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

[Guideline] Map Accountability

posted
Total Posts
112
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Topic Starter
Shiirn
Current Guideline:
The number of maps by any mapper should not exceed the number of maps by the uploader: this means that if you have 2 diffs, no guest mapper can have more than 2 diffs; collaboration maps are exempt from this. Ask a BAT if you're unsure of who should upload the mapset.

A map's uploader must have provided more content towards the mapset than any other single contributor. This means that if you are to have a collaboration mapset, you must have mapped at least one difficulty fully, and no other mapper mapped more than one difficulty (Taiko difficulties count as a difficulty). In cases of specific difficulty collabs, the uploader in question must have provided more content than any other contributor. (i.e. uploader maps a seperate difficulty on top of collabing in said difficulty) This rule need not apply for approval mapsets which may include single-difficulty collaboration. Storyboards do not count as "content" towards this gauging.
I wanted to throw in something about "Consistently mapping only one difficulty of each of your ranked maps means you're a lazy smut" but couldn't figure out how to word it politely.
Kitsunemimi
2,188 posts
Joined April 2009
Kitsunemimi
I concur.

There will be some people who just really like bringing together collab maps, but I think it would be fine to enforce a sort of lenient limitation.
Elly-chan
969 posts
Joined January 2011
Elly-chan

Kitsunemimi wrote:

I concur.
Ekaru
3,617 posts
Joined July 2008
Ekaru
Yeah, I think this should replace the current proposed rule about this. For those wondering, it's:

You must fully map at least one difficulty of a mapset if you are the person who is uploading it. For collaborated beatmap sets, the uploader must be a part of every difficulty. Also, no guest mapper should have more content in the mapset than the creator. It makes no sense to upload a map if you barely contributed to it.
The one Shiirn's proposing is significantly better to me. I especially like the approval clause.
NoHitter
osu! Alumni
3,785 posts
Joined June 2009
NoHitter
I still think collabs with the mapper mapping one part in all diffs is fine as long as the mapper mapped a part equal or longer than the rest.
The mapper could also do more work by making a SB or being the one who organized the collab.
e.g. Last Time Travel.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Topic Starter
Shiirn

NoHItter wrote:

I still think collabs with the mapper mapping one part in all diffs is fine as long as the mapper mapped a part equal or longer than the rest.
The mapper could also do more work by making a SB or being the one who organized the collab.
e.g. Last Time Travel.
This follows in with the "the uploader must provide more content than any other single person"

And storyboarding is not necessarily imperative to the functionality of a map, although it can be considered content when it's questionable as to who provided the most.


Note that i use "provide content" rather than "did work" since a single mapper can do an entire mapset with the same amount of effort as one person doing twenty seconds, thus, the best way to gauge effort and "work" is through the end product.
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
The rules should be modified by changin from "than any other" to "than other". this way the uploader can map 2 difficulties and the other can map 3. The Skin and the StoryBoard should count if done by the mapper, but that doesn't mean you can map one difficulty and another SINGLE mapper can map two or more.

A map's uploader should provide more content towards the mapset than another single contributor, in the sense that the contributor can't map more than you. You can provide, for example, one difficulty, and the other can provide maximum one difficulty each.
the way the draft say is you have to map at lest the 50% of your map, without other mapping less than you, so the correction up here should be more acceptable
Last edited by HakuNoKaemi , edited 1 time in total.
Rena-chan
Rena-chan

Shiirn wrote:

A map's uploader must have provided more content towards the mapset than any other single contributor. This means that if you are to have a collaboration mapset, you must have mapped at least one difficulty fully, and no other mapper mapped more than one difficulty (Taiko difficulties count as a difficulty). In cases of specific difficulty collabs, the uploader in question must have provided more content than any other contributor. (i.e. uploader maps a seperate difficulty on top of collabing in said difficulty) This rule need not apply for approval mapsets which may include single-difficulty collaboration. Storyboards do not count as "content" towards this gauging.
I wanted to throw in something about "Consistently mapping only one difficulty of each of your ranked maps means you're a lazy smut" but couldn't figure out how to word it politely.
I think that's a just fine way to word it.

Personally though, I think it should be fine as long as the uploader doesn't contribute less to the mapset than any other single mapper that may take part in it. Not so much because of the laziness it may imply, but I really like seeing how other people would map a song.
That's my excuse for mostly mapping just one difficulty for my mapsets, at least. I can see why it would be frowned upon, but it's one of those things I disagree with.

Also, I don't see why storyboards shouldn't count as "content" towards this gauging, as a good storyboard takes just as much, if not more, effort to make than a single difficulty does. Also, isn't it wrong to say that a storyboard doesn't contribute at all towards gameplay ?
I find storyboards and videos to give a more "complete" playing experience than a map that has neither, if that makes any sense.
ztrot
osu! Alumni
4,378 posts
Joined February 2008
ztrot
unless the mappers in question didn't want to submit the collab map, then it leaves the one who did less work to submit it and with this guideline it just gridlocks him. I think if anything it should be taken case by case some mappers might help more on a song they aren't willing to submit.
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
why submit something a mapper doesn't want to submit anyway? if two mapper worked for a collab, and one isn't willing to submit at the time...? You could say the one submitting is right?
D33d
1,697 posts
Joined April 2011
D33d

ztrot wrote:

unless the mappers in question didn't want to submit the collab map, then it leaves the one who did less work to submit it and with this guideline it just gridlocks him.
As a matter of principle, the uploader should make a substantial contribution to the map. Their name has been put on the map, so it's only logical that they're featured prominently.

In a similar vein, I believe that the uploader of a map should usually be the one to make the hardest difficulty. In the case of my [Insane] for Jarby's 'Symmetry' map, I simply did that because I insisted that an Insane map could be made and I wanted to prove it. It turned into me going ahead and doing the rest of the map. Of course, I also like Jarby very much and would use any excuse to do him a favour. Otherwise, the hardest difficulty of a map is effectively the uploader's showstage--it fleshes out all of the mapset's ideas and shows us everything that the mapper is capable of in a difficulty.

If nothing else, it's nothing more than laziness. To me, requests for guest Hards or Insanes say,"I've mapped all of the easier difficulties. Could you pour a load of effort into the most flashy map, which pretty much everybody will play when they look at the map, so that I can take the credit by attaining a ranking?"

The phrase "start as you mean to go on" comes to mind. One might as well show some willing by mapping the difficulty which requires the most effort.
pieguyn
2,020 posts
Joined May 2009
pieguyn
If you have a collab map, you shouldn't have to map fully one diff... I know of multiple maps where the mapper did not map one full diff and everything turned out fine. I also don't think it's necessary for the mapper to map a part in every diff.

I think that the mapper should have to map at least one diff, across all diffs. Example: the mapper maps 50% of hard, 50% of insane and none of normal. This situation would be acceptable IMO.

I also think that a guest mapper can be allowed to have more diffs in the map than the mapper as long as the guest mapper says it's OK... (because then there's no problem)
HakuNoKaemi
3,828 posts
Joined October 2009
HakuNoKaemi
if two mapper collab for three difficulty it's right, actually.
But making a collab and letting others map full difficulty, can't logically means you are the submitter.

The submitter should at least the same work done by any other mapper... or a "bit less", he's taking into account map preparation, mod searching and similiar.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,558 posts
Joined March 2009
CXu
Two mappers collab a map

Mapper A contributes 70%
Mapper B contributes 30%

Mapper A has no available slots for uploading
Mapper B has 1 abailable slot.

Would Mapper B be allowed to upload the map? Also, I guess it's fine if it is agreed upon by both mappers that the one who contributed the less is uploading it?
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Topic Starter
Shiirn
CXu: i highly, highly disagree. The entire reason i suggested this is so that mappers are accountable for what they've started or done - Mapper A can wait until he gets enough upload slots.
bmin11
5,438 posts
Joined October 2008
bmin11
Just going to bring this old topic from the grave. I'll bring up a scenario as I'm not a great writter.

Player B mapped a map set and Player A mapped a guest diff for the set. However, Player B figured he can no longer upload his map (there is absolutly no way to upload except to have someone else to log in to his account somewhere else). Player B even had more then enough slot to upload the beat map. This is a trouble, but Player A kindly offered his remaining map slot (yay!). Unfortunately, this map got nuked because it violated the Map Accountability Rule. However, because of this unique case, there was a BAT discussion over this issue. It was never revealed as the solution they came up with was to lock the thread of the map and make Player B to erase all his name on the beatmap or let it graved.

You can follow up the (revealed) case on this link

Points to be considered:
  • Player B had 2 slots to upload, but could no upload the beatmap due to restriction on his Internet
    Player A did not mind giving up his slot
    The diff spread was 3 diff from Player B and a diff from Player A (75% > 25%)

Personally, I don't see how this could possibly threaten the gameplay itself. All what Player B wanted to have was his name shown on the difficulty name. Most BAT's first reactions (who have posted on the thread atleast) were in disagreement. Why would that be? The rule must be based on common sense since Map Accountability isn't much of a technical issue. You could tell there is clearly something wrong when BATs can't agree on such issue. However I'll leave the past behind since it's pointless now. All I want is the discussion and the conclusion BATs had to be revealed. It would definately help to bring an inprovement to this rule.



P.S. Why did I give up last time? Because I didn't want ouran and DxS's effort to end up in the graveyard. Personally did not minded having this map graved.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Topic Starter
Shiirn
All rules have exceptions - this is no exception to that rule.

This rule i am suggesting is more to prevent mappers from being blatantly lazy and underachievers with their maps than mutual agreements.
bmin11
5,438 posts
Joined October 2008
bmin11
Question:
Are Taiko diffs treated like other standard difficulties for accountability?
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura

bmin11 wrote:

Question:
Are Taiko diffs treated like other standard difficulties for accountability?
I dont see why not
Natteke
6,538 posts
Joined August 2009
Natteke

Shiirn wrote:

I wanted to throw in something about "Consistently mapping only one difficulty of each of your ranked maps means you're a lazy smut" but couldn't figure out how to word it politely.
Why does it even matter? If I like having guest diffs in my maps and people are actually willing to contribute to my map, am I just going to tell them "No, I can't because people will think I'm lazy" Fuck, this is no good.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 112