forum

Mapset and Spread Restructure (Proposed)

posted
Total Posts
614
show more
hehe
I cannot agree to Ultra.
Topic Starter
ztrot
I have adjusted the main post there was one thing that wasn't added should clear up some confusion.
The difficulty is not dependent on the star rating. The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into. Difficulties must be named to reflect that.

that is the section that was missing
Squigly
How about, we don't do this. :)
Natsu
Uh so I agree with the approval category change

But not with the limit number per icon

For example, I have my situation were my spread looks like:

Easy (E icon) Normal (N icon) Hard (H icon) Hyper ( H icon around 4,20 stars for better spread) Insane (I icon 5, 2) Extra (6 stars)

with this new current rule my set its unrankable? if so I can't agree with this, because it will hurt well done spread, instead of limiting the number of spreads you should encourage/force a well balanced spreads, lets be honest icons doesn't reflect the lvl of difficulty at any mapset, for example a 4 stars insane play totally different at 5 stars insane.

basically we are telling bye bye to 6 star diffs and jumping to 7 or 8 stars..

Just my 2 cents
Sieg
@ztrot can you please give a reasoning to us for
Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode.
there should be one, right?
Hpocks
Honestly, this is compeltely stupid and limitating. This ruins like, so many maps. You shouldnt have to limit the amount of maps going into a ranking because you have too many of them! What in the world does that accomplish? It doesnt make it better for noobs, they still are going to get the SAME amount of maps they had before, now its just the higher up that will be debilitated. I hope this is an early april fools joke because im not laughing.

ALSO RIP pretty much all GDs in osu.

ALSO this RIPS fort's map https://osu.ppy.sh/b/838211

-1
UndeadCapulet
The approval rule is dumb and doesn't make sense. Easy, Normal, and Hard level players almost never have the amount of focus and stamina it takes to play really long maps. It doesn't even accomplish what you said you're trying to do: If my set has an Insane and an Ultra, Expert players still won't get to enjoy it properly. All that is going to lead from this is a bunch of Approval maps having a half-assed Easy tacked on that 99% of the community won't play. It's just a waste of the mapper's time.

And yeah the difficulty limitation is 80 kinds of awful.
Loctav

VINXIS wrote:

Edit: was there even discussion witht he community or qats hOLY
We went through that change with these people t/420229
Sonnyc

Ranking Criteria Council wrote:

This replaces the current method of proposing and amending new rules. Rules and Guidelines are from now on solely pushed by the Council and their discussions.
What happened to the community driven nature of this game?
Why did the ranking criteria amending process rolled back as the previous closed-discussion form that is secretly done?
Did this "Mapset and Spread Restructure" criteria even made a consensus among RC council members?

____________________

As I've understood correctly, it seems that mapsets from now on only allows only one E, N, H, I per mapset.

First of all, I'd like to ask why additional difficulties for lower ones should be considered unrankable. In the newly proposed criteria, it strongly discourages mappers to make potential diversity of lower diffs. Slow or calm song could demand a various ammount of high difficulties, but this rule is prohibiting "E-N-H-H-H-H" mapset, isn't it?

True that the proposed criteria encourages mappers to focus more on game designs, and make them focus more on a balanced spread design without a need of an additional difficulty. However, it is always possible to narrow the design of a spread by adding a balanced additional difficulty, such as an extra diff between Normal and Hard which is normally refered as "Advanced" these days.

Diverse gameplay benefits more of the players, and isn't that what is being mostly done these days?

Wouldn't making that criteria to prevent a "same level of difficulty" being contained in one mapset better in warranting a structured mapset design, than preventing diffs which do not suit in an "E, N, H, I category"?

<Easy - Normal - Light Hard - Light Hard2 - Hard> is definitely silly since it contains two light hards which shows a same level of difficulty.
On the other hand, should <Easy - Normal - Hard - Light Hard - Insane> be also considered unrankble???
I really hope not, since Hard, Light Hard, and Insane are all different in difficulty level.


____________________


osu! is a user-based game. Perhaps a guideline for an abstract "ENHI" could exist, but isn't it the mappers and the community who determines where the diff belongs in ENHI?
Hpocks

Loctav wrote:

VINXIS wrote:

Edit: was there even discussion witht he community or qats hOLY
We went through that change with these people t/420229
Well now we can get pissed at these people too.
Nerova Riuz GX
...please that doesn't even make sense anymore.

you can't limit the chance of making difference on different diffs. There are more than one way to represent a song, though they might have similar sr, it doesn't mean that they are totally the similar thing.

And that Ultra rule will ruin the mapping/playing course. I believe a "7 star map everywhere" game is definitely not friendly.

tbh the rule can even conflict like half of the maps in pending
Nozhomi

ztrot wrote:

I have adjusted the main post there was one thing that wasn't added should clear up some confusion.
The difficulty is not dependent on the star rating. The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into. Difficulties must be named to reflect that.

that is the section that was missing
So does it mean you can do a set with Insane and Another, or they're both considered as Insane ?
And even if they're not, limit that much spread is bad for all players imo.

Probably one of the worst rule ever.
Raiden
1st rule: that means Inner Oni (Extra/Expert) must now be on the spread? rip those difficulties then

2nd rule: what? huge NO to this. Variety is beauty and if I want multiple difficulties because I want different style on a same level, I can't now? This seems extremely forced

3rd rule: this will mean an incredible downfall of approval maps, specially on longer (10+ mins) ones

So yeah basically the 3 rules have more downsides than anything and seem like REALLY forced (according to Desp it wasn't even discussed with anyone???)
Bara-

Loctav wrote:

VINXIS wrote:

Edit: was there even discussion witht he community or qats hOLY
We went through that change with these people t/420229
There was a plan of moddingV2 which would make everything more community based. Now there is only a select few who will choose this? This is absolute bullshit
HappyRocket88
I'm still unsure about something: A "decent" spread for standard only can be?

  1. Easy
  2. Normal
  3. Hard
  4. Insane
  5. Extra
So we can't add the well famous Advanced diffs because they're considered now as Hard diffs too? or Hyper for an easier insane?

ahhhh

I agree with the approval rule though. Now it seems to be more approachable to play those approval maps which have "Uncompressed Fury of a Raging Japanese God" as a diff name with an insane diff. xd
CXu
87
^This exists, you know.
Irreversible
Approval Rule: Seems acceptable.

About the rest, I have one important question: All these diffs will most likely go into a new mapset, which will obviously get ranked too. Where are the benefits, for anyone?

1) More BNs time is needed, and if you haven't noticed by now, there's a BN crisis.
2) Checking takes more time, as more metadata stuff can be wrong
3) There are more mapsets of one song, which causes a 7 days delay at max, so after these, you'll be at the same point again.

If you pull off such ridiculous restrictions, please give at least some reasons WHY you do that. Otherwise, I can totally understand the communities and my own reaction.
gregest

Squigly wrote:

How about, we don't do this. :)
best comment on this thread
Yuii-
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/801333

Asphyxia is crying right now.
Karen

neonat wrote:

I cannot agree to limiting 1 difficulty for each level per mapset, there is benefit of having levels between them, like Light Insane for example, or an Advanced in between Normal and Hard.

I'm fine with the Approval rule
^
especially for light insane, i think at least please allow one, if light insane is forbidden, we will see many many mapsets with the same song, and most of the mappers just want to make an insane diff for the song, multiple ranked versions of a same song are kind of waste. Light insane can give mappers the chance to map what they like when they meet a great song and don't want to make a full spread, it's reasonable, and it's not called laziness.

the Approval rule is good, i support.
Euny
each bpm increase the star rating at different way, for example an extra difficulty in high bpm will be play different to a low bpm extra. so basically will be really hard to have an extra difficulty in high bpm map. because, we need to start the spread from a 2.00 star diff. so with a limited number of difficulties will be impossible to archive a good spread.
mintong89

Yuii- wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/801333

Asphyxia is crying right now.
it's ok since this rule only applies at new map
Sonnyc

Sieg wrote:

@ztrot can you please give a reasoning to us for
Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode.
there should be one, right?
"but the change reflects something we see as urgent and something that needed to happen"

as a community member, that "something" is really curious

Loctav wrote:

VINXIS wrote:

Edit: was there even discussion witht he community or qats hOLY
We went through that change with these people t/420229
Then why is Mao, the council member, showing a disagreement?


You guys might have expected this bunch of complaints; we are really anticipating for a sufficient explanation, or an awesome compromise.
Moreover I really wish this wasn't just something popped up literally a day before, and got urgently announced.
Natsu

Loctav wrote:

VINXIS wrote:

Edit: was there even discussion witht he community or qats hOLY
We went through that change with these people t/420229
why you exclude the rest of the community and the rest of BNs/QAT from the discussion, a big change like this should be discussed more open, mostly because all the community disagree with this.
ac8129464363
All this does is push rigidity where it's not needed. What if someone wants to show different styles of mapping at the same level of difficulty in their map? It only serves to make mapsets less interesting.
Taeyang

Yuii- wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/801333

Asphyxia is crying right now.
lol...
MBomb
Rule about not allowing 2 of the same difficulty is literally the stupidest thing I've ever seen. I'm one of those people who always tries his hardest to agree with you guys on everything, but I see literally no fucking logic behind any of that. You're limiting newer players by breaking the bridges between new difficulties, breaking the creativity of mappers, and generally ruining stuff that doesn't need to be restricted.
Akiyama Mizuki
I'll be honest I'm still unhappy about that maps before this rule are affected
How many GDs will be deleted, how many people that were preparing approval maps have to spend much more time to fit the rule suddenly... etc,.
well.. happens

I've already stated thing above while the discussion for twice, it's here, I won't voice anymore.
Giralda

Yuii- wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/801333

Asphyxia is crying right now.
....
Bara-
I can honestly feel a circlejerk coming up incredibly fast, although it will likely be a protest
Shmiklak
Please, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okoratu

mintong89 wrote:

Yuii- wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/801333

Asphyxia is crying right now.
it's ok since this rule only applies at new map
it applies to this map since it hasn't been bubbled / iconed in any way before
neonat
For the council how do you seriously expect them to get the views of all their peers in their respective community? Do you seriously think 1 person can do it, and do you think he/she will really go out and reach out to every single one of them with differing views? That's just being idealistic and it's not going to become reality.
Seijiro
we need more icons imo, otherwise this new "rule" is way too restrictive.
You prioritize a linear spread but disapprove "in-between" diffs, wtf
Feb
Why would you change the amount of difficulties allowed in a set? I really don't get it and you don't really state a reason either.

I like the approval change - I really do.
Topic Starter
ztrot

Sieg wrote:

@ztrot can you please give a reasoning to us for
Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode.
there should be one, right?
it is to streamline the mapping process make things more clear as I have stated

The difficulty is not dependent on the star rating. The mapping techniques used within the difficulty and the spread to the surrounding difficulties define the category each difficulty level falls into. Difficulties must be named to reflect that. That being said as long as there is progression why do you need two insanes in the same set?

Easy Normal Hard Insane Expert < and if you can make a proper spread you are rewarded to break away and test your limits as a mapper and make a ultra diff
There should always be progression from easy to expert.
mintong89
ok nvm
rippppppppppppppp
Mafumafu
The rule of approval is quite great since a single 8 star approval map is really scary. Support this!

But it's quite weird to restrict the amount of difficulties in one level. I guess the entire rule is made here to make all levels pf player could enjoy the game more. Since the style among mappers varies, it's not bad, or rather, better to have multiple difficulties within one level, because the variety of mapping style caters on the need of all kinds of players (Different players enjoy and are good at different beatmap styles.)
Hpocks
You can mourn for the losses here
t/420223/start=30
Xinely
i think ENHI only can work for slow/normal bpm only (example below 190) and it will be worse for high bpm (especially above than 200) since if the mapset is forced to be "ENHI" then all of the diffs will be harder than diffs mappers map for them before and it wont be welcome for players who is learning to play high bpm

approval rule seems fine for me so i do agree
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply