johnmedina999 wrote:

Hobbes2 wrote:

It is my personal opinion (mine alone, this is not representative of my institution) that maps should be ranked upon being submitted, to avoid as much drama as possible. I have personally submitted a request to peppy for this change, no response yet. I'll keep you guys informed!

It would be interesting to see a system where every map was ranked, and if it was found to be low in quality (i.e., against the ranked requirements), it would be graveyarded. However, this would cause even more drama as people would start pumping out PP maps like a water from a hose. And if they are graveyarded, the PP earned would have to be refunded, which would cause extreme anger in the community.

so almost like ripple?

abraker wrote:

ripple

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that game. But if it works for them, I would like to see it in action. Anything where the community uploads something to a centralized server must have quality control. But the situation Hobbes2 suggested would be absolutely chaotic the way I see it.

johnmedina999 wrote:

abraker wrote:

ripple

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that game. But if it works for them, I would like to see it in action. Anything where the community uploads something to a centralized server must have quality control. But the situation Hobbes2 suggested would be absolutely chaotic the way I see it.

It doesn't have quality control. I quit after chugging down a couple 4k 7 star maps down my throat, giving me 500pp or so each. No point in playing for numbers after that.

No, the thing is every map is good it's hard to subjectively quantify a map as good or bad. For example, this map has its own good qualities and the current ranking system unfortunately does not give it an opportunity. An autoranking system would do just that and would really enhance this games' competitive attributes. This also solves the problem of pp maps, as pp becoming irrelevant is a good way to disincentivize pp mapping.

Hobbes2 wrote:

No, the thing is every map is good it's hard to subjectively quantify a map as good or bad. For example, this map has its own good qualities and the current ranking system unfortunately does not give it an opportunity. An autoranking system would do just that and would really enhance this games' competitive attributes. This also solves the problem of pp maps, as pp becoming irrelevant is a good way to disincentivize pp mapping.

because ranking centipede is a good idea

johnmedina999 wrote:

Stefan wrote:

Well, it really doesn't. Bad maps are getting ranked anyways so that shouldn't hesitate you to get something ranked.

If everyone follows your advice and begins mapping/getting things ranked, 1) there will be a boom in Pending maps which would make ranking a map take even more time than it takes now, and 2) it would make the Ranked status absolutely worthless.

1) literally happened already, in 2012/13. somewhere at this time. and 2) is rather the fact getting maps ranked nothing more but a bad joke for some users. People don't bother to care for these maps but just to get their shit ranked asap, which affects their behaviour.

Stefan wrote:

1) literally happened already, in 2012/13. somewhere at this time. and 2) is rather the fact getting maps ranked nothing more but a bad joke for some users. People don't bother to care for these maps but just to get their shit ranked asap, which affects their behaviour.

Stefan teaching history

t/38533/start=45
t/41598/start=15
t/33921/start=60
t/41991/start=30
t/113949/start=75

can't remember of more cases

Hobbes2 wrote:

No, the thing is every map is good it's hard to subjectively quantify a map as good or bad. For example, this map has its own good qualities and the current ranking system unfortunately does not give it an opportunity. An autoranking system would do just that and would really enhance this games' competitive attributes. This also solves the problem of pp maps, as pp becoming irrelevant is a good way to disincentivize pp mapping.

Oh, I thought you were joking when you said that.
Well, if every map is ranked, and PP is useless now, why not just remove ranked all together?
Believe it or not, ranked is a good place to find decent maps quickly. Trying to find a decent map in the graveyard is like trying to find diamonds in the landfill. Yes, there are VERY good maps that don't fit the ranked criteria (look at my favorited beatmap list), but those are just a small percentile buried under a sea of poorly made, half-assed, and improperly timed maps.

Alright, I've been meaning to say this since the thread started, and now would be a good time to say it.

I know I'm just a beginner; for three months I've been playing this game. Being a beginner, I really want to play some of the maps you all create, but the simple fact that I cannot play a 7* map stops me from doing so. Ranked maps require an easy/normal difficulty, so most of those are a godsend to players such as myself. Finding a song that isn't ranked that I can actually pass can be frustrating sometimes.
Now, I'm not saying graveyarded maps are trash, there are so many that are incredible, like this one, this one, this one, the list goes on and on! However, the way I see it, maps cannot stay Pending or WIP forever; they either get ranked or they don't. 99% of the maps that get graveyarded suck or are simply unplayable, which is why a ranked section is required with strict rules and guidelines (a "necessary evil").

The maps that are incredible and are not ranked tend to explode on their own anyway (yes, I'm looking at you, Evening). But they are not ranked because they are under 5:00 and do not have an easy/normal difficulty. And that alright. It's just by coincidence that PLANET//SHAPER got ranked, for it's 6:00 long. Now, I couldn't tell you myself, but I believe Evening's maps are of a very high quality and even though they aren't ranked are still enjoyable to play. But again, the ranked status is necessary because if there was no ranked status to strive for, no new players would ever play this game and the community would die out due to a lack of playable maps.

/rant

johnmedina999 wrote:

Hobbes2 wrote:

No, the thing is every map is good it's hard to subjectively quantify a map as good or bad. For example, this map has its own good qualities and the current ranking system unfortunately does not give it an opportunity. An autoranking system would do just that and would really enhance this games' competitive attributes. This also solves the problem of pp maps, as pp becoming irrelevant is a good way to disincentivize pp mapping.

Oh, I thought you were joking when you said that.
Well, if every map is ranked, and PP is useless now, why not just remove ranked all together?
Believe it or not, ranked is a good place to find decent maps quickly. Trying to find a decent map in the graveyard is like trying to find diamonds in the landfill. Yes, there are VERY good maps that don't fit the ranked criteria (look at my favorited beatmap list), but those are just a small percentile buried under a sea of poorly made, half-assed, and improperly timed maps.

Alright, I've been meaning to say this since the thread started, and now would be a good time to say it.

I know I'm just a beginner; for three months I've been playing this game. Being a beginner, I really want to play some of the maps you all create, but the simple fact that I cannot play a 7* map stops me from doing so. Ranked maps require an easy/normal difficulty, so most of those are a godsend to players such as myself. Finding a song that isn't ranked that I can actually pass can be frustrating sometimes.
Now, I'm not saying graveyarded maps are trash, there are so many that are incredible, like this one, this one, this one, the list goes on and on! However, the way I see it, maps cannot stay Pending or WIP forever; they either get ranked or they don't. 99% of the maps that get graveyarded suck or are simply unplayable, which is why a ranked section is required with strict rules and guidelines (a "necessary evil").

The maps that are incredible and are not ranked tend to explode on their own anyway (yes, I'm looking at you, Evening). But they are not ranked because they are under 5:00 and do not have an easy/normal difficulty. And that alright. It's just by coincidence that PLANET//SHAPER got ranked, for it's 6:00 long. Now, I couldn't tell you myself, but I believe Evening's maps are of a very high quality and even though they aren't ranked are still enjoyable to play. But again, the ranked status is necessary because if there was no ranked status to strive for, no new players would ever play this game and the community would die out due to a lack of playable maps.

/rant

Honestly, I've gone to the point in which I'm now both playing and mapping for fun. I just can't get behind the wheel of ranking maps anymore as I used to and it makes me depressed. I just want my shantae map to be ranked sometime before I graduate.

5k views holy fxck

mapping is a happy trigger.

I thought we were shitposting

johnmedina999 wrote:

. But again, the ranked status is necessary because if there was no ranked status to strive for, no new players would ever play this game and the community would die out due to a lack of playable maps.

Sad truth is that it's necessary because of the size of the community. The size of the community makes it hard to pick out good maps otherwise due new shit maps flooding in every second.


The minimum time for a map to have a single difficulty is 5 minutes. There will never be a sufficient amount of >7* maps between than 2 and 5 minutes due to the insane time that needs to be put in bridging the difficulty gap with a spread. As a result DT shit is what ET players depend on now. If you define quality by how many players the mapset is for, props to you for limiting ranked maps to what is reasonable to waste time on. If you define quality by how good a difficulty is, then what is this rule? I hear a single top tier difficulty in o2jam took some 2-3 years to make (>12 star). This is insane. You want a 2*, 4*, 6*, 8*,... I'd just have it loved. No need to rank it. It's just a number after all.

/insanity
/rant

abraker wrote:

johnmedina999 wrote:

. But again, the ranked status is necessary because if there was no ranked status to strive for, no new players would ever play this game and the community would die out due to a lack of playable maps.

Sad truth is that it's necessary because of the size of the community. The size of the community makes it hard to pick out good maps otherwise due new shit maps flooding in every second.


The minimum time for a map to have a single difficulty is 5 minutes. There will never be a sufficient amount of >7* maps between than 2 and 5 minutes due to the insane time that needs to be put in bridging the difficulty gap with a spread. As a result DT shit is what ET players depend on now. If you define quality by how many players the mapset is for, props to you for limiting ranked maps to what is reasonable to waste time on. If you define quality by how good a difficulty is, then what is this rule? I hear a single top tier difficulty in o2jam took some 2-3 years to make (>12 star). This is insane. You want a 2*, 4*, 6*, 8*,... I'd just have it loved. No need to rank it. It's just a number after all.

/insanity
/rant

By making it so that people are allowed to make single high diff maps, means that there will be less easy maps available for new comers. And obviously there are more new comers than people who are good at the game.

I propose maybe the amount of diff needed should be highestdiff/2 rounded downwards. In which one of the difficulty should be 2 star or less. This way there won't be a lack of easy maps, and highest diff doesn't require so much effort

Blitzfrog wrote:

By making it so that people are allowed to make single high diff maps, means that there will be less easy maps available for new comers. And obviously there are more new comers than people who are good at the game.

This argument again. Top tier players are forced to their own niche communities as we see with Stepmania because this community tries to appeal to all. This is hindering progression. osu!mania will never see enough maps which push the limits and it will never appeal to top tier players. There needs to be a rule a allowing players who know what they are doing to map higher level stuff while not worrying about anything else.

abraker wrote:

This argument again. Top tier players are forced to their own niche communities as we see with Stepmania because this community tries to appeal to all. This is hindering progression. osu!mania will never see enough maps which push the limits and it will never appeal to top tier players. There needs to be a rule a allowing players who know what they are doing to map higher level stuff while not worrying about anything else.

The higher level maps all fall under "graveyard". You yourself say that ranked status does not matter:

abraker wrote:

No need to rank it. It's just a number after all.

What is your point? Ranked maps require a full spread because that's the first thing new players see when they click on the "Beatmaps" button on the top of the page. If you want to skip making a full spread, that's fine, no one is judging you on that.

johnmedina999 wrote:

What is your point?

I think I kinda made my point in this post. Get people to like your map for what it is. Anything more than that is just pointless bashing at ranking criteria.

abraker wrote:

Get people to like your map for what it is.

Sounds good to me.

abraker wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

By making it so that people are allowed to make single high diff maps, means that there will be less easy maps available for new comers. And obviously there are more new comers than people who are good at the game.

This argument again. Top tier players are forced to their own niche communities as we see with Stepmania because this community tries to appeal to all. This is hindering progression. osu!mania will never see enough maps which push the limits and it will never appeal to top tier players. There needs to be a rule a allowing players who know what they are doing to map higher level stuff while not worrying about anything else.

If you appeal to new players though, there will be a larger player base. The larger the player base, the more mappers, therefore higher chance of mapping higher level stuff. Also I proposed something for a reason

non mappers arguing about mappers ahahahha

winber1 wrote:

non mappers arguing about mappers ahahahha

is there a term for both, like inactive but active

idk where the fuck i fit in this world

oh wait, im gay

You mean to tell me somebody actually cares about editor stuff?

Bakari wrote:

You mean to tell me somebody actually cares about editor stuff?

My crippling depression tells me yes

We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.

haha i love new mappers they think they asre good lol. they like " omg my map thsio tthe FUCKING best FUCK e shiowaoifAWHOEPawehiop awehiopfhaweiopphioawefhiopawehopiawefhiopawefhioawefhioawefwe"

MAPPING DRAMA NATION NOW ALMOST AT 6K VIEWS

B1rd wrote:

We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.

yeah man let me make my fuckign 6* non-marathon diffs and rank them in peace god fuck


the problems tands when that becomes the new norm and then you're left with the only "easy" maps being the ones made on purpose 5-10% of the time, tops, and if you're a new player you have like 5-10% of the choice as you would now


hell maybe some hybrid system of "after 3 minutes of drain time, an Easy/Normal is no longer needed, after 4 minutes, a Normal/Hard is no longer needed" would work but fuck that


nothing will change around here anyway



prove me wrong ephemeral pls i'd love to be proven wrong, as it is fuck mapping, insane amounts of effort for literally next to no benefit other than getting potential fanboi circlejerking

I see lazy people are still crying over not wanting to cater to a wider audience with their maps. People never change.

That's not really a problem. There will always be maps for beginners to play, and these maps will continue to be mapped. We have to take into account how easy easy and normals actually are. It would take what, a couple of days for someone who is playing seriously to surpass them and move on to hards? I remember that I basically played easy and normals on Charles's beatmap Liquid, and since then I have pretty much never played easies or normals again. I can confidently say that 90%+ of plays on easies are done by SS farmers and the like, rather than people whose skill level is appropriately matched to those difficulties. So what is the necessity? Is it essential to have every single song available for beginners of a week or two to play? I don't think so.

I'm not saying that there should be a drop in quality in ranked beatmaps. But I don't think enforcing the arbitrary standards of the beatmap spreads make for quality mapsets. I.e, you map is 2 seconds too short, therefore you need to make 2 more difficulties. Or 'omg, your mapset has a gap of 0.2* too high, into the graveyard your mapset goes'. I view maps as something like works of art, and you don't get great works of art by excessive standardisation or forcing an artist to churn out a lot of uninspired work. If a mapper creates an amazing map at a certain star rating, is it a good thing to make him shoehorn in a bunch more difficulties just to get the one map he wants ranked? You can claim that these sort of regulations create higher quality, but the quality you're talking about is more akin to the quality of a factory product, rather than of great and unique creations.

So what I would suggest is have more of a loose fitting set of guidelines regarding difficulty spreads. Because blanket rules like this are rarely a good idea, maps can always be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example, a tv size anime map wouldn't be able to get away without a full spread. But something like the Big Black for example, really doesn't need one.

Garven wrote:

I see lazy people are still crying over not wanting to cater to a wider audience with their maps. People never change.

Cater to a wider audience, also known as dumb down. It's good that certain niches can be filled by certain maps, not everything has to be for everyone.

Well making Easies and Normals isn't even that hard. The only real hard part is rhythm since there's not really that much freedom elsewhere. If you can make a 6 star map you should probably be able to spend an hour making the Easy and Normal too.

I do agree that some songs really suck to make E/N's for because of the severe undermapping required, but I don't really know the solution to that or if there even really has to be one.

Hobbes2 wrote:

Well making Easies and Normals isn't even that hard. The only real hard part is rhythm since there's not really that much freedom elsewhere. If you can make a 6 star map you should probably be able to spend an hour making the Easy and Normal too.

I do agree that some songs really suck to make E/N's for because of the severe undermapping required, but I don't really know the solution to that or if there even really has to be one.

there doesn't have to be a solution. Undermapping is good for easy maps, actually.

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the lew player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps.



Mapping drama is always hilarious to see. Looking at some of Shiirn's beatmap-threads, people were fighting over things that were basically a matter of taste. Thinking back, at some point it was like you saw one side scream ''i like red!!'' and the other side screaming ''i like blue!!!'', at the top of their lungs. Good times. Please, more of that!!

Easies and normals are all the same pretty much, players can get the same experience by playing any of them. Play one and you've played them all. And just like I wouldn't like a 6* difficulty being forced on Dango Daikazoku, I don't think it's necessary to force a map that doesn't fit the song at all on more intense songs. It's not the biggest issue about mapping, but still no reason to force people to make easies on every map even if it doesn't fit.

Railey2 wrote:

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the new player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps

not everyone plays at the same pace, hence why i like making easy difficulties easier than 1.3* some people aren't going to get good within 9 hours, or 8 days, or 10 weeks, others just have the skill/experience almost right away

there doesn't have to be a solution. Undermapping is good for easy maps, actually.

Yeah, I know, my point was the same as yours; some songs have rhythms that are pretty challlenging to make Easies and Normals out of, and requiring maps to have those diffs can be frustrating. But my personal opinion is that mappers are just gonna have to suck it up and make em.

new maps suck

Railey2 wrote:

The sort of songs that warrant a 6* difficulty often have more complex rhythms and when you map those in a normal difficulty, new players probably couldn't keep up with that. More complicated rhythms shouldn't be used too much in very easy maps, they should be introduced later after the lew player mastered the very basics of the game. Playing easy and normal difficulties is basically like playing and extended tutorial of the game anyway, until you move on to hard maps!

The main reason I am against under mapping is it breaks me to see something like this severely under mapped to the point it barely creates that feel the music give off. Energy! Power! Excitement! Being ET as fuck! All that lost when you have slow sliders at AR 5. Create E/N difficulties for reasonable songs like vocals or calming piano songs, not high BPM *core.

Hobbes2 wrote:

But my personal opinion is that mappers are just gonna have to suck it up and make em.

<insert more bashing at the ranking criteria>

B1rd wrote:

Easies and normals are all the same pretty much... Play one and you've played them all

*cough* monstrata*cough*

B1rd wrote:

We don't need any more diffs for bad players because there are enough already. Thousands. And if we stopped making it a requirement, people would still map them because they are easy to map and mappers naturally map what the community plays. Easy diffs don't fit in with a lot of songs and have to be extremely undermapped, and make mapping and ranking a lot more tedious. So does this idea of 'difficulty spread' in which maps have to cater to every imaginable skill level for unknown reasons. Rather than having a philosophy of "every player deserves to play every song regardless of skill level"' (which is undermined by the fact that when you go over 5 minutes you don't need to do this anymore), having a skill barrier for certain songs might actually encourage people to get better. The game is not sustained by casual players, and making everything easy for casual players is not how you encourage them to play more.

Quality-wise, this is what I expect to read from Off-Topic. Thanks for the good laugh.

why do you have an account here

Stefan wrote:

Quality-wise, this is what I expect to read from Off-Topic. Thanks for the good laugh.

He is somewhat right though. I remember when Talent Shredder came out and one of my goal was passing it, giving me motivation to play.

Only popular stuff need potato difficulties, since the majority of potatoes will only play popular potato songs. For someone who isn't a potato, even hards are manageable if not instantly, but within a few days, but those kinds of players do not care much about potato stuff anyway and potatoes do not really care much about non-potato stuff, such as non-popular, non-potato songs. Potatoes want One Potato Man and Potato Art Online songs, maybe some Potato City and Fainted Potato, so that Normiepotatoes won't complain about all the 2d underage girls we have here.