Reading all this makes me want to make a suggestion. t/481640
I'm not sure if any kind of thread like this was made before, I tried looking it up but there was no specific keywords I can use so I made this new thread and hopefully we can discuss (or someone might throw a link here and this business is closed.)
I couldn't post there directly unfortunately and I don't know if there was any subforum for this specific topic so... Feature Requests <3

Let me jump to the point. I was wondering if we could divide ranked maps into 3 categories. Passed ranking criteria, Quality maps, and Masterpieces. <you can think the names for these later>
The lowest rank is for the new mappers who make maps that can be ranked despite the small details like aesthetics. All errors are fixed but BNs just are not really fond with how it look but rankable, can go here. Or any kind of personal views from experienced mappers.
Quality maps are probably everything you see nowadays.
And masterpiece can be Aspire map by Monstrata for example. (I don't know if we had any maps like this before tbh.)

After the mappers are told that which category their maps are being placed in. If their maps were placed in the lowest, they can consult the BNs or any mappers if they wanted to get theirs to the higher rank, Quality maps. So this can help the mappers to re-improve the set to the quality standard. I don't think it would be shameful if anyone's maps are in the lowest rank because, they get to choose to improve their maps before they go ranked. If they are just too lazy about that and just wanted to have a ranked maps, then no one can help about that.

The downside is that BNs might get extra work (talking and explaining details to the mappers) and it might cause frustration if people don't feel like remapping to a quality standard and end up graving it. But that happens a lot nowadays I think. Also I wanted to mention that these categories should only be decided by the QATs and suggested by the BNs.


Sorry if I did sound ignorant in any lines I typed. This was stated by my inexperience and I'm new to mapping plus I wasn't really into these kind of things until a month ago.
Thanks for reading. Sadly I do expect a link to a similar thread that will break my spirit and I will be scared of posting anything ever again.

Such a rating is nonsense because it would be based on personal bias and multiple different standards the responsible people have - just like written in the linked thread.
You considering that it might be experienced as a shame to be placed in the lowest tier also implies that you do indeed expect people to be ashamed or upset about it which is like whatever. That's not good for anything.
A better effort would be to provide more general forms of guidance via text or videoguides to give people a better idea of what can be good and why without having to say the same thing 8937649 times to 38626408 different people. Personally I'm already trying to do that as far as my qualifications suffice.

i think general questions might be the better place for this topic

bad me

dw, just ask a mod to move this topic

This is clearly a feature request, therefore keep it as such.
If you wanted to discuss about the same thread but in a more open way do it in General Questions, but this thread is asking to discuss about a new idea regarding beatmap management.

This is a really stupid idea imo, if this was implemented not much people would get newer mappers maps (they would only wan't the best maps catagory) which means that new mappers won't get much feedback,



Denied ~

I thought requests based on the ranking-of-maps should go into 'Ranking Criteria' though that nowadays seems to have a different purpose, with the councils

I'm neutral on this. I like the idea of the 3 groups, but I'm not sure how it'll work properly

You are on the right track, but fall short. You can't have tiers of perfection, that will make anything subjective in terms of how good it is. You need non tier based categories. What I can think from the top of my head is:

General Ranked - Follows strictly by the ranking criteria
Aesthetic Ranked - Sacrifices minor or mild parts of the ranking criteria for aesthetic purposes, such as art, style, etc.
Gimmick Ranked/Unranked - Sacrifices major parts of the ranking criteria. Can become ranked if player base/BN/etc agree to make it ranked
Visualization Unranked - Completely unplayable but cool to watch
Graveyard/Pending - WIP, incomplete, etc

abraker wrote:

You are on the right track, but fall short. You can't have tiers of perfection, that will make anything subjective in terms of how good it is. You need non tier based categories. What I can think from the top of my head is:

General Ranked - Follows strictly by the ranking criteria
Aesthetic Ranked - Sacrifices minor or mild parts of the ranking criteria for aesthetic purposes, such as art, style, etc.
Gimmick Ranked/Unranked - Sacrifices major parts of the ranking criteria. Can become ranked if player base/BN/etc agree to make it ranked
Visualization Unranked - Completely unplayable but cool to watch
Graveyard/Pending - WIP, incomplete, etc

This has nothing to do with the OP's intention at all. Mapping Quality Threshold. Read that as QUALITY?!
Fulfilling Ranking Criteria is unrelated to the quality of a map in many aspects.

Endaris wrote:

This has nothing to do with the OP's intention at all. Mapping Quality Threshold. Read that as QUALITY?!
Fulfilling Ranking Criteria is unrelated to the quality of a map in many aspects.

I don't know what kind of intentions I had you were thinking of, but I think abraker's idea is acceptable.
Also, I don't really understand the statement you just made and the one before.
But I do know in general it's something that can't be easily applied or it shouldn't be.

Endaris, it does
This request is for changing the ranked maps into Ranked/Quality/Masterpiece. abraker only added 2 (well, 1 of those 2 already exists, so technically he added only 1)

All of his categories except the top one include breaking the ranking criteria.

I was assuming that OP was talking about quality in the sense that it is well-mapped because he explicitly linked to the discussionthread here. A map can fulfill the ranking criteria and be of bad quality at the same time, hence the categories by abraker do not say anything about the maps' quality for a certain category.

It's also obvious that there won't be ranked gimmick maps outside of Aspire contests. Fwiw 2 maps would fit that category as ranked and the rest can continue to be graved.

Endaris wrote:

All of his categories except the top one include breaking the ranking criteria.

I was assuming that OP was talking about quality in the sense that it is well-mapped because he explicitly linked to the discussionthread here. A map can fulfill the ranking criteria and be of bad quality at the same time, hence the categories by abraker do not say anything about the maps' quality for a certain category.

It's also obvious that there won't be ranked gimmick maps outside of Aspire contests. Fwiw 2 maps would fit that category as ranked and the rest can continue to be graved.

From what I understand, OP is concerned that certain quality maps can't have a chance to be honored. Ranking criteria attempts to enforce quality, but at the same time prohibits other interesting maps, forcing them to be in the graveyard. Currently you can't allow quality maps to be ranked the way OP wants without setting the ranking criteria for each mentioned catagory. Otherwise, what is allowed and disallowed will be even more subjective and drama prone.

Ofc the catch is that setting more lenient requirements for the ranking criteria will bring rise to more shitty maps. There will be a bigger gap between the quality maps and shitty maps within the catagory. There is no solution to this as you can't cover, define, and/or anticipate every valid mapping scheme and non valid mapping scheme. You can either set strict requirements and undermine quality maps that don't fit those requirements (overfiltering), or you can have less strict requirements, allowing more quality and shittier maps through (underfiltering).

The stages of acceptable criteria I proposed is a mixed, possibly a temporary, solution for mappers and players to still allow their map to be honered while assuring that the current ranked catagory remains intact.

I honestly just want to call it straight as a bad idea because to depreciate newer mappers work by calling their maps as "rankable enough" is the wrong way. I fail to understand what's the point at all. OP linked to a thread which discuss out if the quality standards are too high nowadays but the feature request ask for categories for "quality" - while it's no secret that this word is widely understood differently this is the first of many reasons this feature won't be good.

Mapping should be a happy and funny thing, and not being a contest and a e-peen competition who's map are judged better or worse. I am also sure the interest of the "lowest" category will drop extremly if that ever happens to be added. Because people will assume that beatmaps which are at least rankable might not be good at all and will ignore them. And being told by the community by this way your map isn't good isn't nice.

abraker wrote:

You are on the right track, but fall short. You can't have tiers of perfection, that will make anything subjective in terms of how good it is. You need non tier based categories. What I can think from the top of my head is:

General Ranked - Follows strictly by the ranking criteria
Aesthetic Ranked - Sacrifices minor or mild parts of the ranking criteria for aesthetic purposes, such as art, style, etc.
Gimmick Ranked/Unranked - Sacrifices major parts of the ranking criteria. Can become ranked if player base/BN/etc agree to make it ranked
Visualization Unranked - Completely unplayable but cool to watch
Graveyard/Pending - WIP, incomplete, etc

Gimmick Ranked would be the only category worth to include because aesthetic can be done without having an extra category.

Stefan wrote:

Mapping should be a happy and funny thing, and not being a contest and a e-peen competition who's map are judged better or worse. I am also sure the interest of the "lowest" category will drop extremly if that ever happens to be added. Because people will assume that beatmaps which are at least rankable might not be good at all and will ignore them. And being told by the community by this way your map isn't good isn't nice.

What you are saying is not too different from the graveyard, only you get a scoretable in addition to the number of favorites, comments in the map's thread, and occationally a visitor counter in the map's description. People can still have fun mapping despite no favorites, a couple comments in the map's thead and low visitor count. It doesn't need to be a competition either.

Edit: Now thinking about it, I do have grave concerns of modders rejecting requests for maps that would go for a partial ranking criteria. Those who do accept will probably be unexperienced modders. To solve that would be another complicated system as always :\