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

[Rule Change] Star difficulty change

posted
Total Posts
85
show more
Loctav
Popcorn Fairy
4,496 posts
Joined February 2009
Loctav
Have you ever considered that higher BPM is simply harder for beginners?
Anyways, according to Tom, 10 star maps are basically almost impossible, if not impossible to pass (corrrct me if I am wrong, Tom :( )
Nevertheless, I will ask someone to revise the wording of my rule, but we will not move away from the concept of it. You either have the choice to help in wording this or leave this thread. The rule might be readjusted according to star rating behavior, in case it gets slightly changed, but the rule self will stay.

Bubbled. Fix my wording.

Edit: oh yes, what captin1 said seems reasonable. I wonder if it might be suitable to have the easiest difficulty be at least below 2.0 stars. (So if you map a normal only, it must be an easier normal - if you add an Easy, your normal can be harder)

And don't forget: if a difficulty is too hard as Normal or too easy as Hard (I mean: where a Normal is labeled as Hard, even tho it plays like a normal), it's clearly a flaw in the difficulty calculation and can be adjusted by Tom. Whenever a difficulty seems to be incorrectly labeled, it migut offer room for star rating calculation improvement. But for this, we have a thread in General development, opened by Tom. This is the right place to post for this. (I basically repeated those, but he got blatantly ignored)
Flower
1,723 posts
Joined August 2011
Flower
The problem is that old star system was weird... Example is the oldest Can't Defeat Airman (Insane difficulty, Normal icon in old stars). 3 old stars can still be hard for new players, as long as the mapper puts lots of non-break pauses but sometimes intense patterns. Deciding if the lowest diff is easy enough for the beginner is, and will be, a case-to-case problem (if anyone remembers that a lowest diff must be passed by an imouto-chan).
Anyway, I can accept the new limit be 2.5-3, or 2, hence it is clear and easy to be handled. Hope this get passed in a second so I can get my map ranked...
BeatofIke
4,166 posts
Joined September 2011
BeatofIke
The new system seems better, but the star rating standards are TOO HIGH!
Image material 7 stars. REALLY?

I could imagine seeing what a 10 star map would look like. Is it even possible? >.<
Cherry Blossom
3,185 posts
Joined October 2011
Cherry Blossom

BeatofIke wrote:

I could imagine seeing what a 10 star map would look like. Is it even possible? >.<


That's above 10 stars lol

SPOILER

Edit, you can't imagine this

SPOILER
Last edited by Cherry Blossom , edited 1 time in total.
Zare
1,512 posts
Joined March 2012
Zare
@BoI
No
That's the point. By having 10 star maps being pretty much unplayable we have an insurance that ranked maps are not gonna exceed our soft cap of 10 stars at any time.
At the same time it funtions as a reference for mappers and players

When we had 5 stars, we already had playable maps above the limit. Why create a soft cap that has already been broken? (and yes we could probably use 8 stars or something and have the same effect, but that wouldn't look as good :v)
Vuelo Eluko
5,484 posts
Joined October 2013
Vuelo Eluko

Zare wrote:

That's the point. By having 10 star maps being pretty much unplayable we have an insurance that ranked maps are not gonna exceed our soft cap of 10 stars at any time. (in the near future)
people will eventually reach that level.
Zare
1,512 posts
Joined March 2012
Zare
No.
people won't reach a level where they can play 330 BPM 1/4 fullscreen pentagons
Kodora
Kodora

Zare wrote:

No.
people won't reach a level where they can play 310 BPM 1/4 fullscreen pentagons
lol are you sure?

no kidding actually, it really may happens
WingSilent
2,982 posts
Joined August 2012
WingSilent

Cherry Blossom wrote:

you can't imagine this

SPOILER
Well, hum.. i'd consider this as a bug. :o
Loctav
Popcorn Fairy
4,496 posts
Joined February 2009
Loctav
Scheduled discussion end: 23rd June 2014
Chewin
osu! Alumni
4,082 posts
Joined December 2010
Chewin
Mh.. I was thinking something different, if it is possible to apply lol.
Deciding the diff settings of the mapset starting from the BPM of the song and hence derive the star rating from the used setting according to a formula or to a mathematic average. Well, it's a bit hard to explain it so this should make you get the idea:

BPM 100~140

Easy: The map must have only HP: 1~3 OD: 1~3 AR:1~3 CS:1~2 (If they use like 1/1/1/1 the system should automatically set 0.5 star rating, if 2/2/2/2 should set 1.00, if 3/3/3/2 should set 1.50, if 1/2/2/1 should be 0.75 and so on)
Normal: The map must have only HP:3~5 OD: 3~5 AR: 3~5 CS:2~3 (If they use like 3/3/3/2 the system should automatically set 2.00 and so on like I wrote before and being consistent following the same formula)

BPM: 150~190

Easy: The map must have only HP: 2~3 OD: 2~3 AR:2~3 CS: 1~2 (for all low settings as the easy before still 0.5 and so on, I mean this because higher bpms require higher settings to make it easier or it would be hard. For example: a Normal at 190 BPM is easier with AR 5 than AR 3~4)

This is the same for H/I/X till getting the 10 star rating when we can have kinda 10 star for all max settings. (Still considering the used BPM).
Starting from this we can consider rankable only mapsets with ENH or EN or ENHI or NHI or NH or NHI.

Well, it should follow a "math" criteria, kinda.
It's not easy to explain the concept but I hope you got what I wanted to suggest to do.
Loctav
Popcorn Fairy
4,496 posts
Joined February 2009
Loctav
Shouldn't this all be represented by the star difficulty calculation? You still point up flaws in the star difficulty calculation and not in the rule self.
Chewin
osu! Alumni
4,082 posts
Joined December 2010
Chewin
This would include the rule self if applied as I said here:

Starting from this we can consider rankable only mapsets with ENH or EN or ENHI or NHI or NH or NHI.
w/o considering the number of star rating since it has been already considered rankable because of the "logical" star rating formula
Kodora
Kodora

Chewin wrote:

CS:1~2
Isn't 1 is unrankable?

Also i'd personally never suggest making such iron limitations at least for settings - i dislike using huge circle sizes for example.
Kazuya
894 posts
Joined May 2013
Kazuya
Sorry, my english is = 0
----------------------

It's only ideas.
Easy:

AR: 2-3
OD: 1-3
HP: 1-3
CS: 2 or 3

90BPM - 140 BPM :
Slider Velocity: Max 1.20
Distance snap: Max 1.0

141BPM - 170 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 1.00
Distance Snap: max 1.0

170BPM - 200 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.90
Distance Snap: max 1.0

201BPM - 250 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.70
Distance Snap: max 1.2 or 1.4 ?


250 BPM -
Half impossible (?)

Normal:

AR: 4 or 5
OD: 4 or 5
HP: 4 or 5
CS: only 3

90BPM - 140 BPM :
Slider Velocity: Max 1.40
Distance Snap: Max 1.2

141BPM - 170 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 1.20
Distance Snap: max 1.0

170BPM - 200 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 1.00
Distance Snap: max 1.0

201BPM - 250 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.80
Distance Snap: max 1.4

250 BPM -
Half impossible (?)

----------------------------------------------
if the mapset only (N/H/I):
Normal (Easy?):

AR: 4 or 5
OD: 3 or 4
HP: 3 or 4
CS: 2 or 3

90BPM - 140 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 1.20
Distance Snap: max 1.0

141BPM - 170 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.90
Distance Snap: max 1.2

170BPM - 200 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.80
Distance Snap: max 1.2

201BPM - 250 BPM :
Slider velocity: max 0.70
Distance Snap: max 1.2
/me runs.
Chewin
osu! Alumni
4,082 posts
Joined December 2010
Chewin

Kodora wrote:

Also i'd personally never suggest making such iron limitations at least for settings
They are the usual used settings anyways, Kodora. -3-"
DakeDekaane
osu! Alumni
3,500 posts
Joined February 2012
DakeDekaane
A single fixed number would work better than a lots of stuff imo, that way we keep things simple and not confusing.
Aqo
2,710 posts
Joined April 2010
Aqo
putting restrictions is stupid imo, let mappers do what they want and judge things on a per-map basis.

there is nothing to be gained from restricting mapper freedom
Lanturn
osu! Alumni
3,912 posts
Joined March 2012
Lanturn
Setting guidelines of what settings a difficulty should have is better than making it a rule. When a modder/bat looks at it, they should pretty much be able to tell if it is too much for the difficulty. People almost always suggest difficulty setting changes anyways in their mods if they think something is too hard or easy.

I'm refering to the CS/HP/AR/OD/SV etc settings by the way. :P

Also, allow CS0 please
Kodora
Kodora
We already have guidelines for settings on wiki at every diff (for easiest diffs see this and this). They aren't even part of official guidelines, so if some people wants to discuss them then i guess we should make separated topic.

Lanturn wrote:

Also, allow CS0 please
Allow "notepad-only" features please ;w;
Thought i personally don't think that CS0 is really nice idea for any map.
Zare
1,512 posts
Joined March 2012
Zare
Why would anyone enforce restrictions on Diff settings on a certain difficulty? o_O

I like my CS4 Normals kthx.
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Garven
Those tables would be okay for recommendations, but they shouldn't be something set in stone ever. Adjust the settings according to the map.
Ciyus Miapah
3,011 posts
Joined June 2013
Ciyus Miapah
okay, the criteria is fine. then people can use Ar9.5 ;_;
haha5957
1,433 posts
Joined July 2010
haha5957
Just think of a real life law. Law tries to restrict you the minimum to give you freedom, but they are very powerful so that can be virtually never be broken. Setting a harsh, iron law would be really stupid, because the stricter the law is, there will be more situations that law needs to be broken, or everybody agrees that the law should be broken on certain situation (which makes the law feel very weak)


I think something like "Lowest difficulty MUST have 3.5 star or lower, although 2.25 star or below is highly recommended" should inform the mappers that maps are highly encouraged to have 2.25star or below, it will also provide some uber fast BPM maps some exception without breaking the law.


A law should be relatively loose, although guideline can be slightly stricter and applied to most of the case.
those
3,136 posts
Joined November 2010
those

haha5957 wrote:

Just think of a real life law. Law tries to restrict you the minimum to give you freedom, but they are very powerful so that can be virtually never be broken. Setting a harsh, iron law would be really stupid, because the stricter the law is, there will be more situations that law needs to be broken, or everybody agrees that the law should be broken on certain situation (which makes the law feel very weak)


I think something like "Lowest difficulty MUST have 3.5 star or lower, although 2.25 star or below is highly recommended" should inform the mappers that maps are highly encouraged to have 2.25star or below, it will also provide some uber fast BPM maps some exception without breaking the law.


A law should be relatively loose, although guideline can be slightly stricter and applied to most of the case.

Garven wrote:

The point of the low star rating requirement is because high level players can play easier maps. It doesn't go the other way around. End of story. If you want to try writing a new chapter, make a thread about it. This isn't the right place for that line of discussion.
I guess you haven't read this post.
ikzune
159 posts
Joined August 2013
ikzune
each song should be required to create at least one osumania beatmap, probably taiko and ctb also but idk how their autoconverts run, to encourage people to make more proper beatmaps for osumania players and the other modes if they are also having the same stance with autoconverts
haha5957
1,433 posts
Joined July 2010
haha5957

those wrote:

so much pressure

How is this place not to discuss what star rating should be the lowest difficulty?

I expressed my opinion saying 2.25 as highly recommended guideline that should be applied to most maps and 3.5 as ironed restrict so at least lower than average players can play even with those few exceptions that might have been made to extreme mp3s.

someone with different opinion doesnt mean wrong. those.
those
3,136 posts
Joined November 2010
those
Your only discussion is based only on the idea that since something happens on the high end of the spectrum, it should be the same on the low end. You just don't seem to understand or accept that this way of thinking is incorrect, as already pointed out.
haha5957
1,433 posts
Joined July 2010
haha5957
Have you actually read my post? You are just totally misunderstanding, or assuming others' opinion.
Stop "assuming" others' opinion and talk as if you are superior, you are just totally ignorant on the true point why there shouldn't be an ironed, low limit for easiest difficulty.

There IS going to be an exception for sure if you set LOW ironed star diff limit such as 1.8 because crazy songs do exist.

Rule is something that NEVER should be broken at all the time. You don't seem to understand why laws are pretty loose, but customs are little bit stricter than that.

My point is 2.25 should be the highly recommended GUIDELINE since most of songs will have no problem mapping an 2.25 diff or below when 3.5(which is pretty high,I know) can be the ironed rule that shouldn't be broken at all because 3.5 is obviously very high enough for nearly all songs that might currently exist in earth.

I see no opposing opinion on this from your post, if not everyone's in this thread
Garven
osu! Alumni
5,857 posts
Joined January 2010
Garven

haha5957 wrote:

My point is 2.25 should be the highly recommended GUIDELINE since most of songs will have no problem mapping an 2.25 diff or below when 3.5(which is pretty high,I know) can be the ironed rule that shouldn't be broken at all because 3.5 is obviously very high enough for nearly all songs that might currently exist in earth.
Remove the 3.5 (which corresponds to nothing as far as I know. See p/3153892 for the star rating levels for each difficulty) portion and change the 2.25 to the hard line it sounds much more reasonable to me. This rule change is basically updating what we have currently to adjust to the new star system.

Remember: we want maps to be accessible to as many players as possible. Normal level difficulties are the cutoff for this since that level can encompass the higher BPMs but still be easy enough to be grasped by newer players. Your proposition is far too lenient and will result in many poor difficulty spreads that will leave a large portion of the community out of fully enjoying the song.
Flower
1,723 posts
Joined August 2011
Flower
2.25 is always acceptable to me, though I think this is too high. A lot of old star 4-star maps are only 2 new stars.

I have to agree that 1.8 is a very reasonable guideline, but this should not be a hard bar, since a lot of old 3 star maps are above this level. I still insist that 2 stars is fair enough.
ErunamoJAZZ
osu! Alumni
2,693 posts
Joined August 2012
ErunamoJAZZ
2.25 can happen in mapped maps to be easy to play, but with a high BPM.
Also I think it is a reasonable limit to determine if a map is "easy" or not. With the maps I've seen, a higher number that it, I do not think this is easy to play.

Although there is still to know what guideline (respect staring) should follow other game modes (like Ctb).
Kibbleru
osu! Alumni
5,844 posts
Joined August 2013
Kibbleru

Aqo wrote:

putting restrictions is stupid imo, let mappers do what they want and judge things on a per-map basis.

there is nothing to be gained from restricting mapper freedom
I agree, we could just set the difficulty as a GUIDELINE and have a BAT judge the difficulty spread before bubbling/ranking? I mean; that's what they're there for right?.

laishiou wrote:

each song should be required to create at least one osumania beatmap, probably taiko and ctb also but idk how their autoconverts run, to encourage people to make more proper beatmaps for osumania players and the other modes if they are also having the same stance with autoconverts
lol... i don't think this is the right place to discuss this.
Also it takes time for people to learn how to map and play other game modes.. You're asking the impossible out of the mappers :(
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu

Kibbleru wrote:

Aqo wrote:

putting restrictions is stupid imo, let mappers do what they want and judge things on a per-map basis.

there is nothing to be gained from restricting mapper freedom
I agree, we could just set the difficulty as a GUIDELINE and have a BAT judge the difficulty spread before bubbling/ranking? I mean; that's what they're there for right?.
BATs have different opinions and standards, a guideline for this will not work, IMO.
haha5957
1,433 posts
Joined July 2010
haha5957
If you really think you have to make it a ironed rule, I would say 2.25 but I still do think 2.25 needs to be a very strongly encouraged guideline that cannot be broken without really good reason, and somehow 3.75 needs to be a rule that never can be broken at all the time.
DakeDekaane
osu! Alumni
3,500 posts
Joined February 2012
DakeDekaane
3.75 is definitely too high to be the lowest diff, I don't know why you'd want a difficulty marked as Insane for the lowest diff.

I know most of people would go as "oh it's guideline, then I can break it", even if we try to encourage it a lot.
Kibbleru
osu! Alumni
5,844 posts
Joined August 2013
Kibbleru

DakeDekaane wrote:

3.75 is definitely too high to be the lowest diff, I don't know why you'd want a difficulty marked as Insane for the lowest diff.

I know most of people would go as "oh it's guideline, then I can break it", even if we try to encourage it a lot.
that is true lol. they need a new definition of "guideline" to something like

"Do not break this rules unless you have a VERY good reason to"

2.25 works for me though.
Tari
osu! Alumni
1,671 posts
Joined July 2012
Tari
Why guideline? this obviously should be a define rule since we all don't interpret "easy" or "normal" the same way.

and 2,25 is nice :)
captin1
osu! Alumni
2,595 posts
Joined February 2011
captin1
for the lowest diff in a set? I think 2.25 is too high, that'd put it at the peak of normal where it's very nearly a hard. Plus, mapping a fitting easy that sits below the 2.0 mark for a high bpm map is not as hard as people make it out to be.

Easy maps are there for a reason, for the beginners or very casual players to enjoy the songs they want. They're not for us, and as such we forget that and disregard them
KSHR
Global Moderator
1,668 posts
Joined July 2010
KSHR

captin1 wrote:

for the lowest diff in a set? I think 2.25 is too high, that'd put it at the peak of normal where it's very nearly a hard. Plus, mapping a fitting easy that sits below the 2.0 mark for a high bpm map is not as hard as people make it out to be.

Easy maps are there for a reason, for the beginners or very casual players to enjoy the songs they want. They're not for us, and as such we forget that and disregard them
I mainly map lower difficulties (Easy and Normal) as some of you know, but totally agree with captin1. 2.25 is a bit too high, not friendly for beginners. 2.00 which is almost same as 3.00 in the previous star rating system should be enough in my opinion.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
36 / 85