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.
If you take all plays, any conclusion will be wrong.
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.
The fact that there are 10 million users and no more than the top few hundred thousand that are capable of playing insanes is not enough to support my original hypothesis?blissfulyoshi wrote:
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.
Note: I never said anything about H diffs.
there are more players who play ENHThat's the data and I see no need to analyze it to the point where you're convinced when most others are able to take it for granted
Minimum draintime rule should talk about abusing the 5 min because the extend your song to get 30 seconds thing is actually encouragedUndeadCapulet wrote:
If a mapper is going to go out of their way to have the mp3 edited to reach marathon length, this rule won't get them to make a full spread. This rule is choosing between "have a 5 minute map for a song that isn't 5 minutes" and "have no map". As long as the actual play experience of the map is still pleasant, it is better to have the map than not have the map. There is never anything bad about having more maps.update wrote:
Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose.
There are plenty of songs that really don't fit for a full mapspread, but just barely don't reach minimum drain time. My 4:45 300BPM death metal anthem is not going to make for a good experience as a Normal difficulty. Requiring a mapper to design a full spread for certain songs that clearly don't need it isn't beneficial to rank quality.
To be honest this rule is almost unenforceable anyway since the line between user remix and mp3 extending is super blurry. Right now I can't add sounds to the beginning or end, but I CAN add sounds consistently throughout the mp3, call it an Edit ver. and rank it that way. People will always find loopholes to unnecessary rules.
It's also unclear whether separate songs are included in the "adding sounds to the end of the mp3" or not. Song compilations can be considered unrankable with this current wording.
If a mapper is going out of their way to custom-extend a mp3 to dodge a spread they do just that: dodge a spread and thus content they would normally have to provide to the game's different target audiences which is detrimental to a mapset's quality overall and not just plainly lazy.
The whatever diff they make out of it's quality would remain untouched if they made a full spread plus it would offer other target audiences something to play. You claim that some songs don't need a spread whereas I think at this point in the thread it's kind-of obvious that adding a spread will not be detrimental to a map's quality and if you let it influence your maps quality you should probably rethink why you are ranking stuff in the first place.
We went for explicitly listing what constitutes as abuse for the 5 minute draintime ruling on marathon maps to avoid the mentioned scenarios in mapping as well as mp3 editing for this purpose to get away with it, song compilations are a thing that would probably need talking about with this wording, i agree.change "for" to "or" fairupdate 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.
The mapset owner is in charge of not just mapping, but frequently also asking for every guest diff, finding mods, hitsounding, storyboarding, timing, balancing spread, and ensuring every other included difficulty is rankable. The set owner basically always deserves credit regardless of how much work they actually did.
If the guest difficulty mappers are okay giving mapset credit to a mapper who did "less work" than them, there should be no reason to not let them. If they weren't okay with it they wouldn't be in the set.
it has been agreed upon that the one hosting a set has extra tasks which he voluntarily takes over by hosting the set, but to be able to do so there needs to be some sort of failsave to assure that the mapset's host has contributed to the mapping side of a set that he hosts unless we want to see people ranking gd-only sets again.
This minimum effort that someone has to put into a set in order to claim to be the host has been decided to be the amount of draintime they mapped to leave out wiggle room for ambiguity. obviously mapped objects would not work as a measure because then it'd dictate that more dense = better so the only component that went into this rationale was the draintime someone mapped.
I think as a rationale this makes a whole lot of sense because it aims to avoid people going for ranking with content that they cannot even claim to have done the majority on.If the mapper doesn't care whether they're credited or not then that's entirely on them. The real username will be in tags and description anyway for users to find them so it doesn't matter what nickname they use in the diff name. This is just a "No Fun Allowed" rule that doesn't affect map quality in any way.update wrote:
Usernames indicating possession of a guest difficulty should be consistent between multiple mapsets. Varying nicknames for one user makes interpreting who created a difficulty confusing.
To be honest this can be said about every diffname rule/guideline. Is it really necessary to police them so strictly? With the new star rating the map difficulty can be somewhat reasonably determined without any difficulty name, so I don't see any reason to carry over old rules.
At least an explanation as to why you're using a different alias every goddamn set without changing your username for no other reason than lolz would be nice. This guideline is intended to bring forward more clarity about who a guest diff indicating possession is actually crediting because with recent developments this became quite unclear in some cases
Ephemeral wrote:
Good point.
2014-present:
2015-present:
2016-present:
------
2008-2015:
2015-2016:
2016-2017:
2017-present:
Again, mappers that extend mp3 to 5min are not going to be making a full spread because of this rule. It's just not going to happen. They'll just pick a different song to map. Extending mp3 can't be detrimental to a mapset when that mapset wouldn't exist at all without the extension. Between 1 map and 0 maps, clearly the 1 map is the better option.Okorin wrote:
If a mapper is going out of their way to custom-extend a mp3 to dodge a spread they do just that: dodge a spread and thus content they would normally have to provide to the game's different target audiences which is detrimental to a mapset's quality overall and not just plainly lazy. The whatever diff they make out of it's quality would remain untouched if they made a full spread plus it would offer other target audiences something to play.
Feel like I may have implied something by mistake here. I didn't mean to say the rule would be detrimental to map quality, just that it wouldn't improve it. It does nothing at best. It only punishes "lazy mappers", reduces the diversity of songs in the ranked section, and doesn't provide any major benefits outside of this.Okorin wrote:
You claim that some songs don't need a spread whereas I think at this point in the thread it's kind-of obvious that adding a spread will not be detrimental to a map's quality and if you let it influence your maps quality you should probably rethink why you are ranking stuff in the first place.
I don't see how gd-only sets is a bad thing. All the gd-er's are aware and consenting to being in a set that the host didn't participate in. They are the only people who should be concerned about getting credit for their work, and they're still in the set. If they don't care, why should we? Is it just an issue of staff not wanting to give contest/BestOf rewards to someone that didn't map anything? Because the rewards are still given in the case of someone who only mapped an Easy for their ENHIIXXU4K5K6K7KTaikoCTB set. There's little difference between rewarding this and rewarding a gd-only set.Okorin wrote:
it has been agreed upon that the one hosting a set has extra tasks which he voluntarily takes over by hosting the set, but to be able to do so there needs to be some sort of failsave to assure that the mapset's host has contributed to the mapping side of a set that he hosts unless we want to see people ranking gd-only sets again.
Then why isn't the gd'er fully required to put their username in the difficulty? I think it's way more unclear to have "Insane by Kibbleru" than it is to have "Quibboo's Tragic Love Insane feat. Kibb by Kibbleru".Okorin wrote:
At least an explanation as to why you're using a different alias every goddamn set without changing your username for no other reason than lolz would be nice. This guideline is intended to bring forward more clarity about who a guest diff indicating possession is actually crediting because with recent developments this became quite unclear in some cases
I mean looking at the numbers overall yes this is true, but from 2015 onwards this is plainly wrong. If you look at the current meta, Hard, Insane and Expert form the majority. If you look at 2016-2017 you can even see that Expert difficulties received more plays than Hards, and for 2017 alone Expert and Hard are similar in amount of plays, with around 8 million more plays each than Normals.Loctav wrote:
As data displayed, the majority of plays can be found in the segment of Hard, Insane and Normal - and Expert difficulty being in the minority (together with Easy, which is clear because not all sets must have an Easy).
ErunamoJAZZ wrote:
I propose make this a guideline, where if any mapper wanna broke the guide, must to justify this very well