Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

Rule: Approval maps must follow the same rules as Ranked maps

posted
Total Posts
36
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius
Current Rule:

Approval maps must follow the same rules as Ranked maps except for max score, length, and difficulty spread. Approval mapsets are allowed to include only one difficulty (e.g. Marathons) and have more than two difficulties in the same difficulty level (e.g. a spread of Insane-only difficulties). These are the only differences between the two categories, and thus Approval is not an excuse to break any other rules.
From what I saw in the thread for this rule, BATs and MATs don't agree in how to change this rule, and some of them don't even want to change it.

I don't get why we should have hard maps being approved as long as the max score rule is broken. Why shouldn't it count for ranked score? Just because only pro-tier players can play it? It's awkward because very very newbie players can't play Hard/Insane difficulties, and they get ranked anyway.

About the other kind of 'gimmick' maps, depending on each case, I don't know if they should be ranked or approved. I personally don't see any problem on seeing maps like Disturbia, The Fire and Fear Factory getting approved, since they are gimmick maps that make us wonder what kind of stuff can we do on osu!. Heck, even the chinese 2B maps project could be approved for me, because it is fun, it's passable, and it's not a bad map - it's just different from the same boring stuff we're used to play every single day.

I just don't get something:

Why should we let fun and "unrankable" (that's the way some people see them) maps go to graveyard and get forgotten when they're very fun and awesome to play, and they have unique tricks to make the map better?

osu! isn't just a rules game. As a game, fun > rules.

Think about it.

Sorry for any kind of mistyping or grammar errors.
Rena-chan
Rena-chan
I completely agree with the above post !
Jenny
2,200 posts
Joined November 2010
Jenny
100% sign - those maps which don't fit the ranking criterias, but are well-playing, fun and stuff (such as ziin's BlythE) should be approved, while those which do go for ranking.

Maybe I'm just pissed of people telling me my (newer) maps would never go ranked/approved, but well: They're fun to play, so why shouldn't they? - Oh yeah, criterias... maps are supposed to be fun to play and not to obey rules at all cost, but at the moment it looks pretty much like "Do what it says, otherweise your map will rot in grave!"

Last edited by Jenny , edited 3 times in total.
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius

Broetchen8441 wrote:

ziin's BlythE
Oh woops, forgot to mention the osu!ka maps. They work for my explanation as well.
Ekaru
3,617 posts
Joined July 2008
Ekaru
I don't get why we should have hard maps being approved as long as the max score rule is broken. Why shouldn't it count for ranked score? Just because only pro-tier players can play it?
Difficulty-curbing is the only reason I can think of.

IMO, it would be so that players can't claim their way-beyond-Insane maps are Insane and get away with not having a real Insane, thus alienating a large portion of playerbase and becoming another Stepmania.

It's kinda silly, though. I think that a much better compromise would be to have an official beyond-Insane difficulty. Maps that are obviously beyond Insane (like Rainbow Tylenol's Hell), therefore, would need an actual Insane in their mapset in order to get ranked. I feel that that would be by far the best move, because it would let crazy maps be ranked while not alienating a significant portion of the playerbase.

As far as Gimmick maps? Let those be approved once again, please. :(
Larto
4,128 posts
Joined June 2008
Larto

Blue Dragon wrote:

I don't get why we should have hard maps being approved as long as the max score rule is broken. Why shouldn't it count for ranked score? Just because only pro-tier players can play it? It's awkward because very very newbie players can't play Hard/Insane difficulties, and they get ranked anyway.
Fully agreed. Players who manage to get a good score on an incredibly hard map deserve the ranked score more than ever, so why not make them ranked instead?
Also, same logic applies to maps that are long but don't go beyond the max score. You say that long maps are tiring and players shouldn't have to go through a long map to increase their score?
Firstly: Long maps do not necessarily have to be tiring. And tiring maps don't have to be long I've had a lot of people play my 7 minutes long Little Piece of Heaven, and many said it didn't even feel like 7 minutes. Hell, even paraparaMAX is fun to play, or Through The Fire And Flames. While on the other hand... http://osu.ppy.sh/s/681 this is pretty boring to play and tiring, if you'd like to put it that way. And it's only 2 minutes. Length is not the most significant factor for what maps are tiring; the mapping style, song choice and the amount of breaks is.
On the other hand, you could also see the length as a difficulty factor. Keeping your FC on a long map is definitely harder than on a short map. So you deserve that score you get on it even more, if it does not go beyond the max score, of course.
Long maps that don't break the score limit are just maps like any others in my opinions, and deserve being ranked just as much as all the others.

EDIT: Like 5 people ninja'd me while writing this. Poot this.
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius

Ekaru wrote:

Maps that are obviously beyond Insane (like Rainbow Tylenol's Hell), therefore, would need an actual Insane in their mapset in order to get ranked
Nice one. This would be kind of like Sticks and Stones, where we have a Insane diff and a Madness difficulty which few people have FC'd so far.

Or maybe even like Hakuchou no Mizuumi, which has [Another] then [Extra].

But Rainbow Tylenol has an Insane diff other than Hell! ;___;
Soaprman
1,392 posts
Joined January 2008
Soaprman
Re: above-insane tier maps: there is this in the osu images folder right alongside the other difficulty star images. We could use it for something! Though I prefer "Extra" to "Expert" as the name... when I hear "Expert" I think of the level below "Master" in F-Zero games.

And absolutely I think gimmick maps have a place and it brings a smile to my face to see people citing Fear Factory as an example. :) I don't see why the Approval category can't house them alongside "normal" Approved maps that are just in there because of length or score. There has been also talk of a third category for such maps and if fitting them into Approved is unacceptable for some reason then I definitely support the addition of that third category.

Having a place for gimmick maps would also encourage more people to make them. Who knows what people might come up with?

A lot of people might not like these maps. That is fine. I would argue though that their audience is at least on the same level as the audience for those super-hard maps that only a handful of players can pass.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn
Approval maps should follow the same rules as ranked mapsets except for length, maximum score, and difficulty spread. Approval maps should also be fully completable by either auto or a human player. Due to the much stricter ranking process Approval maps go through compared to Ranked maps, expect any Approval map made to be strenuously tested so that no unfit maps go through.
As which follows

Difficulty is no longer a requirement nor a prerequisite for approval. As long as a mapset follows all ranked requirements, all difficulties within that mapset are considered rankable. Even if a difficulty is "beyond insane", as long as it follows the modding, bubbling, and ranking process, it should be considered by the public to be rankable. This difficulty should be labeled so as to not be confused with other difficulties, and should be considered "beyond insane" in that it can not be a replacement for the mapset's "insane" difficulty.
Quote two allows for a, where X = Superinsane, "NHIX", "ENHIX", but not "HIX", "NHX", "ENHX". A superinsane or "extra" should always be exactly that - an "extra" difficulty. It should never replace or change the rest of a mapset as a whole.
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
Approval maps must follow the same rules as Ranked maps except for max score, length, and difficulty spread. Approval mapsets are allowed to include only one difficulty (e.g. Marathons) and have more than two difficulties in the same difficulty level (e.g. a spread of Insane-only difficulties). These are the only differences between the two categories, and thus Approval is not an excuse to break any other rules.
We have ranked from map that closely follow rules, so a only Insane-*spread is for people so lazy and not certainly skillfull to make easier difficulty and good spread.
So heck no the fact Approved shoud follow the same rule as Ranked. Approved should be used for good map that not follow rules closely, hard maps that DO MAKE SENSE plus marathons and special project ( like "bring DJ MAX to Osu!") who need a skillfull mapper to make, or at least a mapper whit good ideas.
Ekaru
3,617 posts
Joined July 2008
Ekaru

Shiirn wrote:

Difficulty is no longer a requirement nor a prerequisite for approval. As long as a mapset follows all ranked requirements, all difficulties within that mapset are considered rankable. Even if a difficulty is "beyond insane", as long as it follows the modding, bubbling, and ranking process, it should be considered by the public to be rankable. This difficulty should be labeled so as to not be confused with other difficulties, and should be considered "beyond insane" in that it can not be a replacement for the mapset's "insane" difficulty.
Quote two allows for a, where X = Superinsane, "NHIX", "ENHIX", but not "HIX", "NHX", "ENHX". A superinsane or "extra" should always be exactly that - an "extra" difficulty. It should never replace or change the rest of a mapset as a whole.
Hmm, yeah, I think that solves the difficulty issue perfectly.
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura
iirc Originally a map being Very Hard was used as a way to justify it getting ranked with higher ranked score than usual, so i don't see why are we sending Hard maps for approval now ._. as the only effective difference between a ranked map and an approved map is that approved map doesnt count towards your ranked score.

This is basically (i think) to avoid people gaining a load of ranks from a single play.

So i do agree, specially since sometimes people make very hard maps as an excuse to throw it for Approval and then not having to bother mapping easier difficulties.

If it's fun and "unkrankable" however, you're still free to play and enjoy it without it getting approved, you don't need a scoreboard to enjoy a map.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn

Sakura Hana wrote:

This is basically (i think) to avoid people gaining a load of ranks from a single play.
Like they do from longer maps? Most of the "absurdhards" are actually fairly short and have less of an impact on score (average 12m?) than playing a 3-minute mediocre hard for 20m with mods

Sakura Hana wrote:

So i do agree, specially since sometimes people make very hard maps as an excuse to throw it for Approval and then not having to bother mapping easier difficulties.
I remember giving many, many reasons to approve rather than rank that map that did not include my own personal laziness (you can even see me re-going for ranking!), so [EXPLETIVE DELETED] off. Also, those maps are now unrankable \: D/

Sakura Hana wrote:

If it's fun and "unkrankable" however, you're still free to play and enjoy it without it getting approved, you don't need a scoreboard to enjoy a map.
Best part of your post.
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius

Sakura Hana wrote:

If it's fun and "unkrankable" however, you're still free to play and enjoy it without it getting approved, you don't need a scoreboard to enjoy a map.

Blue Dragon wrote:

Why should we let fun and "unrankable" (that's the way some people see them) maps go to graveyard and get forgotten when they're very fun and awesome to play, and they have unique tricks to make the map better?
Why not approve it in the first place? Is breaking the rules THAT bad? I don't see "breaks the rules" as an excuse to "it's not fun".

Do you think fun and unrankable maps shouldn't exist? Because that's what I get from "just graveyard them and you can still play"

It's not as fun when only one or two people play a map in the graveyard. And you get tons of shitty same-thing ranked maps getting 5000 plays/day.

What do we want here, a list of rules or a fun game?

EDIT: Also don't forget old maps are starting to go away because of the graveyard limit. And since the server can't load lots of stuff, the limit will get stricter and stricter.
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi

Blue Dragon wrote:

What do we want here, a list of rules or a fun game?
We think the same way, actually.

There are a lot of goodly done map, that can't be played neither known because of this rule, plus many mappers using this as an excuse to create only-insane mapset.
So why don't take some obvious rule from the ranked maps pool and use them in the approved ( pointing to
No two hitobjects on the same tick. This includes hit circles, starts and ends of sliders, and starts and ends of spinners. Although this may be possible to accomplish while playing, it defeats the purpose of following the rhythm of the song.
for example, because you won't complete a map with 2 objects on the same ticks anyway)
or just using
It should make sense and Autoplay must be able to SS it
D33d
1,697 posts
Joined April 2011
D33d
The point about fun, but ridiculous and unintuitive maps, is pretty interesting, in that I remember seeing a suggestion that approved maps flat-out don't account for accuracy. What if we could have these "fun" maps approved, but not counted towards accuracy? It's a bit of a wind-up when approved maps turn out to be ridiculously hard to play and bring down one's accuracy rating considerably.
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
Mc Donald map did made my accuracy go lower, much.

Making sense means that it at least decently follow rhythmn and not becoming following other things than rhythmn
pieguyn
2,020 posts
Joined May 2009
pieguyn

Blue Dragon wrote:

Why should we let fun and "unrankable" (that's the way some people see them) maps go to graveyard and get forgotten when they're very fun and awesome to play, and they have unique tricks to make the map better?

osu! isn't just a rules game. As a game, fun > rules.
agree completely

Sakura Hana wrote:

If it's fun and "unkrankable" however, you're still free to play and enjoy it without it getting approved, you don't need a scoreboard to enjoy a map.
No one plays graveyarded maps, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing such maps to be approved... if such maps are doomed to be graveyarded, they won't be enjoyed by most people.
Raging Bull
2,809 posts
Joined June 2010
Raging Bull
Pretty sure lots of people don't check graveyard. They usually check it from their friends or from rank/approval category.
Actually I'm sure people don't check pending also >_>
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
Pretty sure no people check graveyard.
Some people do check Pending though
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius

pieguy1372 wrote:

there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing such maps to be approved...
Agreed. I would like to see Sakura's (or anyone else who doesn't agree with this) opinion on this.
Luna
2,355 posts
Joined November 2010
Luna
I still support a threefold split:

Ranked - Most maps go here
Approved - Maps that exceed the score limit, difficulty should not be a factor imo
3rd Category - Maps that are not considered rankable but don't break elementary, technical rules (like having 2 objects on the same tick, BPM-changes for slider speed changes and stuff like that). This category should not affect accuracy.
Mismagius
9,313 posts
Joined July 2008
Topic Starter
Mismagius

Luna wrote:

(BPM-changes for slider speed changes and stuff like that).
Why shouldn't that be allowed as long as it's fun and playable?
Luna
2,355 posts
Joined November 2010
Luna
I personally don't mind it, but it's banned because it messes up main menu pulsing etc.
It's a technical criteria, so it would still apply.

I'm still hoping some form of hold element will be implemented in the future, but that's a different topic~
Soaprman
1,392 posts
Joined January 2008
Soaprman
Maybe if whoever implemented the custom slider speeds per timing section thing picked a wider range than 0.5-2.0x... a feature request to extend that would probably be futile... :(
ztrot
osu! Alumni
4,378 posts
Joined February 2008
ztrot
personally my whole take on this is, maps that go over a set score I would like to say 15-18mill and are harder than your normal insane should probably be approved as for the short insane maps I personally see no reason to approve something that doesn't crack that score limit
like with that LC map uhh this one was it Mad Machine should be ranked. the 1/8 isn't a good enough reason to approve a map imo now if it was over 15-18 then you ned to start thinking is this too easy or too hard of is the score justified.
mm201
osu! Alumni
4,495 posts
Joined August 2008
mm201

Soaprman wrote:

Maybe if whoever implemented the custom slider speeds per timing section thing picked a wider range than 0.5-2.0x... a feature request to extend that would probably be futile... :(
As in, me. There's a bug with extremely slow slider speeds, so this can't happen for now.
Jenny
2,200 posts
Joined November 2010
Jenny

Blue Dragon wrote:

Luna wrote:

(BPM-changes for slider speed changes and stuff like that).
Why shouldn't that be allowed as long as it's fun and playable?
I guess it should be okay if you used halfed/quartered/etc. BPMs for that, well for me it is
A8mew
74 posts
Joined February 2010
A8mew
IMO, Ranked maps should be held to the existing rules regarding difficulty (intuitiveness, readability, etc.) and the max length/score restrictions could be dropped.

Approved should then be used for maps that break difficulty rules but can still be fun to play, and/or do not adhere to difficulty spread rules. Insane-only mapsets, unintuitive maps, not sightreadable, etc. would fall under the new Approved. Lots of good maps end up going to the graveyard where hardly anyone is liable to see them. Approved should be a way for a mapper who puts in the work to get these maps to a larger amount of players. In my opinion, anyway.
Soaprman
1,392 posts
Joined January 2008
Soaprman
Problem with removing score limit from ranked maps is that maps with really high scores break the shit out of any chart they're included in.
mm201
osu! Alumni
4,495 posts
Joined August 2008
mm201
Don't chart them. Or put them in special charts where the scores are still balanced.
Soaprman
1,392 posts
Joined January 2008
Soaprman
That... that works, yes. What about overall ranking? Is there still desire to keep that balanced or is it acknolwedged as a joke by now?
Lunah_old
Lunah_old
The point is one and it's always the same, repeating again, we are playing a game, we should have fun playing it,

osu! glossary wrote:

Approved Beatmaps :
Used when a beatmap is technically unrankable due to some aspects (length, score etc.) but has been considered fine otherwise by BATs. Beatmaps that are approved have their own leaderboard, but scores from these maps will not be added to the Ranked Score. These beatmaps can be distinguised by having a "Flame" icon instead of a "Heart" icon.
as our glossary says: the approval beatmaps are for beatmaps with "unrankable aspects"

The only disadvantage about ranking "unrankable" beatmaps is the score this is why we got the approval beatmaps section, who wants, can play them, who doesn't want can just ignore them (as these beatmaps don't give a ranked scored),
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,946 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
The entire reason that such a rule is in place to begin with (ie, the distinction between Approval and Ranked maps) is to preserve some sort of fair scoring metric for a degree of competitive play - that is, to assure that the maps that are ranked pass a certain degree of criteria which indicate a base level of both playability and overall quality.

Except that these days, there isn't really much of a point in upholding this distinction since the only people who actually care about competitive play are the ones in the top 1000 or top 100. Most of the competition happens in the charts anyway, so the relevance and validity of this rule in today's atmosphere stands to reason.

I think what we need to do is to expand the approval category and criteria, define it properly and begin making it a little more visible and relevant. It is pretty arbitrary at the moment.
Jenny
2,200 posts
Joined November 2010
Jenny

Ephemeral wrote:

I think what we need to do is to expand the approval category and criteria, define it properly and begin making it a little more visible and relevant. It is pretty arbitrary at the moment.
Guess that's the first step to go for, needs big votings (just because I said so... orz, I'm tired, it's 2am...)
Soaprman
1,392 posts
Joined January 2008
Soaprman
So there's a bit of discussion about this that's spilled over into another thread. I'm going to quote the relevant posts here.

Wishy22 wrote:

Actually I would go for make high-score maps or no-low-diff-maps just get ranked and change Approval into a special criteria where you can go with "screw the rules" basically. I really don't see the point in making some maps go to a special category just because... they give "too much" score or they are "too hard". Not like anybody will care if Lesjuh's Dragonforce maps get ranked. I understand the reasons behind this when the game was like much smaller and there were way fewer maps than now, but I think those reasons don't make any sense tbh since you got like... 4500 ranked maps? Getting about 50~70 maps with no easy/normal diffs and a lot of score won't really ruin the game.

mm201 wrote:

Agree with Wishy, minus the "no easy/normal" thing. I don't see any reason why long or difficult maps can't be ranked.
The original purpose of Approval was for unique, crazy maps which break the rules but are still somehow awesome. They need that extra BAT because it's harder to assure the map is of a high quality without rules to back that up.

We should let long and hard maps into ranking (but require easier difficulties, the usual difficulty count rules) and use Approval for crazy gimmick maps, like it was originally intended for.
It's clear from both those posts as well as ones in this thread that there is significant support for an overhaul (or reversion, should I say?) of what the Approval category is.

As both a creator and a fan of gimmick maps (got more ideas in the works), I would like to see progress made on this. So I'm going to propose that approval maps be exempt from ALL mapping, storyboarding, and skinning-related rules. The modding process will catch anything that is done in poor taste. This would mainly include overlapping hit objects but might also include subtler things like high storyboard load.

Approval maps may break mapping, storyboarding, or skinning rules as needed to create the intended experience. Do take care not to make your map an unplayable mess, though. Rules should be broken for a reason.
I'm no pro at writing rules. Have a field day suggesting rewordings to that! Note that this is written with the assumption that the max length/score/number of difficulties rules will be removed from Ranked. If not, this can be appended to cover those too, no problem.

There are, of course, some rules that approval maps should not be allowed to break. Most notably, they need to still be timed right (or at least as close to right as is reasonably doable, for maps like The Fire). The mp3 bitrate cap is peppy's personal wish and it doesn't have any bearing on the map itself so no reason to allow breaking that either. I think those go without saying though.

This post was written a bit hurriedly during my lunch break. Let me know if anything about it is unclear.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 36