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

[Rule Change] Auto must achieve 1000 Bonus Points on Spinner

posted
Total Posts
21
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd
  • Auto must achieve at least 1000 bonus points on spinners and the object following the spinner must not be visible before the spinner starts. Any less than this and players will not be able to react in enough time to fully complete the spinner (and thus getting a 100 or breaking their combo).
It states in the rules that if auto cannot achieve 1000 extra bonus points then players won't be able to finish the spinner with a 300. However it's not correct, a good player who's on their toes should be able to get a 300 on a spinner that auto can't get 1000 bonus points on.

I suggest it be changed to:

  • It must be reasonably possible for players to fully complete spinners.
Amendment:

  • Auto must achieve at least 1000 bonus points on spinners with at least half the map's current OD.
I've been experimenting with spinners and I've found that 1 1/2 spinners following some of the vocals are perfectly fun and playable (however not rankable). What's the point of having spinners in the game if the rules forbid them from being meaningfully incorporated into the game? What I mean by this is that long spinners before and after maps have zero meaningful difficulty and are irrelevant unless you're trying to get a high-point score. Why isn't it allowed to have short spinners where it is actually slightly difficult to get a 300? Isn't spinning supposed to be a skill in this game?

There's also not a lot of reason for not allowing objects to appear before the spinner starts. This map comes to mind: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/4116
It catches you of guard the first time but it's still perfectly playable.
Last edited by B1rd , edited 3 times in total.
Bunnrei
1,044 posts
Joined May 2011
Bunnrei
The title is misleading, change it D:
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
The rule was supposed to be more like "spinner should have a reasonable length".
The 'can not achieve 300 issue' is rather related to ninja spinners, not 1000 bonus.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd
*pats head*
Kibbleru
osu! Alumni
5,846 posts
Joined August 2013
Kibbleru
but that new wording seems way too arbitrary for a rule.

what is considered 'long enough'???
Nerova Riuz GX
1,413 posts
Joined April 2012
Nerova Riuz GX
if you want to change that rule, you must have a proper standard for people to follow, "long enough" is not a good wording for a rule.

we need some thing like "a spinner must be at least XXX ms long" or like the original 1000 bonus rule to make sure people can follow it correctly.

...But spinner stands on OD, so if you use "XXX ms long" for the standard on spinner length, it's still not accurate enough
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd
Unless you want to make some sort of mathematical formula, that won't work. It's easier to just see if playtesters can get 300s on the spinners.
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris
I don't think that spinners should be a gameplay element that is stressful for the player to pass.
It is the least skilloriented element and also the least valuable from a mapper perspective. Imo the rule is fine as it is as I would dislike having to prepare for short spinners and spin 400spm or above to clear it which is clearly outside of my comfortzone and would downgrade the gameplay-experience for pretty much no gain.
Spinners don't get included for a meaningful difficulty - their design is too simplistic - but to transmit a feeling instead. Many spinners at start/end don't achieve that but that's a different story.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd

Endaris wrote:

I don't think that spinners should be a gameplay element that is stressful for the player to pass.
It is the least skilloriented element and also the least valuable from a mapper perspective. Imo the rule is fine as it is as I would dislike having to prepare for short spinners and spin 400spm or above to clear it which is clearly outside of my comfortzone and would downgrade the gameplay-experience for pretty much no gain.
Spinners don't get included for a meaningful difficulty - their design is too simplistic - but to transmit a feeling instead. Many spinners at start/end don't achieve that but that's a different story.
No one is talking about spinning 400spm. The way spinners are, they're usually either easy to clear or impossible to clear regardless of spm. What's more important is reaction time; if you can react fast enough to start the spinner at the earliest possible time, which isn't very hard, and can spin at least 300rpm then you should be able to clear any spinners that this rule change would affect. And if you can't? Then you will get a single 100 for your lack of spinning skills, oh no. So spinners won't really be a serious challenge most of the time but they will mix up the game play a bit. And what if a mapper does want to make a map where spinners are a challenge? Do you think it's fair to say that because you and the majority of people don't like something you won't allow 0.001% of maps that cater to a minority of players to be ranked?

Keep in mind that this would be mainly for extra difficulty maps.
DeathHydra
652 posts
Joined November 2015
DeathHydra
If auto with 477 spm can't get 1000 bonus points, i think it will be very hard for players to get 300. So I think the current rule is fine.

I'm bad at spinning anyway (don't know why), so I often get 100/50 on short spinners.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd

DeathAdderz wrote:

If auto with 477 spm can't get 1000 bonus points, i think it will be very hard for players to get 300. So I think the current rule is fine.

I'm bad at spinning anyway (don't know why), so I often get 100/50 on short spinners.
I've tested that, it's not true.
Nerova Riuz GX
1,413 posts
Joined April 2012
Nerova Riuz GX
I think there are some things should be defined first.

What is "reasonable length"?
and what is "pro players on spinners"? how good can they spin?
also what is "required spinning skill"? players' rank, or basic spm?
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris
I think the actual question has to be which Auto we take for measurement?
The normal Automod in the Play-Mode only spins 287spm nomod but the Auto in Testplay-Mode in the editor spins full 477spm. I always had the impression that this rule referred to the Auto in Testplay-Mode.
So I think this rule rather needs a clarification instead of a change as the Testplay-Auto-Mode absolutely should be able to achieve 1000 Bonus-points while it isn't necessary for the Play-Mode Auto.
Nerova Riuz GX
1,413 posts
Joined April 2012
Nerova Riuz GX
no, those two auto spin in the same speed.
i tested them in IMAGE MATERIAL (because it has many spinners at the beginning)
here are the screenshots, on the same spinner, at the same time.

In-game Auto Mod

Test-mode Auto Mod
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris
nvm, mistook it for the SO-mod spinning speed...
Bara-
11,978 posts
Joined April 2013
Bara-
Maybe make them that long that SO can 300 them?
Seijiro
osu! Alumni
3,438 posts
Joined April 2013
Seijiro
Oh God... Rather than enforcing mappers to use more spinners I'd like to see mappers using them appropriately.
I'm referring to all those spinners placed randomly before a break to avoid mapping that part (lazy) or at the end of a 4:50 song to make it "Approvable" (again, lazy).

The current rule is perfectly fine imo.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd

MrSergio wrote:

Oh God... Rather than enforcing mappers to use more spinners I'd like to see mappers using them appropriately.
I'm referring to all those spinners placed randomly before a break to avoid mapping that part (lazy) or at the end of a 4:50 song to make it "Approvable" (again, lazy).

The current rule is perfectly fine imo.
The rule isn't about enforcing spinners. It's about being able to use shorter spinners when they make sense in the map, so like you say, being used appropriately. Just because you personally don't care about shorter spinners doesn't mean that they should be not be allowed.

Alright, I've come up with an amendment to the rule:

  • Auto must achieve at least 1000 bonus points on spinners with at least half the map's current OD.
I think you will find that with this no spinners will be impossible to play yet it allows spinners to be used more proactively. I don't see any problems with this rule, but does anyone have any objections?
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
Topic Starter
B1rd
Bump. Can I get some feedback on the new suggested rule change?
Flower
1,723 posts
Joined August 2011
Flower
In principle spinners must be placed on a long tone or reverse to fit the music, which means it is almost always unreasonable to place it in a place where the spinner can only be shorter than auto+1k. I am against the idea.
Myxo
osu! Alumni
3,103 posts
Joined December 2012
Myxo
With the change of how the Ranking Criteria Subforum works from now on, topics like these are obsolete.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 21