Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Rule] Same song can be qualified after 7 days the other is

posted
Total Posts
23
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea
I don't see this rule yet here https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Ranking_criteria.

I think it would be better to add that as well here, to avoid confusion to mappers and everyone, since this is still happening, because some BATs just doesn't remember it or because mappers aren't fully aware, because this isn't actually written anywhere.

Also I was wondering, since there's qualified maps now, if for example the first mapset gets disqualified during these 7 days and the second mapset which is waiting the famous 7 days for the first mapset to be ranked, what should we do in such circumstances? That's what I'm also wondering.

More discussions about this would be really helpful for everyone, please post your thoughts about it here.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl
I don't think the community would want so much of the same song being pushed onto them so I'd probably say that they should wait until the qualification period ends. Regarding disqualification however, I'd also say the same thing, because when the maps are qualified again you're pushing the same stuff back onto them. What if two mapsets of the same song get disqualified then qualified again? The crowd might be sick of it since you're looking at so many different mapped versions of what essentially is the same song.

EDIT: It's like listening to a song you think is catchy 100 times over which then becomes really annoying and you dislike the song.
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea
I agree for that but the thing that confuses me is that if the first mapset gets disqualified during the 7 days, could the second mapset of the same song get qualified meanwhile? This isn't written or ever been discussed before, that's why I would like to discuss about that on this thread.

Waiting 7 days for each map of the same song it's actually okay, but since they could be disqualified anytime, should the priority still go to the first mapset or the priority gets reset to both maps in that case? I hope I've been clear. :P
Gero
4,456 posts
Joined March 2012
Gero
I also agree with you, it really is not fair is to wait 7 days to another map with the same song to get rank, this rule in my opinion is a bit unnecessary, really if the map is ready to be qualified why have to wait?
Last edited by Gero , edited 1 time in total.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl
Oh I see what you mean. I'd say that there should still be a short delay between one mapset being DQ'd and the other one being Q'd. It's still the same scenario pretty much (just with a different mapper + style) so I'd probably say there should also be a delay between them in this case.

tl;dr: priority should be geared towards first qualified map slightly, maybe one or two extra days depending on how long the map has been qualified for?
Last edited by Dainesl , edited 1 time in total.
rEdo
809 posts
Joined November 2008
rEdo
The only way this rule could make any sense is this situation:

Let's say, there's some generic anime song that got popular recently because it's an opening theme of some japanese cartoon. A beginner mapper, let's say pippimonster96 gets his mapset ranked first, and then a popular mapper like xXxAnDrEaPRO69xXx has to wait a week. Okay, this makes sense, because both maps will get their deserved attention. If the popular's mapper mapset were to get ranked the same day, it obviously would outshine the beginner's one.

However, this is the only way that rule makes sense. What if a beginner's mapset ends up getting ranked with flaws that requires further modifications? Why would the other mapset have to wait even more? That's nonsense. I don't see any point in waiting a whole week just so a certain amount of time passes by, except for the one stated above. If people think the mapset's ready, just get it going and allow people to play it, what the heck.
Last edited by rEdo , edited 1 time in total.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl
Then again you're getting the same package, just painted differently. Same song, different map, same package with a different coat of paint (if that works as an analogy).

The maps wouldn't be seen as nice as they deserve to be because general opinion is that if the song's bad (which it can be if listened to over and over) then the map's bad

Also sorry for so much editing but I keep thinking of new things to add, and I'm sticking to this rule because like I said people don't want to listen to a song or play a similar map over and over because it'll get really repetitive really quick.
Last edited by Dainesl , edited 1 time in total.
rEdo
809 posts
Joined November 2008
rEdo

Dainesl wrote:

Then again you're getting the same package, just painted differently. Same song, different map, same package with a different coat of paint (if that works as an analogy)
It's not what the customers want, it's what the providers give. Remember that fun comes from both sides - playing and mapping. Getting maps ranked and watching people play them is fun, why would a silly rule spoil that for both sides?

Dainesl wrote:

The maps wouldn't be seen as nice as they deserve to be because general opinion is that if the song's bad (which it can be if listened to over and over) then the map's bad

Also sorry for so much editing but I keep thinking of new things to add, and I'm sticking to this rule because like I said people don't want to listen to a song or play a similar map over and over because it'll get really repetitive really quick.
No problem, I'm doing that myself as well, as you can see. If somebody likes the song, he will check both of the mapsets, that's at least what I believe. We aren't forcing people to play the song just because it got ranked. If the map's good, they will come back to it eventually.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl

rEdo wrote:

It's not what the customers want, it's what the providers give. Remember that fun comes from both sides - playing and mapping. Getting maps ranked and watching people play them is fun. If somebody likes the song, he will check both of the mapsets, that's at least what I believe.
Well yes, as a person who does check the Qualified list constantly I will agree in saying that people will check out whatever's on offer but if it's not to their fancy (which can be influenced by the style of the song and how many maps of that song come out) then they won't play it. I will agree on your "give beginner players more attention" point but I'm still sticking to this rule, apologies if I sound like the most broken of records atm :P
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea
Well yeah, rEdo actually said something similiar of what I wanted to say.

I'm fine with the 7 days itself but if first mapset gets disqualified what happens then? Second mapset can go qualified? This is a rather confusing thing.

Or should second mapset wait for first mapset once again to be qualified, which means waiting 7 days once again? None ever thought about this before.

Sorry for explaining this again, but I'm trying different examples to make it clear for everyone to understand.

Anyways I have in mind that if the first mapset gets disqualified we should count how long it was qualified (for example it was qualified for 5 days before the unqualify), then the second mapset should wait 2 more days, without depending anymore on first mapset's status or something like that.

It's like, every 7 days the same song could be qualified, without following the other mapset's status, qualified or not.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl

Andrea wrote:

It's like, every 7 days the same song could be qualified, without following the other mapset's status, qualified or not.
Well I suppose that could work seeing how the hype would have died down a bit from its initial qualification

But the thing is that if the first mapset gets DQ'd then the second mapset makes it to ranking, the standards of mapping for that song will become much higher so the beginner mapper will have a harder time getting his map qualified due to the prior standards. I'm not sure how my point would work the other way round though...
Last edited by Dainesl , edited 1 time in total.
rEdo
809 posts
Joined November 2008
rEdo
Oh, another great example:

pippimonster96: Christmas time. It's time to get some Christmas songs ranked, yaaay! Oh damn, I've been working on that map since October, and that famous mapper got his week-old mapset ranked before me JESUS CHRIST WHY SHOULD I WAIT THIS MAP'S BUBBLED ALREADY JHASIOFVJAWEIOGHAWEIOGHAW

No, seriously. This rule is baloney in most of the ways you can think of.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl

rEdo wrote:

Oh, another great example:

pippimonster96: Christmas time. It's time to get some Christmas songs ranked, yaaay! Oh damn, I've been working on that map since October, and that famous mapper got his week-old mapset ranked before me JESUS CHRIST WHY SHOULD I WAIT THIS MAP'S BUBBLED ALREADY JHASIOFVJAWEIOGHAWEIOGHAW
But that would mean, like I said, the standards for that song would become much higher so he'd have to wait even longer because his map might not meet the current standards, which actually you're right this rule is like a double-edged sword; better for newer mappers if the famous map is unqualified since the beginner's map will be more closely inspected and thus reach a higher standard but if the famous mapper qualified first then ranks it then the standards are a lot higher so it'll be even more closely inspected and take way too long to re-qualify
Last edited by Dainesl , edited 1 time in total.
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea
That's also another example to take note of, since the map's age isn't really counted here.

But then, the 7 days rule would still be applied here I guess, which would be suffering indeed for who made the map since long time and still waiting.
rEdo
809 posts
Joined November 2008
rEdo

Dainesl wrote:

(...) so he'd have to wait even longer because his map might not meet the current standards

pippimonster96 wrote:

THIS MAP'S BUBBLED ALREADY JHASIOFVJAWEIOGHAWEIOGHAW
I doubt huge changes would occur a week after one's map got bubbled, to be fairly honest.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl
Well yeah it's a relatively short period but some maps that become controversial may end up having this big change process anyways so idk.

If the main priority is to re-qualify as quickly as possible then this rule imo should not really be here since it'll cause unnecessary waiting times.
If the main priority is to closely inspect for quality then the mapset should wait a week or two to have a chance to be re-qualified since it'll have more time to be given some proper caring

therefore it comes down to what the main priority of an unqualified map is in a way, kinda?

In terms of the other map it may also need to be re-inspected because we need to make absolutely sure that we don't make the same mistake twice so if map 1 got unqualified then map 2 may have to wait a bit more since it'll need to be kept up to standards
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea
Well anyway, in the end my suggestion is to qualify the same song every 7 days, without following if during this time the first mapset gets disqualified or not, so the waiting time will always stay 7 days for each mapset and that won't change.
Dainesl
898 posts
Joined May 2012
Dainesl
Well it's not like the same song is mapped a ton in a short time anyways so...
KSHR
osu! Alumni
1,668 posts
Joined July 2010
KSHR

Andrea wrote:

Well anyway, in the end my suggestion is to qualify the same song every 7 days, without following if during this time the first mapset gets disqualified or not, so the waiting time will always stay 7 days for each mapset and that won't change.
I totally agree with you, Andrea. It's not that good to keep mappers waiting longer than necessary.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,558 posts
Joined March 2009
CXu
What's the purpose of this rule in the first place?
I mean, in the end you're stilling going to have 2 maps of the same song, and people will play/not play both regardless of if it was ranked 1 week earlier or 1 week later.

I'm just wondering.
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Topic Starter
Andrea

CXu wrote:

What's the purpose of this rule in the first place?
I mean, in the end you're stilling going to have 2 maps of the same song, and people will play/not play both regardless of if it was ranked 1 week earlier or 1 week later.

I'm just wondering.
I completely agree with this, I'm not sure about it either to be honest.

I guess it's to prevent from having the same song twice or more on most played section.
neonat
Beatmap Nominator
3,535 posts
Joined April 2012
neonat

CXu wrote:

What's the purpose of this rule in the first place?
I mean, in the end you're stilling going to have 2 maps of the same song, and people will play/not play both regardless of if it was ranked 1 week earlier or 1 week later.

I'm just wondering.
Diversity of ranked each week? I think
Imagine a whole week where only 1-3 artists' songs are ranked. (just a far-fetched idea but the point is there)
dkun
osu! Alumni
4,486 posts
Joined August 2009
dkun
this

Andrea and I have discussed this! Should be okay.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 23