1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments
show more
posted
You should be removing restrictions, not adding more. Most work hours put into this game is content creation and people do it being paid only with recognition, not even going by their real names but rather as anime girls sitting in their avatars. All the 8 difficulty limitation does is fulfill some people's need for "clean" sets, does nothing for players and limits community aspect of the game (cooperation required on creating big sets). You might say that these extra extras are redundant, but what's even more redundant is building additional sets of the popular song with easies, normals and hards being virtually the same. BNs might hate checking so many diffs but no one forces them too and it's between the mappers and BNG, big sets DO get ranked which means they are open to it. Keep the things as much of free market as possible please.

What I would like to see is removal of approval category (it doesn't mean anything at this point) just let the 5 min songs be ranked, adding 4 minute 2 diff possibility (like HI, HX, IX etc) would be great as well - lot of songs fall into that category due to the structure popular in electronic music that makes for great beatmaps and I don't think reducing number of easies and normals in the game on those would be that bad.

Agreed on ban on editing the mp3s (but could give people some slack on 4:58-4:59 drain time, judged case by case).
posted
Why limit maps per mode to 8? It's not like there will be many maps aiming to get ranked with over 8 difficulties per mode anyway, and these few extra .osu files and leaderboards don't really take that much space. Seems too restrictive for me, especially when there's a popular song that has multiple guest difficulties.

Of course, I'm not saying that there should be no limit (there will definitely be at least one troll dude who tries to get 20 difficulties of Gory in the House or sth ranked), just that more should be allowed depending on the song and mappers' mapping quality.

So, to compromise, it should be a guideline, not a rule.
posted
Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode. The highest difficulty of a game-mode is not required to fit within a reasonable spread, so long as no levels of difficulty are skipped.
I can see where this is going in order to prevent maps to have 26548 extras. Except, a lot of the statement is pretty vague. Reasonable spread could mean a lot of different ways. It's a pretty restrictive rule to say the least and making mappers create multiple of sets to counteract this rule would make things tedious for both sides. More BN searching, waiting, two sets of the same song and same gamemode not allowed to be qualified at the same time, yeah. There has been large ranked mapsets out there with reasonable diff spreads (sweet dreams, hitorigoto) and some semi questionable (tokyo). I guess a solution to this may be capping the sr of each diff (ex. 6 extras, 6 insanes, etc allowed at a time). Only problem with this solution is that extra's can range to a multiple of different sr's. Maybe a new diff icon could be made for 7 star maps, but that may be a hassle too.

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time.
I don't agree with this rule as much either. Supposed this rule does get published, will people actually take the time to make sure the mp3 is not modified? If someone gets caught doing it, what would happen? Telling a mapper to make a full spread of the modified mp3 that's barely 5 minutes would just be excessive and stressful. There's mini songs I would love to try mapping but the original mp3 being less than 30 seconds, so what then? As some people mentioned earlier, it really depends on how abused the modified mp3 is. If its 20 seconds of fireworks to meet the drain time, then yeah, I could see this rule being implemented. But if the mp3 is something like 4:58 drain time and one little loop could meet the approval mark, this rule could be a disaster.
posted
why are people complaining about the minimum drain time thing

just get people to gd other diffs if you really don't want to map them
posted
hey...
Its slightly offtopic my comments question , but still part of the Ranking Criteria.

I would like to know if it is possible to remove one rule for Ranking that has been made a few years ago


"Sliders are not allowed to change speed midway" , something like that.


The gimmick used by val1080 or other mappers.

Is it possible that at some point players can map this again ?

I hope some way it can be possible to map this again for Ranked maps , its beautiful ^^
posted

Californian wrote:

Supposed this rule does get published, will people actually take the time to make sure the mp3 is not modified?
p/5602195

p/5287081
posted
If you are going to prevent people to edit their mp3 and avoid making a fullspread, you will need to provide a solution for them, just restricting more will lead to nothing.

Akali wrote:

Agreed on ban on editing the mp3s (but could give people some slack on 4:58-4:59 drain time, judged case by case).
for those songs that range from 3:59 until 4:59 songs no one wants to map,
I feel like you kinda need an in-between rule for those?

give those the possibility to go approved with an additional difficulty that must somewhat lower than the top difficulty and always be under 5.25

-There will be people naturally will making Easy diffs cause that's the easiest and quickest to make if they are tired of making the top diff already, or they'll just go with normal or hard if the song is too complicated for that, or they will want more freedom and don't mind mapping an Insane.
-songs like UNDEAD CORPORATION - The Empress would actually be a decent choice to go for rank, and Frederic - oddloop would be cool to map!!!!
-You will naturally overall get more variety in length of songs to pick from in all kinds of difficulties.
posted

zev wrote:

for those 3:59 4:59ish songs no one wants to map,
I feel like you kinda need an in-between rule for those?
No point in making "in-between" rules - when does it stop? If you make a special case for 4:55 to 4:59, then the losers with 4:59 songs become the losers with 4:54 songs, so on and so forth. There's a cutoff, and as with all cutoffs, inevitably some people are gonna just barely miss it. That's just how it is, no matter where you put the cutoff.
posted

Zexous wrote:

zev wrote:

for those 3:59 4:59ish songs no one wants to map,
I feel like you kinda need an in-between rule for those?
No point in making "in-between" rules - when does it stop? If you make a special case for 4:55 to 4:59, then the losers with 4:59 songs become the losers with 4:54 songs, so on and so forth. There's a cutoff, and as with all cutoffs, inevitably some people are gonna just barely miss it. That's just how it is, no matter where you put the cutoff.
I meant from songs which length are from 3:59 until 4:59.

you'll render a lot of songs not worth to map if you do place the cutoff wrong though.
posted
Instead of mapsets with more than 8 diff spread we will have multiple mapsets with fewer diff spread from the same song. How is the later better than the former?
We lack the reasoning behind this. If its a matter of time, then why 30 seconds songs should be treated the same as 4 minutes songs.

idk, this decission seems too arbitrary.
posted
(holy shit some washed up alumni making a post about a game he doesn't even play anymore surely his opinion is gospel and should not be questioned)


This change seems fair to me as long as we stop locking difficulties behind a certain skill limit (ie. normals shouldn't have 1/4 streams, easies can't have too many 1/2 in a row, etc etc) and allow more freedom for mappers to build a spread that, instead of trying to cover the global difficulty scale focuses on covering a certain part of it. I made these photoshops back when this was initially discussed and my opinion really hasn't changed.

to put it more plainly, i'd push for a future where one mapset can have an insane diff that's easier than another's normal, because they focus on different sides of the global diff scale.








these shops are like my pride and joy this is like my third time posting them, won't somebody tell me to shut up


Bottom line: less difficulties in a spread is fine as long as you don't restrict these difficulties on the global difficulty scale
posted

Californian wrote:

There has been large ranked mapsets out there with reasonable diff spreads (sweet dreams, hitorigoto) and some semi questionable (tokyo).
What is questionable about the Toyko spread, lol... musical elements are represented as different mapping elements in pretty much every difficulty, ranging from patterning, flow, and even the CS lmfao. Those difficulties are comparable, sure, but not the same at all. Every mapper designed their own landscape of the map, and they each play differently enough to bring new elements to the spread, so what's wrong with that?

Anyhow, my stand is the same as Akali's. I personally condemn this whole restriction adding thing, it's a pretty good way to demotivate the community that is producing the playable content.
posted
It feels like the creators of this ruleset are seeing problems that mappers and players are not, and trying to sell the difficulty number limitation as a necessary solution.

Can someone please define "bloat" and why it is/could be a problem for members (mappers, modders, players, staff) of the community?
posted
Adding on, it would seem that the ruling of the 8 diff limit is due to the fact that certain maps are being farmed for pp.

Reconsidering it, it doesn't seem such a bad idea. But then, I look at this: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/489855

This isn't a pp farming map, and yet, if something like the limit is held on, then this mapset will NEVER get ranked. Killing guest diffs? I think so.
posted
Personally not against the idea of putting a cap on the amount difficulties allowed in one set, as it encourage thoughtful spread design.

But I do think it is contradictory on how players progress, not just osu I think majority of good single player games focus on its "end game content", in which players will spend 10% of their time figuring the game out, and then they will spend the remaining 90% of their time, working on reaching out to the highest possible skill cap one could possibly achieve in game.
Even well designed paid rhythm games will focus more of it's creative effort into more challenging charts, examples include deemo's DLC, cytus's hidden charts, lanota's more expressive playfield movement when designing harder charts.

You might say osu is different and you can rank the same song multiple times and you would achieve the same amount of creative insane and extra difficulties, but that's extra effort from the mapper WHO CREATE CONTENT FOR FREE, to make easys and normals to complete the set, which is more discouraging for mappers to rank songs for the effort required, it's a basic concept that the more resource something takes to make, the less it would be produced. And it puts osu at a disadvantage more than anything, and the limitation you put on are not the ones who make uncreative low quality maps who rank small sets anyways, you're limiting the ones who are willing to go through the tedious creative process of ranking something of quality.

Just another perspective on this matter
posted
Less is more, and spending the same time creating a lower amount of difficulties with high quality than creating a huge amount with lower quality is worth a lot. Getting a lot of GDs is likely to reduce the quality of a mapset as a whole, since GDs can make a spread less polished (lower difficulties) or lead to very similar maps in one mapset (higher difficulties), which is worthless for the players (not considering getting double PP) and just creates more work for the modderns and Nominators checking the mapset.

I personally follow this mindset for my own mapsets and I think it's reasonable, but I don't think the 8-difficulty-limit will necessarily lead people into this mindset. Instead, it might just demotivate them as the general consensus from the community seems to be. This is why I personally suggest making the hard limit a guideline at best.

Instead of limiting the amount of difficulties people are allowed to make, we should try to think of ways that motivate people to map fewer difficulties, apart from the fact that it will be easier to rank the mapset. A possibility would be to allow for higher difficulty gaps between two consecutive difficulties (preferably for longer songs, which would solve some other mentioned problems, too) as long as the spread is linear, to encourage people to make small spreads that still cover a wide range of skill levels.
posted

pishifat wrote:

[*]Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which complies with their respective mode’s difficulty-specific ranking criteria.
[*]Hybrid mapsets without osu!standard difficulties must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties per mode. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which does not break any difficulty-specific guidelines.
I think this wording is confusing, it should clarify that it doesn't apply to marathon maps - as it is now, it's implied elsewhere, but not clearly stated which could be confusing to new mappers and/or players.

pishifat wrote:

[*]Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode. The highest difficulty of a game-mode is not required to fit within a reasonable spread, so long as no levels of difficulty are skipped.
This is much more reasonable than the last time something similar was proposed, but I still disagree with it. I can see some merit in it for one reason - lack of quality assurance due to large overall drain time.

However, I don't think it is that much of an issue. To be honest, the maps getting ranked recently I personally found to be the worst were usually not part of some huge set, so I think this positive of it is heavily outweighed by the restriction it places on getting actually great collaboration efforts ranked.

If I were to suggest an alternative solution (which might sound a bit weird considering recent changes) - sets with more than 8 difficulties could require more bubbles. If you are to rank a set like that, the amount of effort to rank it should be proportionate to the scale of what you're trying to rank. It would hopefully do something to combat pointlessly large spreads for no good reason while still allowing large sets to go through. Of course, it won't end pointless spreads either, but I'd rather have 5 stupidly large spreads ranked than 1 actually good one not ranked. And in reality, it's probably more of a 50/50 distribution anyway.



zev wrote:

If you are going to prevent people to edit their mp3 and avoid making a fullspread, you will need to provide a solution for them, just restricting more will lead to nothing.

give those the possibility to go approved with an additional difficulty that must somewhat lower than the top difficulty and always be under 5.25

-There will be people naturally will making Easy diffs cause that's the easiest and quickest to make if they are tired of making the top diff already, or they'll just go with normal or hard if the song is too complicated for that, or they will want more freedom and don't mind mapping an Insane.
-songs like UNDEAD CORPORATION - The Empress would actually be a decent choice to go for rank, and Frederic - oddloop would be cool to map!!!!
-You will naturally overall get more variety in length of songs to pick from in all kinds of difficulties.
I agree with this. You could even require it to have at least one E/N difficulty and one H/I difficulty if you really wanted to and still reduce the workload for creating sets of 4-5 minute long hard songs by a ton while always providing some spread to be worked with by players. I like disallowing mp3 edits and other shenanigans for the sake of abusing the 5 minute rule, but I feel like many good maps wouldn't be ranked without it, so some alternative solution should be put into place. Doubly so since the primary valid reason I can see for limiting the amount of difficulties in a set is that it's harder to assure its quality, but a 4:30 set with 5 difficulties has vastly more drain time than a tv size set with 10.

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.[/list]
Also, someone probably already pointed that out, but there's a typo there.
posted

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.
Why cater to and make rules for the people who only pick up and play the game a couple times a month? While they may be the majority i dont think they should be more important than the minority that actually play the game a lot

Loctav wrote:

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)
I agree with the argument that there are already loads of maps for new players, look at the all the recently ranked maps, almost every single ranked set has something new for players, when only some have maps that will be challenging and enjoyable for higher ranked players. Why are there rules that require new players to have maps available to play but not for higher ranked players. I get just as discouraged when I see a page full of maps that i'll find boring, as a new player would if he saw a bunch of high star maps. Now obviously it would be stupid to make mappers required to map high diff maps as i think the current rule is stupid.




but anyways, I think that "Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode." being a rule will only reduce the amount of high quality collab sets and prevents mappers from working together to make a large set of unique maps. If "bloat" is a problem and having a bunch of low quality maps in a set is an issue, it should be a quality issue only, not a quantity, I dont see why someone shouldn't be allowed to have a large set if all of the maps are of good quality (see https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1073964).
For the argument that that's a lot for BNs to go through, they don't HAVE to, and those types of mapsets will probably be quite uncommon, but that should be something that the mapper(s) have to work through rather than making it a rule.



that's just my take on it TL;DR I think there's too much focus on new players and the 8 diff cap will only reduce the amount of great mapsets that show off a bunch of mappers unique take on a map
posted
I think one of the major underlying questions with this is:
What is a spread nowadays?
Back in the days spreads used to have difficulties built on each other, some sort of coherence in the usage of gameplay elements.
Nowadays I don't think that is an actual thing anymore as the majority of sets includes guest difficulties.
Instead of fucking around with a limit of difficulties it would be a lot better if there was a systematical change in how additional difficulties can get on a set.

Picking up this old feature request of Loctav along with something i vaguely recall from the ztrot-drama-thread:
As the traditional "set" is pretty much dead, wouldn't it be nice if it was possible to add difficulties to songs past ranking in a separate process?
That way one could restrict the spread for the ranking of the initial set relatively strictly to ensure a better review phase and get more variety in later through a separate review phase for each difficulty that strives to be added.
At the same time it would possibly reduce the amount of redundant difficulties because unlike in the current process people don't start their GDs at the same time, instead they see what is already there.

Apart from a change in the ranking system itself I don't see a way to properly satisfy both sides of the argument.
posted
Still. confused as to why "Marathons can get ranked with only one difficulty" is not explicitly written in the rules
show more
Please sign in to reply.