[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
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
Yauxo
Every time someone tries to force a mapset difficulty restriction upon us, tons of mappers that might not even be as active in the forums come out and try to get you guys off that idea. That happened last time when ztrot posted it, now it's happening again. Cant you just throw that idea out of the window for once and leave that the way it is? We simply do not want it.

If you guys really have too much to work, feel like quality falls down the drain or whatever, then please give us incentives to improve, not restrictions. Find more capable QATs, showcase high-quality E/N/H maps that have been ranked in the past few days, reward better modding more or anything else, really. Ive posted that in the last thread as well; Restrictions like that kill high-effort sets like Ascendance's Sweet Dreams for 11t, greater mapping contests where the winners get featured in a premade set (GMC, you should know) or funny sets, maybe memes, idk.

pls just dont, not again
pajwoj
i decline mapsets with a lot of diffs are usually very good and take a lot of work to make so why split it when you can have all in 1
Dawnsday
the community has spoken out against this "8 diff rule" or stuff like it before, how is rewording it going to change that fact no one approves of it.

jesus i dont understand why it's hard to accept that lots of diffs on a map, whilst rare, are actually kinda beneficial to the game as a whole (and prevent people all mapping the same song in different sets, yay for neatness).
Mafumafu
Read through wall of texts.

Quality issues of huge sets? How are you sure that limiting the number of diffs in one set could increase the overall quality of the map? The two stuffs are pretty irrelevant. Maybe you have to give rational and persuasive deductions.

What could improve the quality of maps should be the modding process in fact. Unrealistic fancy on such number restriction criteria on improving quality is not tenable at all.

Repeatedly, if the map lacks of quality (even not because of it's huge), else if the mapper meets difficulties on ranking such huge mapsets, they will spontaneously reduce the size of their maps, by themselves. And if they stick to their huge sets, they will just undergo a hard time for ranking them. I do not see any meaning of a new rule or guideline.

Dislike PP maps? At first I have to say, not all the huge sets are pp maps. So talking about PP maps under this criteria is already partial. If you are not satisfied with pp maps, you could just stop playing them. No one forces you to play that maps. And if you want to see more non-pp maps, why not just map them by yourself? Again, not all the people are against the pp maps, by advocating this rule or guideline under a reason related to PP stuffs, you are also jeopardizing the recreation of other players.

Worried about too similar difficulties in one set? Firstly I have to say "similar" is pretty subjective. How you define similar? Styles? How you define "style" then? Let's compromise, assuming there are several "similar" difficulties in one map. By limiting the number of diffs, people will stop making similar difficulties? No, they will just make a new set with difficulties removed from former sets because of that limitation. And that will make the case even worse. If you really want to see a more various style of maps, the best way is to join in the mapping and create your own maps, or, giving appropriate and pertinent suggestions during modding period of the map.
Regou
Isn't that diff-number cap thing been highly rejected by the community last year? Why are you guys putting it back to here, only with small modification towards the rule? Osu! is a community-based game, and I believe community's opinion should be taken into serious consideration, but now I just feel like you guys are trying to ignore them.

Possible upcoming response:"no, we did. Look! We tried to be lenient by allowing the highest diff not to follow the spread."
But you just can't deny the fact that the diff-number cap still exists, and the community hates it.

Other posts above should have listed tons of reasons of why people don't want that rule to exist. Please, just no.

xdominik wrote:

It feels like talking to a wall again and again
Vaarka
I can't be bothered to make more than one difficulty, much less eight.

I think the main reason for this is modding a map with 10 difficulties is a real pain in the badonk
Wafu

pishifat wrote:

  1. Converted difficulties must form a reasonable spread. For example, a mapset with Easy and Normal osu!standard difficulties and an Insane osu!catch difficulty is not permitted. One or more additional difficulties may need to be added to fill the gap.
  2. Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Hard.
  3. One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
I've got two questions here. First question, why would you actually limit the difficulty of maps in a hybrid set? That would mean that if you want to have a Hard difficulty of osu!catch in an ENH or EN mapset, you can't. Why not? How are Insane difficulties superior in this case? I don't see any sensible reason behind this, so I'd welcome a good explanation.

Second question, why is osu!catch the only mode that can be alone in a hybrid mapset? I understand that converting osu!standard map into osu!catch is very smooth, but if you manage to have an osu!standard map that converts properly to any other mod, why wouldn't that be allowed? The probability is lower, but it's clearly not impossible. For example, I don't understand why it wouldn't be allowed to have one taiko difficulty and 2 or 3 standard difficulties which would make a nice spread to it and would work as an actual taiko map. That wouldn't be allowed, but literally copying the map and setting its mode to taiko would. I know that the probability of creating such a compatible map at random is not possible, but with enough knowledge of both modes, you certainly can be able to achieve that, so why limiting it to osu!catch only?
Monstrata
@Wafu - You can have more than one osu!catch difficulty as far as I'm concerned. The wording was just bad. Probably something like "If you want to add osu!catch difficulties to your mapset, at least one osu!catch difficulty must be included, and this difficulty must be at most an Insane."

Your second point makes a lot of sense in theory though. I think we should also consider if maps somehow convert well into taiko/mania and allow taiko/mania BN's to give their approval for such maps. Idk how often converts will actually be reasonably high quality though.
Wafu

Monstrata wrote:

@Wafu - You can have more than one osu!catch difficulty as far as I'm concerned. The wording was just bad. Probably something like "If you want to add osu!catch difficulties to your mapset, at least one osu!catch difficulty must be included, and this difficulty must be at most an Insane."
Oh, "at least" sounded as if it was the minimum. Other way around makes sense, thanks.
Liyac

- Yoshimaro - wrote:

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?
I only thought tokyo was questionable with all of the extras in the set. But yeah, thinking about it a bit more, I do agree with you how this rule is limiting creativity. Multiple of mappers interpreting one song differently was an interesting dynamic tokyo brought in for sure.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply