I <3 you Momoko let's play cute VNs togetherAsahina Momoko wrote:
HAPPY VALENTINE BOIS
forum
Mapset and Spread Restructure (Proposed)
posted
Total Posts
614
Pretty much describes the new rules
Kitami Erika
weldoneaabc271 wrote:
Pretty much describes the new rules
You want to lose mappers? This is how you lose mappers.
Let's make osu! great again, vote ztrump 2016.
WE WILL BUILD A WALL
What kind of wall?
A WALL TO PREVENT QUALITY MAPPING
WE WILL BUILD A WALL
What kind of wall?
A WALL TO PREVENT QUALITY MAPPING
hey i didn't read the whole thread but if you're reading this chances are you probably already know your idea is borked.
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
Do note that while ztrot stated previously that maps will be considered of different difficulties based upon how they feel and what techniques they employ and not their icons, making light insanes or advanced difficulties still possible to rank, this creates a giant blurred line of trying to determine what maps in a set are dissimilar enough in difficulty to qualify as passing for this rule. This will result in discussions on whether difficulties should be kept or not when before implementing this rule that would only happen if they are already similar enough that those working towards ranking a map set would already be questioning it.
In its current form and any potential future forms, this rule and determining whether a mapset follows it or not is too vague and subjective to be helpful rather than an unnecessary roadblock in the ranking process.
Enforcing a rule like this only restricts creativity and causes confusion when it is unneeded and does not accomplish anything positive for the community or game. Restricting variety of what's available in a mapset is not positive for players, splitting off similar level difficulties into seperate mapsets only makes it more difficult for players to download all the potential mapped difficulties of a song they wish to play and enjoy, and wastes computer space by having to download the same songs and videos multiple times taking up megabytes at a time instead of one set with all the difficulties together which would only be a few kilobytes larger than a set without these extra difficulties.
This is in addition to creating extra effort for mappers and BNs, who now have to deal with more sets of the same song that could have just been one set reviewed and ranked all at once. The rule of not having more than one difficulty in a set is ridiculous, if two difficulties are already similar enough to wonder whether they should both be their or not, this is the current job of modders and mappers to avoid. This rule does not make this a new topic, and appears to be a blunt force to fix a problem that wasn't even significant enough to be a problem.
In its current form and any potential future forms, this rule and determining whether a mapset follows it or not is too vague and subjective to be helpful rather than an unnecessary roadblock in the ranking process.
Enforcing a rule like this only restricts creativity and causes confusion when it is unneeded and does not accomplish anything positive for the community or game. Restricting variety of what's available in a mapset is not positive for players, splitting off similar level difficulties into seperate mapsets only makes it more difficult for players to download all the potential mapped difficulties of a song they wish to play and enjoy, and wastes computer space by having to download the same songs and videos multiple times taking up megabytes at a time instead of one set with all the difficulties together which would only be a few kilobytes larger than a set without these extra difficulties.
This is in addition to creating extra effort for mappers and BNs, who now have to deal with more sets of the same song that could have just been one set reviewed and ranked all at once. The rule of not having more than one difficulty in a set is ridiculous, if two difficulties are already similar enough to wonder whether they should both be their or not, this is the current job of modders and mappers to avoid. This rule does not make this a new topic, and appears to be a blunt force to fix a problem that wasn't even significant enough to be a problem.
How about no ?
oops the site being down made me post twice
IM DYING HOLY SHIT LMAOXII wrote:
Let's make osu! great again, vote ztrump 2016.
WE WILL BUILD A WALL
What kind of wall?
A WALL TO PREVENT QUALITY MAPPING
For the most of us who don't troll with meme here, it's already done, we just don't want that rule, like it was is good.Cherry Blossom wrote:
If you, guys, think that quitting this community will make things changed then you're wrong.
Things are not definitive and we still need your opinions. If you quit and don't participate in adjusting this rule change, then never complain like a child.
For approval map, just limit the new rule to song <10 min should be enough imo, because above this lengh, it's really pain in the ass.
Guess that's all.
This is bullshit
Let's fix the website first. It keeps crashing on me every time I reload.
Why not say like that ONE or TWO types of difficulty can have two maps in it or something, like an
ENHHIIX, ENNHIXX, ENHIIXX, ENHIIX spread?
Like EEENNHHIIIIXX wouldn't be allowed?
Just my two cents?
ENHHIIX, ENNHIXX, ENHIIXX, ENHIIX spread?
Like EEENNHHIIIIXX wouldn't be allowed?
Just my two cents?
Why do we want to change something, that isnt borken. If you look at a average or a new player, they will all have problems to improve. Why do you want people to improve in big steps, instead of little small ones?
gloriousXII wrote:
Let's make osu! great again, vote ztrump 2016.
WE WILL BUILD A WALL
What kind of wall?
A WALL TO PREVENT QUALITY MAPPING
i love when a game that doesn't create any of its own content, that should be thankful anyone is even making maps for their game at all, starts bringing the hammer down on the people that make their game a success.
no really, this 'snake eating its own tail' mentality is hilarious, i can't wait to see how this plays out. I legit can't believe this is real.
no really, this 'snake eating its own tail' mentality is hilarious, i can't wait to see how this plays out. I legit can't believe this is real.
That's more of a problem with "lowest diff < 2.0 star" rule. We still need to make those diffs even with this change.Wafu wrote:
Meaning, if there is some very fast song, people tend to make somewhat normal-ish easy, so lower difficulty would be sometimes appropriate.
Very nice visual explanation!Mr Color wrote:
hey i didn't read the whole thread but if you're reading this chances are you probably already know your idea is borked.
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
Great post, let's keep this visible.Mr Color wrote:
hey i didn't read the whole thread but if you're reading this chances are you probably already know your idea is borked.
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
Since pretty much every post has been "This is bullshit" (even my posts), I will attempt to post a reason why the second rule is horrible (if it wasn't obvious enough).
According to this, we can have a 3* Hard and a 5* Insane, but no way to make a Light Insane that is 4* for good difficulty spread
Please change..
According to this, we can have a 3* Hard and a 5* Insane, but no way to make a Light Insane that is 4* for good difficulty spread
Please change..
Good postXxVivaxX wrote:
Why do we want to change something, that isnt borken. If you look at a average or a new player, they will all have problems to improve. Why do you want people to improve in big steps, instead of little small ones?
Best post.XxVivaxX wrote:
Why do we want to change something, that isnt borken. If you look at a average or a new player, they will all have problems to improve. Why do you want people to improve in big steps, instead of little small ones?
For months now everyone complains about shit mapping, now we announce a change and everyone says it was fine.
Make up your fucking minds.
Things are not ending, this does not kill your ability make maps, you can still make multiple sets for a single song, you still have options.
And not everything here is final as already stated, it's not like we just ignore what everyone else thinks, there's just too much to reply to currently.
Make up your fucking minds.
Things are not ending, this does not kill your ability make maps, you can still make multiple sets for a single song, you still have options.
And not everything here is final as already stated, it's not like we just ignore what everyone else thinks, there's just too much to reply to currently.
peppy is awake and not happy.
SPOILER
Mr Color wrote:
hey i didn't read the whole thread but if you're reading this chances are you probably already know your idea is borked.
but yeah i'm gonna try and explain why despite not having been around the game in a long time but hey my name's in black so that means if i'm not relevant well at least I was at some point
so this graph in the opening post is like this right
but really that's not what's happening and we all know this. the spread in difficulty is infinitely wider in the higher than lower levels. To me trying to chart this out is already pretty dumb because some maps will have a spread with easy easies, easy normals, easy hards and so on, other with hard easies (which uh good luck with that), hard normal, hard hards, etc. but if we were to chart it out this is what it would most likely look like
obviously this is all relative which is why i disagree with the idea of even charting it out but oh well it will do. so pretty much the idea is that it's actually very stupid to require such a spread when there is absolutely no leeway with how hard/easy difficulties can go. i still don't understand why 1/4 is outright banned from normals. other rhythm games less difficulties yet cover a higher range because hey some songs make easy maps and others make hard maps. (shoutouts to jubeat and REUNION with that lv10 normal)
if you want your difficulty spread to make more sense then you should allow more flexibility into how easy and hard the difficulties within that spread rank. By the way, we have a star rating system that (from what I can tell) works now, so even a name like "easy" and "normal" is kind of whatever because all that matters is that star rating in the end.
let me try to chart what i'm trying to say. we'll take Easy and Ultra as their logical maximum, aka how easy/impossibly hard a map can be.
that's basically my beef with the new set of rules you guys have been pushing, haven't really looked at the rest of the announcement and it's implications but if it makes as little sense to me as this does i'll make another post showing my glorious photoshop skills
This post is gold and should be read by everyone, it explains why this ruleset should've been discussed with actual people and accepted by them before being implemented.
Over half of the new council are rejecting they accepted this new ruleset, i sense powertrip.
Except it is allowed (probably?) vCirno-baka9 wrote:
Since pretty much every post has been "This is bullshit" (even my posts), I will attempt to post a reason why the second rule is horrible (if it wasn't obvious enough).
According to this, we can have a 3* Hard and a 5* Insane, but no way to make a Light Insane that is 4* for good difficulty spread
Please change..
The fact that it is so vague that it is being misunderstood by everyone (it's still a terrible rule though for reasons I've stated previously) reflects on how poorly created this rule is.ztrot wrote:
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.
People complain about shit maps. What you do in return is limit the amount of quality sets.Zak wrote:
For months now everyone complains about shit mapping, now we announce a change and everyone says it was fine.
Make up your fucking minds.
Things are not ending, this does not kill your ability make maps, you can still make multiple sets for a single song, you still have options.
And not everything here is final as already stated, it's not like we just ignore what everyone else thinks, there's just too much to reply to currently.
How does that make sense?
ztrot wrote:
Hello everyone, ztrot here with some exciting new news!
ztrot wrote:
some exciting new news!
ztrot wrote:
exciting new news!
lol'dztrot wrote:
exciting
Timorisu wrote:
People complain about shit maps. What you do in return is limit the amount of quality sets.Zak wrote:
For months now everyone complains about shit mapping, now we announce a change and everyone says it was fine.
Make up your fucking minds.
Things are not ending, this does not kill your ability make maps, you can still make multiple sets for a single song, you still have options.
And not everything here is final as already stated, it's not like we just ignore what everyone else thinks, there's just too much to reply to currently.
How does that make sense?
hey can we not screw eveything up thanks