if your map has any type of icon set - be it bubble pop, disqualification or bubble - it will not need to follow the new restructure.is star icon okay?
t/314308
forum
Mapset and Spread Restructure (Proposed)
posted
Total Posts
614
t/314308
streamline mapping process? great, and who will benefit from this?ztrot wrote:
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.
1. mappers with 2+ same level diffs in their sets, obviously - nope
2. players - nope, less difficulties to choose from
3. BN's who checks sets - nope, since they are not obligated to check sets with a lot diffs and can spend their time voluntary
4. QATs - nope, considering how system is driven right now
Explain this plz, doesn't it broke the criteria itself too
OT: please no, that's gonna waste almost all mapper's works, some mappers might put GDs because people might hatred this style
Take this map as example
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/281721
The description said: "gds included so that people irritated by my mapping style can still enjoy the map"
So my question is, why is the "ENHIXU" the only proper spread? Why not having some smaller progression between those diffs is bad? I really don't understand this.ztrot wrote:
There should always be progression from easy to expert.
Also I'm basically against the thing that all maps should have linear difficulty spread. Having two different styled-map with similar difficulty is bad? Why? Players get more maps to choose. If they disliked Insane 1 then they can try Insane 2. Why is this bad? If you don't like Skystar's Expert then wouldn't it be good if there's RLC's Expert? If I tell you my personal experience, I really liked to play like 10 different Insanes if I liked the song. I don't see a reason to have more diffs only if the map's quality is good.
I am totally against with this rule. Do you want this game to be strictly-optimized? Who make the maps? Do they work with this game to earn money? We're doing it FREE to contribute to the game by ranking maps. Why do we need such a restriction that disallows having many difficulties by more mappers? Not even too few diffs.
I don't want to know how many things went wrong while discussing this.
this rule is depend on SD? current mania SD is broken.and if the song has few sounds and i can't make N icon diff even,what to do?spamming LNs to increase SD?
I think the heart is propganda to make people think this is a great idea 10/10 government is always right.KuranteMelodii wrote:
Explain this plz, doesn't it broke the criteria itself too
please tell me that this is just a big prank
^Irreversible wrote:
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?
Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and GDers can only create their own mapsets to get it ranked. While different mappers show their own style on mapping, I don't see any reason why such rules is amended to restrict mapsets having same difficulties.
Also about the approval rule, I believe it discourage people from mapping Extra difficulties in Marathon maps (eg: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324047), spending far more time on mapping an easier difficulties to fulfill the requirement of the new Ranking Criteria, other than cases like this I am fine with map with has ~5mins long
This is dumb.
What good comes from restricting the number of difficulties when the general consensus of mapping spreads has always been decided by the situational factors and by the mapper and modders themselves. There has always been a good system towards map spreads and doing this would just make us want tobend the rules in order to fit the spread. uncomfortably bend the spread in order to fit the rules
What good comes from this when 10 councilmen agreed and now you're going to get unhappy responses by the hundreds
What good comes from restricting the number of difficulties when the general consensus of mapping spreads has always been decided by the situational factors and by the mapper and modders themselves. There has always been a good system towards map spreads and doing this would just make us want to
What good comes from this when 10 councilmen agreed and now you're going to get unhappy responses by the hundreds
RIP guest diffs
THE OSU!HOOD - CHANGING THE BEATMAP RANKING CRITERIA PRANK (SOCIAL EXPERIMENT)(GONE WRONG)(GUN PULLED)
Chaoslitz wrote:
^Irreversible wrote:
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?
Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and GDers can only create their own mapsets to get it ranked. While different mappers show their own style on mapping, I don't see any reason why such rules is amended to restrict mapsets having same difficulties.
Also about the approval rule, I believe it discourage people from mapping Extra difficulties in Marathon maps (eg: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324047), spending far more time on mapping an easier difficulties to fulfill the requirement of the new Ranking Criteria, other than cases like this I am fine with map with has ~5mins long
INB4 you can only have one mapset per song. Once a song has a set, you cant map it.
After reading this I don't see what this hopes to accomplish. It seems like the reason this system was put in place was simply to have maps that every player of every level can play and while that sounds good on paper it's not quite as easy. The approval rule I can understand since most people go for extras and I'm sure there are many people who are not quite at that level that would love a version they can play but it's still restricting because even insane are usually only well playable by maybe top 80k which is still just a fraction of the playerbase. If this is still restricting to the majority of the playerbase then there is no reason for this to only help out maybe a few more players when the rest are still neglected it's just a patchjob on a broken dam.
More importantly regarding full spread sets this really does not make sense. For one the star difficulty is by no means a good indication of how hard/easy a map really is and this applies even for the easier difficulties. So depending on an "even" spread is pointless. And then to limit difficulties to just one makes it not only so that people are forced to map many more full spreads of the same song for no real reason and even then still restricting higher difficulties from being mapped. There are a LOT of very talented mappers out there that all have a good way of expressing their style onto a song and this is more visible with insane/extras because it's much less restricting on mapping so when you add this system it means if they ever plan to rank their version of a song they will likely need to make another spread just for that.
This also seems to be against the wishes of the mapping community which is, in this case, the most important right now. They are the ones responsible for voluntarily providing content to the oblivious players who are only here to play. No offense to them they are right to just want to play the game of course but since the mapping community already gets little to no love and now are being forced to go through these changes to appease the players even more is like the equivalent of getting forced into work overtime with no extra pay. Add that to the fact that the current ranking system is already a LOT of work to go through because BNs are already overworked and understaffed as it is, they would likely get further demotivated as more people work to rank the same song over and over and over again simply because there were four good insane and extra versions of a 2 minute song that wanted to get ranked.
As I stated above it's a nice idea on paper but as it is being proposed it does not fit both with the current ranking system or with the wishes of the mapping community in general. I highly urge the rule be put on hold so that there can be more discussion and ideas of how this rule can work for both mappers, players and staff alike before it's set in place, much like a map disqualification.
I did not have time nor patience to proofread this and revise this so maybe some things don't sound like what I was trying to say but I hope maybe it makes sense at least. PLz n0 k1ll m4pp3r sp1r17 kthx
More importantly regarding full spread sets this really does not make sense. For one the star difficulty is by no means a good indication of how hard/easy a map really is and this applies even for the easier difficulties. So depending on an "even" spread is pointless. And then to limit difficulties to just one makes it not only so that people are forced to map many more full spreads of the same song for no real reason and even then still restricting higher difficulties from being mapped. There are a LOT of very talented mappers out there that all have a good way of expressing their style onto a song and this is more visible with insane/extras because it's much less restricting on mapping so when you add this system it means if they ever plan to rank their version of a song they will likely need to make another spread just for that.
This also seems to be against the wishes of the mapping community which is, in this case, the most important right now. They are the ones responsible for voluntarily providing content to the oblivious players who are only here to play. No offense to them they are right to just want to play the game of course but since the mapping community already gets little to no love and now are being forced to go through these changes to appease the players even more is like the equivalent of getting forced into work overtime with no extra pay. Add that to the fact that the current ranking system is already a LOT of work to go through because BNs are already overworked and understaffed as it is, they would likely get further demotivated as more people work to rank the same song over and over and over again simply because there were four good insane and extra versions of a 2 minute song that wanted to get ranked.
As I stated above it's a nice idea on paper but as it is being proposed it does not fit both with the current ranking system or with the wishes of the mapping community in general. I highly urge the rule be put on hold so that there can be more discussion and ideas of how this rule can work for both mappers, players and staff alike before it's set in place, much like a map disqualification.
I did not have time nor patience to proofread this and revise this so maybe some things don't sound like what I was trying to say but I hope maybe it makes sense at least. PLz n0 k1ll m4pp3r sp1r17 kthx
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Honestly it will only force mappers to delete their GDs and It's hard to maintain the spread issue in taiko mode.
There is such a large backlash to this new restructure, lets be real and actually take a moment to reconsider all this.
lmfao
Just throwing my two cents here-
I think a forced linear spread could potentially stifle creativity; while it does encourage balance, it also forces the mapper to have to add/remove elements in a difficulty they otherwise may not want to in order to maintain the spread. It could lead to a lot of dumbed down and/or overcomplicated difficulties when they don't have to be.ztrot wrote:
First of all, we reworded the current spread rule. All difficulties in each game mode have to align in a linear and progressive spread. You can add one Ultra difficulty past an Expert difficulty that does not have to increase linearly in difficulty with the rest of the spread. Keep in mind, that Ultra is a placeholder term, used to reflect a high end difficulty that has not been specified with a name yet. We put that name in place, so you guys know what we are talking about when we want to refer to the high end difficulties of a mapset.
This leads to less diversity in my opinion. Many people have different mapping styles (e.g. person A can map an Insane difficulty that is completely different to how person B maps an Insane), and limiting the amount of same difficulties prevents that diversity.ztrot wrote:
Secondly, we limited the amount of difficulties of the same level per game mode. Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode. While this appears very limiting at the beginning, the hybrid set rules stay intact. Don't forget that every keycount in osu!mania is considered as individual game mode, too! If you wish to get your mapsets with multiple difficulties of the same level ranked, we advise you to split it off into a new mapset.
I'm sort of okay with this one actually-ztrot wrote:
At last, we altered the requirements for Approval beatmaps. Approval mapsets must have 1 difficulty that is either an Easy, Normal, Hard or Insane. Your mapset must contain an Insane difficulty if an Expert or Ultra difficulty is present. This means that every Approval containing only an Expert or Ultra difficulty must receive a second difficulty. If you do not wish to map more than one difficulty for your Approval sets, we would advise you to keep the single difficulty at Insane level or below.
"Secondly, we limited the amount of difficulties of the same level per game mode. Every mapset is limited to one of each difficulty level per game mode..."
I might just be dumb here, but I wish you guys would've provided a reason why this change is necessary. Is it only aesthetic, or is there an actual benefit to this restriction? Why separate maps in to different downloads when you could just pack a bunch of maps in to a single one?
E: I guess the goal is to increase the number of lower tier maps? Not sure how many defferent kinds of easy maps can you make compared to insane/extras, but I guess it's a worthwile goal anyway...
I might just be dumb here, but I wish you guys would've provided a reason why this change is necessary. Is it only aesthetic, or is there an actual benefit to this restriction? Why separate maps in to different downloads when you could just pack a bunch of maps in to a single one?
E: I guess the goal is to increase the number of lower tier maps? Not sure how many defferent kinds of easy maps can you make compared to insane/extras, but I guess it's a worthwile goal anyway...
the whole ranking system is fine as it is right now, why the hell do we need a restructure
Sorry, but I really dislike this change.
I personally find that there usually isn't a very good spread between Normal, Hard, and Insane (As a beginner player, the jump from Normal to Hard was a big one, as was Hard to Insane). It is good to have some sort of inbetween difficulty so that the spreading is much more smooth (Advanded and Light Insane difficulties). This change seems to prevent that.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/347460
I've been working on this for a while, and the fact that I have to remove or completely rework one of the lower and upper difficulties just feels wrong to do in almost every aspect.
I personally find that there usually isn't a very good spread between Normal, Hard, and Insane (As a beginner player, the jump from Normal to Hard was a big one, as was Hard to Insane). It is good to have some sort of inbetween difficulty so that the spreading is much more smooth (Advanded and Light Insane difficulties). This change seems to prevent that.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/347460
I've been working on this for a while, and the fact that I have to remove or completely rework one of the lower and upper difficulties just feels wrong to do in almost every aspect.
wait if i understand this new rule properly, its basically this
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, its rankable. the spread doesnt matter? so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
into 
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria. again.
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, its rankable. the spread doesnt matter? so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria. again.
i lol-edAnxient wrote:
wait if i understand this new rule properly, its basically this
as long as we get difficulty icons on set, like easy, normal, hard, insane, extra, so what is the point of the star rating system?
why not just get rid of it? change
coz if it is like that, then holy shit rip the ranking criteria.
I realized 2 things while I was reading the flood of comments coming:
- this new RC rule seems to be pointing the finger to some specific mappers who usually make 6*+ maps
- the staff won't change route no matter what we say (as in most cases)
The real discussion is happening here, not on the Discord #modhelp.
Please re-consider this
- this new RC rule seems to be pointing the finger to some specific mappers who usually make 6*+ maps
- the staff won't change route no matter what we say (as in most cases)
The real discussion is happening here, not on the Discord #modhelp.
Please re-consider this
I really have to disagree with the 1st and the 2nd rule tbh. That will force a mapper to delete many GDs and forcing them to map it and rank it at their own mapsets. It's kinda disappoint to see a new rule like this
For the 3rd rule, what about the "marathon" maps which are likely to have more than 10 mintes long and it is a collab map? It's kinda ridiculous here
Edit: about the 3rd rule, making another diff even that it has extra diff on it is just a wasting of time, really
For the 3rd rule, what about the "marathon" maps which are likely to have more than 10 mintes long and it is a collab map? It's kinda ridiculous here
Edit: about the 3rd rule, making another diff even that it has extra diff on it is just a wasting of time, really
changes like this reminds me why i dont want to be involved with the ranking process anymore
So if I have a set with three insanes, one by me and two GD's, I have to delete those GD's to fit your new dumbass rule? Hahahahaha no
lets make 10star ultra
we
can
fly
we
can
fly
Len wrote:
lets make 10star ultra
we
can
fly
Let me rephrase that.
"Hello everyone, ztrot here, destroying your dreams since 2008!"
seriously (i'm sorry for that rather rough introduction btw
), after working for months on my first map, getting mods, starting to mod other maps recently and shoot my kudosu at my own map, i'll have to completely change it 
i mean i don't even have to change as much as many other mappers. some will have to delete complete difficulties.
"This new rule might seem scary at first but, fear not as we don't want to forget our professional osu! players either!"
yeah, seemingly you don't want to forget the professional osu! players, so let's just forget the mappers instead
Also there's just times when not all difficulties fit to the map. Times when you have something different in mind in terms of the spread.
This will not only significantly increase the work of mappers, moders, BN's and QAT's, it will also erase a part of the mappers freedom. In my opinion we need more freedom instead of more restrictions!
"Hello everyone, ztrot here, destroying your dreams since 2008!"
seriously (i'm sorry for that rather rough introduction btw
), after working for months on my first map, getting mods, starting to mod other maps recently and shoot my kudosu at my own map, i'll have to completely change it i mean i don't even have to change as much as many other mappers. some will have to delete complete difficulties."This new rule might seem scary at first but, fear not as we don't want to forget our professional osu! players either!"
yeah, seemingly you don't want to forget the professional osu! players, so let's just forget the mappers instead
Also there's just times when not all difficulties fit to the map. Times when you have something different in mind in terms of the spread.
This will not only significantly increase the work of mappers, moders, BN's and QAT's, it will also erase a part of the mappers freedom. In my opinion we need more freedom instead of more restrictions!
Thanks for increasing more maps which need to overmapped to surepassed this rules
It's worth mentioning that, under these new rules, NONE of the maps currently on the "Most Played Beatmaps" would have gotten ranked.
Isn't that an obvious sign that this is a terrible decision?
Isn't that an obvious sign that this is a terrible decision?
I do not really agree with the new structure of the spread I mean for example if the spread between easy and normal is kinda huge,it needs another normal,a new one normal and the old one being renamed to Advanced or if the spread between hard and Insane is too kinda huge it needs a difficulty named hyper or light insane but yes,the difficulties which causes problems with the spread can be tuned down just my though.
Also I agree with the spread for approval mapsets regarding Insane and Extra because there are some players who cannot pass the Extra difficulties let's say or passing the high bpm streams.Just my opinion.
Also I agree with the spread for approval mapsets regarding Insane and Extra because there are some players who cannot pass the Extra difficulties let's say or passing the high bpm streams.Just my opinion.
nice to know you guys had the time to proofread your thread etc. but can't even schedule a meeting.Loctav wrote:
let me fix that. 10% were not online.Desperate-kun wrote:
Most of the members of the council were not online when this was discussed.
Happy Valentine's Day to people on Asia.
#BestAprilFoolsDay
oh wait, it's Valentines Day! Enjoy chocolate everyone <3
oh wait, it's Valentines Day! Enjoy chocolate everyone <3