[Proposal] osu!mania Ranking Criteria (whole draft)

Total Posts
show more
Only inherited timing points are allowed to create slider velocity changes. Take caution as chart readability gets heavily affected when using higher slider velocity values. These should also be snapped to a rhythm divisible by the snapping of the present notes. For example, 1/2 notes would ideally utilize 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16 snappings, as opposed to 1/3.
Why is this a guideline exactly? I really don't see that you have any choice, as using redlines for anything else but defining the timing of a song is not allowed?

Note snappings of consecutive 1/4 and higher should not be present in this difficulty level. This essentially means that there must be at least more than ¼ of a beat of distance between every note. This is to make sure beginner players start off with an easy experience in the game.
Really? As guideline? I am happy to see the cases where an Easy can have consecutive 1/4 notes, unless the BPM is like 80. Why is there no bpm threshold whatsoever?

Note snappings of 1/6 and above should not be used. This is to make sure beginner players start off with an easy experience in the game.
Wait, you actually are fine with 1/4 in Normals? You are aware that Normals are the difficulty that is the lowest mandatory level for a mapset, right? That means that this kind of difficulty must be suitable for any person, even newcomers that never ever ever ever touched osu!mania before. This game mode already suffers massively from the horrible difficulty spike that people experience between Normal and Hard and Normals being WAY too dense. It's ironic how you mention an easy start off for beginners and then allow stuff that only advanced people can play that are already familiar with the game itself.

People playing Normals and Easys are challenged by the game's mechanics itself and do not need to be overly challenged by the beatmap itself, too. These thresholds altogether only make sense when you imbue a BPM limit, but 190bpm Normals with 1/4 is not a Normal, it's already a Hard. Generally, these entire steeps from Easy to Normal to Hard to Insane need all to be toned down by one step, Easys should have 1/1 at most, Normals 1/2, Hards 1/4 and Insanes whatever. Unless you make clear that this only applies to a certain amount of notes within a certain BPM range.

That you added this note density rule afterwards is a perfect contradiction to what you did anyways.
Topic Starter
Ah the thing we forgot doing was defining what additional stuff would apply if the normal is the lowest difficulty in a mapset

second thing (the 1/4 and 1/6 thing) is a guideline for it to be flexibly scalable downwards and upwards - that doesn't really work with rules without coming up with some millisecond limit, in that sense the note density guideline isn't really contradicting the rest though

I can't comment on the other stuff like the values themselves because i dont actually know how to play a piano
Long note release timings should use similar snaps than their press timings
Why is this not in the general section? It makes no sense for any diff to have LNs end on 1/4 if the song is in 1/6

hand isn't defined anywhere
Time to cover objective stuff to fix up this doc a bit

Common Terms

Jack: A small number of consecutive notes in the same column, usually performed at a faster pace compared to surrounding notes.
A mini-jack is a small number of consecutive notes (2/3), a jack is any number (above 1) of consecutive notes (all minijacks are jacks but not all jacks are minijacks). This needs fixing because of

Stream: A constant supply of notes with the same intervals that do not repeat to create a mini-jack.
There is no definition of a mini-jack in this document.

Long note: A note that must be held and released within a precise timing window.
Should be noted that this can also be referred to as an LN.

Release: The end of a long note which must be released within a certain timing 1.1window to score the entirety of the note properly.
Why is there a random 1.1 here?

Inverse: A type of pattern that replaces all regular notes with long notes in a given section. Typically enough long notes to cover a majority of the playfield with holds.
Holds are long notes so I don't know why two different terms are being used here, definitely since holds aren't defined in this document either.

Difficulty Specific: Easy: Guidelines

Long notes across all columns should have a minimum spacing of 1/1 beats from the time it is first pressed.
Long notes at the same column should have a minimum spacing of 2/1 beats from the time it is first pressed. Lower spacing would make the patterns hard for a player to keep up with the release timings.
This is unclear on what it's trying to define, is it saying that LNs should have a length of 1/1 or that there should be a gap of 1/1 between LNs? It seems so confusing since it refers to the start of an LN and not the end. What is the intent here? This problem also exists in the normal section.

Difficulty Specific: Normal: Guidelines

Long notes across all columns must have a minimum spacing of 1/2 beats from the first press. Lower spacing would make the patterns hard for a normal player to keep up with the release timings.**
Again with the random symbols that don't need to be there.
Topic Starter
assume most of these are because i suck at copy pasting XD
I think there should be some sort of guidelines if the Normal difficulty is the lowest difficulty in the set, perhaps about long streams of 1/2 notes?
180 bpm reference for RC is kinda high. Would work better with 160 imo where 200+ would have less leniency in terms of consecutive 1/2 to 1/4ths for lower end difficulties
I would assume the base BPM to be 175bpm.
well about this.
Difficulty Specific
Difficulty-specific rules and guidelines do only apply to the difficulty level they are listed for and therefore do not apply to every osu!mania difficulty. Rhythm related guidelines apply to approximately 180 BPM maps. If your song is drastically faster or slower, some variables might be different. Apply reasonable judgement in these cases.
160 is better imo. although the average has up since there are many 4K speed cores, but we have to think about the average genre and all keys.

Difficulty Specific
Long streams of 1/2 notes should only be limited to 16 notes as these can become too physically demanding for players at this level. A way to alleviate that would be adding 1/1 breaks so players can have an easier gameplay experience.
Avoid 1/4 streams made of more than 16 notes. These can be too physically demanding for players of this level
Avoid 1/8 streams made of more than 8 notes. Streams of this type of snap are harder to pull off than snaps at the lower end, and as such should only be used if the song warrants it.
It's cool idea for each players but don't think why It needs to be limited by "number"
here I know the bringing up ranked map is not valid, nevertheless many ranked maps are already used over 16 note in 1/2th.
as an example, for the normal :: http://puu.sh/AP04b/1ea01ff289.jpg
It's a part of the touch the angel, yeah it already exceeds over 16 notes as we can see.
but I don't think it is unfair something and nothing wrong the music. It's as whole working well without problem.

what I mean, even If the rhythm really needs to be repeated in 1/2 by structure of the song, we should stop after 16 notes?
It can lead be a problem of potential quality due to change of weird rhythm in my opinion.
so the map naturally should focus on providing a rest rather than artificially creating a rest.
agreed with kawawa. Setting the limitation of note amount is little bit weird. It's more like focusing on mapping literally, not structure of the song.

what I mean, even If the rhythm really needs to be repeated in 1/2 by structure of the song, we should stop after 16 notes?
It can lead be a problem of potential quality due to change of weird rhythm in my opinion.
so the map naturally should focus on providing a rest rather than artificially creating a rest.
We should consider the concept of song more, counting the streams makes weird the end of stream and the artificial rest time. Little bit exaggerated, It can even makes the each maps look same thing if they are same bpm.

I don't think that limitation is really needed. It just disallow the way of various patterning and makes the mapper get preconception before mapping, because it is written by RC and it means "you shouldn't do it basically" even though it's guideline and it means we don't have to follow it.

The limitation of stream amount shouldn't be placed on RC, rule or guideline wherever tho, it's pretty big regulation.
EDIT: o it’s a guideline w/e then lmfao

wew prolly glanced over the note hard caps

setting those is kinda eh

since the intention of these is to avoid unnecessary or really huge diffspikes in charts. Accounting for how difficult the chart is overall should be the better move
No inverse patterns is a rule on hard diff but not normal and easy?
Also can common terms be alphabetically sorted?
Regarding the note limitations in difficulties, it is a guideline, but what we hoped to achieve with them is that mappers will be able to insert a small rest (like one beat) in between long 1/2 streams when natural in order to avoid straining the player too much, and to give them a checkpoint of sorts if they're starting to become overwhelmed by all the notes. This can be changed though to be more dependent on musical phrasing as opposed to a hard limitation of a certain number of notes though.
This is a guideline for new mappers so I thought that it will be a mindblock to them in the process of map. since there was an exact setting.
so thought it might be better to explain the other way rather than number setting. anyway seems what we hope is the same.
I agree it would be better to phrase it like "after x/1 of continuous [1/2] mapping, include a rest moment of at least X length"

there are many flaws in this current draft of RC. most of which stem from the fact that this RC tries to awkwardly double up as an introductory charting-guide alongside an objective set of rules for what is rankable or not. in my opinion, it should not cover explicits in its charting guide segements, but rather explain the implicits around charting with regards to overarching techniques that are almost entirely colloquially accepted by the charting community (such as intensity congruency, or sound representation.) As of now, some of the things written in RC are incorrectly advising people on how to chart, and forcing unnecessary restrictions on charts.

why is 180bpm picked as the standard for what measures are determined as too difficult for the player at any given level, if anything, pick 150 - it divides much better into certain bpms which are common at certain difficulty levels:
1/4 = 150
1/6 = 200
1/8 = 300
1/12 = 400
as opposed to:
1/4 = 180
1/6 = 270
1/8 = 360
1/12 = 540
which are significantly more illogical.
Slider velocity changes that alter the scrolling speed of the map are disallowed. An exception to this rule would be creating slider velocity changes to unify the scroll speed in BPM-variable maps. Scroll normalization is mandatory and must be done in maps with variable BPM.
would https://osu.ppy.sh/s/704987 be regarded as an exception to this rule? This should not be a rule; it should be a guideline, and, if that, this presumes a congruency between physical difficulty (what star rating assesses, and determines whether the difficulty is an easy/normal/whatever) and visual/mental difficulty, with regards to svs. There is no major correlation between these two factors. A chart that is harder physically does not mean it is better suited for harsher svs than a chart physically lighter. In fact, it's the complete opposite. Looking at some of the most popular harsh sv charts in the game (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/572000 - Coinage
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/723624 - Back Of The Yards
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/108708 - dEKA
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/591171 - Groundhog
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/415946 - Chloroplast Skin
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/673208 - Cycles)
you can see that most, if not all of them, fall around a low difficulty range relative to the ability necessary to learn the SVs. As such, no explicit rule should be included which dictates congruency between physical ability and SVs, I don't disagree with it being a guideline, but even-so, it's presented in a sense which implies that as your chart is harder physically, it becomes better to use harsher svs, when, in reality, it is the complete converse. this is harmful to new charters.

these are arbitrary and an extremely stupid way to dictate what is expected of players around x skill level. The best way to do this would involve looking at the rough patternical levels at x skill level, and dictating what is regarded as "too difficult" for players at that skill level.
if anything, this should entirely be up to bn discretion for what constitutes as too difficult for a difficulty level, but hey.

Note snappings of 1/6 and above should not be used. This is to make sure beginner players start off with an easy experience in the game.
what is absurd about this, is that absolutely no time frame (or note frame) is dictated. A 1/6 in isolation is absolutely no harder than a 1/1 in isolation, or a 1/16th in isolation, or a 1/10000 in isolation; context is extremely important with regards to difficulty as, on their own, every note is equal in physical difficulty.

What is not accounted here, at all, is patterning. Even if you were to include a time-frame for difficulty (lets say, 10 notes) the difference between a 1/6 10 note 2h trill and a 1/6 10 note 1h trill is huge, and this rule has absolutely no dictation between the two. What you'd need to do for this rule to make any sense, is to gather data on all common patterns, and assess what BPM they are roughly playable by by a player at this skill level.

I would say, above anything, that common sense, and the dictation of the BNG should decide what is playable, roughly, for players at whatever skill level.

There is almost no way to list what is expected from players at any given skill level due to the huge variation in patterning that can be brought. 250bpm jumpstream for just 1 measure can range from, say, 7dan to luminal; WITH NO SPECIFICITY TO PATTERNING, A RULE BASED ON WHAT SPEED IS EXPECTED FROM PLAYERS AT ANY GIVEN SKILL LEVEL IS, AT BEST, A SHOT IN THE DARK.

as such this rule should be removed; no specification on what snaps are or are not okay for players at any given skill level should be given, as, if anything, it would be almost entirely incorrect as it doesn't account for technical or physical difficulty. it is an arbitrary number - is 1/4 dense chordjacking okay when 1/6 streams are not? I believe almost everyone able to competently play would agree that a 1/6 stream is significantly easier than 1/4 dense chordjacking at the same bpm, yet this guideline dictates that the former is harder than the latter.

So, what should be done instead? Note that it is near-impossible (if not) to truly dictate what is capable by players at a given difficulty level. Even moreso, when the element dicating what is in which skill level is SR, which is absurdly flawed, and should not even be used as a metric for determining anything.

I suggest that, instead of providing objectivity in what BPM is playable, or not playable, by players at a given level (even with regards to patterns), you should explain the difficulty of patterning in the RC; explain concepts such as the difficulty of jacks, as they increase in length, they do not increase linearly but instead exponentially, and as such it should be understood that a chart utilising 2 note long jacks (minijacks) should not suddenly change into 3, or 4 note long jacks, as these are significantly more difficult, despite not being much of a change in patterning. Conveying this to charters reading RC will provide (atleast to some extent) a more competent understanding of the structure of patterning in comparison to other patterns at the same BPM.

Furthermore, explaining that 1H trills are more difficult than 2H trills, because 1H trilling increases in difficulty much faster than 2H trills (300bpm 2H trills are doable by most players at 9/10dan level; 300bpm 1H trills are beyond the peak of any top-tier player for any sustained period of time.) Would be significantly more useful than what is provided now. Then, a rough bpm (WITH LENIENCY) can be provided for each pattern, and then atleast, to some extent, a difficulty level acceptable for each difficulty can be determined.
As example:
Hard (As hard constitutes for 1st dan->4th dan)
Streams should be between 180bpm-230bpm, taking the length of a measure as baseline. Leniency should then be taken dependant on the length of the stream, longer streams increase the difficulty in stamina, so they should be slower for the same difficulty to apply (a 250 stream extended for a longer period of time would stretch into low/mid-insane) and vice versa. The same leniency should be applied to the technicality of patterns, the more technically challenging a pattern is, the slower it needs to be to exert the same overall difficulty, and vice versa. This leniency should be entirely down to the judgement of the bng.

With this; a basic understanding of difficulty can be presented in the RC.
(if you'd like more numbers for this, i can work them out roughly over the week, but you need to understand that SR is complete garbage, and that hard-level chordjacks may rate a chart as insane, and extra-level longjacks may rate a chart as hard. mania sr is unusably trash.)
Long term slider velocity changes should be in between 0.??x and 1.??x.
I also vehemently disagree with the nature of this rule - the numbers selected for these (0.90/1.05 for normal; 0.75/1.10 for hard; 0.5/1.10 for insane and extra) are completely arbitrary and make almost no consistent sense. Considering the gimmicky nature of SV usage and how it applies over other skillsets, to limit long-standing sv usage which may be contextually acceptable with the concept of the chart is absolutely absurd in my opinion. Like I say above, this takes the physical difficulty of a chart and compares it to the difficulty of the SVs - there are plenty of difficult SV charts that are not physically demanding; the physical aspects of a chart as assessed by SR should have absolutely nothing to do with what SVs are acceptable in your chart, ironically enough, as the physical difficulty of your chart increases. If anything, your SVs should get less effective on the song so as not to overwhelm the player or obscure other concepts at play - but this is tangential.
Inverse patterns must not be used. They are a very advanced type of pattern and that they require a lot of coordination to properly execute it.
the lack of explanation with regards to what constitutes an "advanced pattern" is painful here. What it should refer to, is to the technicality of a pattern - inverse patterns are technically complex, and, as such, are a higher difficulty than most patterns at the same bpm. This goes for OHTrills, polyrhythms, etc. which are technical. Why this rule is only presented in hard is beyond me, as, logically, it should apply to normal and easy inherently anyway but w/e.
Inverse patterns are also not the only type of "advanced pattern"; all it's specifying is that this pattern is more difficult than other patterns at the same bpm. as such, 50bpm inverse in a 200bpm stream chart is perfectly okay, because it is *that* much slower, the added technicality does not create an unfair difficulty spike. This rule is simply incorrectly labelling technical patterns and not accounting for difficulty properly.

im tired of writing but yeah basically most of what is written in this is actively detrimental to newer charters reading it, as it's actively teaching and conveying concepts that simply are not correct - or undermining/ignoring important concepts (notably with regards to difficulty).
Good write up. I especially agree with the snap guidelines, that is unnecessary criteria which doesn't make sense for a lot of maps. I think a better example to show this is the difference between 100 bpm 1/6 and 200 bpm 1/4 instead of the trills.
Ok, forgot to lock the thread. I'll address DD's points soon with an edit to this post, but for now, we'll revise the RC to reflect the feedback given here.
Topic Starter
@Protastic: Anything happening over here or can I archive this by virtue of being dead?
mania is officially unrankable

(not really but this thread isn't needed anymore)
Please sign in to reply.

New reply