Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria

[Proposal] Rework rules regarding Collabs being partial difficulties

posted
Total Posts
23
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
original discussion:
my proposal is in regards of:

"A beatmap host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty creator. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collaborative difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution when a guest has beatmapped significantly more than the host."

I propose to consider Collaborative difficulties when the host maps above 50% of the song to be excluded from the rule stated above.

When the host has mapped the majority of the song, they shouldn't have to map a another difficulty or collab just so it could count as mapping an equal amount of difficulties.


In any case, this is just the way i see it and i'm also curious to see what you guys also think about this rule as well.

if my proposal gets rejected, i still think the rule to be rewritten to be more understandable.


UPDATED:



More leniency towards Maps where the the host has a mapset as follows:

- Diff 1: Collab between Host (mapped 60%) and Guest #1 (mapped 40%)
- Diff 2: Guest #2's diff

The host should be able to rank AS host if the host has done atleast a storyboard/hitsounds.
- Guest difficulty owners must be okay with the Host being able to rank the map as host
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 5 times in total.
SilentWuffer
289 posts
Joined December 2017
SilentWuffer
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the second half of the clause cover exactly what you just said?
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
i saw it as if 2 people mapped separate difficulties and a collab, then drain time is taken into consideration

i might be wrong and clarification would be helpful.

if my proposal gets rejected, i'd still want the rule to be rewritten to be more understandable. (i'm going to put this in the main post)
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 1 time in total.
clayton
1,893 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton
I don't see a practical problem with this because I don't think this rule is doing a lot in the first place (does it even matter who is the host..?)

but at the same time I don't think your suggestion follows the principle of the rule -- it's clearly trying to say that no guest should contribute more diffs than the host, and it would be weird to count a full diff the same as just half of one. if people are still in favor of this rule in general, then I don't see how your exception makes sense for it
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
like what if in a collab it was around 60% mapped by the host. I just don't think its fair to make the host map another diff or another collab if the host has mapped the majority of the song already. the host should be able to rank a collab that the host mapped the majority of with fully mapped guest difficulties in my opinion.


say the host maps 2 minutes of a 3 minute song and the guest maps 1 minute. That should be taken into consideration on whether the host has done enough contribution. Even with GD's mapped solely by 1 person
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
211 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
But the current rules already allow for that. Drain time is used to determine a host/guest participation in any given difficulty. If the host has mapped two difficulties in a set, a guest has mapped two other difficulties in the same set, and they both share an extra difficulty with a 60/40 split between the host/guest, that makes it rankable.

The last sentence of the clause already covers that. It's also worth mentioning the "significantly" adverb used, as it implies there's some leeway.
clayton
1,893 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton
we're not on the same page in terms of the case this changes.

- Diff 1: Collab between Host (mapped 60%) and Guest #1 (mapped 40%)
- Diff 2: Guest #2's diff

this is the case they want to be rankable with this proposal, and it is not currently rankable as far as I can tell
Last edited by clayton , edited 1 time in total.
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
i think i worded my proposal wrong which is my fault.


what i meant is that if there was a ENHIX and the expert is a collab where the host mapped 60% of the expert insane diff AND the ENHI diffs are all guest difficulties, would that be unrankable since the guest mappers have mapped more of the song than the host??

if that is true, my proposal is to change it so the mapset could get ranked without the host mapping anymore than just what they did on the collab


edit: what clayton said
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
211 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
Then yes, in this case it wouldn't be rankable. The guest has quantifiably mapped more than the host.

Edit as the other post came by:

That depends. Has the same GD mapped all the other difficulties? If different GDs have contributed to the set, then there's no issue. The problem comes when one guest in particular has mapped more than the host. And this is currently measured by total drain time mapped, not number of total difficulties done (although they're somewhat related, as you may imagine).

As for your specific case example, assuming the host mapped 60% of both the X and I difficulties, if there's a single guest that in total has contributed more to that in drain time, then it would be unrankable.
Last edited by RandomeLoL , edited 2 times in total.
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
The way i see it, The host is the one pushing the map and organising everything, getting mods, getting bns, getting metadata, hitsounding, etc.

Doing a lot of contribution for the mapset in a whole.

in this case, I'm saying if different people mapped each diff.
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
211 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
The meat and potatoes of a set are the difficulties themselves though. Why would a guest have to map more for the host's set? At that point, shouldn't that be attributed to them? Those are their difficulties afterall for all intents and purposes.

I simply can't really get behind the idea of undermining other people's work. As it currently is, the person who will get ""the most credit"" would be the host. Guests are given credit, yes, but as a subtitles to a title.

And what you said is partly true. I believe some leniency has been given to that clause when the host has done extra things like hitsounds and/or storyboards as that's quantifiable effort that went into the set. But other managerial and organizational arguments to me are a bit null & void. Again, the guests could as easily do that were they the hosts of the set.
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
I do get what you mean, though.


I would also be in agreement if the rule was changed a bit to free up a bit of leeway. Maybe there could be more leniency like taking into account if the host did hitsounding, etc.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
211 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
I'd be in favour of getting into the mix those kinds of contributions yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
yeah i fully agree. I don't think what it would be fair if the collab was the ONLY thing they did and left others to do the hitsounding/storyboarding/etc
zvc
30 posts
Joined August 2019
zvc
If one of the guest mappers in question on a mapset like that were to instead be the host as RandomeLoL mentioned, that very exact same mapset would suddenly become rankable by the current rules, right?

It just feels a little odd to me as well that the original host wouldn't be able to rank that map in the first place - assuming they made fair contribution to the mapset as mentioned above. It's not like their collab diff would be getting their mapset carried or anything either, seeing as they mapped the majority of it.

Maybe if every party involved with the mapset (all the full diff gd'ers etc) directly mentions being okay with the original host being the one to rank it, should a mapset like this be allowed to be ranked? That way there would be no conflict with crediting everyone involved. Collab diffs are always meant to be in good fun, I believe anyways
clayton
1,893 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton

zvc wrote:

Maybe if every party involved with the mapset (all the full diff gd'ers etc) directly mentions being okay with the original host being the one to rank it, should a mapset like this be allowed to be ranked?
this is the only thing that should actually matter imo. if the participants agree to it then any crediting scheme makes sense. I don't know what the motivation was for deciding the host so strictly to begin with
Baker Mayfield
330 posts
Joined February 2018
Topic Starter
Baker Mayfield
yeah agreed with zvc



So far, I think the best option is to change it to this:

More leniency towards Maps where the the host has a mapset as follows:

- Diff 1: Collab between Host (mapped 60%) and Guest #1 (mapped 40%)
- Diff 2: Guest #2's diff

The host should be able to rank AS host if the host has done atleast a storyboard/hitsounds.
- Guest difficulty owners must be okay with the Host being able to rank the map as host
Last edited by Baker Mayfield , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
211 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
Changing the title to reflect that this proposal wouldn't just be exclusive to osu! if it were to be implemented.
Nevo
Global Moderator
1,182 posts
Joined November 2015
Nevo
I personally think if you map less then others it's still fine to be a mapset host. Since you got everyone together and the set wouldn't exist without you nor be ranked

But that's my onion since I think of people like DJ Khaled in music <:worrysleeb:730980372279459911>

Obviously it depends but I think for a lot of people getting (good)gds finished and hitsounds and a potential storyboard and then 2 or more bns can be a lot of effort. Which can be more then just churning out some low diff and calling it a equal contribution

(Just my onion)
yaspo
osu! Alumni
256 posts
Joined September 2014
yaspo

clayton wrote:

I don't know what the motivation was for deciding the host so strictly to begin with
As far as I know, the general idea has always been that at the end of the day the host's name ends up on the map, so they should be the main contributor. "provide credit where credit is due"

For my own opinion, it's already received as negative when a mapset host only maps a normal in a big set or something. Host gets a +1 to their ranked map count without really adding much of their own value. So inevitably extra leniency like this might get met with similar friction due to the crediting feeling incredibly out of place.

I also don't really like elevating the effort it takes to "get the set together" because in a solo mapset you'd just map everything yourself. Having to put in some work to get the mapset filled up is a given regardless of if you mapped 1 diff or all of them.

I think the idea itself has wholesome intent, but I don't find it very appealing on a larger scale.
clayton
1,893 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton

yaspo wrote:

For my own opinion, it's already received as negative when a mapset host only maps a normal in a big set or something. Host gets a +1 to their ranked map count without really adding much of their own value. So inevitably extra leniency like this might get met with similar friction due to the crediting feeling incredibly out of place.
this isn't necessarily contradictory to what I'm saying fwiw, I'm one of the people that would pass off a Host-E-Guest-NHIX set as "lazy" or farming ranked map count etc, I just don't think that matters as far as rules go and I don't see it as accomplishing anything beyond souring their own reputation

rest makes sense i just have a different priority in mind or something /shrug
SupaV
458 posts
Joined November 2020
SupaV
i think this just encourages further low effort cheesing which doesn't really seem nice

on another note, if the host maps a diff 50-50 with Guest #1, and Guest #2 has a full diff, would host still be eligible to host or will it be fine if Guest#1 hosts?

the current ruleset regarding collabs and hosts are extremely lenient- if one is missing drain time, map a lowdiff or map another diff, which IMO is already easy enough to achieve and often cheesed. 50-50 collabs have always existed and I don't see how making another 50-50 collab diff, or a lower diff is incredibly hard other than very specific niche cases.

if the current proposal is applied, it will make it exponentially easier to cheese hosts by simply asking one person to map a collab, which I feel like is not really ethical even if all the GDers say yes. giving a person a ranked map while that person does less effort is kinda like giving one person doing the least work in a project the most credit. i'm not sure if people want this.
roufou
986 posts
Joined September 2011
roufou
The current rule did end up with me having a map vetoed cause I mapped less drain time in a collab diff than the other participants, but eventually it was decided the difference wasn't big enough and I was fine to be the host of the set after all.

I honestly agree that the rule could use some reworking or just be a guideline somehow judged case by case... I don't know.

I genuinely don't think drain time is a good measurement of who should host the set. I do think the most practical would be to have whoever did the most difficulties always be the host, and have decent leeway in cases of collabs somehow.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 23