1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
show more
posted
Yehaj this is better boi
posted
Really great idea, I support that.
posted
down with tiers

Desperate-kun wrote:

This sounds very promising.

Though, the reason why QATs stopped disqualifying maps on their own was mainly the will of peppy himself, so I don't see this change reverting unless you can actually convince him.

Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.

Monstrata wrote:

If the QAT became more transparent then it would be good to at least have BN insight. This is a fault of the QAT's not being transparent enough imo, not a fault of us "not being qualified to vote for QAT's".

Mappers may not know what BN's are doing internally, but there are methods to finding out, and what BN's are doing are not nearly as secretive as what QAT's are doing in any regard. As well, we can also comment on the actions of QAT's based on what we know, or what they have been doing on the public-facing front.

For example, we know pishifat does a lot of videos and gives a lot of insight into mapping theory. We also know he qualifies a bunch of maps, sometimes with minimal modding if any (and I'm sure there are people who've come to question these "yolo ranks"), we also know he participates in or had participated in BN test creation and that he is involved in helping with the Ranking Criteria changes.

I've always questioned why QAT's needed to be so secretive in the first place. Why weren't BN test answers released? People can learn from them, especially the Part A answers (considering they are not private information as anyone who participated in the BN Test received the answer sheet).

So no, I disagree with Desp, I think BN's should be able to vote, but I believe they should also be given a better insight into the behind-the-scenes actions of QAT's. We shouldn't be barred from voting just because "we don't know".
Kinda agree with both here, as it is I don't think BNs should be weighing in on who a QAT team leader would be, but it's certainly true that there needs to be a lot more transparency or at least clarity on the part of the QAT.



MashaSG wrote:

Agree with the others ( Werbee and Kisses )

MashaSG wrote:

Werbee
posted

Absolute Zero wrote:

I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
To expand on this idea,

I don't think putting standard in one group and the other modes in another group is a good idea because while they are all less active than standard, they aren't as active as one another, not even close iirc.

My suggestion is to have each mode receive their own elite nominator but at different intervals than standard.

So if Standard is every 6 months, mania could be every 10 months. Taiko every year and CTB ever 14 months as an example. These time scales might seem long and they might be but it's just an example. This is the best way I can think of doing this without having the modes directly compete against one another.

Possible issues:
It requires BNs to be active for a longer period of time in less active modes to receive a title (but the trade off is less competition)
Hybrid BNs get shafted
posted
The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts.
'Successful qualifications' need to go. There's only so many maps that deserve to be qualified, so when those maps get qualified, what maps are the bns going to look at? They might resort to qualifying unfitting maps. Qualtiy is a subjective term, but Modding activity is more accurate because mods can be analyzed for proper reasoning despite how much of the mod was applied, so I think this should be kept. One form of activity I'd like to add is participation in events. As in, bns who become judges of tournaments receive 'extra credit' for example.

Second, it's about the bn awards. I'm glad the staff have noticed motivation as an issue, but I still question it's effectiveness.

I feel bns & qat should be paid for their activity. Whether it be actual money or osu supporter, they need some form of consistent payment. A tag is cool, but then what's after that? Having a monthly payment or award would encourage them to stay active. The bns do work that a game developer would make money off of, so I think this is where they lose motivation.
posted

Litharrale wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
To expand on this idea,

I don't think putting standard in one group and the other modes in another group is a good idea because while they are all less active than standard, they aren't as active as one another, not even close iirc.

My suggestion is to have each mode receive their own elite nominator but at different intervals than standard.

So if Standard is every 6 months, mania could be every 10 months. Taiko every year and CTB ever 14 months as an example. These time scales might seem long and they might be but it's just an example. This is the best way I can think of doing this without having the modes directly compete against one another.

Possible issues:
It requires BNs to be active for a longer period of time in less active modes to receive a title (but the trade off is less competition)
Hybrid BNs get shafted
this doesn't work
at all
monstrata bubbled 6-7 sets yesterday
the most active ctb bns may icon 6-7 sets per month (usually less)
no matter what time scale is used, different modes can't be compared at any level because of the sheer difference in amount of maps
elite nominator needs to be mode exclusive or any non-std bns will have literally no chance at the title
posted

Desperate-kun wrote:

Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.
Well, in any social environment, popularity is a strong value, even for good as for evil, I think that before hinder BN vote for QAT leader, let's try it, and if this does not work (as did not work in 2014 with newBATs), then it will be limited to elite nominators or so...

---------

I'm only worry about Beatmap Nominator rewards.

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title permanently, and 6 months of osu! supporter, plus 3 months that they may gift to any of their friends.

It is really cool and I'm very happy that BNs finally get recognition for their hard work! but...
If the measure to get the "Elite Nominator" title is only how many mods they did, this will be abused. I mean, some maps are more easy to mod (like short songs), so think in a way to avoid an eventual abuse is something that worry me :S

I want to the most helpful and nice BNs to get the Elite Nominator title, but not to the lazy who made the minimum to get a title ^^U

--------

Okorin wrote:

The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.
It is a very important question.
Clear rules are important to avoid unnecessary drama!
posted
seems good
posted

Okorin wrote:

The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.
Well, you could do it based on whether they get striked in that time (just from a behavior point of view). I think at this point, the idea of tiers changing the quality of ranked should probably be abandoned since it clearly didn't work... so using a probationary period to make sure the new guy doesn't dick around and do dumb shit would make sense before promoting him to a full BN.
posted
Really support these changes, just 2 comments i'd like to comment on.

i agree with what weber said about the elite nominator title being handed out more regularly, 6 months is a bit long so i would suggest 4 month intervals maybe. If this is getting handed out seperately per gamemode i would suggest keeping it at 6 months for the modes with less BNs though.

I also feel like the BNG having an influence on choosing the QAT leader would be a good idea, since it would give them a little bit more control and avoid ending up with someone in charge who is disliked by most of the people they are in charge of. I feel like it's only fair to also give the BNs a vote, seeing as the person ending up in charge will ultimately be responsible for not just the QAT, but also many decisions regarding the BNG. I still somewhat agree with desperate-kun though, while this could be fixed by making the QAT more transparent a more immeriate solution would be weighting votes, so that the total weight of all BN votes = the total weight of QAT votes, thus not resulting in the people who know most being outnumbered and outweighted by a larger group with less information on the matter.
posted
this is a good civilization.
posted
Good idea imo~
posted

Chromoxx wrote:

weight QAT votes
as far as i know, some amount of weighting will happen if both qats and bns are voting


in response to the actual post, i don't have much to complain about. when surveyed by ephemeral, i mentioned some issues i had, and they're all handled with this proposal. most questions i initially had about the proposal were answered before this was published as well

the only things i'm still not fully on board with (possibly because i need more clarification) are:

A new BN addition round will begin immediately. The new members will enter at the probationary level.
considering there's a bn addition round for non-standard modes in progress and starting another one at the same time is impractical, "immediately" isn't gonna happen

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title
you already know that high activity isn't the best determining factor, so i'm gonna assume this is just a poorly worded way of saying "highest scoring BN according to the formulas being organized by jbh"

this might solve the concerns some people have about non-standard bns being a disadvantage too.

Divisions will be merged together into larger but separate units based on overall activity, with attention paid to common cooperation and friendships existing between divisions at the moment. This one is a bit nebulous and may require further consideration.
i agree with that last sentence. "larger but separate units based on overall activity" has me pretty confused. like, bigger groups means less active participation per person, which isn't great, and does "overall activity" mean organizing people according to how interested they are in bn activity? i don't really know lol. i personally think the size of groups is okay right now, though their members could use rearranging in some situations.

i am in support of letting nominators group together with people they're familiar with though, and even choosing who their leaders are (to a degree, since equally sized groups are gonna remain i assume). it's a lot easier to get things done with people who are already comfortable talking with each other

also, having a clear objective seems essential for running these divisions, so i'm glad this "each subdivision checks certain qualified maps" idea is being proposed. if it were somehow tied to checking certain bubbled maps as a group, i'd be for that too, since working together on map promotion is kinda the point of these subdivisions. i'm probably in the minority when it comes to that though.

The 'report a map' thread will be closed, and the functionality shifted to a 'report this map' button on the beatmap's web page. These reports will coalesce at certain thresholds within the #qat channel on the osu! internal discord, and all QAT will be expected to review these maps for potential issues as soon as they notice them.
i must have overlooked this whole paragraph when i first read this because i didn't realize how potentially annoying it is. the "report this map" button will need an option to write the reasons why a map is being reported, or the possibility of linking to forum/moddingv2 posts. if it doesn't allow that, it won't be at all useful, since qats will have to check an entire mapset instead of the map's specific issues. if this is just a different way to notify qats of the current types of reports, i'm okay with it

QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked. They will do so under the leadership of a self-appointed leader(s), explained more below.
this is already happening for the standard-specific ranking criteria, which probably needed it the most. i'm not disagreeing with this -- i'm just letting people know


i'd personally give the proposal a greenlight if these minor concerns were handled
posted
Minor concerns are to be discussed - he's penned out a draft addressing concerns that should be hammered out. It's a much more friendly and open way of doing things than vague hints for months then a surprise overhaul that does fuck all.
posted
To be honest, I'm sick and tired of getting blamed for not being transparent enough towards other members of the modding community. The Pandora's Box opened, so I'm more than grateful to speak out about this proposal and other relevant topics if needed. I don't see necessary to communicate it personally to Ephemeral.

Let me give my humble opinion about the current proposal. I'll try to sort out the things I agree on and viceversa:

Dissolution of the current BN tiering system

The current BN tiering system will be dissolved, and replaced with a probationary system.

New BN will enter the system at this probationary level. We will call it 'T1' just for the sake of familiarity. All existing BN will be promoted to 'full members' (aka, T2) and will be allowed to both qualify and bubble maps at will.

Probationary members will not be permitted to qualify - only to bubble. The probation period will not exceed longer than a 2 month timeframe, with most people ideally out of probation after QAT review after a one month time period.

Full members may be reduced to the probationary level at any time by QAT consensus if their conduct is deemed unacceptable, or they repeatedly make large mistakes or oversights.

Probationary members that prove problematic for whatever reason will be opened up to a QAT consensus vote for dismissal from the BN. This must pass with a significant majority (66%+).

A new BN addition round will begin immediately. The new members will enter at the probationary level.
This was actually discussed in the last meeting we had. It's a great responsability to join the BNG and newcomers should take their time in order to get used to their new function. As a reference when I joined the BAT a few years ago there was a non-written rule that newcomers weren't allowed to icon anything for at least 1 week, so they get used to their new work environment and read up the needed info.

Let me put the cards on the table now. Mao, Nardo and I are currently organising the future BN Applications. Given that making a test for them isn't a thing anymore, it's much easier to plan future cycles more regularly which will probably happen every ~1.5 months alternating all game modes. Taiko/Catch/Mania are already running so the next cycle would be osu!standard only, and so on, making 3-monthly full cycles. I'm all for introducing the trial/probatory period already in this current cycle and end it when the next applications open. That means, it'd last a bit more than a month to see if a newcomer is suitable for the position or not (more or less what was proposed).

I have to disagree with pishifat's statement though, the probation time should be implemented asap with the current non-standard cycle. I don't see the point in waiting for the next applications to get this done.

All and all, I'm totally fine with this topic.

Beatmap Nominator acknowledgement

Full members of the Beatmap Nominators (aka: not probationary members) will once again receive a forum title and the purple name they were once known for in the past.

Probationary members do not receive this until they become a full member.

This is a temporary change and will not be carried over into the new system. Nominators under the new system (new being the automated system referenced in the past) will receive a different form of visual identification, yet to be determined.

This way, people that find BN via the forums will know that purple equals someone that can help. There will be no need to consult tier lists or anything of the sort.

In addition, long-serving BN (>1.5 years) will qualify for a special title which they may choose to have applied to their account when they retire. What this will be is still being considered, but probably something involving community and modding somehow.
The purple color and the usertitle were proposed already like... a year ago or something? I believe it was an almost unanimous consensus but it was turned down by the dev's side back then. Even if the new webpage is under developement, making a tiny change in the old one as this shouldn't be such a fuzz.

I'm also fine with the rest of the statements in here.

Beatmap Nominator rewards

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title permanently, and 6 months of osu! supporter, plus 3 months that they may gift to any of their friends.

This will also be featured as a standalone news announcement complete with social media advertisement.

Other rewards will be considered as time goes on and new systems are announced.
There's currently an active discussion about this topic within the BNs/QATs and opinions are getting gathered. JBH will handle the whereabouts of the modding activity, pondering the factors that might influence on it.

As other people stated in this thread, I'm also kind of sceptical about the impact on the non-standard game modes but I'd rather wait and see how it turns out. Maybe splitting up the standard with the taiko/catch/mania score isn't the only possible solution to this issue, so further discussion would be appreciated.

Apart of that only concern, exceptional BNs should definitely get such reward.

Divisions

Divisions will be merged together into larger but separate units based on overall activity, with attention paid to common cooperation and friendships existing between divisions at the moment.

This one is a bit nebulous and may require further consideration.
Some of the divisions were merged already, but it only occured on catch and mania by now. I'd rather wait up until the new BNs come to see if merging some other divisions would be possible.

A few members asked yesterday to be moved into other division because they believe they can work better with X person for whichever reason. I'm not for shuffling all members completely but rather take into consideration these individual concerns, as long as they communicate it to the leader of the correspondant subdivision. People claim for transparency and I claim for fluent and honest communication whenever there's a problem. Without knowing exactly what's wrong, it'd be impossible to look for a solution.

I can see this happening in osu!standard, but not in the near future. I'll stay neutral about it, as the merge already happened within my own division and JBH's.

QAT changes

QAT will be no longer barred (or discouraged) from bubbling, qualifying, or vetting qualified maps on their own.

The 'report a map' thread will be closed, and the functionality shifted to a 'report this map' button on the beatmap's web page. These reports will coalesce at certain thresholds within the #qat channel on the osu! internal discord, and all QAT will be expected to review these maps for potential issues as soon as they notice them.

QAT will be encouraged to return to checking qualified maps of their own initiative and interest, and a solution will be made to try to automatically allocated newly qualified maps to certain divisions for checking and approval.

My current idea for this is a Discord bot will notify divisions in their channels when a newly qualified map is assigned to them. I'm open to other ideas.

QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked. They will do so under the leadership of a self-appointed leader(s), explained more below.
Let me be clear about this. QATs were NEVER discouraged or prohibited to actively participate in the ranking process of a beatmap. On the contrary, I'd just quote one of our concepts while joining the QAT: "QATs, as former members of the BNG, are still allowed to participate in the ranking process of the beatmaps and therefore it's encouraged that you still mod and qualify beatmaps on your own accord."

Talking about that "report this map" button thingy, that was another thing that got proposed about a year ago if I recall correctly. The short-term solution should've been the "report a map" thread before such tool could've been implemented, yet it failed to be done by the devs until now. It'd be much easier for modders to report a map with such a tool to avoid in some of the cases being blamed by the mapper and in the worst of the cases getting insulted or alienated for it. I believe anonymity could be a double-edge weapon when this get implemented: You'd get the less confident modders to report a map, but also some trolls that want to harm a mapper or click the button just for the lulz. But hey, we'll be there to filter out the not-so-serious reports!

About checking actively qualified maps like in the past, I can see it happening on non-standard modes since the workload is far smaller than in standard. About the previous statement of allocate newly qualified maps to certain divisions, I'd like to propose that the qualified map nominated by certain division shall be checked by the same division (eg if Bonsai qualifies a map, Okorin should be notified in this case). That way we'd kill two birds with the same stone: A fairly high amount of qualified maps (if not all) would be revised, and also the subdivision leaders would have a better overview about what their members nominate.

I'm also not sure about what's exactly meant about "alternate mapping styles" getting into Ranked: 2B-like maps? TAG4 maps? Aspire-like maps? How deep should the RC changes to make this happen, taking into account that it's almost totally re-reviewed by the ubkrc? How would those beatmaps impact the osu! program itself? If I recall, Catch proposed while ago introducing multiple objects per beat (double notes, overlapping sliders/spinners, etc) but I remember getting an answer like "it'll break the game" so it got turned down immediately.

In this case, I'd like to get my ideas heard out before their implementation. I'm all for the "report a map" button, redirecting the report directly to the correspondant QAT in order to keep a realistic workload. I'd also like to know how much would this proposal affect the current RC.

QAT rewards

Long-standing members of the QAT (>2 years) will receive a profile badge denoting their tenure and marking anything significant they achieved during their time on the team.

They will be afforded a permanent place on the osu! Alumni should they choose to retire. They will also receive osu! supporter equivalent to the length of their service on the team once they retire.

Some of this is already the case, but I figured I'd state it again just to make people aware.
Another topic that got proposed while ago, but just got applied to members that made in a certain period of time an "outstanding contribution" but got turned down to get applied for the "long-standing contributors".

Nothing else to add here, I do agree with it.

Returning agency

Should this proposal pass in full, the leadership and direction of the QAT will no longer be determined by a nebulous group of people officiated by the "staff".

The leader(s) will be determined by an expression of interest, followed by a combined vote from both the QAT and the Beatmap Nominators. The top scoring aspirants will be considered the de-facto QAT leadership, though they may number no greater than two.

Before clarifying this further, you must all understand that the BN/QAT system is a system in flux. It has been a standalone 'workaround' to the non-availability of an automated system that is supposed to fully regulate BN appointment automatically, with the QAT designed to fill a literal quality assurance role in that regard. It will change significantly from what it currently is at some point in the near future. When that time is exactly, none of us can say.

The scope of the QAT's leadership will be largely limited to day-to-day affairs and ensuring the smooth addition to and running of the Beatmap Nominators. QAT leadership will be expected to engage with both the Beatmap Nominators and the QAT as a whole, and generally be active and engaged members of the community of their own right.

The QAT leadership will work closely with a member of the osu! team to help them get things going and to provide consul for any systemic changes they may wish to make.

For the time being, that member will be me (Ephemeral). Understand however, that I will not be assuming direct leadership of the QAT under any circumstances bar an absolute necessity. My time has long since passed, and it is well past time for the newer members of the community to begin having their say in the game's future direction.
I'm okay with the idea of getting a leader that can get a direct communication with the higher staff. It's in fact one of my concerns that we could only rely on Loctav/Ephemeral as they work actively with the devs, instead of letting us know beforehand which of the proposals could even get implemented, as most of them would need some coding abilities and/or implementation in the webpage.

I'm also not that happy with the way to choose the leader(s). I can see people agreeing on BN/QAT voting, but my fear is that it ends up being just a pure popularity contest instead of truly choosing someone for their leading abilities. We used to have until then a quasi working environment, even if we're all just volunteers we behave as we are in a job company, and as an in such there is a clear hierarchy High Staff>QATs>BNs and people stick into it. Electing a leader by pure voting would rather killed that purpose and turn the system into a more or less political way. Translocating this proposal into a real example, the leader of the company won't be normally chosen by the members that belong to it, but by a CEO or whoever gets responsible for the personnel management. As this cannot be implemented totally in here, voting should occur. If people disagree that the voting should be solely handled by the QAT, I'm okay to get the BNs into it as well with a certain weightening of the votes in favour to the QAT.

Another point that gives me the creeps is the "automated system that is supposed to fully regulate BN appointment automatically". Well... wouldn't that imply that BNs would be treated as just numbers that contribute towards the beatmap ranking? Which factors would be taken into account: just quantity of mods, or also the quality of it? At which cost should people get into the BNG if their mods are purely consisting in "move to x:340", "fix blanket", "add D", "move to column 1", "add NC", and also the neverending lines of ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ without some kind of manual/human regulation?. Sure the number of ranked beatmaps would flourish, but constructive feedback from the modders would drop drastically and so would the quality of the future beatmaps. You know, I learnt most of what I know about beatmapping after reading such useful mods from great modders. As a beginner a few years ago I respected and learnt from the old MATs/BATs as I considered them as an example to follow. Having an automated system would mostly disregard that concept for the future generation of mappers/modders, which I believe is an insult or a mere trivilisation of something we achieved to build up.

As said, I don't totally disagree with the voting concept of the future leader(s). It'd just need some regulations imo.
On the other hand, I'm totally against an automated system to regulate new BNs for the already stated reasons.

tl;dr Most of the proposed things were already considered by us since months, yet got turned down to happen or just got ignored. I'm more than happy to see things rolling once again and I hope this proposal gets accepted and not ignored once again. I'd also like to see my concerns taken into consideration before greenlighting it for real.
posted
The automated BN appointment system is a whole other kettle of fish and is something of an inevitability - it is also well beyond the scope of this proposal as far as implementation goes. It has been the modus operandi for the 'moddingv2' concept since its floating several years ago. Doesn't mean that it can't be changed, but this proposal isn't really the place to do it. To be extra clear, it basically isn't even a consideration in these changes. I mentioned it to provide some perspective on where things will eventually go, and nothing more.

Map reporting would come with comments included where applicable. Reports made without comments would be weighted less significantly than ones with clarification. Coalesced reports that are made known to the QAT would be considered to have sufficient weighting by the system (due to either the high quantity of specific categorized reports aka incorrect timing, unsnapped notes, etc or a select quantity of detailed reports) to be enacted upon.

The idea behind the BN having a say in the vote of the QAT leadership is to instill people in the position who have the confidence of both teams. Confidence in leadership is an excellent predictor of a tenure's health in regards to engaging with and taking feedback from the community. While I can understand that there may be some concerns about it devolving to a popularity contest, the equivalent weighting of QAT votes to match the size of the overall BN should provide the means for the QAT to make their preferences known with equal strength to those of the BN, and thus mitigate the effect of popularity on the equation.

A big portion of how people working in a system feel about it is tied to the perceived 'strength' of their leaders, and confidence is a very big factor in that.

The proposal focuses on considering revisions for the RC as a newer focus. This is already the case for some members of the QAT. Okorin's already proposed a set of 'thinning' for some commonly used guidelines by either revising them or removing them. I don't foresee too many explicit rules being changed, but then again, all of this would be encompassed under the traditional RC changes and the engagement with the community that comes with them. There'd be plenty of opportunity for everyone to have their say in these changes.
posted
Considering by the looks of it, BN's and QAT's of non-standard game-modes have it easier, wouldn't it be more efficient to bring in more standard BN's in this rounds probationary status?

Also, If I were a BN I'd love to have more filtering options for the pending beat maps listings, and more incentive to push maps made by newer players to ranked standards without as much fear of backlash from QAT (within reasonable limits, of course, I'm not suggesting we should incentivise them to bubble maps that are low quality but I'm saying if a map is a good quality it shouldn't have to rot for months in the pending beat maps section just because the mapper is unknown and the sheer volume of maps constantly being uploaded).

Me personally if I ever feel like random-modding something at this point I ain't got nothing to work on other than SP (which doesn't always speak for map quality) and the reputation of the mapper who made it, and I dislike the fact that mappers with a reputation can breeze through ranked while there's still maps several months or even years old in the pending beat maps page who's only got 2-3 views by BN's. I feel like more filtering options for beat maps in the pending beat maps listing would help find maps worthwhile a watch both for community members such as myself and BN's who's actual "job" it is to promote content suitable for ranked. The additional incentive to find and push high-quality maps made by aspiring mappers should also make the ranking process more enjoyable for aspiring mappers because currently, it feels like an uphill battle for respect in every way imaginable.
posted
I hope the probatory period will include mod/icon checks.
The reason why I was all for tier system was to avoid people yolo iconing or just in general poor modding passing through the system if the person gets lazy. I believe this should happen towards everyone in the BNG, not only new additions (just less frequently I guess).
If QATs will give feedback about these mods, overtime the situation should improve. Teaching people is what the system needed thus far but never happened (so we were technically supposed to learn on our own if something didn't work right for them, but it did for us BNs).

Aside from that, I really don't have much to add to all the stuff being said above me. Hope this goes well and better than the tier system.

If I may contribute something, I'd say that whatever the formulas to decide score will be they shouldn't include just raw amount of mods/icons: we know we are volunteering for this "job" and having the pressure of modding a lot in order to even be part of the competition doesn't sound right.
Instead of adding score increase/decrease upon qualifying or getting a qualified map dq'd I would rather have a "praise" based system, where either the mapper or the other BNs give points to each other upon good behaviour/modding skill (maybe let the QAT do the praises too???). This way I believe that even working a lot but superficially won't give you a head-start on those BNs who might have stuff irl to deal with and can't afford the same amount of commitment.
Commitment is still commitment tho, and can't be ignored, that's why if the BN receives a lot of praises he should still be winning the competition.
This would also encourage less active ones to take part in the competition since they won't be demoralized by the abyssal gap the previous scoring system created (heck, I remember people getting 50+ mod/icons per month. How would I even want to contribute myself when you see such big numbers I might never be able to match? What if I spend more time trying to make the mapper happier about his map and not just qualifying it?). Again, if the gap is created based on really good contribution I don't really mind, but I find that harder to happen, hence why more encouraging to contribute myself, even if on a smaller scale whenever I don't have as much time on hand.
Some score detraction should obviously be there tho, like not respecting the Code of Conduct or doing a sloppy work.
Ideally, you could make each division check the others and ensure they do a good job: if they do, they should raise praises for those BNs, if not they should report it (with eventual score detracted to the BNs in question), but this is just a vague idea. Better ways to handle this may come up (maybe upvotes for modding v2?)

Anyway, I hope I explained it well enough.
We'll see how this "new" proposed system evolves
posted

Bubblun wrote:

The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts.
'Successful qualifications' need to go. There's only so many maps that deserve to be qualified, so when those maps get qualified, what maps are the bns going to look at? They might resort to qualifying unfitting maps. Qualtiy is a subjective term, but Modding activity is more accurate because mods can be analyzed for proper reasoning despite how much of the mod was applied, so I think this should be kept. One form of activity I'd like to add is participation in events. As in, bns who become judges of tournaments receive 'extra credit' for example.

Second, it's about the bn awards. I'm glad the staff have noticed motivation as an issue, but I still question it's effectiveness.

I feel bns & qat should be paid for their activity. Whether it be actual money or osu supporter, they need some form of consistent payment. A tag is cool, but then what's after that? Having a monthly payment or award would encourage them to stay active. The bns do work that a game developer would make money off of, so I think this is where they lose motivation.
its
posted

Naotoshi wrote:

I think at this point, the idea of tiers changing the quality of ranked should probably be abandoned since it clearly didn't work...
Please don't assume that everyone thinks the way you (and certain other people that speak out in public) do. The tier change has improved the quality of ranking in a sense that there are less maps qualified that were considered "very bad" by the community - The border isn't very clear, but if you look at the reports lately you'll notice 99% of them are about more minor things than we had before the tier split.

To remain the quality standard we have, or even improve it, while implementing the proposed system, the QATs will need to make sure to find a method of selecting those BNs that isn't just "anyone who didn't get striked", otherwise this is a huge step backwards. The actual maps those people qualified need to be taken into account.
show more
Please sign in to reply.