This guideline has been practically outdated for a WHILE now. It's basically the #1 most broken guideline in the osu!taiko Ranking Criteria to date. I think that it's finally time to update this guideline and formalize the base SVs that we've been using, allowing mappers more freedom to create better spread progressions, simplify work flows and avoid unnecessary effort with green lines. Right now, it's gotten to a point where there are more reasons to break this guidelines than to follow it, which ultimately defeats the purpose of a guideline in the first place.

While there are a lot of maps that do follow this guideline and have all base Slider Velocities set to 1.40x, there are a considerable number of maps that don't, and for very good reasons.

For example, if a song has high BPM and the map is a full spread, then the lower diffs will have very high slider velocity, which can be very hard for players of that skill level to read. Lowering the base SV for these difficulties is a very easy and effective solution that still has a good distribution of notes. Even if the song isn't high BPM, lowering the SV a little bit for Kantan and Futsuu can add another subtle difference and improve the progression in a spread.

Another example is if a song is low BPM, but doesn't really feel that slow when playing. In this case, if the base SV is set the the standard 1.40x, the notes will be unbearably slow and if the song supports difficulties past Oni, the 1/4 or 1/8 notes will be all bunched up.

Now, it's very easy to argue to just add green lines to increase the SV and keep the base SV the same. But that doesn't really solve all the problems and is way harder to implement to a map retroactively.

For example, one of my recently ranked maps, Gasolina by Daddy Yankee, was originally set to 192 BPM, as that what it felt like when playing the song. The map was modded and was about to be nominated when me and the BNs reached the consensus that the song was actually 96 BPM. The problem being that I had already done all of the SV changes and made all the SV transitions and that would've meant having to re-do them from scratch with a higher multipliers so that the SV wasn't so slow. Fortunately, there was an even better solution that involved next to no effort and didn't alter the already established SV changes, and that was to double the base SV for all difficulties. This is what the map would've looked like if the base SV was set to 1.40:

And this what it currently looks like with the base SV set to 2.80:

Allowing mappers to change the base SV instead of changing the green lines, can help prevent time wasted by modders and BNs as well as potential resets or DQs due to the mapper accidently messing up the SV changes with the green lines or forgetting a section or a specific instance.

Another example, lets say there's a map with variable timing that is generally high BPM, but is short in length so it needs at least a Futsuu. All of those difficulties will need green lines to equalize the SV, but the lower diffs will still scroll really fast. Instead of redoing the green lines for the lower difficulties, it's more intuitive to just copy the green lines to the lower difficulties and then lower the base SV.

We have to remember that green lines are for making changes that are relative to the base SV. If the overall SV is too high or low, we should change the very thing that changes exactly that, the base slider velocity. That way a green line that is set at 1.2x in an Oni still has the desired effect in a Muzukashii, even if that Muzukashii has a lower base SV.

As for what values I think are good for the base SV, I'd have to say 1.40 for songs above 180BPM and 1.60 for songs lower than 180BPM, but either one could be used depending on the context. 1.40 as a value is pretty understandable as it's the default and works for a majority of cases. I personally really like 1.60 because 1/4 notes are perfectly tangential with one another when playing. Here is an example from my ranked map of Wario Kouzan - Ohta Asuka, Nagamatsu Ryo which uses a base SV of 1.60:


Not only is it visually appealing seeing the notes perfectly lined up like this, but the slightly higher slider velocity can work very well with maps that are lower than average BPM, but are still rather lively and upbeat, and a higher SV can represent that very well. This doesn't apply to all cases, but it applies to enough cases that I believe it warrants formalizing.

I propose that the guideline be changed to allow for changing the base slider velocity, should the need for it arise. Here is what I suggest for the new guideline: (After some feedback)

Tl;dr: Base SV of 1.40 is rather limiting, doesn't really represent the current mapping landscape, and changing the base SV can be a very easy fix for some issues and can help spread progression. We already have a lot of maps ranked that don't use 1.40 so it's best to formalize this.

I think we even should delete this guideline as now you can do what you want with sv and for example double bpm generally use 2.40 to 2.80 base svs so thins guideline is imo kinda useless and could be deleted to offer more flexibility to mappers

Linkff001 wrote:

I think we even should delete this guideline as now you can do what you want with sv and for example double bpm generally use 2.40 to 2.80 base svs so thins guideline is imo kinda useless and could be deleted to offer more flexibility to mappers

I 100% agree with more flexibility, but I don't think it should be deleted altogether. I think the guideline should be more like "Hey, use this unless you have a valid reason not to" So that more conventional songs and maps have a more or less standardized SV to make them look more "official" in a way.

i agree with link, guideline should just be removed imo
maybe add something like this if the guideline is to stay also:
I also think your suggested change would need some rewording should it be added but we can worry about that later :3

I think your proposed guideline should be simplified somehow, someone else will have to think of how.

I think all that really needs to be clear is that 1.40 (or 2.80 I guess) is the preferred choice if you don't have a reason to change it.

I honestly don't see a reason to encourage 1.60 over any other option you have. I guess you could argue base 1.60 is the most accepted but even then I don't see any issue with stuff like 1.70 either.

Also suggesting that the base SV should be consistent seems kind of weird, I think that only really applies to lower diffs.

KatK1 wrote:

i agree with link, guideline should just be removed imo
maybe add something like this if the guideline is to stay also:

The base slider velocity should be set to 1.40, and be consistent in all difficulties of a beatmap. In cases where a song uses mostly 1/8 ("Double BPM"), you may use 2.80 as the base. In cases where a song uses mostly 1/2, ("Half BPM"), you may use 0.70 as the base. rest of proposed thing ig

I also think your suggested change would need some rewording should it be added but we can worry about that later :3

Oh yeah it definitely need re-wording. I tried to be as clear as possible which tends to get wordy. But I still think the guideline should still at least exist for new mappers to know what they could use the base SV for. Perhaps the better thing to do would be something more like:

That way, the default option IS to give the mapper freedom, and if they don't have a good reason, to simply set the value to 1.40 or 1.60 as fallback option.

and now we pray

By default RC assumes 180 BPM, so if extremely low or high BPM does effect the choice of base SV, then this guideline actually *supports* it. On this ground I think rewording the BPM scaling guidance could be better than making substantial change to this specific RC item.

While I do agree with link & kat on that no one really cares about the guideline as long as the note spread appears fine while playing, I think the guideline should be present in some form in the rc as it gives newer mappers a baseline to work with which I think is equally important.

I also don't think we should write in nuance stuff like '0.7 for half bpm / 2.8 for double bpm' since most mappers and modders already ignore the 1.4 guideline anyway for such maps, so just keeping the guideline simple and discussing 1.4 as a base should be sufficient I think

Agree with the change as long as it doesn't try to keep it consistent across diffs, just the value that makes sense for each diff in a vacuum.

SN707 wrote:

I also don't think we should write in nuance stuff like '0.7 for half bpm / 2.8 for double bpm' since most mappers and modders already ignore the 1.4 guideline anyway for such maps

maybe for mappers that map double bpm a lot, but I'd like to see some examples.
In my own experience mapping double bpm, I always just did 2x or even higher SV multiplier, and stayed at 1.4x base.
Same goes for the only other double bpm map I know from memory (this only goes to 1.8x multiplier iirc though) https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmaps/3809602

Really all this proposal does is spell out how bpm scaling works with regards to scroll speed, but I don't see how that is necessary as bpm scaling is the first thing addressed in the RC after the glossary and has a whole article dedicated to it here.

ikin5050 wrote:

Really all this proposal does is spell out how bpm scaling works with regards to scroll speed

I really don't see where you got this from. Maybe for the Double/Half BPM note, sure. But for the rest of the proposal I don't see it (maybe that page should be rewritten instead?)

ikin5050 wrote:

Really all this proposal does is spell out how bpm scaling works with regards to scroll speed, but I don't see how that is necessary as bpm scaling is the first thing addressed in the RC after the glossary and has a whole article dedicated to it here.

This isnt just about BPM scaling, its also about spread progression, and the current guideline implies to use 1.40 regardless of BPM and difficulty, if anything, the new guideline could mention BPM scaling as a way to roughly set the SV, but the base SV would mostly depend on the feel of the song or map and not the BPM necessarily. As for why its necessary, its so that new mappers can use the RC as an accurate guide. New mappers arent going to pay attention to the current general conscencus of every single aspect of mapping.

'If a lower base slider velocity is used for the lower difficulties, then the value must be set so that the base slider velocity increases the harder the difficulty is.' - This is bpm scaling of the scroll speed for each difficulty, just with the added specification that typically you'd want higher scroll speed for denser difficulties? Also since when are we using the words 'must' in a guideline? @Kat


'This isnt just about BPM scaling, its also about spread progression, and the current guideline implies to use 1.40 regardless of BPM and difficulty, if anything, the new guideline could mention BPM scaling as a way to roughly set the SV, but the base SV would mostly depend on the feel of the song or map and not the BPM necessarily.' - BPM scaling is literally the first point that is mentioned in the taiko ranking criteria (after the glossary). By your logic, adding explicit reference to bpm scaling in the base sv guideline means you would need to add it to every single guideline (rest moments, finisher frequency, common rhythms, color changes, etc.). Adding more words and specifying everything, especially when it is ALREADY explicitly acknowledged, just adds meaningless fluff to an already long document, which is counterproductive.

ikin5050 wrote:

Also since when are we using the words 'must' in a guideline? @Kat

idk why you're @ing me like i'm the one the suggested that, after i also said it should be reworded.
if you want to complain about that, then sure, i suggest we add a rule to clarify that in cases like these, it must be progressive with difficulty.

ikin5050 wrote:

BPM scaling is literally the first point that is mentioned in the taiko ranking criteria (after the glossary). By your logic, adding explicit reference to bpm scaling in the base sv guideline means you would need to add it to every single guideline (rest moments, finisher frequency, common rhythms, color changes, etc.). Adding more words and specifying everything, especially when it is ALREADY explicitly acknowledged, just adds meaningless fluff to an already long document, which is counterproductive.

i mean, sure? but as it is it's not clear what exactly should be scaled with bpm.
the text in taiko ranking criteria is: "Rhythm-related rules and guidelines apply to approximately 180 BPM beatmaps with 4/4 time signatures. If your song is drastically faster or slower, some variables might be different, as detailed in Scaling BPM on the Ranking Criteria."
this clearly implies that the scaling page is only to be used with notes, which is also supported by the fact the page itself only goes over how to scale notes with bpm. it wouldn't take more than about a minute to see this and why we even bothered bringing it up.

ikin5050 wrote:

'If a lower base slider velocity is used for the lower difficulties, then the value must be set so that the base slider velocity increases the harder the difficulty is.' - This is bpm scaling of the scroll speed for each difficulty, just with the added specification that typically you'd want higher scroll speed for denser difficulties? Also since when are we using the words 'must' in a guideline? @Kat


'This isnt just about BPM scaling, its also about spread progression, and the current guideline implies to use 1.40 regardless of BPM and difficulty, if anything, the new guideline could mention BPM scaling as a way to roughly set the SV, but the base SV would mostly depend on the feel of the song or map and not the BPM necessarily.' - BPM scaling is literally the first point that is mentioned in the taiko ranking criteria (after the glossary). By your logic, adding explicit reference to bpm scaling in the base sv guideline means you would need to add it to every single guideline (rest moments, finisher frequency, common rhythms, color changes, etc.). Adding more words and specifying everything, especially when it is ALREADY explicitly acknowledged, just adds meaningless fluff to an already long document, which is counterproductive.

Again, its not necessarily about scaling to the BPM, its also about matching the feel of the song. Some 90 BPM maps play and feel like they're 180 BPM. So BPM scaling doesn't really work, its more of a rule of thumb. Also you point about adding explicit references to BPM scaling for every single guideline, is essentially a strawman argument. As not only does the proposal only has BPM scaling as a minor part of it, but also because you completely disregard all the other points as well as the rewrites I've done after gathering some feedback. I've rewritten it again so that it puts more emphasis on the feel of the song rather than BPM. Also, having outdated guidelines that can limit new mappers is even more counterproductive than adding one more sentence.

Oh, this is our first disagreement. But might be rather due to how you guys handle the RC, where I stated that you should not take it as the bible. This especially goes to the Guidelines. It states the following:

RC wrote:

Guidelines may be ignored under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be justified by an exhaustive explanation as to why the guideline has been ignored and why not ignoring it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation.

While we intentionally wrote it that way for new players/mappers to take them serious and understand the very basics of what goes and what not, inofficially-officially it goes under the discretion of the BN and NAT what they deem to be ok to break depending of the mapping landscape of Taiko (not the other modes they handle it differently).

That means, everything you stated in the OP is already made use of. Any further change of the Guideline would make it more complicated or convoluted and make the RC longer than it already is - which is another reason why we did the restruction of the RC in 2016 which your proposal is diametrical to this core idea.

Questions would arise like what is "optimal quantity of notes", which you cannot define with your suggested Guideline. You give a range yes, but that gives room for more debates and confusion for less experienced mappers. We gave it a lot of thought when we added "optimal quantity of notes", which is defined by the base SV of 1.4 that is agreed upon the whole community and also used in TNT as well as the Taiko Jiro community. It's the most fundamental, and the lowest denominator all these communities agreed upon and where all other SV changes come from since 22 years.

So no, currently I must absolutely disagree here. SV 1.40 has to be state as our baseline from where everything comes from for stated reason. And if you guys go through our RC in general, you will notice that there are more discrepancies how we use them nowadays. For example what the RC states to SVs vs what we actually do.

I understand where you're going from, and I do agree with making the Ranking Criteria convoluted would be counter productive. But I do have several points:

1. The RC should first and foremost serve to better the state of mapping and guide mappers. After that goal has been achieved, then the RC can be cleaned up and simplified. The current base SV guideline does not accurately reflect the state of mapping for a while now and may limit new mappers. Therefore I believe changing it is for the better.
2. I strongly believe that osu!taiko should try to distance it self from TNT and make further develop its unique identity. While the core gameplay mechanics are the same, the controls, the song selections, the different playstyles, the mods, the countless unique mapping styles all serve to make osu!taiko practically indistinguishable from TNT. So just because TNT and other communities use it, doesn't mean we should too. We don't even agree with playable gameplay elements like sliders, so something that is more aesthetic shouldn't hold this much weight.
3. The updated proposed guideline doesn't really throw out 1.40x entirely, but has it more as a fallback option. Either way, it should at the very least mention that mappers may use different values to better suit the feel of the map.
4. "Optimal quantity of notes" can be more or less defined as something like "Enough notes sufficiently separated on the playfield at a velocity that is readable by the target audience." Sure, its more wordy, but its clearer than just saying "Optimal quantity of notes". Additionally, since it says "...readable by the target audience." then its much easier for the mapper gauge if they play taiko.

I cleaned up the last version of the proposed guideline. Again, if you still feel strong about 1.40, then at least let me know if you would agree with keeping the first sentence of the current guideline and simply adding one more letting mappers know they can change it.