[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
Natsu

ErunamoJAZZ wrote:

only people in big sets are crying for this xD
that's not true, most of people here aren't part of big sets. It's just that the 8 diffs limit don't do any good.
Amaikai

Okorin wrote:

entry level content is required to get into the game, no idea why you're arguing that point if you agree with it in your first sentence. not everyone moves on to hards and insanes within a week, some people spend months on that or never get into the more competetive side of things at all (aka casuals), just seems unfair to lower the bar further given your arguments, because you rank more skilled players as more important to the game and its continued existence whereas more skilled players usually fade out of the game after some time and the supply of new people is what keeps this game alive and going.
* I'm not ranking more skilled players as more important, I was just wondering why so much focus is given to new players SPEFICIALLY and there weren't any argument about making it easier to provide more content to higher skill level players. And restating this: I'm againts FORCING and not OPTIONAL creation of content for new players. Rule is effectively forcing, instead of providing some other type of incentive to create content for entry-level players. You know, only stick is used without carrot. Maybe I didn't state that clearly enough earlier.
* Can't argue againts need for flow of new players but I think it currently it comes at expense of less content for existing players(the workload arguments), which might give experienced players more incentives to quit.

Okorin wrote:

That your specific music tastes were popular mapping choices in 2008 to 2010 doesn't change that someone else who just starts out might like more recent music or a mix of both and just not requiring beginner content to be made for this game only harms the next generation of top players that tilt out of the game before getting into it just because their favourite music doesnt feature any difficulties they can play at all.
* That's correct. But keep in mind I didn't find any maps for songs I liked earlier during my initial days and I went through the horror story you are advertising despite the spread rule existing. Just mentioning it isn't some omnipotent thing that guarantees you have content for your skill level. [E] Specifically: maps of songs you already knew.
* Also, while I didn't find maps for songs I knew, I did find new songs I enjoyed through the game. There is always THAT aspect even if no maps below extra were being mapped. Older songs and maps don't just become irrelevant, they already exist in the game and I see that there is already enough existing entry-level content for new players to enjoy that FORCING creation of more is waste of time.

Okorin wrote:

I have no idea how to address your second point because it somewhat contradicts yourself stsating that harder difficulties require more effort to create and mod and then concluding from that that they should require less effort to assure quality and rankability from that. Seems contradictory given that you seem to agree that having high tier difficulties in your set in a rankable state should require more effort lol
* I never argued about higher, more complex difficulties requiring LESS modding and LESS work towards them, the opposite. I'm arguing how total workload on mapset could be invested better by reducing minimium difficulty required on mapset AND by reducing "filler" difficulties to allow better focusing of the workload to less difficulties. I'm arguing about making total workload required to rank a map more reasonable, not lowering quality/effort requirement for individual difficulty. And I'm arguing SPECIFICALLY on maps of 3-4 mins length where total song length to map scales up a lot more (example on first post on how badly it scales).
* Now the downside of course is that there is bigger skillcap required to play the bottom difficulty of set (which I think is too low to begin with) and less content for absolute beginners to enjoy. I'm arguing they will get past this skillcap requirement fairly easily and also, because content of this skill level is redundant to majority of existing playerbase, it is redundant content to FORCE creation of.

Okorin wrote:

The approval category existed for maps that would otherwise break the score ranking to be able to get a leaderboard, it used to give no ranked score (primary ranking at the time) - seems familiar to loved in current times - and was kept in place with a time limit instead after the introduction of pp as the primary ranking algorithm

the category was, to my knowledge, not intended for any of what is in it right now, but continuously morphed into what people now believe it stands for at the moment
* Oh I see. Got nothing to add on that then.

This is a rule discussion and all but as personal opinion, mappers have get lot of stick and hate but why are there so few carrots being given to content creators keeping the game alive? As a thought, would it be beneficial to give something extra for providing entry-entry-level content? Mind you this is optional work, not FORCED which i'm againts of. A carrot approach instead of stick.

EDIT: Related to what Shiirn said, some mappers do have philosophy: map to song. This means that simple/relaxing songs produce easier difficulties naturally and forcing difficulty on songs that don't support extra is just plain silly. While opposite is also true, some songs don't support easy difficulties without losing the essence of music but they support hard-insane-extra+ mapping better. For mappers who follow this philosophy, forcing too easy content to fit the song or too hard content for song is challencing and it can show up in quality. Mind you, this is highly debatable and more of a personal opinion but should still be relevant.
Wafu

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
CXu

Wafu wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
It's not so much finding something to map to, but mapping something without skipping so much of the song that the map you end up with is no longer really representing the song anymore. There are quite a few players who skipped out on easy difficulties because they were too simplistic in comparison to the song, to such an extent that they no longer felt like they were clicking to the beat.

While in most cases you can prioritize the stronger beats for example, in some cases the stronger beats are too complex, and you still end up skipping beats at unnatural places because you can't have that complexity in the easiest difficulty. In those cases, it's not a problem of if people can figure out how to map it better, but that any real deconstruction of the rhythm ends up being far too removed from the original song.
Shiirn

Wafu wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

I still think that the "lower difficulties" requirements could be made more lax in cases where the song really doesn't fit lower difficulties or otherwise would just be silly. You know what maps I'm talking about.
I think this is more an issue of mappers not being able to figure out how to map a low difficulty for such a song. There's always something you can map to even in those "unfitting" songs. And if rules were supposed to be more lax in such cases, you wouldn't have to make hitsounds for maps where it doesn't fit, you wouldn't have to use safe imagery if the map was coming from something that's not safe etc. What I want to say is that there are way too many situations where this logic is applicable and the argument is rather untrue.
Just because you like to map boring shit songs with even measures and clean metronomes at 100bpm doesn't mean that's the only music that should be mapped. Considering you've never even mapped a single difficulty over 4*, it begs the question what kind of experience or knowledge you could claim to have about a song or map's potential...


There are exceptions to every rule. I just want them to be acknowledged that they exist, as many of the current staff have a... potentially cultural impulse to be extremely stringent about rules.
Moonlit
A summary of the discussion so far regarding:

Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode.
What is the reason for this rule?

At the start of this discussion, it was put forward by Ephemeral that:
the fat stack of similar yet subtly (or vastly) different tiered difficulties causes lots of fatigue in the review stage, namely the modders and the BN responsible for providing critical feedback during the modding stage.
In some ways this is a self-limiting issue; mappers will be less likely to get mods on large sets, so are less likely to attempt to rank large sets. Modders and BNs are not obligated to mod these sets either.

And that by forcing a limitation on the number of maps in a set, the set would become more "cohesive" instead of being made to fit spread requirements and then being filled with additional difficulties (such as from guest mappers).

He also notes the problems with this idea, stating that any "displaced" maps that cannot fit in the 8 diff set are forced into a new set, potentially containing no new or interesting lower difficulties (following the logic that easier maps require lower note density and are thus have less potential for rhythmic and placement variety).

I believe this quote from him sums it up nicely:
The difficulties are probably going to be "recycled" into the ranking cycle as new sets which require even more oversight during the review stage by virtue of having the four required ENHI difficulties to accompany them in the first place, often times equally as "uninspired" as the same set they came from. There's only so many ways you can spin the lower levels of difficulty in mapping.
The alternative being these "displaced" maps are never created or never uploaded.


After the sharing and attempted interpretation of some playcount data stratified by map difficulty, Loctav made a point that:
The excerise of increasing the set's amount of difficulties to add *even more Experts* (although they are not even targetted at who actually plays the set) just adds content bloat - a lot of the same, without a distinctive difference.
arguing that as most plays are within the hard/insane difficulty ratings, adding more expert difficulty maps without significant difference is somehow detrimental to the game.

There are multiple issues i take with this statement; first of all how do we determine what is a "distinctive difference" between maps? Many people are divided on the differences (or lack thereof) of Monstrata's Zen Zen Zense extras (Taki and Mitsuha) for example. And are players really bothered by such content, even if it is widely perceived to be not "distinctively different"? The aforementioned set was among the most played mapsets for a significant time. I would suggest that its mostly a problem to the creatively minded mappers and modders who do not like the idea of unoriginal content, whereas players are often more focused on challenge and reward (PP) and are less bothered.

Additionally the use of the term "content bloat" is unclear and seems to be a problem that only the team behind these changes is aware of. Noone has properly defined it and thankfully its use has diminished over the course of this discussion. Still I would like to understand why it is a relevant issue (Explain) from the perspective of the rule creators.

Further in the thread Okorin states:
lowering spread requirements for sets further and further will only prove to be detrimental to especially new players getting into the game, there's a constant supply of new music to be mapped as well as old music to take from so denying someone that is just getting into osu to play their favourite song because you think insanes / extras / hards are more important than complete entry level content is just going to disappoint the new people getting into the game.
I dont think this is an incorrect point. Players should be able to enjoy a variety of music at a comfortable level of difficulty. However the lower difficulties are rapidly surpassed by beginners. Beginners are less predisposed to playing very long maps due to stamina, attention span and the nature of how they play osu (many new players only play a map or two while waiting for other games).
For these reasons perhaps it is possible to be more relaxed on lower difficulties while encouraging their production.

The crux of the issue seems to be that newer players must remain in our focus as we move forward, as these players help grow our community. There is a fear that continued relaxation of the ranking criteria may lead to less and less beginner-level content (easy, normal) and reduced retention of these players.
This seems like a possibility to me, although as others have suggested there is a plethora of beginnner-level content already available. How important is it to keep up with current songs, as it is proposed?

How can we encourage more easier maps to be produced?

Desperate-kun makes a point later in the thread that did not receive much discussion:
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
He also suggests:
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.
I believe this idea serves to increase efficiency of the mapping system for producing lower difficulty maps without directly limiting production of higher difficulty maps. This spread widening suggestion could encourage more small sets to be produced where they would normally not due to requiring many diffs to fit a tight spread.

Amaikai notes:
As a thought, would it be beneficial to give something extra for providing entry-entry-level content? Mind you this is optional work, not FORCED which i'm againts of. A carrot approach instead of stick.
A point I agree with. What do you think are potential opportunities to reward or encourage mappers in making lower difficulty content?

Other perspectives on set development

SakuraKaminari presents a unique standpoint somewhat later in the thread regarding the position of less experienced mappers and how they are affected by the 8 map restriction.
By limiting the mapset to 8, you're making it much harder for people like me to get GD slots on ranked sets. For example, let's say a new song comes out and a more experienced mapper picks it up and starts creating a set. Sometimes, these mappers are ok with taking a GD from a newer mapper and helping them to make something rankable out of it. This is super important because not only does it allow newer mappers rejected from the academy (like me!) more opportunities to learn about the ranking process and gain mapping exposure, we also learn a lot about mapping, what's rankable and whats not, and usually being modded for rank is more strict and will likely lead to better feedback.
When a mapper has a wide variety of maps and a well made spread they can afford to work on maps with newer mappers to get them to rankable quality. Given how difficult it is for mappers to break into the mapping environment, this can be an invaluable opportunity that would be hampered by the 8 diff rule.

MrSergio brings up a take on the meaning of spread:
Diffs that do not make up for anything useful in the spread are just a way to get past the former meaning of "spread for a song"
arguing that anything above what is absolutely necessary for each level of skill is going beyond the meaning of a true spread. I disagree with this sentiment myself, as the mapping styles of today allow for many interpretations of a song that may end up around the same skill level. As stated earlier it is challenging to judge what a "distinctive difference" really is, so perhaps it is better to allow these additional interpretations to be created and be judged by players - not modders. After all we are making maps for people to enjoy, not to fit a prescribed schematic.

My thoughts

From what I've seen most people are against the 8 diff limit. It seems to miss its intended purpose (as far as I've been able to discern its purpose) and there are probably better ways to increase the amount of beginner-friendly content through encouragement rather than restriction.
In my opinion a ruleset should be in place to ensure a level of basic quality within a map and set; to ensure that when you download a ranked map you can trust it to work and be organised without wild inconsistencies and errors.

A ruleset should not restrict creativity. We are seeing more and more interesting ideas being fleshed out and standardised by mappers experimenting with novel ideas but unfortunately they are bogged down by the ranking system. The 8 diff limit seems like another such restriction and if it were to go through in any form it could limit the evolution of mapping even further.

Perhaps instead of trying to solve all of our problems at the ranking criteria level, we should investigate other avenues to guide mapping towards a greater audience in terms of both involvement and the spectrum of content produced.
Lust
Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
I will never for the life of me understand this
_Meep_
mayb for every extra diff added after the ENHIX spread or ENHIXX spread,
they need to add another lower difficulty
idk
Default

Lust wrote:

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
I will never for the life of me understand this
Because you are basically abusing the difficulty spread rules to be able to rank the map with a lot less effort. On the other hand, this is just a result of the rule being too arbitrary and the massive difference in the effort needed to make a 4+min mapset and a single marathon difficulty.
_Meep_

Default wrote:

Because you are basically abusing the difficulty spread rules to be able to rank the map with a lot less effort. On the other hand, this is just a result of the rule being too arbitrary and the massive difference in the effort needed to make a 4+min mapset and a single marathon difficulty.
Let's say a song is 4:55
Let's say its a deathmetal song that has the potential to be 8*
Are you going to map all 8 difficulties from 1-8* to cover the spread where all the difficulties are sloppily done and are low effort because you're lazy and you dont want to map so much?
Or are you going to map one extremely good 8* difficulty that perfectly represents the song with every bit of effort put into making it perfect?
I don't see it as abusing when extending is practically done to save time
and Saving time =/= Lazy
Yauxo
Throwing stuff in to desp's comment to encourage less diffs.

<8 diffs -> Bubble#1 Rank
>8 diffs -> Bubble#1 Bubble#2 Rank

More BNs to make up for the amount of diffs/work invested. Would be the total opposite for the "too much work for the BNs" thing tho
Default

_Meep_ wrote:

Let's say a song is 4:55
Let's say its a deathmetal song that has the potential to be 8*
Are you going to map all 8 difficulties from 1-8* to cover the spread where all the difficulties are sloppily done and are low effort because you're lazy and you dont want to map so much?
Or are you going to map one extremely good 8* difficulty that perfectly represents the song with every bit of effort put into making it perfect?
I don't see it as abusing when extending is practically done to save time
and Saving time =/= Lazy
I never said the word "lazy" in my comment. It also seems like you didn't read the second part of it, but it can't be denied that editing a song to make it longer is abusing the system, even if it occurs as a consequence of the system being very flawed itself.
Lust
I know a way around this rule and you can be sure to see me exploiting it when this comes into place. Don't enact a rule that will always have a loophole (is it really even a rule at that point?)
Monstrata

Lust wrote:

I know a way around this rule and you can be sure to see me exploiting it when this comes into place. Don't enact a rule that will always have a loophole (is it really even a rule at that point?)
Yea I know lol. To give everyone context as to why this was chosen though, basically this was our "compromise" to not eliminating the "approval" category entirely (meaning all maps required a spread regardless of length). Basically, the idea was that "extending and editing songs to fit the 5 minute rule was considered abuse, and we must prevent this somehow". The solution therefore is "people won't edit songs to make them over 5 minutes if that would still require you to map a spread". However, this idea would (obviously) be shot down. The "compromise" was then to add a rule saying we shouldn't edit mp3's with the intention of extending it.

So really, the discussion boils down: "how much of a problem is extending mp3s to fit the 5 minute length?" ... and "is it a form of abuse we should prevent through the ranking criteria?" We need to ask ourselves how much this "abuse" is affecting ranked, and whether we need to address it, or whether we think it's fine to allow songs like this to be ranked. Of course, extreme cases should be handled case-by-case and we can (hopefully) trust BN's not to nominate stuff like harumachi clover or haitai looped 10 times to achieve approval length.

I'll list a few maps that "abuse" this rule so we have some examples to go by to:

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/404360 <--- An entire hypermeasure (4 measures) is added to one of the kiai sections to achieve 5 minute length.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/403073 <--- Same song, except I had the BPM reduced by 3 (175 > 172) to achieve 5 minute length.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/418922 <--- The ending of the song is looped with the intro to create a longer fade out. (The intro and outro are the exact same melody)
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/378183 <--- An entire instrumental section was looped (Adding around 25 seconds to the map).
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/503059 <--- Very subtle editing to add 0.5 seconds to the song.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/315159 <--- An entireverse + chorus is looped (adding over 1 minute to the song).
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/553906 <--- Ending note is extended to reach 5 minutes.


Anyways, as for me, I personally don't believe the "abuse" is common at all, and we shouldn't be changing rules just to avoid the one case in what, 50? It hurts a lot more than it helps. And I don't believe it really helps anyways. The only positive I see coming from this rule is that mp3's aren't poorly edited or tastelessly done. That, and maybe one of the artists getting angry about having their work manipulated somehow? (Though we have zero cases of this historically, and they're probably be more offended we're offering free downloads of their works).

So what do you guys think? We can probably agree mp3 editing to achieve 5 minute lengths is skirting the rules. But do you guys think it's necessarily something that needs to be prevented through the Ranking Criteria? Do you think it's that much of a problem? Are there alternative means to addressing it?
Endaris

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.
Monstrata

Endaris wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.
One of the primary arguments for the 8 diff limit is that sets are becoming overwhelming and create what people are calling "content bloating". Having one Miiro set with 120 difficulties hardly seems like it will solve the problem. Also, I don't believe sets are obsolete in any sense. I don't think there was a traditional idea for a "set" to begin with. People have created GD's since osu first started. So your argument isn't convincing. Sure, adding guess difficlulties after a set is already ranked can get rid of the necessity of making a whole spread to rank a new set (for the same song). But there are so many issues with this. What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD? What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set? As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it? Do such GD's still go through the qualified section? Also people who downloaded the set previously will have to redownload to get new difficulties that have been added, and is there a system that tells people a new difficulty has been added? This is not a feasible option imo. Let's focus on what we can actually discuss and control in the RC.
Shad0w1and
Oh Kibb gonna hate you for that 0.5 sec Mr. Monstrata XD

and for the case like
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/315159 <--- An entireverse + chorus is looped (adding over 1 minute to the song).

I have to say that a lot of old Chinese songs were made that way lol, they looped the same part 3 times and called it a full ver lol. Personally, I do not see it as a problem. Why a loop by the producer is acceptable but by mapper is not acceptable. Though I do think those looped songs sucks, and it is one of the reasons that I like Japanese songs better.
Halliday

pishifat wrote:

A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane).
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(

(?)
Endaris

Monstrata wrote:

Endaris wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

We have two ideas going right now. The first is to change the rule into a guideline, and the second is just to eliminate the rule entirely.
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.
I'm aware this is an idea that requires actual planning and effort compared to the first two options but it is arguably the option that would satisfy both sides of the argument the most. And both sides definitely have good arguments. That's why this turned into a debate with repeating arguments and none getting really convinced by the other side.

I simply don't see why one would stop at this point and not question the current technical limitations with the modding system and interface between new website and beatmap servers still in development. There's nothing major coded in that regard yet as far as I'm informed so this would be the best imaginable place and time to implement a change to the way sets work and the way ranking works.
The question in this case would be though, what peppy thinks about this and what I as an interested community member could do to support him there.
One of the primary arguments for the 8 diff limit is that sets are becoming overwhelming and create what people are calling "content bloating". Having one Miiro set with 120 difficulties hardly seems like it will solve the problem. Also, I don't believe sets are obsolete in any sense. I don't think there was a traditional idea for a "set" to begin with. People have created GD's since osu first started. So your argument isn't convincing. Sure, adding guess difficlulties after a set is already ranked can get rid of the necessity of making a whole spread to rank a new set (for the same song). But there are so many issues with this. What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD? What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set? As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it? Do such GD's still go through the qualified section? Also people who downloaded the set previously will have to redownload to get new difficulties that have been added, and is there a system that tells people a new difficulty has been added? This is not a feasible option imo. Let's focus on what we can actually discuss and control in the RC.
Huh what.
One of the primary arguments is that such huge sets are difficult to moderate and to guarantee quality.
Also I didn't have the impression that you personally have something against more content and personally I don't think it would play out the way you made it up with 120 Miiro difficulties: Right now we have about 50 on 10 sets so it is reasonable to say that the "bloating" would happen anyway. You could go as far as saying that it is even more confusing because there are so many sets and there is no good overview (which is not the case with 2 or 3 sets imo but 10 plays in a different league...).

You also seemed to have ignored a point I made earlier:
When there are already ranked difficulties present for a set, how big will the motivation for a mapper be to map something that plays similar to an existing difficulty?
If there is only 1 similar one it might still be high. But what if there are 5 difficulties that play similar?
Once the amount of difficulties in a set reached a certain point, mapping an additional difficulty becomes unattractive for the mapper for the following reasons:
  1. It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
  2. The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.


Finally I don't consider your doubts convincing:
What if the original host doesn't want your crappy GD?
Well, why would that matter if he does not have to care about getting mods for it, kicking the mapper's ass to improve it etc? Unlike now, the original set creator has absolutely no obligation to make an investment on the additional GD. If it gets through the review phase (the GD mapper has to make it happen) and is of a quality that is deemed good for ranking then it is good for ranking and should be added to the set. You said yourself a "set" never really existed. Also, I have the impression that you did not read the thread linked in my post as it clearly states that the name of the original set creator wouldn't be on the new difficulty so there would be absolutely no reason to have your good name stained or anything what you might have to worry about.
Last but not least, ranked content is created for the playerbase. If you want to map for artistic purposes and for yourself you can map for graveyard or loved.

What if you think the current ranked set is bad and don't want to be associated with that set?
I don't think there would be something that keeps you from making another set for the song. But it would have to be another complete set as it has to now. The objective is not to keep alternative sets from popping up but to enable mappers to add more ranked content on a controlled(=small) scale that is comfortable for mapper, modder and nominator.

As well, what is the nomination process that goes into it?
Personally I would put them into the same nomination process as approval maps. The good thing about single difficulty mapping and modding is that you can go into detail with mods and try to get the best out of that difficulty. This means that the quality of those additional difficulties would be expected to be high. A qualification phase is mandatory.


@Halliday: As Kirby Mixes are traditionally the highest difficulty of a set, they can use custom naming. Don't think they would get DQd for the naming.
Default

Halliday wrote:

pishifat wrote:

A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane).
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(

(?)
Unless it's a Kirby song 🤔
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply