forum

[Rule Change] Change the star rating boundaries

posted
Total Posts
16
Topic Starter
D33d
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.
TheVileOne
There's always going to be inconsistencies. Why did you post this here instead of in Ranking Criteria?
Topic Starter
D33d
I'd initially considered the fact that the listing's discrepancies were something of a bug in themselves. However, since somebody moved this thread, that's saved me the trouble of copypasting it here, so I can just bump it with this post and see what people think. It would never have bothered me in the first place, but since plenty of maps are being ranked with inaccurate graphics (NNHI, NNNH, NHHH etc), it tells me that the figures just aren't working.

Given that sets are being ranked, it implies that the diffs are generally being approached correctly. My own observations support this. If it can be agreed that the star boundaries are too restrictive, then it should be easy enough to change these and thus make the listings show the correct icons. Otherwise, we might as well ditch the icons if "there's always going to be inconsistencies" is the only argument against my suggestion.

If it's really a case that spreads are fundamentally broken, then it's a game-wide mapping issue that needs more thorough discussion. Personally, I feel like there's too much in the calculation system that can bump up a map's star rating from a technical perspective, but doesn't reflect the gameplay itself. This is why I think that simply raising some numbers and/or lowering others would be the most accommodating fix, because then we'd have the flexibility that I want to see in regards to both the rules themselves and the web icons.
Bara-
YES PLEASE
Normal borders are way to strict
I'd say keep hard as it is, same as easy, but up normal a little
Neil Watts
The song BPM also have a big impact on the star rating.
A Hard difficulty on a 70-bpm song can have a SR of 2 and hardly reach 3 (https://osu.ppy.sh/b/445436&m=0), unlike an Easy diff on a 200-bpm song can reach 1.5-2 stars quickly, and even increase to 2.5 (https://osu.ppy.sh/b/251243&m=0).

This rule should depend on the BPM imo, but the boundaries may be hard to define.
Topic Starter
D33d

Neil Watts wrote:

The song BPM also have a big impact on the star rating.
A Hard difficulty on a 70-bpm song can have a SR of 2 and hardly reach 3 (https://osu.ppy.sh/b/445436&m=0), unlike an Easy diff on a 200-bpm song can reach 1.5-2 stars quickly, and even increase to 2.5 (https://osu.ppy.sh/b/251243&m=0).

This rule should depend on the BPM imo, but the boundaries may be hard to define.
It is indeed about note density. Since more intense songs will invariably sound more dense and thus have a higher overall tier, that seems to me like another reason for having more flexible boundaries.
Ciyus Miapah
i agree with this

i always make easy maps with almost 1.7~ star rating
Kibbleru
easy part definitely needs some changing, most easies i make are rated normal.

normal i think it's somewhat okay but raising it to something like 2.3 or 2.4 wouldn't hurt.

hard is fine as it is. many hards go above 3.5 when its like 190 bpm
Factorial
Most recently ranked easy mapsets are mapped with mostly 1/1 and a few of 2/1 beats.

What would a 100pp user with 500 plays feels about this?
Kazuya
Easy != Normal, Normal != Hard, Hard != Insane ...

Don't need to more weighting. The most of normals difficulties (especially the fast songs) is extremely hard, and some high BPMs hard is almost equal to insane... Too much 1/2 objects (Continously circles, sliders) very difficult. Please, use less 1/2 object, low distance snap, and low slider velocity. Problem solved.
Zero__wind
the 2.25-star limit for Normal is really unfitting, it's just so ballanced even if you only look at these numbers
it'd be really nice if that could be raised to 2.5 ~ 2.75
Ayachi-
I think current is fine
Factorial
This one will be better:

Below 1: Beginner
Below 1.5: Easy
Below 2.25: Normal
Below 3.75: Hard
Below 5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert


Now there will be a gap on Easy

Also, avoid using over than 2.0x jumps on Hard (as the Distance Snapping allows)
xxdeathx
I've said this a few times in #modhelp, but I feel the best boundaries are:

Easy: below 1.75
Normal: 1.75 to 2.5
Hard: 2.5 to 3.5
Insane: 3.5 to 5.0
Expert: over 5.0


The reasoning for this is that almost every easy difficulty over 175 bpm that's mapped in mostly 1/1 rhythm (which is quite common) will overshoot the current 1.5 boundary, and by even more depending on how big the spacing or bpm is. 190+ doesn't have much of a chance at staying under 1.5. Normals on the other hand, are around 1.9-2.25 stars depending on the bpm, and their star rating doesn't vary that much. Hard star ratings are fine as is, but the range was way bigger than it needed to be, and a 1 star rating range centered around 3.0 should cover almost all BPM ranges. Low BPM insanes are quite often classified as hards, however, so lowering them to 3.5 will fix a lot of 150- bpm icons. On the other side, mapping a 5.25+ star expert for most songs requires either crazy jumps and streams or high bpm, and many extras I see end up around 5 stars. Very few difficulties intended as "insanes" will end up that high unless the BPM is high.
Factorial
How about this one:

Rule:
The difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order. Easy can be skipped if the gap in the star rating spread allows it. The order can be seen in the chart below. If your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be an Insane or Expert. The lowest difficulty must be below 2.0 stars and Easy must be below 1.75 stars. The difficulty level of Taiko-specific and osu!mania-specific difficulties must also follow a well-designed spread and might contain an Hard/Insane only, if there are standard difficulties present. In CtB, the spread evaluation is upon the testplayer's discretion. The difficulty spread is determined by the map's star rating. A map falls under a certain difficulty when having a specific star rating:
  1. Below 1.5: Easy
  2. Below 2.25: Normal
  3. Below 3.75: Hard
  4. Below 5.25: Insane
  5. Above 5.25: Expert
Guideline:
The difficulty spread should be linear and reasonable. Linear difficulty spread means your difficulties have a comparable gap in star rating between each other. A reasonable spread means the usage of difficulty appropriate gameplay elements. If your mapset does not have an Easy difficulty your Normal difficulty should follow the general guidelines for Easy difficulties. If your Insane difficulty is at or above a 5 star rating it is recommended to include another Insane level difficulty between Hard and the 5+ Insane. If your Hard difficulty is at or above a 3.5 star rating it is recommended to include another Hard level difficulty between Normal and the 3.5+ Insane.
I see some ranked ctb maps that have a N,H,I spread in which the lowest difficulty is mapped over 2.0 stars.
Also I don't think that BPM is the problem, but the note density.
On Easy at least make it 1 hitobject per second.
Lust
Seems like discussions have been brought to a halt here. Flaming this for now. Give me a poke whenever you wish to continue!
Please sign in to reply.

New reply