[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
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.
Icekalt
[*]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.
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.
I felt like the topic was out of the minds after the high disagreement in the comunity - guess i was wrong.
I don't like the idea of limiting the difficulties because restrictions arent a good thing when they are not needed - I guess it should be common sense that you can't rank a set with 50< diffs but as i can remember there was not very much drama over the sets with over for example 15 diffs in a set, so why change the concept when they arent problems.

When BNs complain about huge sets - they just should not mod them - but when there is no single BN who want to mod the set - then there is a problem with the set, not with the system because its not like there are multiple set which over 10 diffs.

I do not think so that a drop of quality is a thing in theese mapset - manly because its the case that many mappers are inclueded in theese sets what leads to vareity, what is always a good thing and more ppl are making smaller mistakes than one single person i guess
(the only pro agruement i can think off is that many diffs cant get as much mods as in a set of for example 5 diffs)

I think its hard to regulate something as spread - expecially in a time as this where the mapping style is getting more wiedly as ever - so i hope you will find another soulution than this (expecially when the crowd is shouting NOO!) - But i could not find the solution myself~
Monstrata
Based on community response, it's not likely the 8-diff cap rule will go through. So my question is: should the community and the Ranking Criteria compromise and make this cap maybe a guideline? Or should a compromise even be necessary. I'm wondering if there is a need to compromise between "having a cap" and "not having a cap" or if the disagreement between the two is just too great.

Basically, if the cap rule became a guideline, would people be happy? Or would they still disagree with it. Remember that guidelines are now enforceable and can only be broken with clear reasons. I'm worried that these "extenuating circumstances" will still force mappers to be unable to rank mapsets with over 8 difficulties because "breaking the guideline" is no longer something you can simply do without concequences.

If you ask me, I don't think the community needs to compromise at all with the RC. I would vote to abandon the rule, and I wouldn't consider making it a guideline a compromise since it largely favors the RC's agenda still, by making large sets still enforceable.
Icekalt
Agreed

(When this would be a guidline tho it should have the cap of 15~ diffs i guess because then the set should have a reason to have THAT much diffs, but it should be possible then tho)
Gaia
I don't see why it should be a guideline at all. If a mapper wants to incorporate a large set, he or she would naturally have to put in more work (mapping process, getting gds, getting mods - all of which can be very difficult and time consuming)

as long as they've made sure everything ensues quality, they should be rewarded for their efforts.
Icekalt
I just mean "if it would be a guideline"

Imo it shouldnt be considered being a rule or anything, let the mapper decide!
__Phantomhive__

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.
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mapset host has to have more mapped objects than the guest difficulty mapper?

e.g.: If the mapset host mapped the Easy and Normal difficulty and the guest difficulty mapper mapped the Extra difficulty of a song that has 1:30min drain time the mapset host would have certainly more mapped drain time but way less mapped objects, so the guest difficulty mapper has actually mapped more.
Endaris

__Phantomhive__ wrote:

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.
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mapset host has to have more mapped objects than the guest difficulty mapper?

e.g.: If the mapset host mapped the Easy and Normal difficulty and the guest difficulty mapper mapped the Extra difficulty of a song that has 1:30min drain time the mapset host would have certainly more mapped drain time but way less mapped objects, so the guest difficulty mapper has actually mapped more.
No it wouldn't. Think again, what is the difference between a repeatslider and a stream?
xdominik
I think that it shouldn't be even kept as guideline . Even as a guideline it will prove difficulties on the mapset host like for example when someone wouldn't want to mapset to pass through to the ranking section , they could just report it to QAT as "unreasonable" spread with too many difficulties creating discussion that would provide no feedback to the map and could cause disqualification it would be hard to pass mapsets with questionable diffs like Skystar's AXION diff (just remember whole drama with this wierd jump stream alternating pattern) . Sorry for extreme example but I think it best represent possible issues .

As many said before this rule/guideline isn't in interest of community to keep improving quality of the ranked maps - I think that all of ranked criteria should be doing that not just make mapper's life more misserable than it already is , killing creativity .

I feel like whole of these proposal feels unnesserar MAYBE other than not extanding/shortering mp3 (I think this need disscusion) are all missing the point and shouldn't be even posted . Same for recent 2 tier BN system but that is already done and set in place I hope it won't be same with this one .
N0thingSpecial

Endaris wrote:

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.
If spread design is the concern, why not put a condition on mapsets that have more than 7 diffs, the mapper must map the minimal amount to make a spread , basically the host must map a normal a hard themselves, plus what ever insane and extra he decide to map that fits the description of a good spread, and then GDs are treated separately.

Though unlikely people will like this idea
Shad0w1and

N0thingSpecial wrote:

If spread design is the concern, why not put a condition on mapsets that have more than 7 diffs, the mapper must map the minimal amount to make a spread , basically the host must map a normal a hard themselves, plus what ever insane and extra he decide to map that fits the description of a good spread, and then GDs are treated separately.

Though unlikely people will like this idea
uhmm, seems reasonable. but if there is no limit on the set itself, it really does not matter how many diffs are created by the creator... it won't help the set.
chainpullz

Monstrata wrote:

Insanes/Extra's because they allow you a lot more creative freedom
Glad there is at least one person with sway in the community able to look beyond the meaningless numbers and statistics to bring up the actual issue at hand.

One of the reasons I don't agree with what the ranking category stands for is that it gets too hung up on game design fundamentals. The true source of quality in mapping isn't adherence to good game design. True quality comes from artistic interpretation of the music. As music is highly structured, an interpretation consistent with the music will naturally exhibit good design.

In turn, if you completely ignore *rating and focus on making an artistic rendition, your map will nearly always exceed 4*. Speaking purely from an artistic POV, the need for fresh lower diffs is far more bloating than the trend to focus on higher diffs.
Shiirn
tl;dr:

most plays are on hards/insanes because that's where most players tend to practice / find a "comfort zone".

There are fewer plays on extras due to their higher skill requirements and the fact that most players will rather quickly plateau and they will either start playing less or quit altogether over time. The only reason to actively get better at this game is only to raise your pp score, as the maps that give the most pp also naturally are the most robotic in design. There is very little enjoyment to playing maps anymore, because the most popular maps are the ones that give the most points for minimal effort (It's not coincidence that these tend to be anime songs, either: The extremely basic, catchy melody structure of theme music just happens to really fit this style). This self-feeding spiral quickly saps most of the fun out of the game, as it is no longer a musical game, but one based around reaction time and physical conditioning.

Implementing a cap to the map size is so random and out there. Omnibus sets are rare as hell and feature their own host of problems, especially in the current meta. Most of this list is just already in existence, or slightly re-worded to allow for less bullshittery. Which I approve of, but the pepper sprinkles in the vanilla icecream are what pisses everyone off.

Player retention is at an all-time low. Mapper retention is at an all-time low. Modder retention is at an all-time low. Fresh meat comes in, but quickly spoils. Because the staff is so obsessed with making numbers look good and making public statements that look good while desperately ignoring the gushing wound that will exist until an actual overhaul that includes coding changes to the client and to the site.

Which have been in progress for over three years. At minimum.

But personally, I am still holding my breath.
Okoratu
at this point it's very clear which points of the draft will need revision lol


Here's my personal opinion on the matter of approval maps, backed up with a bit of data grabbing by Ephemeral:

My one and only issue with approval is that compared to the average map the average 5 minute approval map actually adds way less content targeted towards way fewer people to the game itself.
The average (osu!) mapset across Approved, Loved, Qualified, Ranked mapsets adds 460.4542 seconds of draintime on average to the Ranked section, this translates to 7.6 minutes of content per map across all skill levels whereas Marathons are targeted towards one certain audience only and provide less content than your average map.

I'm not going to suggest raising the limit because I can predict the deaththreats coming in already, but with this the suggestion to have marathons include more than one diff as mentioned in parts of shad0w1and's suggestions suddenly seems more reasonable than it already was.

i.e. if your set includes one diff above 300 seconds in length it must at least include another diff if its total draintime is <500 seconds or something among the lines to balance out that the minimum requirement for the entire category is at 300 seconds, the average length across approval maps is at 399 (data distribution is hugely uneven towards being at 300 seconds or close with only 80 mapsets being above 400s draintime out of 523 (less than 20%)) seconds and the average length of all sets is 460 seconds for the upside of omitting spread

the upside to this would be that the entire basis for don't abuse approval limit rule probably could be entirely transformed into a guideline that aims to prevent poorly done extensions as well as mp3 cuts

all the data above is on osu mapsets only btw can rerun numbers for all modes but i think this should be representative anyways

What do you think? So far this is only a rough idea where i asked for data to back up my assumptions
Monstrata
@Oko The whole discussion of approval necessitating a spread isn't even in the current draft yet. This is opening up a new can of worms. Didn't we already agree not to discuss all that "removal of approval" idea since people would be coming here with pitchforks again?

Anyways, since shadowland's idea was mentioned, i'll just say some quick things. I like the idea up until Approval. I tried to push forward some ideas about allowing larger spreads for songs that are longer than 3 minutes, as well as having the minimum difficulty be a Hard rather than a Normal for songs past say 4 minutes etc... (Insert arguments about stamina and Normal players etc... reasons here).

However, the point of approval isn't to cater to a larger audience. That was never the objective to begin with... So I don't think adding extraneous diffculties to approval mapsets is necessary at all. Basically, if a rule forces mappers to map "filler difficulties" for the sake of catering to more players, we need to consider where to draw the line. And we have. We drew the line at 5 minutes. Once a song is over 5 minutes, mappers no longer need to cater to the whole community by adding filler difficulties to satisfy a spread.

You guys are throwing around "community" and "audience" too vaguely. With approval, very often you are mapping for a specific audience. The mapper's objectively clearly isn't to reach a "general audience" or they would have made a set. The choice of only mapping one difficulty already suggests a narrower target scope, so we can safely rule out the mapper's intention being to cater to a larger audience. The idea shadowland is pushing forward is ideally prompting mappers to map for a larger audience, but this was never the mapper's objective. I really disagree with "mapping for a larger audience" being a goal for the Ranking Criteria. That has again, no bearing on quality standard. Have you even asked yourselves the question "is there a necessity to cater to a larger audience?" Additionally, the appeal of difficult approval mapsets has always been for the dedicated and highly-skilled players in the community anyways. The intention again, was never to make sure players who could only play 5* maps could still enjoy the song.

If you want to add a second difficulty to your approval mapset, be my guest. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding more difficulties to a mapset thats over 5 minutes. But don't force people to add these difficulties either, especially since you're forcing an objective onto the mapper who may or may not share that objective.




There is no need to compromise imo... Just get rid of the rule in the next draft. Period. Reading people's reasoning here, this is what I will be arguing for anyways.
Okoratu
this isnt on the current draft, i was proposing it as an idea based on comparing the amount of content getting ranked per mapset

to find that with the current approval limitation with its limit being so low seems kinda unfair towards the average map so i suggested this as an alternative and crammed together a few arguments and listed the side effects that implementing it would have in the most likely scenario. Note that I never even specified if this additionally created content has to adhere to a certain other target audience and just threw it out there.

Your beliefs of what approval is and should be don't line up with what mine are, i am pretty sure we both figured that out by now - this is a different idea entirely which is centered around something that i assumed both sides of the argument should actually be neutral on.
CXu
@Ephemeral: Is it possible to check the playcounts of easy diffs on songs with different lengths? Basically if there's a significant difference between the amount of plays a 2 minute easy diff and a 4 minute one would receive or not.

I think it would be pretty useful information in regards to Shadow1and's suggestion (I actually came here initially to post the same idea). The reason people want to get over the approval length limit and "abuse" it right now, is because the amount of work required is significantly reduced just from a few seconds of difference. A 5 minute map requires you to map less total time than a generic 5 diff spread for a 1:30 tv size, and while obviously this doesn't translate to the same amount of effort needed (mapping lower difficulties are tend to be faster because they require less notes to be placed, and are more restrictive anyway), I think it's clear why people want to get to the approval length when they're really close. Arguing about laziness and whatnot is irrelevant and should not have anything to do with a ranking criteria anyway, and even then it's not true for a lot of mappers. For instance, I'm also a player, so naturally I split my time between mapping and playing. Adding to that any real life obligations I have and whatnot, I might just not have enough time or will to map and maintain a full spread for a 4:58min map in hopes of it getting ranked. My efforts would be much better spent on either extending said song, map something else, or just play the game instead. Also, if we're speaking about laziness, then the 8 diff rule doesn't exactly promote unlazy behaviour anyway.

And I think the reason is just that the difference it makes is too big, so the rewards for "abusing" it is higher than just mapping the spread. Instead, making it gradual would make the whole thing less of a pain in the ass for mappers. For example, maps above 4 minutes need 3 difficulties, 5min need 2 and 6min need 1 (I'm just pulling random numbers right now). If we can look at the statistics of the playcounts of different difficulties and their map lengths, we could maybe find reasonable lengths to make these cut-offs, and which difficulties could be excluded. This way, the gain from extending an .mp3 is less compelling than before, and also encourages mapping for a wider audience in general.

Although I personally don't find extending .mp3's a problem in the first place. In a lot of cases you probably wouldn't even notice it was unless you've heard the song before, or someone tells you.
Warpyc
@Oko

Except in a normal set you can get multiple guest difficulties which can save you plenty of time, and also not to ignore how much faster it is to map easy - hard difficulties compared to an insane / extra. Meanwhile, for an approval map it is very usual to map an extra by yourself, and usually spending more time than just a normal set.

So sure maybe the total seconds of content are less but the effort put into the set doesn't necessarily have to be less.
Not all mappers are willing to spend all of their free time mapping. Thus I think the mappers efforts should also be considered in cases like this, otherwise you'll end up discouraging the few amount of people who are willing to map for approval in the first place.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply