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

[Proposal/Discussion] Concern of wording on "Slider Velocity gimmicks" on Insane Diff Mania RC

posted
Total Posts
4
YuEast 2018
463 posts
Joined February 2019
Topic Starter
YuEast 2018

Mania Specific -> Difficulty Specific -> Insane -> Guildlines wrote:

Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable within 1/4 of a beat or more when unnormalised and 1/2 of a beat or more when normalised.
I wonder if the wording is opposite on "normalized" and "unnormalised". Either the word "normalized" means the unify of scroll speed on a multi BPM map, or means doing something Hard diff RC said "Objects directly after short-term slider velocity changes appearing at the beatmap's normal scroll speed.", It means reading of the SV being easier. But we come across an opposite saying that "this should have a longer react time than 'unnormalized' SVs".

If the word applies to either of those 2 explanations mentioned above, why we should have a longer react time on something easier? If not, does the word "normalize" provides potential misunderstandings towards those two explanations above?
Last edited by YuEast 2018 , edited 4 times in total.
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Hydria
sounds like a mistake, but honestly we should probably replace the words normalised and unnormalised as they're not really clearly defined
might be better to rephrase it to something like

Slider Velocity gimmicks should be reactable within 1/4 of a beat or more when the overall SV value for the section closely follows 1.0x relative to the map's overall BPM and 1/2 of a beat or more otherwise.
bit of a wordy one but it should cover all bases regarding weird BPM changes and such, though someone might be able to phrase it better
Last edited by Hydria , edited 1 time in total.
Quenlla
Beatmap Nominator
124 posts
Joined July 2014
Quenlla
Normalised and Unnormalised SV are well known terms, so we probably should aim to add them to the RC Glossary section instead of doing away with them.

I struggle thinking about normalised vs normalised SVs, so I'll refrain from trying to give an opinion on whether the guideline is incorrectly worded cause it would be a shot in the dark.

Also this may be far-fetched, but are we *sure* we need this guideline with the current ranked ecosystem? Throwing this question at SV makers as I don't know the answer to it. I feel like the complexity of SV nowadays makes this guideline an oversimplification of SV making, and I suspect a lot of SV-oriented maps kinda neglect this guideline already.

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

Aside from the wording of the guideline, normalisation is referenced in a poor way in RC. Hard guideline, as YuEast says, describes it completely but that should be an entry in the glossary instead of being inside a guideline. Furthermore it never calls it "normalisation", despite the Insane guideline using the term.

It feels like we could add "SV Normalisation" to the glossary and rephrase the Hard guideline mentioned in the OG post from

Old Hard guideline wrote:

  1. Objects directly after short-term slider velocity changes should appear at the beatmap's normal scroll speed. To do this, short-term slider velocity changes should only be used in empty spaces between notes and should equalise to a distance of 1.0x.
to something like

Reworded Hard guideline wrote:

  1. Short-term slider velocity gimmicks should be normalised.
(I know I'm deviating from the initial topic but I feel it's related enough)
Last edited by Quenlla , edited 6 times in total.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,959 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoayu
Archiving this for now (after raising this to the mania people for consideration for rewrite) the general consensus seemed to be that something is going to be done about this to address it :D
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 4