forum

[Proposal] Spread ruleset draft

posted
Total Posts
259
show more
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 🤔
Monstrata

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:
  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.

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.
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".

It's true the "huge sets are difficult to moderate ant to guarantee quality" is indeed an argument being made here. But just read people's responses. It's clearly a poor argument that has no bearing on map quality. It's not something that should be covered in the RC. It is an issue to consider with BNG rules and BN management if anything. I don't believe the issue is valid to begin with though. I'm only acknowledging that two people in this thread think this is an issue.

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:
  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.
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.

The second point is true, and something that will persist even with the system Loctav proposed anyways. If you are mapping a song that already has 5 ranked mapsets, you are making a choice to map it despite knowing it won't get the plays and popularity you expect. Honestly, if you are mapping the song after that many sets have been ranked, there are only two reasons. 1. You like the song, and you are mapping it for yourself. 2. You think you have an entirely new concept and want to get it ranked. If you picked the first choice, the "unattractive" qualities of mapping another set is something you are already expecting. You aren't mapping it for other people though, you're mapping it for yourself.

If you picked the second choice then you are effectively removing those unattractive qualities through creating unique content for that specific song.

Your system doesn't reflect how the modding and mapping community will view things. You ask these big questions like "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?" and those are valid questions. But your answer is very far removed from how active modders and mappers in the community will view them.

Not everyone is creating maps for the playerbase. Do you really think the playerbase needs 8 different versions of Harumachi Clover? yet mappers continue to create more sets. Maybe you should go ask mappers who create these sets for their opinion and reasoning, rather than assuming they are trying to create original and unique content and/or struggling with apparently having to create similar content. You'd be surprised how different maps actually are once you look through different submissions. It just seems to be a popular mindset nowadays to say "all maps play the same".
dhpenguin7
All I can say about mapping. I believe that a mapper should make 2 diffs at least for a map, because it is otherwise just getting a bunch of gd'ers to do your fill and you doing a short gd. Therefore, I believe at least 2 diffs are needed so that one diff map makers could put in more work, especially for tv size maps.
LwL
Had a random thought while reading the last few pages (I think everything relevant was said, definitely agree with Monstrate/CXu on most things, + what I said in my previous post).

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.
ruruchewy
Colored text is mine.

Color Code:
  1. DISAGREE
  2. agree
  3. Everything else.

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...

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties...
    1. 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.
    2. 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 :arrow: 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 :arrow: 4* Taiko
    3. 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.
    4. One osu!catch difficulty may be included. It must be at least an Insane difficulty.
    Same wording issue as 1st rule and rule above.
  4. Mapsets must have a minimum drain time of 30 seconds. This ensures each ranked map has a practical play-time. That's obvious.
  5. 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.
  6. Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
    1. Lowering a song’s BPM
    2. Looping portions of a song
    3. 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.
    4. Extending spinners/sliders over inaudible sounds I agree; what's the point?
    5. Manually removing breaks Totally should stay unrankable, hands down.


    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
First sentence is obvious.
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.

  1. Avoid incomprehensible username combinations to indicate possession of a collaborative guest difficulty. If it’s unclear whose usernames are combined, simplification is recommended. True.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
Don't know too much about this, so you tell me! :D

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 :P
dsco
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
Should this rule pass I urge it to be raised to 10 though I do not believe this to be a sensible rule at all as I do not see its aim other than to reduce the workload for people checking maps, which shouldn't come at a cost of hindering mapsets.

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.
I think this should be a case-by-case guideline with bn's best judgement, as anything that discourages long songs from being mapped is a bad thing imo. if it can be done tastefully, i have trouble understanding why this could be an issue.
i'd also like to mention that this is a bit of a slippery slope as it would include any song compilations, combinations of songs, etc.
sonic8889
Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:
  1. Lowering a song’s BPM
  2. Looping portions of a song
  3. Adding sounds before/after a song begins/ends
  4. Extending spinners/sliders over inaudible sounds
  5. Manually removing breaks
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.
The only people losing out on a ~5 min. song not having a spread are those that cannot play the difficulty that is being approved; either way, under the guidelines right now exists this:
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.



also,
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.
however, i do feel that the "highest difficulty not required to fit spread" section is fine, as long as the spread includes easy/normal up to an extra. cant be having 8 stars with a spread of normal to a 5 star insane. a 5 star insane in a spread that requires an extra would probably warrant an ~6(?) star extra, to keep the spread linear.
CXu

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.
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.
Okoratu
closing this for revision then i guess we have more than enough content to go from
Topic Starter
pishifat
after an unnecessarily long wait, the draft is now up for revision once again! over the next two weeks (until August 31st), feel free to discuss anything concerning about the proposed subsection of the ranking criteria on the first post of this thread!

---

there were quite a few changes from the last round of revision, but here's the stuff most of you care about:
  1. rules stating "The lowest difficulty must be at least x" have been changed to "The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than x". there was a lot of confusion about how to interpret these, especially for hybrid mapset rules. hopefully it's understandable now
  2. the "Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time" rule has been removed. while exploiting songs/maps to reach 5 minutes is still a problem, we've come to the conclusion that there's no practical way to enforce this rule and breaking it is often unnoticable. excluding it entirely seemed like the most realistic choice
  3. the "Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode" rule has been removed. there are reasons for this rule, which is why it's been proposed on two occassions now, but mapping community members find it to be a problem. the 16 pages of discussion here explain why most people consider its benefits minor and its downsides substantial, so the rule is now gone



for the smaller changes and reasons why certain things were not changed, refer to the box below!

quotes are paraphrased

>Hydria: calling key counts different modes is weird
according to mania players, this isn't too unusual apparently

>everyone: “At least” doesn’t work wording-wise. Applies to all of its uses
adjusted to "cannot be harder than x"

>Sieg: Shouldn’t the “which complies with their respective mode’s difficulty specific ranking criteria” line be the same in these following rules?
yes, applied

>Haskorion: Mention that E/N or N/H are minimum required spread
should be implied already since rule says "must include 2 difficulties" and "one cannot be harder than a normal"

>mangomizer: “The lowest difficulty [of each mode] must…”
yes

>Shad0w1and: Make # of difficulties required scale with length more smoothly t/432739
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

>ruruchewy: make marathon time limit lower
needs to be a line set somewhere, and 5 minutes is going to be that. (has been discussed in like 5 other threads in ranking criteria archive, so details kind of redundant)

>everyone: the rule about modifying songs to reach minimum drain time has too many holes
rule is now gone

>everyone: 8 difficulties is unnecessarily limiting
rule is now gone

>Hydria: Top difficulty of a mapset should allow any name
current rule only forbids misleading stuff, like calling an extra diff "easy." if that wasn't clear, it should be now

>everyone: "Drain times for collaborative difficulties must be listed in the creator’s words for via storyboarding." has a typo
typo was fixed, then sentence was removed beacuse people will lie about drain time if they're breaking the rule anyway

>UndeadCapulet: If guest difficulty creators are okay without mapset host credit, it should be okay
point was discussed a lot, though it ended up not changing. regardless of whether or not a mapset host is okay with it, the mapset will still be labeled as theirs on listings/profiles etc so they need to have some level of accountability, and drain time is the method we've agreed is most fair for that (despite it still sucking)

>Phantomhive: Shouldn’t accountability be calculated with object count instead of drain time?
Endaris explained this already, but different object types make that impractical

>Natsu: is “Pantsu” diffname ok?
yes!

>Hydria: "A mapset’s hardest difficulty may use free naming, but clear and appropriate relation to its song is recommended." is redundant
yes, removed sentence from second guideline

>Hydria: What about name changes?
they are a valid reason to break the third guideline

>UndeadCapulet: If mapper doesn’t care about credit, it shouldn’t matter.
point is to avoid misleading/unnecessary name stuff, since it makes actual names have less meaning. added clarification in second sentence of guideline

>Yuii-: Just make unicode guideline a rule if it can break the game
as is with in-game chat, excessive unicode is the problem, so there's times where unicode is/is not ok

>Xexxar: Difficulty naming for Extras is arbitrary. should use free naming
oko addressed this in the thread you wrote about this actually

>Cyclohexane: Make wide spreads acceptable, here are pictures
your concern is more of a mode-specific thing. rules here don't define what's acceptable for easy/normal/hard etc, sorry:(

also:
difficulty names are italicized for easier reading
glossary entires mostly start with "A"
extremely minor wording adjustments
Nao Tomori
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?
Amaikai
So nothing done on cumulative effort needed to rank 3-4minute maps being unreasonably larger and strict 5minute rule still in place? neat.
Monstrata

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?
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.

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
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply