with the death of sinnoh's proposal i think due to the fact that it would require some dev work on site, ive come with this proposal

over the years hybrid's have increasingly been harder to rank majorly due to the fact of the spite of sotarks' using it to rank his sets easily, with the death of using converts for spread in 2019~, and then finally adding the requirement of having two bns per gamemode which i assume happened around the same time (maybe a year later?)

this had the unintended? effect of making hybrids incredibly awkward and time consuming to rank due to the fact that you have to potentially have to deal with coordinating up to 8 (eight) bns at the same time

while going back to letting only 1 (one) specific diff is probably too much, i think dialing back to allowing 1 (one) bn per gamemode again would be a good starting point into easing up on the requirements. dealing with only 4 (four) bns is infinitely easier than 8 and would hopefully lead into people wanting to create hybrid sets again

if i recall i feel like the main argument against at the time was to combat abuse, but countless bad maps got ranked afterwards anyways so i feel like its time to ease up on hybrid requirements

i took a look on the site's github, i didnt really look that deeply to see if it would require more work but it seems like you could just set the variable BEATMAPSET_REQUIRED_NOMINATIONS_HYBRID to 1 in the .env and it would have the intended effect

Requiring only 1 BN for every mode is too overkill; map with only two mode hybrid is essentially easier to rank this way, way easier than a map with only two difficulties of same mode (only one mode).

This also requires extra load for the said nominator of one mode to fully check whether a map is good enough to rank. Well, you can say you can retcon metadata/SB/timing/whatelse that is not really relevant check to one nominator, but who wants to do that?

You need to have a peer check for each game mode, which is what are we used to be (two nominators of each mode). The post you linked is actually more reasonable offer than your post.

Do note that BNs are also humans, and putting a burden of two nomination flags in one person is already a headache and mental drain for some. As a novice mapper myself I can imagine the burden of finding eight BNs, two for each mode. But it's better than collapsing the responsibility of two people to one person.

Less human error, more quality.

you say that but this is how the hybrid system ran for the majority of modding v1 and no one had any problems with it (most of the time), the bns involved knew what they were getting themselves into and if its something they think they cant handle then they should just not accept hybrid requests in the first place

i dont think quality is something to worry about, if you can get one bn in the first place you can probably get a second without much trouble. even when theres 2 bns i feel like its only one that does the majority of the modding, and the 2nd one is just overseeing most of the time. all the bns would still be checking the general stuff about maps they would just be responsible for their own mode. diffs can be checked when nominated/qualified if theres potential concerns just like now even when theres 2 bns checking..

personally, as for me i would have no issue with being the sole bn for either standard or catch as im confident in my abilities to check maps and i feel like other bns would feel the same

Usaha wrote:

personally, as for me i would have no issue with being the sole bn for either standard or catch as im confident in my abilities to check maps and i feel like other bns would feel the same

What excels for you might not be the same for others. Are you sure that most BNs are capable of fully checking (i.e raising two nomination flags) alone? Even with two BNs per mode, there are sometimes mistakes made after initial qualification, let alone one.

Usaha wrote:

you say that but this is how the hybrid system ran for the majority of modding v1 and no one had any problems with it (most of the time), the bns involved knew what they were getting themselves into and if its something they think they cant handle then they should just not accept hybrid requests in the first place

Time passes and Ranked map pools demanded for more quality compared to what happened during modding V1. What happened in the past can't be justified for the reason to reduce the BNs needed to qualify maps.

If that ever happens, why not just reduce the amount of BNs nedded to nominate a map from two to one instead regardless single or multiple modes? I highly doubt this will motivate hybrid maps to rise. Instead, I can imagine your proposal only cause mappers who wanted to push their maps for rank neglect about the quality, because "hey, why don't I just make a hybrid map? it's easier to rank than normal full spread one mode map!".

Additionally, I took a conversation with my friends (they don't mind with the screenshot) and here's what my friend thought about it:
Alternative link

yes, matter of fact ill say that they really have no reason not to be capable. full bns were the only ones allowed to do such and with there title they should be given the right to do such, they can be responsible for their mistakes if they occur.

hearing this argument about quality is a bit funny since the 2015~ era of the bng/qat lead by loctav is notorious for their quest in achieving a quality standard in the ranked section, and mapping has gone in the opposite way since that time period with a more permissive ranking criteria combined with more open-mindedness towards mapping.

even with 1 bn I feel like your underestimating the amount of work you have to deal with having multiple modes, it's not just something as simple as let's add two taiko diffs and boom i get to cheese ranking a map lmao. there is more at play

letting these sets be ranked by 1 bn per mode is compensation for the extra work of dealing with a hybrid, and there's also the fact that hybrids themselves are just good for the game in general. having multiple game modes on sets would give the opportunity to the less popular modes to have more exposure leading to their growth, this can directly seen in previous community choices when they were dominated by hybrid sets lol

letting every map only be ranked by one bn is dumb since no mode is actually struggling for new ranked content so it's just not necessary (could maybe argue for catch against this.) however there is a extremely noticable lack of hybrids being created and ranked ever since these changes which is why im proposing this

from what i read in the screenshot, seems like they just mostly have a problem with circle jerks? that has nothing to do with this as they already exist so the problem lies elsewhere, and i also don't think it's really as big as a problem as less experienced members of the community make it out to be lol

Ryu Sei wrote:

What excels for you might not be the same for others. Are you sure that most BNs are capable of fully checking (i.e raising two nomination flags) alone? Even with two BNs per mode, there are sometimes mistakes made after initial qualification, let alone one.

As Usaha stated, the BNs involved knew what they were getting themselves into, and if it's something they think they can't handle then they would just reject the hybrid requests in the first place. Modding V1 has ran using this system and had not have problems, and if mistakes happens the BNs are expected to shoulder the mistake. This doesn't change no matter how many BNs are involved in the nomination, it just means more risk, and all BNs knows how to balance such risks.

Ryu Sei wrote:

Time passes and Ranked map pools demanded for more quality compared to what happened during modding V1. What happened in the past can't be justified for the reason to reduce the BNs needed to qualify maps.

If that ever happens, why not just reduce the amount of BNs nedded to nominate a map from two to one instead regardless single or multiple modes? I highly doubt this will motivate hybrid maps to rise. Instead, I can imagine your proposal only cause mappers who wanted to push their maps for rank neglect about the quality, because "hey, why don't I just make a hybrid map? it's easier to rank than normal full spread one mode map!".

I can agree time passes and ranked maps demanded for more quality. However, having 1 BNs vs. 2 BNs doesn't quite change whether the ranked maps have more quality or not. 1 or 2 BNs, they are checking the same maps and multiple occasions shows that even if there are 2 BNs present, there will be sub-par maps out in the ranked section.

As a mapper who is more or less well-versed in ranking maps in multiple modes, I can say that even experienced mappers like us have a very hard time coordinating 8 BNs at the same time for 4mode mapsets. This rule is also the driving factors that causes the hybrid scene to die out (due to the sheer amount of effort you need just to find 8 BNs who can check your maps at the same time).

Here's an example of 1 of the 4mode Hybrid sets that was ranked under this rule:

Xinnoh wrote:

The resets above were for tags since someone name changed, muting one slider end, and to change taiko OD. This was a complete waste of time for everyone involved and the pinacle of how awful the system currently is.

It's pretty impossible to expect so many BNs to go over the same map over and over and over again just because of minor issues that happens in the set.

riunosk wrote:

but reducing to 1 generally results in lower quality as there isn't a second opinion involved usually

This will still happen regardless of if you get 1 or 2 BNs, as countless examples of single-mode mapsets that went over vetoes happens. The veto system is there to help combat issues like low quality mapsets.


Overall, there's not much difference in having 1 nomination per mode compared to 2 nominations per mode, other than the effort required for the latter (which is much, much, much larger than expected). I understand Xinnoh's proposal would have been a better alternative, but as that thread stated it's not very feasible to expect the developers to deal with a large current issue when they are focusing on the lazer project.

Usaha wrote:

i took a look on the site's github, i didnt really look that deeply to see if it would require more work but it seems like you could just set the variable BEATMAPSET_REQUIRED_NOMINATIONS_HYBRID to 1 in the .env and it would have the intended effect

It might not be as simple as that as that would break the current hybrid BNs' nominations (if Standard - Taiko hybrid BN nominates both Standard and Taiko, I think currently it will count as 2 nominations), but that can be supplemented by rule additions like each hybrid BN cannot place both nominations in a 2-nomination-required mapsets.

Cynplytholowazy wrote:

riunosk wrote:

but reducing to 1 generally results in lower quality as there isn't a second opinion involved usually

This will still happen regardless of if you get 1 or 2 BNs, as countless examples of single-mode mapsets that went over vetoes happens. The veto system is there to help combat issues like low quality mapsets.

Or to gatekeep mappers from ranking their mapsets. It could be even worse with only one BN take place to raise two nomination flags of that mode in hybrid maps, and I hate to say that I agree with riunosk that passing this proposal is just asking a "chance" to make low quality maps in the name of hybrid mapset. Even vetoes and nominations are still prone to the circle jerks. Reducing to one BN per mode in hybrid map is inviting more low quality maps to get ranked, be it from circle jerks or completely due to the BN's pressure fully checking (in literal) a map in their proficient mode, on top of one nominator additionally checking the metadata.

Usaha wrote:

from what i read in the screenshot, seems like they just mostly have a problem with circle jerks? that has nothing to do with this as they already exist so the problem lies elsewhere, and i also don't think it's really as big as a problem as less experienced members of the community make it out to be lol

You missed the point that they also concerned to the work load of the BNs.

Cynplytholowazy wrote:

It is out of question of this initial topic. If you're going to complain on tweaking nomination process for hybrid maps, go to that thread instead of bringing it to here. It's not relevant.

Cynplytholowazy wrote:

Usaha wrote:

i took a look on the site's github, i didnt really look that deeply to see if it would require more work but it seems like you could just set the variable BEATMAPSET_REQUIRED_NOMINATIONS_HYBRID to 1 in the .env and it would have the intended effect

It might not be as simple as that as that would break the current hybrid BNs' nominations (if Standard - Taiko hybrid BN nominates both Standard and Taiko, I think currently it will count as 2 nominations), but that can be supplemented by rule additions like each hybrid BN cannot place both nominations in a 2-nomination-required mapsets.

Agree with this. If this proposal passed, multi-mode BNs will be indirectly kicked out from their ability to nominate hybrid maps they're proficient on, which is against the voluntary of the nominators due to simple system changes like that the OP proposed.

Let's say in rare occasion if this proposal passed, the BNs that able to nominate hybrid maps (regardless they're proficient in multiple modes or not) are away, and the only ones available are the ones that don't prefer nominating hybrid mapset. What would you do, asking them for nominating regardless? Patience is a virtue, but let that time passes too long and the kindling flame of community hype for ranking that hybrid mapset slowly dies out like candle draining itself.

Our current ranking system can avoid such issue because you always need two BNs per mode, and the OP's proposal is adding more issues due to the pressure raising two nomination flags at once per mode, having more demerits than the merits.

I'm not the best at phrasing myself so I'll try to simplify my points

pros:
- reduced workload and need for mappers to find BNs, as they only need 1 instead of 2, shortening the time needed to rank their content
- likely to have an increased chance of ranking their maps due to some BNs rejecting the maps based on their preferences and/or ability/inability to judge the maps

cons:
- potentially lower quality control as there may not be a second opinion (BN/NAT/anyone else relevant) involved that specializes in the same game mode
- significantly more prone to circlejerk corruption, as certain mappers may only need to look for the BNs that they are personally close to, taking shortcuts compared to everyone else outside of their circle (in the sense that they can cut queues or skip it altogether), possibly leading to a higher chance of maps with questionable patterns being ranked
- more pressure to nominating BNs, as they now have to take on the workload of 2 BNs

i dont think the circlejerk consideration is that important, if you can circlejerk 1 nom you will generally be circlejerking both nominations anyway

Yes, it'd be nice to actually see some multimode spreads. At the moment it's like a punishment for mapper to make and rank multimode set. I think it shouldn't be that way.

I feel liek the biggest problem case is standard + other game mode spread. In the old system, this is bad because for large standard spreads this woudl mean only having 1 standard BN possibly checking like 10+ diffs while the other game mode BN checking like 2-3 diffs. On the other hand, requiring 2 BNs of each mode is hard since it's hard to find BNs for game modes the set host didn't map in.

Could it be possible to worm in some kind of reasoning to require 2 BNs for the "main" game mode and 1 for others? I'm not sure exactly how "main" would be defined yet or how this looks for for example taiko+mania spreads.

On the other hand, if we think 1 BN is enough to check the entirety of a map spread, should we just enact that change for all maps going forward, even non-hybrid sets?

That's what am I afraid of with this proposal. The work load increases multiplicatively with many amount of difficulties the BNs need to check. It might be low to no difference on work load on single difficulty map, but as the map amount increases, it also increases their work load twice.

IOException wrote:

Could it be possible to worm in some kind of reasoning to require 2 BNs for the "main" game mode and 1 for others? I'm not sure exactly how "main" would be defined yet or how this looks for for example taiko+mania spreads.

To quote Xinnoh's post on community/forums/topics/1655368 :

Xinnoh wrote:

there is no need to define a main mode
each mode needs to be treated as its own set regardless

IOException wrote:

On the other hand, if we think 1 BN is enough to check the entirety of a map spread, should we just enact that change for all maps going forward, even non-hybrid sets?

This is not relevant to the original proposal. The single mode sets already requiring two nominations/bubbles since V1, and collapsing it to only one BN is a questionable decision by any means, be it from work load, finding the BNs and tendency of favoritism.

Taken from wiki/en/History_of_osu!/Mapping_and_Modding_Timeline :

Note the emphasis of "two nominations per beatmap".

Considering about "circlejerk" is kind of lame tbh, even with 2 bn there are people who still doing that, including me.

Lessening bn for hybrid *does* helps people to encourage mapper (any) to interact with larger community (of other mode), but will it be sufficient to reach *the expectation* of being bn? (The wiki thing, as in quality wise)

Personally, looking at mania, about *quality* itself, it seemed to be treated with tolerance (or trust, toward mapper) as cover (some people or even group of person) despite being low quality check (such simple mistake like missing tv size marker or sth like that).

Not that I'm *only asking* for normal / high quality checks, but I also do my own self check to see if the BN's work *actually competent* or not doing their job on my map (circlejerking with some people I know, I only recognize 2 person that I consider doing great job at maintaining their standard as BN).

Tldr: I'm very skeptical about this but not afraid of change, would go for neutral instead of supporting it (but I do heavily support about "if 1 mode has mistake, don't reset nom of others")

Not to comment on the rest of the thread, but the notion that hybrid sets should require less oversight (ie, less nominations) runs counter to the reality of them involving more modalities of play and thus requiring more checking to ensure they're up to Ranked standards.

The tradeoff is that while this requires more effort from the mapper & nominator side of things, the resulting set is exposed to more modes and thus more players. Creating a hybrid set is a conscious choice from a mapper to go beyond the pale and I'm not sure there's any especially good rationale for having them require less oversight when they logically require more of it.

Ephemeral wrote:

I'm not sure there's any especially good rationale for having them require less oversight when they logically require more of it.

here's a rationale: it's more fun. controversial maps getting ranked with one std bn and 1 taiko diff was a good thing. i never recall regretting a hybrid set being ranked.

IOException wrote:

On the other hand, if we think 1 BN is enough to check the entirety of a map spread, should we just enact that change for all maps going forward, even non-hybrid sets?

yes

Personally I think hybrids are a cool way of providing attention to other modes and I thought it was a shame that the nominator requirement increased to the point where people almost never try to create hybrid sets anymore. I've only gotten to push a handful of hybrid sets over the course of a few years, and I don't think I would have felt uncomfortable doing so with only 2 nominators.

Does this need to change? I don't know, but I think it's worth considering since it's a common complaint I hear that hybrids simply aren't worth it. Could be trialed at the very least.

Would like to see this personally, at least as a trial.

if the entire point of this and the previous discussion is that it's frustrating to lose noms every minor update to the mapset when the mode in question wasn't changed between updates, such as this situation...

...then the web side of things should change, noms should reset only if the mode related to it was changed at all, unless it's a general change (timing, metadata, etc.)

interested to see this trialed

Modifying backend is a hard thing. It's not impossible, but it's generally hard. I wished the same thing that if the DQ was mode-specific, then only that mode's nomination reset. The entire map can fall back to pending but that's that.

It's kinda tricky since either we need to implement some sort of detection if the .osu file changes on other mode so nomination is reset, or some special flag that overrides it.

I'm kinda conflicted whether I want to stand with or against this proposal. We'll see once the trial happens.

if people agree on it, i believe we could push for part of sinnoh's proposal to be implemented. that is imo the best compromise and path forward for this whole situation

more specifically, all we'd need to do is only count resets for meta/misc issues for one bn of each mode, and per-mode issues for both bns. this technically requires no dev time and only an amendment to the rules

for example, we'd amend the rc saying the first nominator of each mode is responsible for both per-mode and meta/timing issues, while the 2nd is only responsible for per-mode. nominators would need to coordinate this but that shouldn't be a big deal

then, if there's a dq for a missnap or something, that dq would affect the 2 nominators of that mode. if there's a dq for meta however, it would only affect the 2 meta/timing checkers, which would be 1 person from each mode

less effort overall for about equal effort of a normal set

i dont see how that would change anything at all, no one cares about sev or whatever as a mapper trying to push a set and this doesn't acknowledge that issue in no way

also dont really see a real way to identify a first and second bn, everyone will want to be the second to avoid responsibility which can cause other issues

Usaha wrote:

dont really see a real way to identify a first and second bn

order of who presses the button...?

what if std mode would always require 2 nominators while for other modes 1 is enough in hybrid sets? especially since it mainly caused abuse issues for std only it seems and taiko/catch/mania diffs didn't lack any quality too when it used to be only one nominator (imo).

looking for 2 nominators for "the main/std set" as a rule could help the whole issue as it's still more work. though i can't tell if this helps hybrid sets to come back at all, as i said it's still more work but could be worth a try?

otherwise, i'm fully supporting the 1 nominator per mode too if that's the only thing that makes hybrid sets come back.
it's sad to see hybrid sets aren't really a thing anymore. it was pretty much normal to include muzu+oni diffs all the time :<

Lyawi wrote:

looking for 2 nominators for "the main/std set" as a rule could help

how do you determine that? amount of diffs?

I believe there is no way to determine 'main' mode. Each mode should be treated on its own.

I'm thinking that the burden of technical and metadata checks can be collapsed to one BN additionally, and the rest of BNs do the check on their proficient mode.

For example, one BN per mode + one more BN of any mode for technical/metadata check

this exact thing i think is happening via https://github.com/ppy/osu-web/pull/10984, via community/forums/topics/1870012?n=1