Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Management
  5. Archive

Post-qualification modposts: Improve the quality of maps

posted
Total Posts
16
Irreversible
osu! Alumni
4,316 posts
Joined December 2011
Topic Starter
Irreversible
Hey everyone,

taking the current situation into account, along with the lack of QAT, I will start this new thread where BNs can post the link to their post-qualification modpost concerning quality issues. If raised points are considered valid, we can then move forward with the disqualification to improve the map's quality.

We should all try our very best to maintain a certain standard of quality, no matter if the mentioned errors are small or big.

Post here, if..
..you modded a map after it got qualified for reasons which aren't covered by the current RC
..you want to make a QAT aware that you want to lead in a further discussion in the mapthread

It's important however that we keep the discussion in the mapthread so that the whole community can participate.
riffy
osu! Alumni
8,061 posts
Joined December 2010
riffy
What's wrong with posting things in the maps' threads? Making a thread here, where only a small group of people can discuss things is pretty weird, in my opinion.

I'd rather use the thread to request more opinions on qualified sets.
HappyRocket88
4,322 posts
Joined May 2014
HappyRocket88
I guess the purpose was to avoid creating a new thread for every concerns as it has been doing it till now.
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc

HappyRocket88 wrote:

I guess the purpose was to avoid creating a new thread for every concerns as it has been doing it till now.
Guess what? The only discussion thread created towards qualified map would've been t/440373 Perhaps there might be more in some QAT page or somewhere else, but as for here. Maybe this would be a page for posting subjective issues while the request dq are for rather objective/unrankable stuffs.

Anyways I've missed the previous discussion thread. To write my opinion here, I'm personally having a positive attitude for such changes. DQs were meant to be a good thing even from the very beginning, but nobody felt it was a good stuff. As a result, qualified maps give no more pp, scoreboards get wiped when it enters the ranked section, penalties for dq has disappeared, and even the contest dq changed to request dq. Such systematical changes would be a nice sign for users that DQ is not a negative thing. Just the concerns for abusings lead me to create this thread.

Would this thread solve some abuses? Perhaps, since this is like a discussion thread instead a direct DQ request. Would this thread make things worse? I guess not.
Irreversible
osu! Alumni
4,316 posts
Joined December 2011
Topic Starter
Irreversible
Sorry, O've worrded wrong. You should still post directly in the thread (as discussion should happen there), but you can make QATs aware in this thread, in case that you have brought up lots of points which aren't covered by the RC. Will edit the opening post in a bit. Sorry for confusion


EDIT: Okay, adjustrd the modpost. What changes is basically that you can state completely unrankable stuff in the other thread, and stuff which is rather suvjective here (as a link which directd to your mod).
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
p/5032895 Then I guess this should be here.

1/4 rhythm usage was questionable for the lowest difficulty, but objectively the inconsistent volume setting cross difficulty could be improved.
riffy
osu! Alumni
8,061 posts
Joined December 2010
riffy
I've DQ'd the set Sonnyc modded, so I guess you can just proceed to the thread anh help out the mapper! p/5033390

Sticking this thread for the sake of making it more accessible.
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
p/5037436

I think some rhythmical improvements could be possible if the mapper shows an agreement.
Irreversible
osu! Alumni
4,316 posts
Joined December 2011
Topic Starter
Irreversible

Sonnyc wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5037436

I think some rhythmical improvements could be possible if the mapper shows an agreement.
Talked with the mapper and he doesn't agree, the NCing doesn't seem severe but the rhythm issue did (to me), I think it doesn't conflict with the RC though (because his reason is somewhat "valid").
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
p/5048044
  1. Spacing issue in Easy.
  2. A whole section missing essential hitsounds in Normal and Hard.
  3. Spacing issue resulted in low intuition and less structure in Insane.
Last edited by riffy , edited 1 time in total.
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
p/5049767

grimd made a post.
meii18
3,577 posts
Joined October 2013
meii18
p/5054009

  1. Sloopy sliders in Rolling difficulty which affects the gameplay in my point of view and an antijump which does not make sense to the high pitch
  2. Other minor things which can get fixed
riffy
osu! Alumni
8,061 posts
Joined December 2010
riffy

ByBy13 wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5054009

  1. Sloopy sliders in Rolling difficulty which affects the gameplay in my point of view and an antijump which does not make sense to the high pitch
  2. Other minor things which can get fixed
Normal is being way too edgy for the easiest diff, the amount of 1/2s makes me feel uneasy about it.
Sonnyc
7,761 posts
Joined June 2008
Sonnyc
Got a feeling that Bakari would get suspicious with Normal. To throw my two cents, I think it has fine difficulty to function enough as the lowest difficulty. Despite the usage of 1/2 rhythms, those weren't basically too much complicated to play in my view. Moreover, the slider velocity and the required cursor speed in the map was pretty slow enough for beginners. Three 1/2 of 01:48:466 (1,2,3) feels a little much, but that's not much an issue imo. 00:54:367 (3) could have NC but idk. Just the marginal diff for a beginner friendly imo.
Natsu
8,076 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu
maybe we should close this topic too, since we have: t/447428&start=0 ?
IamKwaN
osu! Alumni
3,905 posts
Joined August 2012
IamKwaN
Yes.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 16