I originally posted here.
viewtopic.php?f=87&t=63986

The maximum draining time for a map is 4 1/2 minutes.

I really think this rule should still be modified. I have a map that is still work in progress and after the math I managed to cut everything down to 4:35.
I know there is 1 part of the map that can be break(about 20+seconds), but it will not feel natural after the break. I might change my mind by the time I finished the map, but there are other songs I wanted to do, which are about 6 mins. After the break, intro and out left-out, it still won't manage to fit in to the 4:30 time frame. A lot of relaxing music are over 5 minutes. Although I do not mind to submit it as approved, but as we see, approve maps are not a place for relaxing music. those maps are for pro players. It will not fit into the approve category. I really felt that there is a big gap between the ranked and approved category and the approved category should not be defined as just, max score, length, and difficulty spread or else these relaxing music more than 5 mins has no were to go.

In general, maybe difficulty spread and max score can be consider to be approved, but length shouldn't be also considered as a perimeter for it. cutting a good song into half or heavy breaks for ranking is totally not acceptable in my opinion. A song is a song. it has some thing they try to say. some songs takes more words to express them. It should be complete.

To add to my point, approved maps generally has (much) less play count as ranked. This might partially is because of the "approved" name. I would be a bit disappointed if what I mapped with all the standard diffs, satisfies all other ranked rules but not the length requirement to fit into this category.


Of course, there is another option. if it doesn't satisfy that rule and wanted to get ranked, let it sink. That would be a bit mean and it narrows down tons of great song selection that is playable in Osu.

What I am trying to say is... rules should be obeyed 95.9% of the time, but it is up to the MAT or BAT to give a little grace to it. Rule should not be absolutely absolute. (although this means more work for the BAT and MAT...)

troll: If a player does not want to play long maps, he can choose not play it. Others who love the song, they can both enjoy and get ranked score at the same time.
troll2:Maybe those long length maps have high combos, we can do a 0.xx multiplier to the score and maintain it within a reasonable range.

2) 4:30 draining time doesn't mean 4:30 total time, 4:30 + breaks can actually even be even 7:00 ... dependong on the song...

yeah...depending on the song. for some songs is hard to insert breaks... or it does not feel natural to do so.

3) well, we could actually extend it to 5 minutes draining time, no more. ( you won't be able to map more decent difficulty, as the score will be to great )

extending it won't do, as more people will have problems with something like 5:10 if the rule has a specific number. I think this rule should be a bit general.
EDIT: regarding to the score: like i said.. maybe a improvement of score system will do, but this will have huge impact on the already existing scores. maybe we can put a multiplier to those long maps from now on. it can be indicated just like the indication for approved maps.(this is more like a suggestion than discussing about the rules...) maybe a category for Merton for longer maps if passable?

should length really be considered in the rule? I think if we list the pros and cons we might find an answer.

as i did say a long map will surely have a score that's more than 20mil....
So they can make 4:30 max draining time a guideline and insert 6 minutes draining time max as a rule, maybe.
But they have just lifted from 4:00 Total Time to 4:30 Draining Time thank to Card

I can't see this being so strictly enforced. Your 4:35 drain time map is probably fine. Requiring such a map to get two bubbles and go for approval would be downright silly.

I can already think of one map that breaks this rule that has no problem: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/23636

In other words, map length doesn't have any effect on quality, and besides most long maps will have too high score anyway so there's no point in putting such a rule...

pieguy1372 wrote:

I can already think of one map that breaks this rule that has no problem: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/23636

In other words, map length doesn't have any effect on quality, and besides most long maps will have too high score anyway so there's no point in putting such a rule...

Aitai doesn't even break the rule, draining time =!= total song duration
And 4 1/2 minutes of draining time is really generous already, it's pretty hard to make a decently difficult and enjoyable map with 4 1/2 mins drain that doesn't exceed the score limit~
/E: I still think this rule is somewhat redundant because of the score limit.

pieguy1372 wrote:

I can already think of one map that breaks this rule that has no problem: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/23636

In other words, map length doesn't have any effect on quality, and besides most long maps will have too high score anyway so there's no point in putting such a rule...

Draining Time: 3:56

actually...
they could make something like the score: 16mil guideline limit, 20mil rules limit.
in that case the draining time: 4:30 guideline limit, 6:00 rules limit

IIRC the rule considers from the first note to the last, which is 4:49 - the first few seconds with no notes, > 4:30... (correct me if I'm wrong)

Such cases are rare, but there is no reason to disallow them.

The rule talks about draining time, which is only the part where life drain actually occurs. So you need to subtract intro, outro and breaks.

Oh oops, sorry.

I still don't see any reason to disallow such cases just based on length, however

losing a really long song it's like a losing a marathon after having quasi-FCed it. Plus long song could be tiring, is you don't put breaks often

If it has >4 1/2 minutes of draining time and still stays below 18M max score (or whatever the limit will be), it's probably easy/relaxing enough to not be incredibly tiring. Of course it's stupid if the hardest/trickiest parts are all at the end because it wastes a lot of time, but modders could just point out such cases because it falls under the "common sense" catergory.
So yeah, I pretty much see no real need for this rule when we already have the score limit...

Adding on what Luna said, if you have 4:30+ drain time and you're not exceeding max score, you're probably mapping a difficulty that's already easy enough, if you add harder diffs they will most likely exceed such max score and then your mapset will end up being hybrid anyways, so i dont see why not just map the hardest diff and throw it for Approval rather than going through the even more annoying process of approving 1 map and ranking the rest.

If we are going with the score limit, I think it is fair. I can safely map my hard diff with no worry at all. It is about 1/3 drafted and it is only about 1.5m score

So hopefully this rule is modified or removed so that it can be more aligned with/lean towards the score limit.

Sakura Hana wrote:

Adding on what Luna said, if you have 4:30+ drain time and you're not exceeding max score, you're probably mapping a difficulty that's already easy enough, if you add harder diffs they will most likely exceed such max score and then your mapset will end up being hybrid anyways, so i dont see why not just map the hardest diff and throw it for Approval rather than going through the even more annoying process of approving 1 map and ranking the rest.

How about if the mapper IS mapping the hardest diff for a very relaxing song that is over 4~5 mininutes long but the score doesn't exceed the maximum cap?

My point is, deleting this rule while retaining the maximum score cap rule will still work.

Sakura Hana wrote:

Adding on what Luna said, if you have 4:30+ drain time and you're not exceeding max score, you're probably mapping a difficulty that's already easy enough, if you add harder diffs they will most likely exceed such max score and then your mapset will end up being hybrid anyways, so i dont see why not just map the hardest diff and throw it for Approval rather than going through the even more annoying process of approving 1 map and ranking the rest.

Sometimes you already have an easier diff and then while mapping the hardest one (with some fitting jumps/streams that shouldn't be in an Easy/Normal diff) you don't get through the actual 18m max score. Why approve the map then?

If you want to map a six minute song and are trying to cut it down to 4:30 when really you'd like to map 5 minutes or more, just map what you're comfortable with and go for approval if necessary. Adding enormous, unnecessary breaks for rankability's sake is silly.

That said, I'm okay with maps that haven't been artificially cut down, go a little over and keep well below the recommended score - this should be okay as a guideline as long as the score rule is strictly enforced.

The approve section should be for really long beatmaps, 6+ minutes beatmaps and marathons

the max time should be moved to 5 - 5:30 minutes in my eyes, having a max score of 20.000.000 (or 22.000.000) intead of 18.000.000 does affect the score so much ? you're not going to get 10000000000000 ranks for 2-4 milions.

there are a lot of songs long more than 4:30 minutes, people don't map only anime openings.

Well i was thinking about different options and their pros and cons

Option #1 Force entire mapset for approval if the drain time is over 4 1/2 minutes on a single difficulty.
Pros: - Would encourage mappers to mapping the whole song on all difficulties.
Cons: - Would discourage mappers from making easier difficulties.

Option #2 Force approval only on the diffs that exceed the drain time.
Pros: - Would encourage mappers to get easier diffs to go for ranking (hybrid) since they are generally played more and enjoyed by more players
Cons: - Would discourage mappers from mapping lower tiered difficulties completely

Option #3 - Throw down score rule and focus only on max score:
Pros: - Would encourage mappers to include lower tiered difficulties to aim for a Ranked (Hybrid) mapset
- Would encourage mappers to fully map the lower tiered difficulties
Cons: - None?

So i'd say, yeah probably remove this rule, and focus only on max score.

This rule doesn't really make any sense since it's really usual that very long maps have to aim to approval anyways because of max. score. I don't think this rule is necessary and it only would be if the max. score rule was removed. I'm personally against both rules since I fail to see why maps with very high scores MUST be approved or why long maps MUST be approved but w/e.

I think approval should be used to rank maps that just break with pretty much every guideline/rule out there instead of just being the yard used for very long/high scored maps. :c

Wishy22 wrote:

This rule doesn't really make any sense since it's really usual that very long maps have to aim to approval anyways because of max. score. I don't think this rule is necessary and it only would be if the max. score rule was removed. I'm personally against both rules since I fail to see why maps with very high scores MUST be approved or why long maps MUST be approved but w/e.

I think approval should be used to rank maps that just break with pretty much every guideline/rule out there instead of just being the yard used for very long/high scored maps. :c

I think the score was intended to measure how skilled a player is, not how many/long the maps are. Therefore having tiring or long maps which does not involve much skills should not deserve such high score. if you played every single map(hard to not so insane diff) that is on osu! server you would end up in about #500 at least. I think Rank also measures how good the player is.

But this definitely contradicts with the approval maps, which does not count towards the ranked score and usually are harder to play. I am quite lost by the definition of the score and rank system. What do they indicate?

rank and score do indicate the "general" level of ability and how much the user played mostly..

You can actually put #1 and #100 on the same level of ability, that's why I mentioned "general".

I would say #2 to #100

Mashiro Mito wrote:

Wishy22 wrote:

This rule doesn't really make any sense since it's really usual that very long maps have to aim to approval anyways because of max. score. I don't think this rule is necessary and it only would be if the max. score rule was removed. I'm personally against both rules since I fail to see why maps with very high scores MUST be approved or why long maps MUST be approved but w/e.

I think approval should be used to rank maps that just break with pretty much every guideline/rule out there instead of just being the yard used for very long/high scored maps. :c

I think the score was intended to measure how skilled a player is, not how many/long the maps are. Therefore having tiring or long maps which does not involve much skills should not deserve such high score. if you played every single map(hard to not so insane diff) that is on osu! server you would end up in about #500 at least. I think Rank also measures how good the player is.

But this definitely contradicts with the approval maps, which does not count towards the ranked score and usually are harder to play. I am quite lost by the definition of the score and rank system. What do they indicate?

The last thing you said is what I meant. Marathon maps are exceptions since they aren't even hard but just boring and ridiculously long, but there are maps like those Dragonforce Lesjuh ones that are not only damn good, but really hard and not having that score counted toward your ranked score is ridiculous. I mean marathon maps should not count but extremely hard maps SHOULD count even if they have no easy/normal/hard/insane diff NO MATTER THE SCORE OF THE DURATION, if you can't play them because you're not enough then you can't get the score from that map and that's it.

Plus there are tons of approved maps that aren't even THAT hard or that long, for examples this: http://osu.ppy.sh/s/22720. That map isn't either very hard (any somewhat good player can FC in one play) or that long, but it is still ranked because "score is too high and not having easy diffs". If score is "too high" it shouldn't really matter at all, I never understood the reason for that. And if the map can't be played by not-good players, I'm sorry for them but they won't be able to get any score or rank from that map until they get good, which would even make the ranking system a little more accurate.

Rank and score mean absolutely NOTHING, you can be ranked over 1k and still be a really good player, and yeah there are tons of low ranked playes that can easily kick top #50 player's ass if not even top #10. There is a reason why there is something called rankwhoring.

Well, it wasn't before.. but now #1 is the real #1 of Osu! (cookiezi)

Wishy22 wrote:

There is a reason why there is something called rankwhoring.

There's also people who play offline or spun out, which skews the ranking system tremendously.

It should be easy to make a 7 minute 18 million hard and leave insane as approval, which is why this rule exists.

I do agree with you somewhat on approval. 2B maps project, even broken as it is should be approvable.

I think most of us here agrees the length rule should be removed and focus more on the score system. There are still some good insights here about score systems, but I think it does not belong here anymore.

Although... It is much more easier to talk about the score system after we have reached consensus that this rule should be removed. Then we can combine the length vs diff vs score problem in another(possibly new) thread.

I want to know if there is still someone who disagree removing this rule. If not, then I think we are done here

Iirc, the score limit (which used to be lower) was there to control the length of the beatmaps, whether the score was good enough for the map or not was left at the BAT discression

Old Criteria wrote:

General score guidelines:
<10m = Great!
10-12m = Can the mp3 be cut to make it shorter and more fun? if not, then check with any experienced BAT but not peppy.
12-20m = Same as above, and check difficulty is hard enough that score is not so attainable.
20m+ = rare cases, for insane difficulties which have max attainable scores <=15m

Sakura Hana wrote:

Iirc, the score limit (which used to be lower) was there to control the length of the beatmaps, whether the score was good enough for the map or not was left at the BAT discression

Old Criteria wrote:

General score guidelines:
<10m = Great!
10-12m = Can the mp3 be cut to make it shorter and more fun? if not, then check with any experienced BAT but not peppy.
12-20m = Same as above, and check difficulty is hard enough that score is not so attainable.
20m+ = rare cases, for insane difficulties which have max attainable scores <=15m

1) I thought that in the old criteria, it was 18mill and not 20mi---- when did that get changed. How does that control the length of a beatmap.

I think length rules need to considered separately from score too.
It becomes annoying to the player when they try to FC a really long map and combobreak right at the very end. It's already very annoying with 3-minute maps, so there should be some limit placed on that.

I think length rules need to considered separately from score too.
It becomes annoying to the player when they try to FC a really long map and combobreak right at the very end. It's already very annoying with 3-minute maps, so there should be some limit placed on that.

Well, this isn't a good reason. actually.
You have possibilities to Combobreak even in 30 seconds song

General score guidelines:
<10m = Great!
10-12m = Can the mp3 be cut to make it shorter and more fun? if not, then check with any experienced BAT but not peppy.
12-20m = Same as above, and check difficulty is hard enough that score is not so attainable.
20m+ = rare cases, for insane difficulties which have max attainable scores <=15m

it say 18mil in the draft

mm201 wrote:

I think length rules need to considered separately from score too.
It becomes annoying to the player when they try to FC a really long map and combobreak right at the very end. It's already very annoying with 3-minute maps, so there should be some limit placed on that.

I believe that the song should not be played only once and FC it. Playing multiple times and FC it while enjoying the music(or the map) should be the way to go.
I believe osu! should be fun and a relaxing game. I personally do not care about combo-breaking. I think only pro players(or those people want perfection) does that, and they should be focused until the very end of the map if they don't want break to break the combo. Practice makes perfection.

Thing is most decent players can FC almost ever map in the maximum difficulty possible in a single play, and somewhat pro players can even FC with mods in many cases. mm201 means that some maps are maybe 12 minutes long and even when they are not that hard they end up being frustrating since chances are you gonna have some really stupid random miss somewhere. Maps that are extremely long are usually underplayed since they are a pain to FC, there are exceptions but normal very long maps are boring which is why they may be approved.

Wishy22 wrote:

Thing is most decent players can FC almost ever map in the maximum difficulty possible in a single play, and somewhat pro players can even FC with mods in many cases. mm201 means that some maps are maybe 12 minutes long and even when they are not that hard they end up being frustrating since chances are you gonna have some really stupid random miss somewhere. Maps that are extremely long are usually underplayed since they are a pain to FC, there are exceptions but normal very long maps are boring which is why they may be approved.

If a player can FC a map in the maximum difficulty, in a single play, Don't you think they should be able to do it when they have the easy one but only longer? I believe if it is 12 minutes and not exceed the maximum score, the map will be extremely easy. I think 12 minutes is the extreme case. Besides, Random misses are good(well, not for players), since they prevent people from ranking up too fast which is reverent to the score rule.
If you do miss, finish playing the song and try again later. I don't think a map's purpose was just to get rank, play once and through it out.

I do not want to get in to details about if a map is boring or not. As our rank gets higher and higher, diffs like hard or sometimes insane may be boring to us. But this does not implies the rest of the osu! community won't find it challenging. I really like how some players uses shortcuts to level up. and I believe this is one of them for mid-level players. While highly skilled player might just ignore this map, but hey, they are not getting those scores! mid-level player might finish them and get the score and rank up

Oh btw, there is an achievement(wink* wink*) is reverent to what I am saying have fun on that one! (I didn't get it too )

Actually I'm sure most people really do just play a map once and FC it. Then they don't play it ever again. (besides the occasional multi or random map when bored)

Plus even if it's easier but longer map, there's a chance of missing still. Maybe boredom, tired, occasional "your mouse/tablet being a bitch"

Raging Bull wrote:

Actually I'm sure most people really do just play a map once and FC it. Then they don't play it ever again. (besides the occasional multi or random map when bored)

Plus even if it's easier but longer map, there's a chance of missing still. Maybe boredom, tired, occasional "your mouse/tablet being a bitch"

No wonder I see people just failed when their combo break, even if they are pros in Multi
So we should still keep this rule just to prevent people from having those random things? Isn't that an excuse to avoid long maps just for the sake of FC or I have more random things than you so I hope this map will not get ranked.

Basically it's tiring to play long maps, specially if they wont give you much score, And if they do, they'll probably be over the max score rule anyways, recommendation is to cut down the song and map only until a certain portion, now if the mapper still wants to go with the map and get it ranked, then go ahead... but yeah good luck getting modders for it because modders also hate long maps (As i see from most queues).

Sakura Hana wrote:

now if the mapper still wants to go with the map and get it ranked, then go ahead... but yeah good luck getting modders for it because modders also hate long maps (As i see from most queues).

That is a nice insight from BAT

It is still up the the mapper tho. I just don't want mapper to stop mapping good song just because of this limit(and aim for ranked).
I felt like I'm an enemy of both the modders and BAT now.

I dont mind the length of the maps i modded, and never have, but i know some modders do

we have both a rule and a guideline on this topic. I think we should get rid of the rule and keep the guideline. I feel most of the cases would be met by the max score rule and the others would be up to the BAT/MAT

This needs to be discussed. I'm fine with making this a guideline, as long maps tend to have high max score and that falls under another rule. Your thoughts ?

Odaril wrote:

This needs to be discussed. I'm fine with making this a guideline, as long maps tend to have high max score and that falls under another rule. Your thoughts ?

Wasn't it peppy who said that 4:30 was the absolute maximum? unless im thinking of another rule

Marking this as amended then.

Odaril wrote:

Marking this as amended then.

What change did you make then O.o

So finally I guess

Sakura Hana wrote:

Odaril wrote:

Marking this as amended then.

What change did you make then O.o

The old one was 4 minutes.

Weird from the OP It seemed like it had always been 4 1/2.

Wait. I am confused. in the OP it's 4:30 mins. So amend rule is that this is now a guideline and we will rely on score system more?
(If this rule change needs peppy to be here, then I'll message peppy to take a look at this, see if it is fine or not. )

Just read the draft or the list of Current rules and guidelines on the pending beatmaps forums: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75882

yeah, since peppy is planning to merge the approved and ranked maps... I don't think it matters anymore... but before that happen...

peppy wrote:

To clarify, I propose merging approved into ranked. Some exceptions may have to be made, but most could be waived as "previous standards".

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=65715&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15
viewtopic.php?p=946470#p946470
contradiction. but the latter one is 8 month ago and the first one is about 4 month. so...