Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings
  4. osu!mania

Contribute Your Feedback to the o!m Ranking Criteria Here!

posted
Total Posts
12
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Topic Starter
Protastic101
Hi all, as it's been quite some years since the osu!mania Ranking Criteria has seen a significant rework, the mania NAT and mania mapping/modding GMTs have come together to begin overhauling the mania RC to get it back up to date with current mapping metas. We've created a survey to get a general feel for what people think might be lacking or needs fixing from the currently existing osu!mania Ranking Criteria.

If you've got some feedback about the o!m RC, stop by the survey here and let us know your thoughts!

(Survey closes a week from today on April 1st).
THE BATH
51 posts
Joined May 2017
THE BATH
Personally I think that the fact that you have to follow a "meta" when mapping so you have a slightly higher chance of getting it ranked is unhealthy for mappers

I'm not saying that meta maps are unhealthy and I'm not saying that mappers that follow the meta are wrong for doing so and if anything i think it's a good thing

What I'm against it's the that ranking criteria is probably being shaped in a way that fits a "current meta"

I know that not every map ranked is a meta map but it's clear that some of them clearly are and that leads to repetitive maps and gameplay

It would be cool that if you wanted to play a ranked map you could play it for fun and not because it gives insane or big amounts of pp

Pp isn't everything in the game and the existence of loved maps with thousands of plays proves that

Anyways back to the point
Please don't shape the RC in a way that there's a "meta" being pushed but shape it in a way that it's fair for all patterns and map types that could be made in the future

Ps:

My main language is Spanish and although I can speak English fluently i have trouble when it comes to writing in english
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
222 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL

THE BATH wrote:

What I'm against it's the that ranking criteria is probably being shaped in a way that fits a "current meta"
I disagree with this, as in this has not really been the case with the current RC that we have, nor do I think that's the approach that should or will be taken with upcoming changes.

What you're describing now isn't a problem with the RC. It is a problem with how users are willing to interpret it and apply it. The Ranking Criteria should not mention what is a "Meta" map, neither should it bar these sets from being Ranked.

If anything, this has to do with how the section is perceived and how the community reacts to the content being pushed, and the QA (or lack thereof) that is done to know where to draw the line.

The solution to that is to have a wider selection of mapping ideologies within the BNG. I'd reckon this is the time we've had the most varied opinions mapping wise in the BNG, and it has proven to start the most healthy of internal discussions being able to form an opinion from various perspectives. And the baseline for that is tolerance.

I however will be the Devil's Avocado and mention that it is true that most of the responses in the poll will most likely be based on what's popular or problematic now, and that changes done to the RC should not take only the present into account. That proved to be an issue in the past.

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

Also this is just an extra point of mine that I forgot to mention in the form, but explicitly adding that sets that abuse the SR system to bloat its imaginary difficulty number should not be ranked is probably going to be helpful. There has already been two precedents to this, one that waited for the system to be fixed before being eligible to be Ranked, and another that got heavily scrutinized for potentially abusing it. Having it on paper would potentially discourage wrongdoers or be used as an argument in future discussions.
heipizhu
281 posts
Joined March 2022
heipizhu
For me, the RC system isn't something that important to change, but the SR system definetely is.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Topic Starter
Protastic101
Re: THE BATH, meta was probably the wrong word to use here. What we're aiming to accomplish with the mania RC rework is to cover a wider range of mapping styles and themes that are currently underrepresented in the existing RC, making it difficult for people to argue what exactly should be considered appropriate, and opens up the field for people to abuse this lack of guidance/clarity in the RC. So we're not pushing any specific meta to be the one that players must abide by. We're instead trying to give more structure to the diversity of mapping styles so modders and BNs alike have a better idea of what to look out and check for.

RandomeLoL wrote:

I however will be the Devil's Avocado and mention that it is true that most of the responses in the poll will most likely be based on what's popular or problematic now, and that changes done to the RC should not take only the present into account. That proved to be an issue in the past.
Devil's avocado has got to be my new favorite term now lol. But anyways, to address the concerns about form responses primarily following current metas, I suppose that was part of the purpose of the survey. The RC still reflects a lot of the meta from 2019 and earlier, but a lot has changed in 4 years, and as a living document, we want to make it more applicable to what the diversity of styles we see today in 2023, and in the future, we'll do the same thing again: survey, re-evaluate, and update the RC accordingly as things change.

I've also noted in the form response to potentially include something about SR abuse. I think it's gonna be hard to quantify and codify, but we can think of something and push it out for feedback at a later date.

heipizhu wrote:

For me, the RC system isn't something that important to change, but the SR system definetely is.
SR rework is unfortunately not within the scope nor the purpose of this survey and rework. That's a different project being handled by other people.
Last edited by Protastic101 , edited 1 time in total.
Baio
35 posts
Joined December 2019
Baio
Forgot to put this in survey but I think the diff name requirements should be removed. Ranked sets all have the same diff names for the most part such as Normal, Hard, Insane, etc. I think its unnecessary since we have star rating to show how difficult a map is and its much more reliable. It would be nice to see creative/unique diff names on all levels of maps rather than just on the odd 7*+ diffs. I've personally never payed attention to diff names across the 1k+ hours I have on ranked maps. Not sure why we have this redundancy. SR should be clear enough in my opinion.
Gamesnake7
499 posts
Joined January 2022
Gamesnake7

Baio wrote:

Forgot to put this in survey but I think the diff name requirements should be removed. Ranked sets all have the same diff names for the most part such as Normal, Hard, Insane, etc. I think its unnecessary since we have star rating to show how difficult a map is and its much more reliable. It would be nice to see creative/unique diff names on all levels of maps rather than just on the odd 7*+ diffs. I've personally never payed attention to diff names across the 1k+ hours I have on ranked maps. Not sure why we have this redundancy. SR should be clear enough in my opinion.
Then there are 4* maps that play like 5* ones... Also, some maps already have done this but I support this one.
Seulgi
152 posts
Joined September 2014
Seulgi
I think the current breaks rule is limiting: in the current osumania, breaks can't be used in almost all cases except on lower difficulties or when the song is completely silent.

How about using brakes when mapper wants to clearly separate parts/verses/periods, or leaving it up to the mapper's discretion? (obviously, the mapper should use them for rational reasons)
Or maybe it would be nice to be able to use it when things are moderately calm, if not extremely calm.
I'd like to see the current rules allow a bit more flexibility.

Of course, I don't think there should be any abuse/overuse. MUST be sure to use it appropriately!

sorry, I don't speak English very well, so I don't know if I wrote it grammatically correct, but I tried my best to get my opinion across :D
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Topic Starter
Protastic101

Seulgi wrote:

I think the current breaks rule is limiting: in the current osumania, breaks can't be used in almost all cases except on lower difficulties or when the song is completely silent.
Hmm, this was briefly discussed when the 30s drain time/play time rules for standard were being discussed, but changing break time rules would probably need a rework of mania spread time rules as well. It's also quite ingrained in the community that break times aren't really much of a thing outside of lower diffs. As sentiments change though, we can always revisit it. For now, I think we can possibly loosen the wording on discouraging its use, but not outright codify allowances for it.
Baio
35 posts
Joined December 2019
Baio

Gamesnake7 wrote:

Baio wrote:

Forgot to put this in survey but I think the diff name requirements should be removed. Ranked sets all have the same diff names for the most part such as Normal, Hard, Insane, etc. I think its unnecessary since we have star rating to show how difficult a map is and its much more reliable. It would be nice to see creative/unique diff names on all levels of maps rather than just on the odd 7*+ diffs. I've personally never payed attention to diff names across the 1k+ hours I have on ranked maps. Not sure why we have this redundancy. SR should be clear enough in my opinion.
Then there are 4* maps that play like 5* ones... Also, some maps already have done this but I support this one.
Yeah, this issue will occur in any subjective measure because not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. You can equally point to map diffs that feel mislabeled, such as Hard diffs that fit the definition of a Hard diff but play much more difficult. Neither system is perfect, but I don't see great justification for having both. It's much harder to change the diff calc algorithm in a fair and meaningful way, so it makes more sense to just open up the diff name conventions to more creative names.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Topic Starter
Protastic101

Baio wrote:

Yeah, this issue will occur in any subjective measure because not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. You can equally point to map diffs that feel mislabeled, such as Hard diffs that fit the definition of a Hard diff but play much more difficult. Neither system is perfect, but I don't see great justification for having both. It's much harder to change the diff calc algorithm in a fair and meaningful way, so it makes more sense to just open up the diff name conventions to more creative names.
Are you suggesting to do away with difficulty names entirely? I'm not quite sure what is being asked here, so clarification is appreciated. I did consult with the mania NAT about potentially adding some guidelines for other common difficulties like Advanceds and Hypers, but the reasoning from 2019 that was used against this still holds true in that you'll overcomplicate the RC and it will become too difficult to judge what constitutes what level of difficulty when there's so much potential overlap in what can be considered a Hard or Advanced or Hyper to give one example.
Hoshimegu Mio
Beatmap Nominator
1,095 posts
Joined July 2020
Hoshimegu Mio

Baio wrote:

Gamesnake7 wrote:

Baio wrote:

Forgot to put this in survey but I think the diff name requirements should be removed. Ranked sets all have the same diff names for the most part such as Normal, Hard, Insane, etc. I think its unnecessary since we have star rating to show how difficult a map is and its much more reliable. It would be nice to see creative/unique diff names on all levels of maps rather than just on the odd 7*+ diffs. I've personally never payed attention to diff names across the 1k+ hours I have on ranked maps. Not sure why we have this redundancy. SR should be clear enough in my opinion.
Then there are 4* maps that play like 5* ones... Also, some maps already have done this but I support this one.
Yeah, this issue will occur in any subjective measure because not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. You can equally point to map diffs that feel mislabeled, such as Hard diffs that fit the definition of a Hard diff but play much more difficult. Neither system is perfect, but I don't see great justification for having both. It's much harder to change the diff calc algorithm in a fair and meaningful way, so it makes more sense to just open up the diff name conventions to more creative names.
You literally don’t have to follow the conventions at all. But people are lazy and can’t think up of any creative names and conventions are a good way to avoid having to like… actually use your brain. It’s only needed to avoid diff names that would confuse people.
Last edited by Hoshimegu Mio , edited 1 time in total.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 12