forum

[invalid] [Proposal] osu!mania - Further Lowering Drain Time Requirements

posted
Total Posts
17
Topic Starter
Some1SomeWhere
Intro
Hello,

I believe the drain time requirements in the ranking criteria, which force a minimum set size or maximum difficulty based on the length of the song mapped, are too strict. We should lower these restrictions as to promote and encourage more mappers into taking the plunge for ranking their maps.

Recent efforts to lower the drain time have been undertaken, and we have recently and successfully lowered the requirement for single-difficulty sets from 4:00 to 3:30; However, we should move the requirements even further down in an effort to open up the ranked section even further.

Lowering the drain time requirements tackles a few issues:
  1. Beatmap “Set” culture isn’t as prolific in other games as it is in osu!mania. While sets can help newer players find songs they like at a level they enjoy, entirely blocking maps below a certain threshold has made it increasingly hard for veterans, visitors from other games, or our own up-and-coming mappers to rank the songs they want in the styles they want. Lowering the restrictions on drain time even further makes it easier for mappers to rank their maps, and showcase their ideas to the world.
  2. As an extension to the point above, this allows mappers from other games to more easily rank single-difficulty maps from their own game (namely Etterna, StepMania, Quaver).
  3. Maps combining two songs where neither song on their own would be long enough to pass the criteria are now eligible for rank without lengthening the map to make a “Compilation” instead.
Forcing mappers to make a set, especially when a map’s style could be needlessly difficult to scale down or up for, limits the amount and diversity of maps coming into the ranked section. Lowering the requirements on this front promotes the creativity of all mapping styles, without the hassle of having to make your ideas less potent or more awkward to fit a requirement.

-

Proposal
My proposal for the change to the ranking criteria is thus.

Current
If the drain time of any difficulty is...
...lower than 2:00, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Normal or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 4 difficulties.
...between 2:00 and 2:45, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Hard or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 3 difficulties.
...between 2:45 and 3:30, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Insane or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 2 difficulties.

Proposed Changes
If the drain time of any difficulty is...
...lower than 1:30, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Normal or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 4 difficulties.
...between 1:30 and 2:00, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Hard or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 3 difficulties.
...between 2:00 and 2:30, each key mode and playstyle must either include a difficulty at Insane or lower, or provide a proper spread containing at least 2 difficulties.
Ryu Sei
Personally, I don't want to promote osu!mania as an "alien-only" game with loads of high difficulty maps I can't even play. We need more low difficulty, so new players can enjoy the game too. Also, for showcasing map ideas, especially for ranked doesn't mean you can wiggle out your way to further lower drain time requirement. I think current RC is already good enough, and if the issue is the spread, then mappers can collaborate to create a set that satisfies RC; doesn't need to span from Normal to Expert+, since you can map a set with proper spread instead.

My time is already done in mapping, but I feel this isn't a good idea for both players and mappers.
Ihram
Disagree, the current drain time are already enough. If we keep decrease the drain time from RC more and more, there's some bad ways like people will push making anime TV size for ranked and unmotivated making the hardest one or something similar will happened and it'll make mapping quality down terrible.
Topic Starter
Some1SomeWhere

Ryu Sei wrote:

Personally, I don't want to promote osu!mania as an "alien-only" game with loads of high difficulty maps I can't even play. We need more low difficulty, so new players can enjoy the game too. Also, for showcasing map ideas, especially for ranked doesn't mean you can wiggle out your way to further lower drain time requirement. I think current RC is already good enough, and if the issue is the spread, then mappers can collaborate to create a set that satisfies RC; doesn't need to span from Normal to Expert+, since you can map a set with proper spread instead.

My time is already done in mapping, but I feel this isn't a good idea for both players and mappers.
I hear your concerns, although I would like to remind you that this isn't a change to completely rule out low-difficulty mapping; this change is an attempt to further ease the ranked section into a state where people feel more comfortable pushing the weird stuff they make for ranked. Sets are an important part of the game, but relieving restrictions so the game isn't as reliant on them isn't a bad idea, nor will it doom the state of the ranked section to one where only "aliens" are enjoying anything anymore.

Not all single-diff maps are super hard, either! Again, this change isn't wholly to push solely hard things to ranked, it's to make it easier to take a dive into ranking your map, which I know is something not everyone is comfortable with.

Ihram wrote:

Disagree, the current drain time are already enough. If we keep decrease the drain time from RC more and more, there's some bad ways like people will push making anime TV size for ranked and unmotivated making the hardest one or something similar will happened and it'll make mapping quality down terrible.
(had to edit this one in, oops)

Sorry if this sounds a little rude or pretentious, but as a BN yourself, isn't it your and your team's job to stop that from happening? I know you can't dictate the actions of the rest of the BNG, but to my understanding, the RC dictates simply the minimum requirements for getting a map ranked, not the quality as to which it should be upheld. Changing this RC rule shouldn't make the maps you get sent any worse. If you don't want to rank maps under this threshold because you feel it's lowering the quality of the ranked section, so be it, that's your choice as a BN - but saying that making the RC less restrictive will make people want to make their maps less interesting seems odd

I would also like to point out the difference between mapping because you want to and mapping because you have to; there's a reason a lot of people's advice for new mappers wanting to get a map into ranked is "don't map for ranked"; it's demoralizing to constantly have to change what you made because other people feel it doesn't make any sense. While this doesn't fully transfer over into mapping sets, it does show the mentality we give people when trying to get something they made past the BNs. We shouldn't have to force everyone into mapping a set for something they don't want to map a set for; it's not fun, for a lot of people.

GDs are an option in this case, but not everyone is able to acquire a GD for a set they're trying to rank (especially if the style is weirder or they have a specific idea they can't get across to GD members), nor do they want to have to go through the process of working with potentially conflicting schedules or whatnot of other mappers
Maxus
To give my overview as someone who's actively nominating maps and involved deeply in mapping/modding scene, Ranking map has become significantly easier and we already have multiple reductions in drain time lowered by significant amount compared with before.

All the issues you mentioned have already been addressed through multiple prior adjustments to drain time, and there’s been a significant amount of increase in the number of maps being ranked compared to before. Based on my long-term involvement in the process, i personally think we already reach the optimal amount of drain time that balanced for both world. (As one of the more active nominator, I myself receive an overwhelming number of BN requests, the sentiment echoed by a lot of BNs that i talked with.)

Given the previous point i mentioned, i failed to see what this proposal exactly try to address and whether this has extra benefit that might not yet been mentioned from previous discussion (and relevantly big enough to benefit people.) If this only serves to cater small amount of people, i would be more inclined to disagree with this proposal.

I don't want to trivialize constantly reducing the spread requirement (which we just did like 9 months ago), so i urged us together to really think about this properly.
Topic Starter
Some1SomeWhere

Maxus wrote:

To give my overview as someone who's actively nominating maps and involved deeply in mapping/modding scene, Ranking maps has become significantly easier and we already have multiple reductions in drain time lowered by significant amount compared with before.

All the issues you mentioned have already been addressed through multiple prior adjustments to drain time, and there’s been a significant amount of increase in the number of maps being ranked compared to before. Based on my long-term involvement in the process, i personally think we already reach the optimal amount of drain time that balanced for both world. (As one of the more active nominator, I myself receive an overwhelming number of BN requests, the sentiment echoed by a lot of BNs that i talked with.)

Given the previous point i mentioned, i failed to see what this proposal exactly try to address and whether this has extra benefit that might not yet been mentioned from previous discussion (and relevantly big enough to benefit people.) If this only serves to cater small amount of people, i would be more inclined to disagree with this proposal.

I don't want to trivialize constantly reducing the spread requirement (which we just did like 9 months ago), so i urged us together to really think about this properly.
I'll see if I can tackle a few points from here.

I'm happy that you feel that the 3:30 mark is a good, optimal point for the single-diff cutoff, because to a certain extent I feel the same. The amount of activity and spirit the change has made in the mapping community is astonishing, and I haven't even been here for that long all things considered, at least not compared to you or other nominators.

That being said, we should try to go further. Trivializing the change is not what I am trying to do; I do believe that these proposed changes are likely as far as we could go, as bad things will likely start to occur in the realm of quality concerns past this point (especially below the 2 minute mark for 2-diff restrictions, since that's around the point where we would start seeing the 4-diff limit become redundant). My thought here is that we should at least try to push this rule a little further in terms of drain time, purely BECAUSE of the successes we've seen with the reduction 9 months ago, and not in spite of it.

As for commenting on the BNG's workload, I really shouldn't cause as I write this I keep realizing how much I sound like an asshole since I'm not a BN so I'll... maybe do some personal thinking on that matter. Thank you for all the work you guys do <3
RandomeLoL
Despite having been a supporter of both previous times spread requirements were relaxed, I fail to see why this change in particular is necessary at this point in time.

It gives off the vibe of "Giving an inch, taking a mile".

The previous changes had a purpose behind it. Not just a reduction on thresholds for the sake of it. Moreover, I'd argue this is the healthiest the game has ever been variety-wise. If anything, there are not enough BNs to meet the mappers' demands.

While I agree spreads are something new to many people coming from other VSRGs, they are not insurmountable. We cannot just let go of them, which this proposal is eerily close to achieving with its proposed thresholds.

From my experience, the people who came from other games who do want to get their sets ranked have already been able to do so for a long while. Moreover, in case they need help with spreads, BNs and other mappers have consistently provided aid when needed.

While this was a problem in the past, I fail to see how it is now as the OP post doesn't really delve into the problem other than "spread bad" (I'm overly simplifying it, but you get the gist of it).
staynoidedd
the drain time requirements already encourage newer mappers to give ranking a map a try already, further opening up the ranked section is kind of pointless when its already so open.

many people have gotten their first ranked maps out, and we see newer and newer faces on the ranked section every day, so i don't see how lowering the drain time even more will solve any of the points you made, which are either too small to really count as an issue, or quite frankly, empty in volume.

the challenge of making a spread should not be undersold, as well. making a spread while it can be boring to more experienced mappers, can digest it, and newer mappers can always grab gds or have fun making their own difficulties. i actually think more spreads in mania would be a much cooler and in my opinion needed change to the ranked section nowadays.

to quote one of your replies "My thought here is that we should at least try to push this rule a little further in terms of drain time, purely BECAUSE of the successes we've seen with the reduction 9 months ago, and not in spite of it." i dont think its wise to take a "because its worked before, lets continue" approach, thats too risky and spontaneous to implement 'because we can'.
-mint-
ever since my maps started getting a lot of traction in the game ive been paying attention to metrics like playcount/favecount and noticing patterns regarding what kinds of sets get the most attention. generally, the more lower diffs, the higher the playcount (there are a lot of caveats here obviously but i dont really think its the time to get into it). im notoriously lazy with ranking stuff and im also almost exclusively a "higher diff" mapper (in the sense that id say 99% of my output for this game comes in the form of maps that are considered X diff or higher) so theres a tradeoff that i always have to deal with: rank smth with fewer difficulties and thus making the set less accessible resulting in a substantially low playcount, or rank smth with more difficulties and getting higher playcount while at the same time increasing the workload/effort going into the set. with the 2:30/3:15/4:00 drain time rule, i felt that the amount that i had to do for ranked was reasonable. with the current 2:00/2:45/3:30 rule, i actually feel the impulse to map more difficulties than required more often than not. i think pushing it any further down only appeals to -- no offense -- people who think ranking should come with minimal effort or friction. and to that, i object.
Spy
Your intentions are good, but overall, it's starting to feel a bit excessive.
Let me explain why:

First of all, it's understandable that you want to lower the barrier so more people can enjoy the fun of ranking maps.
However, as things currently stand with the RC, many people feel it's already sufficient.
The reason why Ryu Sei mentioned not wanting the game to feel like it's only for "aliens" is precisely because with the recent reduction in drain time, more people are leaning towards creating only X-difficulty maps, resulting in even fewer lower difficulties than before.

That’s not necessarily a problem in itself, since each difficulty has its own group of players.
Even though the current distribution of difficulties is slightly unbalanced, it’s still within an acceptable range.

But if we lower the standards further, people will tend to only make a single difficulty. For example, a 2:30 song might end up with only an Insane, and a 2:31 song might only have an Expert.
You might say, “How is that possible? Not everyone is like that.”
But under the current RC, this is exactly what’s happening right now.
I don’t believe that’s the outcome anyone hopes to see.

Mapping is a process where we enjoy expressing our creativity, and through that process, we gradually improve on our ideas.
Under the current modding v2 system, many people are not improving their maps through feedback. Instead, they’re moving toward a low-effort, high-reward mindset.
It’s like someone spending just 3 to 6 hours casually making a map, uploading it, and immediately requesting BN.
And this proposal would simply reduce that 3 to 6 hours down to 1 to 2 hours.

Does it lower the barrier for new mappers to get involved? Yes, it does.
But at the same time, many existing mappers would also be affected, leading them to create fewer difficulties and invest less effort into their maps.
As a result, this would increase the pressure on BNs, since more people would adopt this approach, forcing BNs to constantly spend time trying to "fix" maps with uneven quality.

Mapping is a really fun activity, but at the same time, let’s not forget that it’s something that typically requires high effort for high reward.
Even if we lower the entry threshold, players and mappers alike can still clearly tell who truly put effort into their maps and who didn’t.

That being said, we still hope that the current issues won’t be made worse through other means.
Pyra-san
Just my very personal subjective short opinion, current drain time requirements are already low. It may have a not good effect for the ranking section in my thinking. Well me personally as a mapper (and BN) that always map (and prefer check) a spread even though it's a marathon actually kinda not effected to this if it's actually lowered more tho.
Rurvker
My thought isn't changed that I wrote at same issue 9 month ago. For context, I wasn't BN in that era.

I think OP'er is misleading ranking process, lowering their spread rule doesn't increase your chance to accept only reason for "low effort = both win".

Also I don't think the current RC is stabilized and too early to say declaring relaxing spread rule was success.
Niks
mania mode are getting preferential treatment that needs no further mitigation.
snomi
I love you s1sw but I think you need to be banned from the kitchen, previous reworks of this cooked but I think despite lowering the time on rc you put the food in the oven longer and burnt it

(less whimsically: disagree, I think this is reaching too low of time and excessive)
Kurisu Makise
At this point you could just propose removing spread requirements.

2:30 is not a marathon length, most songs of that length simply don't provide enough material to make a proper marathon map (unique, rich in patterns, hard to embed into a mapset).
Topic Starter
Some1SomeWhere
After some reflection, yeah I don't think I can keep defending my point here lmao

At best, I should've waited much longer before suggesting anything along these lines cause there is literally no reason apart from personal/perceived unrest in the mapping community, especially since the recent changes improved most of what I saw as issues anyways
And worst, my belief in the need for this change was mostly if not entirely unfounded.

As it stands I'm not interested in pushing the change anymore, the post was to test the waters and see how people felt after a small discussion I had elsewhere; realistically I should have given it more thought beforehand :3

Not sure as to the procedure after this but I could just delete the thread nevermind no I can't, this moves to the "denied" section in that one category I think
RandomeLoL
Moving to "Denied"
Please sign in to reply.

New reply