rip extending mp3
also what does "Manually removing breaks" mean?
also what does "Manually removing breaks" mean?
It is also an attempt to encourage beatmap sets to be more "cohesive" and possessed of design and concept from top to bottomWhy is doing this vs. not doing this an indication of higher quality in a mapset? People don't play every difficulty of the spread from bottom to top, they play what skill level they are at. I don't look at a set, notice how the hard and insane have some cool concept that's similar between them and think "wow that's neat" because I'm not going to be playing both diffs; if I'm at the level where I play Insanes, I'm only going to really be playing the insane.
In my personal opinion, either way is bad, cutting and extending alike. Extending stuff by a few seconds just to adhere to personal laziness to avoid mapping a fullspread and making the set accessible to the entire playerbase (instead of just to a small minority that can even play most Approvals, which are mostly Extreme level) is contradicting some core philosophy we have been trying to defend for years (make stuff accessible and enjoyable for the majority, not just to only the top players). Like it or not, but those who play Extreme level maps are in the sheer minority. Encouraging to circumvent the necessity to produce content for the majority of our playerbase is unwanted, because with that new people will eventually not find content they like and they can play.StarrStyx wrote:
Also, regarding the mp3 extension rule, I don't really see a reason to deny extensions if the mp3 is properly extended without any badly trimmed sections; plus I'd rather see an extension of a song rather than a crude 1-2 min cut. Imo those are even worse than extending an mp3 just by a few seconds. (Also the song compilations stuff that others have pointed out already so ya)
Can you guys stop shaming mappers for being "lazy" just because they try to avoid mapping full spreads for 4:59 songs? Their laziness has absolutely no correlation with the map's quality, or the mp3's quality, or anything that matters quality wise. The only thing potentially negative about extending mp3's is poor mp3 editing, and apparent laziness. So what if people are lazy? You are operating under a slippery slope fallacy that because 4:58 songs are sometimes extended, songs that are 4:00, 3:30, 1:00 etc... are all subject to that extension practice. Just because X happens, it doesn't mean Y is bound to happen.Loctav wrote:
In my personal opinion, either way is bad, cutting and extending alike. Extending stuff by a few seconds just to adhere to personal laziness to avoid mapping a fullspread and making the set accessible to the entire playerbase (instead of just to a small minority that can even play most Approvals, which are mostly Extreme level) is contradicting some core philosophy we have been trying to defend for years (make stuff accessible and enjoyable for the majority, not just to only the top players). Like it or not, but those who play Extreme level maps are in the sheer minority. Encouraging to circumvent the necessity to produce content for the majority of our playerbase is unwanted, because with that new people will eventually not find content they like and they can play.StarrStyx wrote:
Also, regarding the mp3 extension rule, I don't really see a reason to deny extensions if the mp3 is properly extended without any badly trimmed sections; plus I'd rather see an extension of a song rather than a crude 1-2 min cut. Imo those are even worse than extending an mp3 just by a few seconds. (Also the song compilations stuff that others have pointed out already so ya)
While the argument usually pops up that there are "already loads of mid level content to play", don't forget that newcomers to this game usually look for music they already know. And as time goes on, new music gets produced and therefore new osu beatmaps on these tracks. If these tracks are all available but only for the top tier player segment, it discourages newcomers to actually stay in osu! and enjoy it with us together. (because if you are into the hottest newest Trash Metal album and beatmaps exists of that in osu!, I doubt you can be bothered to play 500 Anime opening maps first before you can even remotely play what you actually came for)
Cutting songs is horrible, too, especially if done poorly (like literally just cutting it) and is also some sort of epitome of laziness, because mapping a full spread on 4.49 minutes long songs is definitely tedious.
I understand both sides of the argument and I can relate, like every mapper, with the laziness that comes along with mapping fullspreads, but the limits get stretched more and more. First someone extends a 4.58 minutes song to 5 minutes, then they start with 4:50, then 4:40 and as longer this goes, we have 2:00 songs just being looped five times just to avoid the fullspread. This shouldn't be a thing, in my opinion.
You're right in defending the fact mappers aren't being lazy for doing this but mp3 editing goes against the creator's work; a single measure being repeated to make it 5:xx+ instead of 4:59 could make the track be full 4/4 + 5/4 on one occasion which makes no sense etc if it wasn't structurally/musically intended. What would the guidelines/rules be required to say in that case; "extending is allowed if it's subjectively ok sounding and insert-more-details-that'll-eventually-be-more-restrictive-in-a-year-or-two instead of doing w/e" ? Longer extensions could be swell but then we'd have to 'set limits' on subjective povs in thatMonstrata wrote:
Can you guys stop shaming mappers for being "lazy" just because they try to avoid mapping full spreads for 4:59 songs? Their laziness has absolutely no correlation with the map's quality, or the mp3's quality, or anything that matters quality wise. The only thing potentially negative about extending mp3's is poor mp3 editing, and apparent laziness. So what if people are lazy? You are operating under a slippery slope fallacy that because 4:58 songs are sometimes extended, songs that are 4:00, 3:30, 1:00 etc... are all subject to that extension practice. Just because X happens, it doesn't mean Y is bound to happen.
Laziness should not be your primary argument, it has no tangible bearing on mapping quality which is the concern of the Ranking Criteria.
If such things occur, they should be brought up in the modding process anyways. The rules shouldn't replace BN's abilities to make sound judgements. I've never come across a poor mp3 edit getting past qualification anyways though .alice soft wrote:
haven't read op+thread, just got linked to mons's post and from composer pov I disagree with non-purposeful extending. Unrelated to the diff-spread issue obv.You're right in defending the fact mappers aren't being lazy for doing this but mp3 editing goes against the creator's work; a single measure being repeated to make it 5:xx+ instead of 4:59 could make the track be full 4/4 + 5/4 on one occasion which makes no sense etc if it wasn't structurally/musically intended. What would the guidelines/rules be required to say in that case; "extending is allowed if it's subjectively ok sounding and insert-more-details-that'll-eventually-be-more-restrictive-in-a-year-or-two instead of doing w/e" ? Longer extensions could be swell but then we'd have to 'set limits' on subjective povs in thatMonstrata wrote:
Can you guys stop shaming mappers for being "lazy" just because they try to avoid mapping full spreads for 4:59 songs? Their laziness has absolutely no correlation with the map's quality, or the mp3's quality, or anything that matters quality wise. The only thing potentially negative about extending mp3's is poor mp3 editing, and apparent laziness. So what if people are lazy? You are operating under a slippery slope fallacy that because 4:58 songs are sometimes extended, songs that are 4:00, 3:30, 1:00 etc... are all subject to that extension practice. Just because X happens, it doesn't mean Y is bound to happen.
Laziness should not be your primary argument, it has no tangible bearing on mapping quality which is the concern of the Ranking Criteria.
direction as well so it'll lead to issues as well. Write it out nicely if this does get allowed so such things don't come up.
Otherwise osu! has stuck to its 5:00 limit for quite some time so why not stick with the current Loved or unranked plan if a mapper doesn't want to do multiple difficulties; the Loved category also exists due to this issue, not only due to lack of mods/etc.
Other possibility: mappers can work on doing their own remixes: would even small variations to an existing track be allowed? In the music industry it isn't but this game disregards their copyright/etc laws already so it could be handled differently and mappers+staff can come to a compromise in this direction.
Do you want to give numbers to back up your data?Loctav wrote:
Like it or not, but those who play Extreme level maps are in the sheer minority. Encouraging to circumvent the necessity to produce content for the majority of our playerbase is unwanted, because with that new people will eventually not find content they like and they can play.
Exactly, most of the player base plays I/X or superior. Even high digit players play I or X instead of H or below.blissfulyoshi wrote:
Do you want to give numbers to back up your data?Loctav wrote:
Like it or not, but those who play Extreme level maps are in the sheer minority. Encouraging to circumvent the necessity to produce content for the majority of our playerbase is unwanted, because with that new people will eventually not find content they like and they can play.
Let's take a top 5 played map like No Title, since this is probably a decent choice that represents what people want to play given its playcount https://osu.ppy.sh/b/766475
At the time of posting, here are the amount of passes and plays in diffs at various ratings:
Difficulty
Passes Plays
E
413892 650246
N
299507 614919
374551 1264139
============
674058 1879058
H
480281 2936976
I
671031 3449540
261651 2375593
195770 2166451
211253 1877997
============
1339705 9869581
X
45155 628154
129675 1354980
116640 1179720
138373 1566427
75497 1072797
133822 1602187
============
639162 7404265
Passes:
I > H > N > X > E
Plays:
I > X > H > N > E
I'll leave interpretation of the data up to others, but it certainly seems that most people rather play I and X rather than N or E.
Well you can repeat the same exercise with Hitorigoto (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/596704) and get the same result, except there are no X diffs, so you only see I plays.ErunamoJAZZ wrote:
Those numbers are not adequate for an analysis. You must take numbers only in 1 month or so.
If you take all plays, any conclusion will be wrong.
Thinking and proof are 2 different things. Without proof, your opinions mean nothing.xxdeathx wrote:
I think there are more players who play ENH, but the ones that play IX retry many more times, driving up the playcount.
Still not a reason to limit the number of difficulties in a mapset, which everyone should have realized by now is a terrible idea.
Actually the number of (true) people who play ENH difficulties is pretty low. Most people who play and retry lower difficulties are people who HDDTHR them to be in the leader boards. The only change happens on old popular maps, but that's because it's one of the first maps new players download so it only represents that popular maps are the gate to new people.xxdeathx wrote:
I think there are more players who play ENH, but the ones that play IX retry many more times, driving up the playcount.
Still not a reason to limit the number of difficulties in a mapset, which everyone should have realized by now is a terrible idea.
Weird wording there, "for via storyboarding".pishifat wrote:
A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding.
ErunamoJAZZ wrote:
I think the limit of 8 diff in a set will be beneficial in the sense that mapper will stop that think that do a mapset is equal to make 5 extras because pp.
But its true that doing this a rule will be bad idea, like in Kenterz's example.
I propose make this a guideline, where if any mapper wanna broke the guide, must to justify this very well
(Now, in a personal side, i can see how most players usually play only one or two extras in a set... so limiting the amount of extras in a set will be what the data is showing that player really wish?)
:thinking:
I like this ideaEndaris wrote:
I also think a guideline is a better idea for the amount of difficulties.
The criteria for breaking that guideline should be either spread or unique approaches. I can see the appeal of no restrictions for the amount of difficulties but all to often you get multiple extra diffs that only differ in minor details stylewise where it is really questionable what justifies the existence of that difficulty when it is really just bloating the set, bloating the work for modding and qualification and achieving nothing gameplaywise that sets it apart from the other difficulties.
I really like the reasons for having smaller sets as it also comes with a potential increase in quality for these sets. Not to mention that the musical diversity might profit in the long run because instead of mapping 5 similar extras for the same song, we might see an extra for 3 other songs instead.
A problem would be how one could get mappers to not make GDs that match each other as seen here.
Because it would be lame to tell them later to remove one of the diffs due to duplication.
blissfulyoshi wrote:
Thinking and proof are 2 different things. Without proof, your opinions mean nothing.xxdeathx wrote:
I think there are more players who play ENH, but the ones that play IX retry many more times, driving up the playcount.
Still not a reason to limit the number of difficulties in a mapset, which everyone should have realized by now is a terrible idea.
Does this counter this rule now? t/292401pishifat wrote:
Spread
Rules
All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance.
- If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties...
- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
blissfulyoshi wrote:
Thinking and proof are 2 different things. Without proof, your opinions mean nothing.xxdeathx wrote:
I think there are more players who play ENH, but the ones that play IX retry many more times, driving up the playcount.
Still not a reason to limit the number of difficulties in a mapset, which everyone should have realized by now is a terrible idea.
Pretty much this when I said what I said. I shouldn't have to go off topic to argue the semantics of my slightly incorrect word choice when the proof is in plain view.borborygmos wrote:
how about just look at the ranks of people and the range of those ranks can perform at, its not rocket science to see most people play ENH, but many more relevant people who contribute to this game play I+
borborygmos wrote:
how about just look at the ranks of people and the range of those ranks can perform at, its not rocket science to see most people play ENH, but many more relevant people who contribute to this game play I+
What plain view? What logic? Prove it with data. I'm not saying any of you are wrong, but if people interpret the same source of data differently, then whatever you say means nothing to those seeing that data, unless you back it up with something more solid than your own conclusion.xxdeathx wrote:
Pretty much this when I said what I said. I shouldn't have to go off topic to argue the semantics of my slightly incorrect word choice when the proof is in plain view.
Can't say I have either so point taken.Monstrata wrote:
If such things occur, they should be brought up in the modding process anyways. The rules shouldn't replace BN's abilities to make sound judgements. I've never come across a poor mp3 edit getting past qualification anyways though .
Nope, it's not meant that way, just a case of bad wording again LOLAscendance wrote:
Does this counter this rule now? t/292401pishifat wrote:
Spread
Rules
All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance.
- If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties...
- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
The current standing explains that catch the beat diffs on hybrid sets could not contain ONLY an X-level difficulty (Overdose). The new rule implies that only one difficulty can be added and it can be either I (Rain) or X (Overdose) level? Unless I'm missing something here, isn't this a bit counterproductive towards the growth of our mode, considering a good amount of hybrid sets have H-level (Platters) on them?
Also why are we limiting the amount of difficulties on a hybrid mapset? It's like we're being discouraged from providing content to our users. It's not like we've ever had a problem with too many difficulties in a set before in our mode, so there's almost no reason to enforce something on us like this. Our mode is dying, please don't kill it more. It's already bad enough that I have 1/2 of the ranked osu!catch maps in the last 2 months lol
Just checking, this is across all time?Ephemeral wrote:
In the interests of fair and accurate discussion on the matter, I pulled some stats down for beatmap plays across all difficulty ranges of ALL approved, ranked, qualified and Loved beatmaps:
Make of that what you will.