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.
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.ErunamoJAZZ wrote:
only people in big sets are crying for this xD
* 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.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.
* 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.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.
* 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).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
* Oh I see. Got nothing to add on that then.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
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.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.
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.Wafu wrote:
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.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.
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...Wafu wrote:
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.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.
Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode.What is the reason for this rule?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 difficultiesHe 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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
Let's say a song is 4:55Default 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.
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._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
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.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?)
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.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.
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.Endaris wrote:
And the third is to change the procedure of how sets and difficulties move to the ranked section.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.
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.
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(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).
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.
Unless it's a Kirby song 🤔Halliday wrote:
Rip StarrodKirby and his awesome Kirby Mixes :'(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).
(?)
No. "huge sets are difficult to moderate and to guarantee quality." ?? How do you arrive at that conclusion? That's completely ambiguous and not something the RC is concerned with anyways. Huge sets can be difficult to moderate because they require more time and effort from the modder and BNs involved. But if a huge set has quality issues, it's not the fault of it being large, it's the fault of BN's not being thorough. Do you think sets like Hitorigoto and No Title are huge? I really hope you don't, because their total drain is only about 18 minutes. (12 x 1:30). Stuff like: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/94631 is already 14 minutes of drain just with 4 difficulties. And stuff like: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/500858 is already 22 minutes of drain with 6 difficulties. If anything, full-sized mapsets that have a very even spread are the true "huge sets" because they actually require even more modding time than conventional "huge sets".Endaris 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:Finally I don't consider your doubts convincing:
- It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
- The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.
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.
I don't want some random 0 ranked 0 gd mapper trying to get their map bundled with my set. So yes, it does matter. Just because I don't have to kick the mapper's ass to improve it doesn't mean I'm fine with being associated with it. Also I didn't say a "set" never really existed. I said a "traditional definition of a set" never existed. There is no formal definition for what a set must comprise, and there never was. Also please don't delude yourself into thinking the ranekd content is created for the playerbase. Ranked content is entirely dependent on the mapper first and foremost. osu is driven on community content. The content is entirely dependent on what the mapper wants to map and rank., the playerbase has very little influence on what content they want ranked, unless they convince a mapper to map a certain song, or they become mappers themselves.
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.
Those were all rhetorical questions meant to tell you this system isn't feasible in our current context lol. You can theorycraft all you want, but this discussion honestly belongs in Community Features since it doesn't influence the Ranking Criteria but more the whole Ranking System.
@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.
Your first point is just completely wrong. It will not be harder to find modders because the song has already been mapped before. Modders don't care about that as much as you think.Endaris wrote:
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:
- It might become harder to find modders because modders have an interest in original content that adds to the game.
- The additional difficulty will be discovered later and receive less plays overall if it does not have something unique to offer.
Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time.If this goes through (in which case I think approval rules should be modified to be a less abrupt cutoff), I think it should be changed to say "If a Song/map is modified to reach the minimum drain time, spread requirements of the unmodified drain time apply". Just in case someone wants to edit an mp3 or the map because they feel it sounds better or represents the song better.
pishifat wrote:
Spread
Rules
All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance. Let's see... let's see...First sentence is obvious.
- 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. This should say at most a Normal instead because the phrase "at least" can imply that a Hard difficulty can be used as the lowest difficulty, then people would get an idea that Insanes can be the lowest, and so forth.
- 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. Not really into the "two difficulties per mode" thing, but can't think of a better solution, really.
- If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties...
Same wording issue as 1st rule and rule above.
- A reasonable spread of at least two osu!standard difficulties must be included. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Normal which does not break any difficulty-specific guidelines. Seems Good.
- 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. It's alright, but it could be worded better; by converted difficulties, if you're meaning "osu!standard CtB" and not something like "Mapset as is, difficulties between all game modes must not have large gaps in difficulty", then I can see the gap needing to be filled, but if the latter, then just leave the difficulties as are regardless of jumps like 2* standard 4* Taiko
- Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty must be at least a Hard.
Same wording issue as 1st rule.- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
- Mapsets must have a minimum drain time of 30 seconds. This ensures each ranked map has a practical play-time. That's obvious.
- Marathons must have a minimum drain time of 5 minutes. This excludes especially long mapsets from requiring a spread of difficulties.
This could be lowered, IMO. There are a great variety of songs with a length between 4-5 minutes that show so much potential without a need for a full spread.- 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'm polarized by the "no song modification" thing in general; I like it because it helps to combat such a petty way to cheat the ranking system, but I think that song modifications provide experimentation and variety all around. Personally, I'd lean more toward this rule if the minimum approval drain time were around 4 minutes instead, but if it is to stay at 5 minutes, then I'd be more against this rule.
- Lowering a song’s BPM
- Looping portions of a song
- Adding sounds before/after a song begins/ends The first three are debatable because maybe the mapper fiddled with the song a certain way, liked it that way, and wanted to map that edited version.
- Extending spinners/sliders over inaudible sounds I agree; what's the point?
- Manually removing breaks Totally should stay unrankable, hands down.
- 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. Definitely not. This would essentially split many difficulties of a mapset (ex: 20 diffs into 3-4 different mapsets), which is exhausting to the GD mappers and maphost as they may split their work among each maps, leading to checking different threads for the mods instead of one, and for BNs as they'll need to icon check more maps instead of one. That last sentence is iffy, because it essentially means "Holy SH*T, I can make an 8 star difficulty right after my 5.5 star difficulty because of this!"; no don't hit those people with the "common sense" hammer, because it'll lead to a big mess in the threads, which could lead to more work from the moderation team.
- Excluding a mapset’s hardest difficulty, a difficulty’s name must accurately indicate its level of difficulty. Conventional difficulty names vary between modes, but any set of clearly progressive difficulty names can be alternatively used. Additionally, a mapset’s hardest difficulty should not use a name misrepresentative of its difficulty. Unnecessary rule as difficulty naming is up to interpretation of the mapper.
- 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). No problems here.
- Additionally, a mapset host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty’s name. (e.g. Mapset Host’s Insane). Metadata conflicts caused by mapping a song multiple times are an exception. Kind of obvious, considering difficulties without a name are automatically assumed the host's.
- 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.
Second one needs some clean-up. "for via storyboarding." Wonder what that means? The mapper might not want a storyboard every time they host a collab, so maybe they should just put respective total drain times worked on in the "space provided".
Guidelines
Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation.Don't know too much about this, so you tell me!
- Avoid incomprehensible username combinations to indicate possession of a collaborative guest difficulty. If it’s unclear whose usernames are combined, simplification is recommended. True.
- Avoid difficulty names with descriptive elements not clearly related to a guest difficulty mapper or a level of difficulty. (e.g. Mapper’s Tragic Love Extra). A mapset’s hardest difficulty may use free naming, but clear and appropriate relation to its song is recommended. Once again,
up to interpretation of the mapper.- Usernames indicating possession of a guest difficulty should be consistent between multiple mapsets. Varying nicknames for one user makes interpreting who created a difficulty confusing. I think so, too.
- Avoid unicode characters in a difficulty’s name. These can cause errors with the beatmap submission system and problems for certain users when appearing in chat.
Well, that's all the feedback I can provide for you. Hoping for the best for the future of osu!mapping!
Once again, this draft is not the final result, as we need the feedback of the community first before getting it officially bumped into the wiki! It will be up to discussion for two weeks and close on the 18th of June! Also I'd like to reap my kudosu reward pls thx
Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode. The highest difficulty of a game-mode is not required to fit within a reasonable spread, so long as no levels of difficulty are skipped.I'd like to strongly push for this to be increased greatly or to be removed entirely. All this does is discourage grand ideas such as these beloved sets: 1 2 3 4 5
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 do not see the purpose for this rule. I think this would be much more sensible as a guideline and not a hard wall. Should a mapper take a 4:45 song and loop a section to make the map rankable, who is losing out here? I do not believe any person is being offended should this happen, and the community nets another marathon map which are the most well-liked and respected types of maps in the game. 37 of the 40 maps with the highest user rating in the game are marathons.
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 agree with dsco; this should be a guideline rather than a rule. If an mp3 file is a few seconds or smth away from a full 5 minutes, and the mapper does not want to create a full spread for a 4:45 min. long song, for whatever reason, whether it be laziness or the want to stray away from a laborious spread, they have 3 choices: find a new song to map that's shorter for a spread/long enough for approval, shorten the song to a length they feel is fine (which, imo, i hate when song lengths are cut, for example yuudachi no ribbon & another yuudachi no ribbon xd), or edit the mp3 to fit 5 minutes. Editing the mp3 is pretty much the choice to go for, especially if the song is 4:50 to 4:59 min. in length. It should be up to those that actually bubble & qualify the maps that decide whether or not an mp3 edit is appropriate/abuse or not; because there are definitely cases where it would be insanely inappropriate, like this being looped however many times to be 5 minutes long.
- Lowering a song’s BPM
- Looping portions of a song
- Adding sounds before/after a song begins/ends
- Extending spinners/sliders over inaudible sounds
- Manually removing breaks
The song should not be too long. Aim for 3 minutes maximum; anything longer gets tiring.I'm sure that many that play normal or even hard difficulties would struggle with a normal/hard map with a drain time of ~5 minutes, whether the map is approved without a spread or ranked with a spread. The whole mp3 edit rule should be a guideline, as it should be flexible to determine what is abuse and what is avoiding unnecessary spread.
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 serves no purpose aside from decreasing work load for modders/those that bubble/qualify, which shouldn't be a valid reason due to the fact that absolutely no one is required to mod/bubble/qualify a map that has a large amount of difficulties -- other maps exist that they could help with less checking required.
Just for the record, but that statistic is probably skewed. You can only rate a beatmap if you pass it, and with only one difficulty on marathons, most people won't be able to pass it. People who will play the map with nofail to pass it are more likely to like the map than dislike it, since those who dislike it wouldn't bother playing through the map with nofail just to rate it.dsco wrote:
I do not believe any person is being offended should this happen, and the community nets another marathon map which are the most well-liked and respected types of maps in the game. 37 of the 40 maps with the highest user rating in the game are marathons.
There are some rules associated with that too, like there still having to be a spread. You can't have a E N H spread and then a 9.0 star diff slapped on the end. The discussion basically resulted in the "minimum" difficulty being an Extra (E N H I X >--- Ultra) but we rarely will see something like this anyways because not many people are actually capable of mapping difficulties so much higher than 5.25 that they actually "skip" a spread tier", and even fewer are capable of ranking.Naotoshi wrote:
what happened to the top diff doesnt need to follow spread thing =( that was more or less completely separate from the 8 diff thing, is it still being considered?
This would imply that there's a maximum of two taiko/mania diffs and only one ctb allowed. "One or more ctb diffs may be included" is finepishifat wrote:
- Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Hard.
- One osu!catch difficulty may be included. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than an Insane.
>Shad0w1and: Make # of difficulties required scale with length more smoothly t/432739Can someone clarify why exactly this will "likely cause more concern" than current rule for flat time limit? I mean "we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload" makes it sound like it was best among the worst.
while it sounds cool in theory, setting time limits will likely cause more concern than the current marathon rule already does. the rule about modifying songs to reach approval limit is gone, but we still think it's better not try to use exploits to make maps above x minutes just to remove a bit of the workload
Is this convention going to be listed somewhere for reference? Since:Monstrata wrote:
There are some rules associated with that too, like there still having to be a spread. You can't have a E N H spread and then a 9.0 star diff slapped on the end. The discussion basically resulted in the "minimum" difficulty being an Extra (E N H I X >--- Ultra) but we rarely will see something like this anyways because not many people are actually capable of mapping difficulties so much higher than 5.25 that they actually "skip" a spread tier", and even fewer are capable of ranking.Naotoshi wrote:
what happened to the top diff doesnt need to follow spread thing =( that was more or less completely separate from the 8 diff thing, is it still being considered?
5.25 > 6.75 can still be seen as a reasonable spread. so you should really only see the rule (if we had included it) being used for a 5.25 > 8 star spread or something.
I think somewhere in the discussion we just decided it wasnt a bad idea but not really something we'd see. It doesn't allow 7-9 star diffs to become any more rankable than they were. You wouldn't be able to quote it and say "well this rule says I can rank my 9 star diff". It just allowed a diff in between to be skipped, but the highest diff still goes through normal nomination procedures and doesn't receive exemption
Reasonable Spread: A mapset without drastically large differences between difficulties as dictated by difficulty-specific rules and guidelines.Leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation.
i meanVacuous wrote:
I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
yeah but there are those annoying people that don't understand BNs can just choose not too and complain because of something that most people would agree with the BN onUndeadCapulet wrote:
i meanVacuous wrote:
I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline
they can still just not bubble it