[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
zev
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.
Zexous

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.
zev

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.
marth0
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.
Cyclohexane
(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
Yoshimaro

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.
Moonlit
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?
Athrun
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.
N0thingSpecial
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
Myxo
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.
LwL

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.
bubbagumperson

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
Endaris
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.
Raja
Still. confused as to why "Marathons can get ranked with only one difficulty" is not explicitly written in the rules
Default

Zexous wrote:

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.
There's actually a point and it's to make the difference between each step more reasonable. A single step is the worst possible option in my opinion, because there's a massive difference in the effort required to make a mapset for a 4:54 song and a marathon. We have 50s, 100s, and 300s in the game instead of just hit or miss for the same reason.
[-LazySloth-]
not even hello there
Nyari
why does this restrict people that are trying to make mapsets in order to please people? you have things like hybrid mapsets being restrictive in the way of forcing them to create an appropriate spread for all modes that they are making a map for. why is it inherently bad that people throw in an oni diff somewhere? does it cause some sort of confusion, sure, maybe but quite frankly who cares?

does the organization of certain maps really trigger peoples ocd to the point where they need to create strict rules in order to please themselves? this change, just like the one that we saw last year is nothing but restrictive when it comes to the mapping criteria. why is that the case?

why are people trying to make strict rules when all they need is to instead encourage people with mapping things that they would feel like they would want to mod? this is already the case, since people will not mod, nominate nor icon maps that they do not seem fit for any sort of support.

why is it bad that people are allowed to do things in the current guideline system? noone is gonna support a map that they do not want to support, i do not think that a change like this will cut down on the amount of submissions with "appropriate spreads".

why do we need strict rules that restrict people when it comes to mapsets? its not like BN already are just not caring about the maps that they doubt that they don't want to see getting ranked, i.e the bigger mapsets with a bunch of difficulties are never prone to getting ranked.

why are mappers getting restricted when it comes to their creativity of song choices when it comes to their mapping? changes according to no longer being able to reach minimum drain time to fit under the marathon descriptions. maps that are ~4:50 long are never going to get mapped anymore, since they are no longer allowed to be under the marathon category, this is nothing but throwing a lot of potentional songs out of the window.

this entire rule change is just to be able to fit in the last years submission of forcing people to have 8 or less maps of the same difficulties. granted, while we do not see many maps like these, there is no reason to restrict the submission of maps like that, since they are not inherently a problem. why would maps like "no title" be restricted by this rule when it is one of the most well known maps on this game?

idk dude, this entire draft seems like it doesnt cater to the community nor its needs but only to some qat with ocd who was pissed over the fact that mapsets were annoying to check.
MagicDragon
I disagree with banning mapsets with 8 or more difficulties - it makes creative projects such as Monstrata's Can Do mapset less viable. You've got to have a normal, a hard and an insane, so by the time you get to the Extra difficulties you can have a maximum of 5. That sounds like a lot but I'd you are trying to create maps to represent an entire cast of characters it can become difficult. If you want to make intermediate difficulties between standard spread difficulties that also interferes somewhat.

Rather than limiting the total number of difficulties, I think it makes more sense to say there should be a justifiable reason for having multiple of the same spread difficulty on a map set. Justifiable reasons would be "There should be a map to represent each of the half dozen characters in the Anime this song is from" or "I felt it was apropriate to have a light hard difficulty because the normal was simplistic and the regular hard was pretty tough" or "the difficulties are mapped by different people and have very different technical styles"
xdominik
The spread rule have been already discussed in the past and heavily denied by the community why bring it up again ?

What is so wrong with mapset like these : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/333139 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/880761 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/833605 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/658127 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/467726 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/832152 , https://osu.ppy.sh/b/297812 ?

It seems like staff tries to force the rule no matter what by bringing it up again and again until pushing it thought later . There are already good propositions that are can be taken look at like Shad0w1and's - They can be discussed and even upgraded and forwarded to community .

Also the name difficulties names idk why limit such option in the mapsets even "Tragic Love Extra" while being quite silly it indicates the difficulty of the map and have a nice "ring" to it another shackles on mapper creativity - Why cannot for example diff names from Touhou arrangment song named after character spell cards ? It would be nice touch to good beatmap and can be nice thing for people knowing the source.

I think I am already wasting my time here because there were multiple people that had already discussed those things and propossed changes but were ignored. It feels like talking to a wall again and again
OmegaR
no
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply