forum

[Proposal]Clarification of map metadata with combined markers

posted
Total Posts
6
Topic Starter
Doormat
So recently there has been some metadata rule confusion regarding sets that have two or more markers, e.g. (Live Ver.) (Cut Ver.) etc.

Currently the metadata rules only explicitly specify that if the map contains (Cut Ver.) and (Sped Up Ver.) markers then these two markers can be combined into a single marker (Sped Up & Cut Ver.)

While other cases of combined markers are not as common, why are we not implementing this same logic to maps that otherwise may contain two or more markers? Only applying this special circumstance to one specific case seems kind of counterintuitive.

Therefore I propose we replace this rule with a new one that has broader terms:

"If your map contains two or more markers you may combine them into one marker."

This new rule provides more clarity for standardizing maps that contain two or more markers while preserving the intent behind the original rule.



p.s: typing out proposals on mobile is hard
hac
Agreed. If songs have multiple title markers there is no way to combine them, unless combinations of those markers are already listed in Ranking Criteria. Currently the only combined naming conventions that Ranking Criteria lists are (Sped Up & Cut Ver.) and (Nightcore & Cut Ver.). The downside of this is that in circumstances where multiple markers are used, we would have to use them spaced out. For example for a TV Sized cut that is sped up we'd have to use (TV Size) (Sped Up Ver.) when something like (TV Size & Sped Up Ver.) would be much more convenient and much cleaner. The idea Doormat is suggesting would help fix this, and allow for clarity if maps happen to have title markers combinations we haven't seen before.
FAMoss
yee definitely
this brought major thing fixed

but do we need to simplify term such `Ver.` from cut/short and `Size` from TV size to once said.
so it will be like `(TV & Sped Up Ver.)` instead (TV Size & Sped Up Ver.) to to save title layout
Hivie
+1, use case might be a bit small for now, but it's pretty futureproof in case more markers are added to RC.
Topic Starter
Doormat

Hivie wrote:

+1, use case might be a bit small for now, but it's pretty futureproof in case more markers are added to RC.
Yes, future-proofing is a part of why I proposed this as well; in general though I just think using more broader/general terminology will make standardization simpler for mappers to understand
Okoayu
addressed in community/forums/topics/1894663?n=1 with Combined Markers
Please sign in to reply.

New reply