but there will be score submission and ranking boards). Pretty like TVO's summary.

More like a feature request on the ranking system. Nothing can be changed without technical support for now.

popner wrote:

More like a feature request on the ranking system. Nothing can be changed without technical support for now.

Basically this; we'll need development changes for this, so I recommend opening a feature request if you're adamant on it.

Denying as not really a ranking criteria change.