The mapper rankings have lots of people with one ranked map that has quite a high rating on the first and second pages. In my opinion, you can't base a proper mapping score over just one (albeit good) map. I suggest setting a minimum of 3 or 4 ranked maps before you can appear on the mapper rankings.
forum
Minimum number of Ranked maps for Mapper Rankings
posted
Total Posts
36
Topic Starter
I agree. Maybe it would be cool if it was 5 ranked maps minimum, anyways this is a good idea imo.
Who cares about the mapper ranking anyway?
lesjuh wrote:
Who cares about the mapper ranking anyway?
Many people do. Just because you don't you don't need to act like no one ever looks at it.
I plan to beat James.lesjuh wrote:
Who cares about the mapper ranking anyway?
*evil laugh*Anyways, I'm not sure about this.
If you look at James score, he reached that because he has many maps. (Good ratings on them as well of course)
Its true that one single map can take you to the top 50, but if you stay like that, someday you will get passed by people with more ranked maps.
Quality counts, not amount.
I'm against a minimum (amount).
If the community likes a map, and wishes for it to be in the monthly ratings, let it be, I say.
I'm against a minimum (amount).
If the community likes a map, and wishes for it to be in the monthly ratings, let it be, I say.
I also don't think that a minimum amount of maps is a good idea. You could possibly have some method of lowering people with only one or two maps in the rankings somewhat though.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
Agreed that maps get overrated nowadays. Are play counts factored into mapper rating? I'd suggest doing that, but there are some overrated/played maps too >.>; Hmm...
Did your map get unranked or something?
Eh.... How does a minimum limit for the mapper ranking solve the problem of people rating songs stupidly? It doesn't. People will still vote however they vote. If you have a problem with the voting system, then please contribute to the topic that discusses improvements to the rating system.Gladi wrote:
Yes, but look at now-a-day maps, they all get over-rated like wtf.Gemi wrote:
I also don't think that a minimum amount of maps is a good idea. You could possibly have some method of lowering people with only one or two maps in the rankings somewhat though.
Some maps are just 'ok' and they are rated like 9.5 or so.
I really don't like it, I vote for 'ok' maps an 7 or an 8, but like 3/4 of community instantley votes 10 even if they don't like the map.
There for I do want a minimum of 5 ranked maps. O:
Yes it did, I was there to witness the arguments going on there.Echo wrote:
Did your map get unranked or something?
Uhhm deerrrp?Gemi wrote:
Eh.... How does a minimum limit for the mapper ranking solve the problem of people rating songs stupidly? It doesn't. People will still vote however they vote. If you have a problem with the voting system, then please contribute to the topic that discusses improvements to the rating system.
It's all about mappers are in there with 1 map (or 2). This is because of people voting like ass-high.Agent Spin Here wrote:
The mapper rankings have lots of people with one ranked map that has quite a high rating on the first and second pages. In my opinion, you can't base a proper mapping score over just one (albeit good) map. I suggest setting a minimum of 3 or 4 ranked maps before you can appear on the mapper rankings.
So it has everything to do with it?
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
My map was unranked and Pending now :3Echo wrote:
Did your map get unranked or something?
But Why am I 5th mapper...
Ehhh no. If you think it's bad to have people with only one map in there then there should be a bonus to the rating for having a lot of maps. Ditching legit mappers from the list just because they haven't mapped a lot is stupid. If they really make the best map of all times then they deserve to be on the list, even if not on the #1 spot.Gladi wrote:
It's all about mappers are in there with 1 map (or 2). This is because of people voting like ass-high.Agent Spin Here wrote:
The mapper rankings have lots of people with one ranked map that has quite a high rating on the first and second pages. In my opinion, you can't base a proper mapping score over just one (albeit good) map. I suggest setting a minimum of 3 or 4 ranked maps before you can appear on the mapper rankings.
So it has everything to do with it?
Maybe so, but AT LEAST, the amount of ranked maps should give a higher bonus than it currently does.Gemi wrote:
[
Ehhh no. If you think it's bad to have people with only one map in there then there should be a bonus to the rating for having a lot of maps. Ditching legit mappers from the list just because they haven't mapped a lot is stupid. If they really make the best map of all times then they deserve to be on the list, even if not on the #1 spot.
I think a minimum of two maps to enter the rankings would be an appropriate move. The main problem here is that when a map is first ranked, it seems to get a spread of ratings that is much higher than what it ends up on after a week or two.
I would say we can improve the mapper ranking system in better ways than this, though. Allow me to make some suggestions for further discussion:
#1 We can increase the ranked map count multiplier slightly.
#2 There should be a period where new maps are not attributed to a user's mapper ranking (ie. 2 weeks after the map is ranked). This avoids rating anomalies and will allow for #4.
#3 The number of people who have favourited your maps could be considered.
#4 As was already mentioned, the playcount of maps could be considered. While this would give a higher weighting to those mappers submitting new maps, consider that being an active mapper should be considered as a huge positive and should be represented in the rankings (in my opinion at least). Given the delay mentioned above, huge spikes could be avoided to some extent, too.
If we make the mapper ranking more complex, it would be nice to see aggregate stats on the mapper ranking page - ie. total playcount/favourites figures.
I would say we can improve the mapper ranking system in better ways than this, though. Allow me to make some suggestions for further discussion:
#1 We can increase the ranked map count multiplier slightly.
#2 There should be a period where new maps are not attributed to a user's mapper ranking (ie. 2 weeks after the map is ranked). This avoids rating anomalies and will allow for #4.
#3 The number of people who have favourited your maps could be considered.
#4 As was already mentioned, the playcount of maps could be considered. While this would give a higher weighting to those mappers submitting new maps, consider that being an active mapper should be considered as a huge positive and should be represented in the rankings (in my opinion at least). Given the delay mentioned above, huge spikes could be avoided to some extent, too.
If we make the mapper ranking more complex, it would be nice to see aggregate stats on the mapper ranking page - ie. total playcount/favourites figures.
Every thing you said sounds good peppy (although don't make the ranked map count multiplier too high 
)
#4 is the one i care about the most
I think that for every 50000 plays on = 0,01 to the mapper sounds somewhat good (Although the amounts of plays is maybe to much/to little...)
Also, the stats idea sounds very cool and i would love to have it implemented
)#4 is the one i care about the most
I think that for every 50000 plays on = 0,01 to the mapper sounds somewhat good (Although the amounts of plays is maybe to much/to little...)Also, the stats idea sounds very cool and i would love to have it implemented
Has been suggested above and I agree with it.peppy wrote:
#1 We can increase the ranked map count multiplier slightly.
Dunno if this is necessary, and I don't see how this is a prerequisite for #4.peppy wrote:
#2 There should be a period where new maps are not attributed to a user's mapper ranking (ie. 2 weeks after the map is ranked). This avoids rating anomalies and will allow for #4.
Sure, but the effect should be very small.peppy wrote:
#3 The number of people who have favourited your maps could be considered.
This seems like a good idea. It gives a slight edge to hard maps that people have to retry often, but afterall doesn't that mean that the players like to play it then?peppy wrote:
#4 As was already mentioned, the playcount of maps could be considered. While this would give a higher weighting to those mappers submitting new maps, consider that being an active mapper should be considered as a huge positive and should be represente in the rankings (in my opinion at least). Given the delay mentioned above, huge spikes could be avoided to some extent, too.
If you want to implement a minimum map requirement to be on the ranking I'd say don't make it anything above 2. This way starting mappers can be motivated by the list, but you can at least get all those people off the list who have just mapped one map and disappeared.
#1 is pretty much required for #4 else just-ranked maps are going to give a huge boost in plays. I should have probably mentioned that the playcount will be based on last 24 hours, rather than total. I think that has more meaning in this context.
Ah, I see. This makes the list more alive. I think a longer time period might work better (like 1 week or something), but otherwise seems good.peppy wrote:
#1 is pretty much required for #4 else just-ranked maps are going to give a huge boost in plays. I should have probably mentioned that the playcount will be based on last 24 hours, rather than total. I think that has more meaning in this context.
The only problem with the playcount idea is that often times it isn't the quality of the map, but the song selection that decides the number of plays. Take Imogen Heap/La Roux maps, many of them are amazing quality and have a relatively high user rating, but have a low playcount since not a lot of people know who they are. Now take basically any Hatsune Miku/anime theme map; the correlation between map quality and playcount isn't great. If the song is popular, it'll get plays.
(This is also the same with favouriting, you look at pretty much any map and a majority of the users who favourited are 10k+ ranked players who can likely only play the easiest difficulties and, imo, are favouriting it for the song instead of the map)
I think adding playcount as a mapper ranking criteria will encourage mappers to map songs to the lowest common denominator (read: anime) and discourage maps of more niche genres that won't be as popular.
(This is also the same with favouriting, you look at pretty much any map and a majority of the users who favourited are 10k+ ranked players who can likely only play the easiest difficulties and, imo, are favouriting it for the song instead of the map)
I think adding playcount as a mapper ranking criteria will encourage mappers to map songs to the lowest common denominator (read: anime) and discourage maps of more niche genres that won't be as popular.
tbh I absolutely agree with whatever is in the title. Mappers should have mapped at least 5 ranked maps before rankings are available to them (and perhaps, an achievement can go along with it).
It's funny to see how LeMoonWalker only ever has ONE map and he gets high ranks for it. It's just so weird sometimes, the fairness of the whole map rankings.
It's funny to see how LeMoonWalker only ever has ONE map and he gets high ranks for it. It's just so weird sometimes, the fairness of the whole map rankings.
Meh, as long as it's a animu map or touhou map it'll get high ratings. Guess the community is made of a lot of weaboo's.Gladi wrote:
Yes, but look at now-a-day maps, they all get over-rated like wtf.Gemi wrote:
I also don't think that a minimum amount of maps is a good idea. You could possibly have some method of lowering people with only one or two maps in the rankings somewhat though.
Some maps are just 'ok' and they are rated like 9.5 or so.
I really don't like it, I vote for 'ok' maps an 7 or an 8, but like 3/4 of community instantley votes 10 even if they don't like the map.
There for I do want a minimum of 5 ranked maps. O:
I agree with a minimum of 3 maps.
I think vote-count is more relevant than playcount. I still insist that maps with less than 100 votes should have their rating displayed as "??"
I'm not really all that sure where I stand on this matter, being one of the "original" members and all. Sure, it'd be nice if the mapper rankings were changed, but it's not necessarily THAT bad. Yeah, okay, I admit, seeing people with only 1 or 2 maps in the top 10 annoys the fuck out of me, but if the map is good, it's fine. I'm not gonna look up each user and inspect their maps just because of this, but I do think that some of the more well-known mappers are getting fucked by the ratings just because people vote high on maps that usually aren't THAT good.
A minimum? I support. Why? Because I'm #22 right now and I think it's bullshit. I have 39 ranked maps and there's at least 3 different people above me on the list with only 1 or 2 maps. Seriously, WTF? >=(
A minimum? I support. Why? Because I'm #22 right now and I think it's bullshit. I have 39 ranked maps and there's at least 3 different people above me on the list with only 1 or 2 maps. Seriously, WTF? >=(
There's no correlation between quantity and quality
You never know with osu!! Many people rate maps according to if they liked the SONG not the map. It's kinda random if people will like a map even if the map itself is good.Echo wrote:
There's no correlation between quantity and quality
That could be fixed(although, maybe not completely) if there was a separate rating for map and song. If there is only one rating, they indeed will vote according to how to they like the song.Real1 wrote:
You never know with osu!! Many people rate maps according to if they liked the SONG not the map. It's kinda random if people will like a map even if the map itself is good.Echo wrote:
There's no correlation between quantity and quality
Then again, there might be better solutions for this, eh..