i don't want to push this anymore, just go here

To make your suggestion more cohesive I think you should add to the line
`...lower than 3:30, the lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Normal.`
The following;
*or* there must be 6 progressive difficulties below the highest.

Because as it is, this suggestion doesn't consider the scenario of rhythm game songs that are super hard and usually are 2 minutes of drain time (xi songs for example).

I'm neutral to this proposal because I see a good side of allowing higher star rating mapsets to have a smaller total drain time to make the job easier for people who want to push such mapsets and mappers as well, but on the otherside, "progression" of a mapset spread is such a subjective topic that I can totally see disputes and issues coming from the "progressive difficulties below" part of the proposal.

Would a 9.0*->8.0*->7.0* mapset spread in the third scenario (between 4:15 and 5:00) really create a mapset spread when the virtual difference between such diffs (besides possible stylistic mapping differences) just be how big the spacing of jumps and streams are between them? idk.

The good thing from E/N/H/I is how it forces mappers to activelly undermap rhythm for different range of players. Once you reach 5* you can definetly notice that for most songs rhythm will stay almost the same.

I'd say that the proposals being made in other game modes are more interesting because they're basically just lowering the numbers of the current rules.

lower than 2:00 -> Normal
between 2:00 and 2:45 -> Hard
2:45 and 3:30 -> Insane
3:30 + -> Extra

Net0 wrote:

*or* there must be 6 progressive difficulties below the highest.

this would be redundant - even on a set with a roughly 9* topdiff, 6 more difficulties would already have it 1 diff away from having a normal lowest (or possibly even meeting it under some configurations)

Net0 wrote:

"progression" of a mapset spread is such a subjective topic that I can totally see disputes and issues coming from the "progressive difficulties below" part of the proposal.

i very much acknowledged this subjectivity in my initial post! the reason i think it's ok to rely on is because the ranking criteria already relies on it, specifically in the "difficulty levels must not be skipped" rule. adding another rule that relegates that same judgment to BNs doesn't put any more weight on us, it just extends the standards we already uphold. if there is a scenario that you think could be controversial based on a "number of progressive difficulties" rule but NOT the existing "difficulty levels must not be skipped" rule, i would ask that you please be specific

Net0 wrote:

Would a 9.0*->8.0*->7.0* mapset spread in the third scenario (between 4:15 and 5:00) really create a mapset spread when the virtual difference between such diffs (besides possible stylistic mapping differences) just be how big the spacing of jumps and streams are between them? idk.

totally feel what you're saying here but my counterargument is that if there isn't a significant difference between those difficulty levels, why do we enforce them in sets in the first place? the unspoken distinctions between these high difficulty levels, and them being needed in spreads at all, is the reason the original problem of my proposal even exists

Net0 wrote:

I'd say that the proposals being made in other game modes are more interesting because they're basically just lowering the numbers of the current rules.

i find them interesting too, but if you think we would benefit from implementing a similar change in standard, you should propose that in a different thread. the only way i could see that relating to this proposal is if you think such a change would fix this issue in the process, and i don't think it would. based on the logic i explained in my post, simply lowering the time thresholds would only shift the issue - rather than a sudden jump in required difficulties below 4:15, it'd happen below 3:30

Kataryn wrote:

if there is a scenario that you think could be controversial based on a "number of progressive difficulties" rule but NOT the existing "difficulty levels must not be skipped" rule, i would ask that you please be specific

In my eyes, the problem with defining "progression" in this case is often the opposite of what the skipping rule deals with: spread gaps that are too small. With our current rules, this isn't even a factor when it comes to judging spreads. With the proposed rule, however, you'd definitely encounter situations where you'd need to determine whether two adjacent diffs are progressive or at the same level.

For a concrete example, let's say that I've made a 9* mechanics-focused map of a 4:00 song. Next, I make 4 other diffs where each one has slightly lower spacing and slightly less straining rhythm than the next, ending up with a spread that feels like a smooth progression in mechanical difficulty from 8* to my 9* top diff.
Is this rankable?

As I mentioned above, this isn't something that anyone currently needs to consider, so I don't think it's reasonable to assume that cases like this would be judged consistently. Unless you're fine with sets only consisting of 5 top diffs, I think you'd need some sort of definition for how close to each other two diffs can be while still being progressive.

Kataryn wrote:

totally feel what you're saying here but my counterargument is that if there isn't a significant difference between those difficulty levels, why do we enforce them in sets in the first place? the unspoken distinctions between these high difficulty levels, and them being needed in spreads at all, is the reason the original problem of my proposal even exists

I don't think the proposal addresses this problem, though. "X progressive difficulties below the highest" will only remove the lowest diffs from sets utilising the allowance; the less distinctive high diffs will still be there, because they're still required.

You could avoid both this and the issue of small gaps if the new rule allowed you to ignore the level skipping rule while creating a somewhat even progression from the lowest required diff to the top diff, with at least X diffs in total. That's a fairly different system to what you're proposing, though, so I don't know whether you want to tackle that in this thread.

lewski wrote:

In my eyes, the problem with defining "progression" in this case is often the opposite of what the skipping rule deals with: spread gaps that are too small. With our current rules, this isn't even a factor when it comes to judging spreads. With the proposed rule, however, you'd definitely encounter situations where you'd need to determine whether two adjacent diffs are progressive or at the same level.

this is a great point, that's something i hadn't considered. i do think it still falls within BNs' area of ability, because we judge spreads currently with a specific idea in mind of what a "single difficulty gap" should be - if we're already able to guide maps in one direction towards that standard, i don't think it should be a problem to have to guide them in the other. still, though, it's something to be cautious of and i'm glad you brought it up

also, the example you provided would normally be difficult to judge with that information alone, since i can't see the contents of the diffs. however, roughly 0.33* gaps are an extreme enough example that the answer is definitely no, it would not be rankable under this suggestion

lewski wrote:

I don't think the proposal addresses this problem, though. "X progressive difficulties below the highest" will only remove the lowest diffs from sets utilising the allowance; the less distinctive high diffs will still be there, because they're still required.

i think you may have misinterpreted how i'm presenting "the problem". i'm not suggesting that the problem is that higher diffs are less distinctive, or even that that's a true statement - i'm suggesting that there's a problem with those difficulty levels not being acknowledged in the ranking criteria. that's why i say they're the "reason" the original problem exists, not the problem itself. my opinion is that they are distinctive and can form as acceptable of a spread as any ranked spread that currently exists

lewski wrote:

You could avoid both this and the issue of small gaps if the new rule allowed you to ignore the level skipping rule while creating a somewhat even progression from the lowest required diff to the top diff with at least X diffs. That's a fairly different system to what you're proposing, though, so I don't know whether you want to tackle that in this thread.

ok this is an interesting one. both me and my friends had this idea cross our minds independently, and it sounds great on paper, but the issue is that it WOULD add a whole new dimension to the way BNs judge spread, rather than just building on what we already do. dynamic difficulty progressions would also require a way to quantify different types of difficulty gaps, because you'd have to essentially "divide" the topdiff by the number of required difficulties. that's starting to sound a lot like a job for star rating, and hopefully you already know that i'm trying to avoid star rating at all costs in this proposal. it's not how we judge spread and it's not reliable enough to be anywhere near the ranking criteria

Kataryn wrote:

i think you may have misinterpreted how i'm presenting "the problem".

yeah it looks like I did exactly that

Kataryn wrote:

it would add a whole new dimension to the way BNs judge spread, rather than just building on what we already do

fair enough

This is completely antithetical to the entire purpose of spread requirements though...

Having caviats that require normal/hard/insane diffs based on drain time are in place to ensure new players have a proper selection of maps to play at their difficulty level rather than just being bombarded with 6-7 star maps.

Most mappers already do the bare minimum when it comes to low diffs so introducing a system where you have agency to choose between either making a normal/hard or just filling your set with more insane/expert diffs is going to result in low diffs just dissapearing almost entirely for maps longer than 3:30.

The trend of better players/more difficult maps being ranked has no bearing on the fact that a brand new player today is at the exact same skill level as a new player was ten years ago. Doesn't make any sense to further skew spread requirments in favor of the upper echelon of players when they only account for like one percent of players, this is just gonna further alienate beginners for the sake of mappers/nominators wanting to do less work.

i appreciate this perspective but you're putting forward some face value misinterpretations here. i wouldn't (and didn't) post a proposal on this subject that completely ignores the issues you mention

rosario wknd wrote:

Doesn't make any sense to further skew spread requirments in favor of the upper echelon of players

maybe this is just a precision of language thing, but this idea is not "skewing spread requirements in favor" of anything - that implies that i'm trying to shift them in a way that will affect everyone. truthfully, this proposal is an addendum that will not affect most mapsets at all. in fact, you even acknowledged yourself that it is an "agency to choose", but that just brings me to my next point:

rosario wknd wrote:

introducing a system where you have agency to choose between either making a normal/hard or just filling your set with more insane/expert diffs is going to result in low diffs just dissapearing almost entirely for maps longer than 3:30

that's just not true! it feels like you either didn't read my suggestion or are vastly misunderstanding it. my suggestion is specifically designed in a way where it will not change the requirements for most sets at all. as i stated in my original post:

Kataryn wrote:

The current rules only accounted for the most common scenario: a 5-6* top diff. And while that is still the most common scenario today, it's by a smaller margin.

for the sake of argument, let's actually skip past 6 stars - let's consider a hypothetical set that is 3:30 in length and has a 7 star topdiff. under my proposal, their options for creating a set are having a hard diff lowest (which requires them to create 4 new progressive difficulties), or creating 4 new progressive difficulties. notice that in this case, those are the same exact thing! the only difference is that it defines the spread down from the top diff instead of up from the hard diff. in both cases, you'd end up with a 5 diff spread going from a 3 star to a 7 star. same idea goes for the proposed insane diff criteria addition, which was also designed in this exact way.

the only way it is physically possible for this change to cause lowdiffs to "disappear almost entirely for maps longer than 3:30" is if nearly every mapper begins making extremely difficult topdiffs for every song longer than 3:30 regardless of what the song supports, and BNs' standards somehow shift enough overnight that they're complicit in ranking those maps. if that's what you're arguing, then feel free to specify, but i simply don't think that is a realistic scenario that anyone needs to be worried about.

I have to agree with rosario wknd that such a change would likely encourage mappers to make more difficult maps in order to be able to skip a lower diff in exchange. There is already a problem with difficulty inflation which nobody really talks about, and it's at least partially caused by the spread rules, because if you have a 6+* top diff, it's less work to make a 5+* Insane and a 4+* hard than to make "average" diffs of those levels since you'd end up with a gap somewhere.
This change would similarly incentivize difficulty inflation, for example if you're mapping a 4:15 song, you might be able to push top diff from 7.0* to 7.5* and as a consequence, get away with only 2 lower Extra diffs instead of needing an Insane as the lowest diff.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

There is already a problem with difficulty inflation which nobody really talks about, and it's at least partially caused to the spread rules, because if you have a 6+* top diff, it's less work to make a 5+* Insane and a 4+* hard than to make "average" diffs of those levels since you'd end up with a gap somewhere.

this is a misleading portrayal of how people create spreads - implying that someone can simply just make a 4*+ hard for a given set is ignoring variables like the tempo of the song and the difficulty elements of the other diffs. it may turn out for such a spread that it's not really possible to create a 4* diff without it being an insane, which would actually cause the mapper to create a fairly low 3* hard to properly fill the spread. there's nothing that makes either one of these possibilities any more likely than the other, which makes it hard for me to believe that "difficulty inflation" (or "difficulty deflation") is really happening.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

for example if you're mapping a 4:15 song, you might be able to push top diff from 7.0* to 7.5* and as a consequence, get away with only 2 lower Extra diffs instead of needing an Insane as the lowest diff

okay, thank you for being specific. this statement itself isn't wrong in the slightest - you could reasonably do this under my proposal. the place where i disagree is that i just don't think this would a) happen that often, or b) matter that much, and here's my reasoning for both:

a) if someone is already set on creating a 7.0* top diff, what would be their motivation to change it just so they can create a roughly 5.5* extra instead of a 5.0* insane? at this level of difficulty, a difference of half a star across any of the 3 diffs would only really require a buffed version of each of them, not a change in how the diffs are actually designed. so i'm not sure what incentive there is to do this in the first place

b) even if some people do adopt this habit, i don't think it'd make much of a difference in the number of insane diffs that are actually being ranked. you started your post by stating that you agree with rosario on this issue, but rosario's concern stems from them alleging that my changes would cause lowdiffs to "disappear almost entirely for maps longer than 3:30", which is simply not true, as i explained in my last post. while i think the impact of the scenario you provided is much more feasible, it's also a lot smaller, which makes it much harder to frame as a significant problem

Kataryn wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

There is already a problem with difficulty inflation which nobody really talks about, and it's at least partially caused to the spread rules, because if you have a 6+* top diff, it's less work to make a 5+* Insane and a 4+* hard than to make "average" diffs of those levels since you'd end up with a gap somewhere.

this is a misleading portrayal of how people create spreads - implying that someone can simply just make a 4*+ hard for a given set is ignoring variables like the tempo of the song and the difficulty elements of the other diffs. it may turn out for such a spread that it's not really possible to create a 4* diff without it being an insane, which would actually cause the mapper to create a fairly low 3* hard to properly fill the spread. there's nothing that makes either one of these possibilities any more likely than the other, which makes it hard for me to believe that "difficulty inflation" (or "difficulty deflation") is really happening.

It's not misleading at all, mappers and BNs have simply started pushing difficulty boundaries some years ago to the point where a Hard that is close to a Light Insane or an Insane that is close to a lower Extra have become acceptable or even the norm. Of course a lower BPM song might not support those difficulty levels, but nowadays it's very common to see higher end difficulties for any song that is average BPM or above. Difficulty inflation is definitely real and proven, I forgot where the data was posted but it showed how the average star rating had increased over time, not just overall but also for each difficulty level. But even without a statistic it's easy to notice this trend if you compare spreads of ranked maps now with those from like 5+ years ago.

Kataryn wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

for example if you're mapping a 4:15 song, you might be able to push top diff from 7.0* to 7.5* and as a consequence, get away with only 2 lower Extra diffs instead of needing an Insane as the lowest diff

okay, thank you for being specific. this statement itself isn't wrong in the slightest - you could reasonably do this under my proposal. the place where i disagree is that i just don't think this would a) happen that often, or b) matter that much, and here's my reasoning for both:

a) if someone is already set on creating a 7.0* top diff, what would be their motivation to change it just so they can create a roughly 5.5* extra instead of a 5.0* insane? at this level of difficulty, a difference of half a star across any of the 3 diffs would only really require a buffed version of each of them, not a change in how the diffs are actually designed. so i'm not sure what incentive there is to do this in the first place

This was only an example though, you can extend the same principle to a larger difference such as from 6.5 to 7.5 stars or from 7 to 8 stars etc. Their motivation might be that they don't enjoy mapping Hard or Insane diffs as much as Extra+ diffs or that they see less value in them (which is the case for many people).

Kataryn wrote:

b) even if some people do adopt this habit, i don't think it'd make much of a difference in the number of insane diffs that are actually being ranked. you started your post by stating that you agree with rosario on this issue, but rosario's concern stems from them alleging that my changes would cause lowdiffs to "disappear almost entirely for maps longer than 3:30", which is simply not true, as i explained in my last post. while i think the impact of the scenario you provided is much more feasible, it's also a lot smaller, which makes it much harder to frame as a significant problem

Well, I said I agree that it gives mappers a reason to forgo lower difficulties by opting for higher ones instead. While I also think that low diffs wouldn't disappear almost entirely (at least not because of this change alone), I do believe it's important to preserve all types of difficulties for all song lengths. With this change, some mappers who wouldn't have tried to rank maps at this level in the first place might start doing so if it allows them to skip 1 or 2 lower diffs. One can easily squeeze out a 7* map from most songs that aren't slower than average if they wanted, so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that even a seemingly minor rule expansion can have significant effects on the ranked section in the long run. Yes, some people will always map low diffs, no matter if required or not, but this number is probably decreasing continuously over time, and newer generations of mappers might grow accustomed to this "meta" which can also affect the quality of these difficulties.

It seems that people are quite critical of this proposal so I'd like to say that I am in support of it and believe that it would do more good than harm.

On the topic of low difficulty inflation -

Whilst difficulty has evidently been inflating on lower diffs, there is a limit. For any set with a lowest difficulty normal the ranking criteria has clearly stated guidelines for what that normal can't do, and then because of spread progression requirements, that then affects the difficulties above it.

I can maybe see the concern on sets where the lowest difficulty is a hard or an insane since those have less clear requirements but i believe this can be circumvented. Imagine if a lowest diff hard set *theoretically* had a borderline difficulty normal diff, you would look to see if the hard would have too big of a gap from this theoretical normal diff as you would on a set with an actual normal diff. This same logic can then apply up to an insane diff too.

On difficulty inflation as a whole, I highly doubt that there would be so many mappers opting to map higher difficulty that it makes a notable dent on the amount of low diff sets made. The majority of songs are not high enough bpm or rhythmic complexity to facilitate higher star rating without major overmapping. I doubt that the average mapper could turn an average 180bpm song into a 7.5*+ map without quality concerns

//

On the topic of what it means to have "progression" between difficulties -

Whilst this is something new in that bns are used to looking for difficulty gaps too large rather than too small, I do think this is very feasible for bns to determine. For most cases star rating can be used as the main baseline with something along this lines of 0.8* - 1.2* gaps. What star rating can't judge, reasonably quantifiable metrics such as spacing, movement, slider velocity and rhythm density can be used to aid these judgements (similarly to how spread is judged on lower diffs).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Of course a lower BPM song might not support those difficulty levels, but nowadays it's very common to see higher end difficulties for any song that is average BPM or above.

i don't really see how this is responding to what i said. by the definition of an average, maps that are "average BPM or above" encompasses 50% of maps - what about the other 50%? there's still so many low normals and hards being ranked every day that it's hard for me to believe that this is a tangible issue. and even then, why go after spread rules of all things as the root of the problem? your argument would make much more sense to me if you were citing the gradual relaxation of difficulty requirements over time as the cause for these statistics instead

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This was only an example though, you can extend the same principle to a larger difference such as from 6.5 to 7.5 stars or from 7 to 8 stars etc.

i actually don't think you can, though, which is why i only addressed the one example you gave. once the difference gets that high, the map you're creating is of a notably different difficulty level - i don't think it's unreasonable to say there are many songs that justify 6.5 star maps but not 7.5 star maps. additionally, as soon as you get into the high range where some would even argue that a full difficulty level is a "filler" difference (7 to 8 stars, 8 to 9 stars, etc.), the topdiff is high enough that the "getting rid of a lowdiff" logic no longer applies, because the set would already be all extras.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

One can easily squeeze out a 7* map from most songs that aren't slower than average if they wanted

i'm going to point out this sentence specifically because i think it's the main weak point of this argument. first of all, to build on espii's point, i just don't think this is true. i've tried to do this very thing myself for fun, and the result is not only comically overdone but also just barely 7 stars. to be fair, this particular song has very simple rhythm, leaving me to rely heavily on one difficulty element, but it being incredibly average otherwise is a pretty good demonstration of how "most songs" would lead to an equally silly result imo. i want you to recognize that there's a bit of irony in you using the phrase "easily squeeze out", because if you have to "squeeze out" a 7 star map, it obviously wasn't easy. as a beatmap nominator, i sincerely believe such a stretch of difficulty limits would be recognizable by any capable BN, and that they would not accept such a map in the first place. (this is a particularly bold statement of me to make because i technically could end up proving myself wrong on this with my own map, but we'll see about that)

but second of all, even if your statement is true, it still doesn't really change anything. my proposal is specifically designed around maps above roughly 7 stars as the exact threshold for "modern difficulties". it is by no coincidence that a 7 star topdiff with 4 progressive difficulties below it would land the set at the exact minimum required difficulty for the corresponding song length to the part of my proposal that adds the language:

*or* there must be 4 progressive difficulties below the highest.

the exact same thing happens with the insane diff requirement. the whole idea behind these proposed additions is that there should be a point in difficulty where you are no longer able to override the current spread requirements, and that that point should roughly correspond with the point in difficulty that you are no longer able to easily force onto almost any song without it being clearly overdone. should i add something to the initial post to clarify that? it seems like people aren't really understanding that core concept, and i want to know why

furthermore, i want to point out that when you say "I do believe it's important to preserve all types of difficulties for all song lengths", i think you're trying to fry a much bigger fish than this proposal covers. i'm not sure how literally you meant to say that, but if you mean exactly what you said there, you share a similar sentiment to many people who disagreed with UC's original proposal that created the length-based spread rules we have today. it may be worth just reading through some of the stuff in this thread and seeing where you stand, because there's still genuinely interesting points there, even in a more modern context. you can absolutely feel free to correct me, but from just the things you've already said, it doesn't seem likely to me that your real problem is with this tiny addendum to the rules - it seems like your problem is with the rules in the first place. and that's a conversation for a different thread

espii wrote:

It seems that people are quite critical of this proposal so I'd like to say that I am in support of it and believe that it would do more good than harm.

On the topic of low difficulty inflation -

Whilst difficulty has evidently been inflating on lower diffs, there is a limit. For any set with a lowest difficulty normal the ranking criteria has clearly stated guidelines for what that normal can't do, and then because of spread progression requirements, that then affects the difficulties above it.

I can maybe see the concern on sets where the lowest difficulty is a hard or an insane since those have less clear requirements but i believe this can be circumvented. Imagine if a lowest diff hard set *theoretically* had a borderline difficulty normal diff, you would look to see if the hard would have too big of a gap from this theoretical normal diff as you would on a set with an actual normal diff. This same logic can then apply up to an insane diff too.

It works in theory, but in practice this kind of judgement is not being done by BNs etc. and I don't think it's easy to shift most people's mindset on what is and isn't suitable as lowest diff for each level.

espii wrote:

On difficulty inflation as a whole, I highly doubt that there would be so many mappers opting to map higher difficulty that it makes a notable dent on the amount of low diff sets made. The majority of songs are not high enough bpm or rhythmic complexity to facilitate higher star rating without major overmapping. I doubt that the average mapper could turn an average 180bpm song into a 7.5*+ map without quality concerns

I'm not saying everyone will do this, but other than just potentially making harder maps, mappers may choose faster or more intense songs to map as this type of change would incentivize it. So instead of going for a 180 BPM song where they would normally make a Hard - Insane - Extra - Extra+ spread, they could now map a 220+ BPM song which allows them to make a sufficiently high top diff to be able to skip Hard (just an example).

Kataryn wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Of course a lower BPM song might not support those difficulty levels, but nowadays it's very common to see higher end difficulties for any song that is average BPM or above.

i don't really see how this is responding to what i said. by the definition of an average, maps that are "average BPM or above" encompasses 50% of maps - what about the other 50%? there's still so many low normals and hards being ranked every day that it's hard for me to believe that this is a tangible issue. and even then, why go after spread rules of all things as the root of the problem? your argument would make much more sense to me if you were citing the gradual relaxation of difficulty requirements over time as the cause for these statistics instead

I didn't say "above average", I said "average or above", which includes everything from like 160 BPM upwards, not just the top 50%. I also never said lower end diffs aren't being ranked anymore, only that there are more higher end ones being ranked. Like I said previously, spread rules are only partially the cause for this, the reason you mentioned is another contributing factor but does not exclude spread rules as one.

Kataryn wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This was only an example though, you can extend the same principle to a larger difference such as from 6.5 to 7.5 stars or from 7 to 8 stars etc.

i actually don't think you can, though, which is why i only addressed the one example you gave. once the difference gets that high, the map you're creating is of a notably different difficulty level - i don't think it's unreasonable to say there are many songs that justify 6.5 star maps but not 7.5 star maps. additionally, as soon as you get into the high range where some would even argue that a full difficulty level is a "filler" difference (7 to 8 stars, 8 to 9 stars, etc.), the topdiff is high enough that the "getting rid of a lowdiff" logic no longer applies, because the set would already be all extras.

You're going off the premise that every mapset's highest diff is the maximum "justifiable" difficulty for that song, which isn't true. A lot of mappers only make 4-5 star maps for songs that support 6 or more stars, and the same thing can be said about many 6 star maps that could've had a 7 star top diff. It also seems like you're contradicting yourself regarding gaps between difficulties, because you said before that 0.5* isn't much of a difference, but a whole star difference is suddenly "that high", but at the same time only "filler" above a certain level? Just for reference, I'm not talking about literally changing an existing map and making it harder, I meant making a harder map in the first place. Either way this doesn't really make sense to me. Also, how would a mapset with a 7* top diff already be all extras if it would require a Hard at 3:30 and an Insane at 4:15?

Kataryn wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

One can easily squeeze out a 7* map from most songs that aren't slower than average if they wanted

i'm going to point out this sentence specifically because i think it's the main weak point of this argument. first of all, to build on espii's point, i just don't think this is true. i've tried to do this very thing myself for fun, and the result is not only comically overdone but also just barely 7 stars. to be fair, this particular song has very simple rhythm, leaving me to rely heavily on one difficulty element, but it being incredibly average otherwise is a pretty good demonstration of how "most songs" would lead to an equally silly result imo. i want you to recognize that there's a bit of irony in you using the phrase "easily squeeze out", because if you have to "squeeze out" a 7 star map, it obviously wasn't easy. as a beatmap nominator, i sincerely believe such a stretch of difficulty limits would be recognizable by any capable BN, and that they would not accept such a map in the first place. (this is a particularly bold statement of me to make because i technically could end up proving myself wrong on this with my own map, but we'll see about that)

1. Your map is only 1:30 long which falls outside of the scope of this proposal, and longer maps offer more opportunities for higher difficulty.
2. I really don't think it's comically overdone? It looks fine to me and I could genuinely see it getting ranked without problems nowadays.
3. Oh, there is absolutely no irony in my statement that it's easy to make 7 stars from a large amount of songs, no matter if you have to "squeeze it out" or not. Using higher spacing and denser rhythms isn't difficult after all, some people just don't like it or aren't used to it or are afraid of pushing these limits. But there are examples of ranked maps that prove it's possible and not unreasonable using normal songs, such as beatmapsets/2124151#osu/4518862, beatmapsets/2125152#osu/4466793 or beatmapsets/2034879#osu/4242563.

Kataryn wrote:

but second of all, even if your statement is true, it still doesn't really change anything. my proposal is specifically designed around maps above roughly 7 stars as the exact threshold for "modern difficulties". it is by no coincidence that a 7 star topdiff with 4 progressive difficulties below it would land the set at the exact minimum required difficulty for the corresponding song length to the part of my proposal that adds the language:

*or* there must be 4 progressive difficulties below the highest.

the exact same thing happens with the insane diff requirement. the whole idea behind these proposed additions is that there should be a point in difficulty where you are no longer able to override the current spread requirements, and that that point should roughly correspond with the point in difficulty that you are no longer able to easily force onto almost any song without it being clearly overdone. should i add something to the initial post to clarify that? it seems like people aren't really understanding that core concept, and i want to know why

Well, for the 4:15 - 5:00 range, your idea with having 7+ star maps as cutoff only really works under the assumption that the Insane diff is 5 stars or above, and yes this is often the case, which again proves my claim about difficulty inflation.

Kataryn wrote:

furthermore, i want to point out that when you say "I do believe it's important to preserve all types of difficulties for all song lengths", i think you're trying to fry a much bigger fish than this proposal covers. i'm not sure how literally you meant to say that, but if you mean exactly what you said there, you share a similar sentiment to many people who disagreed with UC's original proposal that created the length-based spread rules we have today. it may be worth just reading through some of the stuff in this thread and seeing where you stand, because there's still genuinely interesting points there, even in a more modern context. you can absolutely feel free to correct me, but from just the things you've already said, it doesn't seem likely to me that your real problem is with this tiny addendum to the rules - it seems like your problem is with the rules in the first place. and that's a conversation for a different thread

I was around when that proposal was made so I'm aware. And yes, my concern is certainly not limited to this specific suggested change, but being against these spread rule changes on a larger scale does not mean I can't find this one problematic too.

okay i'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you, i still don't really understand or agree with most of what you're saying but thank you for at least having a dialogue. i didn't start this thread to argue over technicalities - i really thought this discussion would be mostly about the original problem i presented with the system. it just seems i vastly overestimated the amount of people who care about that problem and are willing to advocate for a solution, and that's on me

This is somewhat similar to an idea I am in favor of, which is taking the lowest required difficulty, the highest difficulty, and making the required spread distribute evenly between them.

For example, 3 min map with 8* top diff? Requires Normal, the original 8* extra, plus a 4* insane and 6* extra. (Star ratings are for the purposes of the example, the rc wouldn't actually require any specific star ratings)

This current proposal seems to suggest completely abandoning the concept of low difficulties, which I'm inclined to agree with Rosario that it is undesirable. Instead, the real problem is the excessive number of difficulties sometimes required to comply with the RC rule of no excessively large jumps in difficulty between diffs.