First of all, this is more of an opinion piece and it might me more appropriate that I raise this issue as a matter of ranking criteria. My suggestion may also be contentious, but I say the following from a very experienced standpoint as somebody with a lot of experience in making even and fair difficulty spreads.
Ever since ppv2 was launched, the star rating system has become a lot more accurate and meticulous--if anything, I'm happy with how this in itself is calculated. However, I find the current score definitions to be far too limiting. For me, the biggest issue is that they don't seem to allow for mapsets which have a high overall tier. By this, I mean that if I were to map a harder insane, I would map a harder easy, normal and hard, but I'd keep them well within the boundaries of what we'd expect from each difficulty (no successive 1/2 in easy, not too much 1/2 in normal, very few/no streams in hard, ample space within each difficulty).
Even then, I have found that my own difficulties (e.g. in Teardrop), which do fall well within their limits, will still exceed the current limitations for each difficulty. While I realise that factors such as slider velocity and spacing will ramp up the star rating, I personally mitigate their effects by using larger circles and only using spacing increases where there's lots of breathing room, such that I consider them to be very readable and playable.
The gist is that I think the value boundaries should be modified in order to better allow for flexibility within a spread, or otherwise suggest to mappers that easy and normal do not need to be tedious and so ridiculously basic that mappers find them boring to create. I was also horrified to find that, in my JoJo map, a map which clearly plays as an insane has been marked as a hard (and a pretty clear-cut easy is marked as normal). Given its raw star rating, it is obviously a fringe case, but I think that its rating and playability are fair indicators that it's a light insane.
Currently, star rating is divided as such:
Below 1.5: Easy
Below 2.25: Normal
Below 3.75: Hard
Below 5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
I strongly implore that something like the following would encourage more expressive spreads, while instantly making the web icons reflect their difficulties more accurately:
Below 1.75/2: Easy
Below 2.5/2.75: Normal
Below 3.5: Hard (take this one with a pinch of salt)
Below 5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
Please note that I'm more bothered about easy and normal, and that I'm not simply ballparking those figures in order to encompass my own maps. I've considered the above suggestions based on how much room they might realistically allow for a variety of good spreads. Moreover, from my observations, shorter maps will have relatively higher star ratings, because of the shorter amount of time that's incorporated into calculations.
Also, while 0-2 stars for easy might seem disproportionately large, I feel it's important to note that there are beginner difficulties which would register below 1.5. Currently, the categories imply that we should have a basic beginner difficulty, a low-tier normal, some flexibility with hard and a mid- to high-tier insane. If we are to have a visual system that means anything (not to mention, suggestions in the ranking criteria), then we shouldn't be encouraging a lack of balance within spreads.
This is a concern that I've expressed ever since the change in star rating, but I've never really known how to put it into clear, concise writing. If my particular concerns aren't clear enough, or if this is the wrong subforum to, then please help me to get somewhere with this. This also came out a lot more wordy than intended (as usual), but I've hopefully outlined my concerns enough.
Ever since ppv2 was launched, the star rating system has become a lot more accurate and meticulous--if anything, I'm happy with how this in itself is calculated. However, I find the current score definitions to be far too limiting. For me, the biggest issue is that they don't seem to allow for mapsets which have a high overall tier. By this, I mean that if I were to map a harder insane, I would map a harder easy, normal and hard, but I'd keep them well within the boundaries of what we'd expect from each difficulty (no successive 1/2 in easy, not too much 1/2 in normal, very few/no streams in hard, ample space within each difficulty).
Even then, I have found that my own difficulties (e.g. in Teardrop), which do fall well within their limits, will still exceed the current limitations for each difficulty. While I realise that factors such as slider velocity and spacing will ramp up the star rating, I personally mitigate their effects by using larger circles and only using spacing increases where there's lots of breathing room, such that I consider them to be very readable and playable.
The gist is that I think the value boundaries should be modified in order to better allow for flexibility within a spread, or otherwise suggest to mappers that easy and normal do not need to be tedious and so ridiculously basic that mappers find them boring to create. I was also horrified to find that, in my JoJo map, a map which clearly plays as an insane has been marked as a hard (and a pretty clear-cut easy is marked as normal). Given its raw star rating, it is obviously a fringe case, but I think that its rating and playability are fair indicators that it's a light insane.
Currently, star rating is divided as such:
Below 1.5: Easy
Below 2.25: Normal
Below 3.75: Hard
Below 5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
I strongly implore that something like the following would encourage more expressive spreads, while instantly making the web icons reflect their difficulties more accurately:
Below 1.75/2: Easy
Below 2.5/2.75: Normal
Below 3.5: Hard (take this one with a pinch of salt)
Below 5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
Please note that I'm more bothered about easy and normal, and that I'm not simply ballparking those figures in order to encompass my own maps. I've considered the above suggestions based on how much room they might realistically allow for a variety of good spreads. Moreover, from my observations, shorter maps will have relatively higher star ratings, because of the shorter amount of time that's incorporated into calculations.
Also, while 0-2 stars for easy might seem disproportionately large, I feel it's important to note that there are beginner difficulties which would register below 1.5. Currently, the categories imply that we should have a basic beginner difficulty, a low-tier normal, some flexibility with hard and a mid- to high-tier insane. If we are to have a visual system that means anything (not to mention, suggestions in the ranking criteria), then we shouldn't be encouraging a lack of balance within spreads.
This is a concern that I've expressed ever since the change in star rating, but I've never really known how to put it into clear, concise writing. If my particular concerns aren't clear enough, or if this is the wrong subforum to, then please help me to get somewhere with this. This also came out a lot more wordy than intended (as usual), but I've hopefully outlined my concerns enough.