Mapsets cannot include more than 8 total difficulties of a single game-mode.

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:

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

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.

_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

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :'(

(?)

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.

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.

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time.

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 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
   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!

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.

Songs/maps cannot be modified to reach the minimum drain time. Abusing the 5 minute limitation removes its intended purpose. Types of abuse include:

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

The song should not be too long. Aim for 3 minutes maximum; anything longer gets tiring.

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.

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.

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
   
   

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?

pishifat wrote:

1. Any two osu!taiko or osu!mania difficulties must be arranged in a reasonable spread. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Hard.
2. One osu!catch difficulty may be included. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than an Insane.

graph

>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

Monstrata wrote:

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

Reasonable Spread: A mapset without drastically large differences between difficulties as dictated by difficulty-specific rules and guidelines.

Vacuous 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

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Vacuous 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

i mean
they can still just not bubble it

1. added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
2. clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule

pishifat wrote:

we're back! this draft will be open for one more week of revision, ending on September 24th!

---

little feedback this time, so only a couple changes:

1. added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
2. clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule

other feedback is addressed in the box here:

SPOILER

quotes are paraphrased

Sinnoh: In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
>this rule already exists. it's the second thing under "If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties..."

Naotoshi: what happened to top diff spread gap?
>Monstrata explained on the thread

Amaikai: can we have lower spread requirements for 3-4 minute maps in the same vein as marathons? why were they rejected from previous round of revision?
>people exploit 5 minute limit to make songs/maps pass threshold, setting similar things for 3-4 minutes makes that happen more in different situations

Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)

Vacuous: can we make editing songs a guideline?
>not really practical when the quality of an edited song has so many variables/is not easily detectible. the example you gave would never be ranked regardless of a rule/guideline being in place, so i don't think that's much to worry about

if no major changes pop up in the next week, we'll transfer this draft to the wiki!

tatatat wrote:

I don't see any changes on the draft.. ??

Naotoshi wrote:

My suggestion is to change the rule to say that, while the top diff does not need to use a difficulty level, it must be related to the song in some way.

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.

A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.

• 
  Difference between lowest and highest difficulty in star rating is calculated.
  This difference and song length is matched on 2 dimensional table to see number of required difficulties.
  Mapper maps that amount of difficulties with linear/gradual spread.
  Reference table is absolute, it's up to mapper if he wants to extend the mp3 or nerf highest difficulty to map 1 difficulty less.

• 
  Number of difficulties within specific range on ranked mapsets are counted
  When there is oversupply of specific difficulty range, new mapsets can exclude that difficulty range from their set
  When there is undersupply of specific difficulty range, bonus incentives to map specific difficulty range.
  Bonus: You can append difficulties to already created sets later on to fill in the gaps.

• 
  Beg peppy to allow different songs in same mapset
  Concept is to have set with multiple different songs in it
  Set has difficulties which are around same range
  Packs can be for beginner, advanced, insane, extra, ultra
  Only X amount of sets for Y range can be ranked each month
  Exceptional sets can go to loved if they don't get ranked
  (Get some BN collaboration to decide which packs get ranked)

• 
  Have contest to map single song.
  Make spread for mapset from entries, pick argueably best for each range
  Rank it, exceptional single difficulties go to loved
  In case of extremely popular song, make 2 sets from the map pool
  (Get some BN to handle this)

Amaikai wrote:

Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai". The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing!

I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.

[ Space ] wrote:

Gonna go through your suggestions on these and state at least why I wouldn't want them. My answers are in red.

Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai".
The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing![/Quote]

You are missing the point. Bns are diverse bunch and each have their own tastes, I agree with that. But doesn't change how there are too many unsaid things NOT listed on guidelines or rules that you need to figure out on your own.

I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.

1. 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). Words that happen to be usernames are acceptable within difficulty names as long as they relate to the song.
2. A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted for a month, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.

rc wrote:

A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

rc wrote:

Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Normal and it must comply with its respective mode’s difficulty-specific ranking criteria.

UndeadCapulet wrote:

A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

current wording of this disallows gd'ers from mapping intros/outros/break that the set owner didnt map if the set owner only mapped one difficulty. theres no real reason to disallow this kind of thing, since it just boils down to different song interpretations.

rc wrote:

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 the only exception.