The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love. It's really hard to define how a specific spread could work in a specific song beforehand, but here's a list of things to consider: the difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order and/or with a reasonable gap between them; there should be at least one difficulty around ~2.5/3 star difficulty level; if your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be insane (this basically means that it's highly recommended to have 3 difficulties unless the song itself doesn't allow much variety); if your mapset has three difficulties, one of them should be about ~2.5/3 star difficulty level, and the second should not be Insane; if your map has four or more difficulties, at least two should be something other than Insane. The difficulty level of Taiko-specific difficulties does not follow this.

It would be nice to get some guidance on what "Insane" is. Is it a star ranking? Max Score? Objects per minute/second? Apperance of certain mapping techniques? Combination of above? Experienced mappers might know it intrinsically, but it would be nice to get some definition to this.

It's overall and up to the BAT to decide. It's near impossible to define on rigorous terms.
(If it were possible, star ratings would be able to work perfectly.)

Gaps in spread should nonetheless be easy to spot.

Generally, Insane shouldn't spam streams and ridiculously awkward rhythms everywhere. When maps end up like that, they tend to suit such a difficulty name as [Extra] or [Expert]. As long as it's not massively harder than [Hard] ([Hard] having a minimal use of 1/4 in the form of stacks/short streams and 1/2 streams which aren't ridiculously long), then there should be no problem with [Insane].

The simplest answer is that you shouldn't go overboard and overmap to every single instrument in a track. If you do end up with a massive leap between [Hard] and [Insane], then [Insane] is too hard and should either be toned down or another difficulty should be created.

In doubt, just ask BATs. Remember that every BAT has their own opinion, so you might need to ask several.

Hards start introducing short streams (2 to 3 circles) and Insanes will usually have a bit longer streams, but never too fast or too long. Insanes also tend to have more jumps and a larger speed increase from the normal>hard jump. Any super long streams, insane jumps or un-sightreadable stuff should be left to extra diffs.

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love.

So the only reason to have easier difficulties is so that even newer player could also enjoy playing maps of songs they love, but so far, from what I have seen, is that all MATs and BATs are forcing mappers to include an easier difficulty even if there's already another map set of the exact same song ranked with that easier difficulty included as well, and this rule seems to be taken in that way as well.

I guess that what I mean is if there is already a map set of a song with an easy difficulty ranked, newer map sets of the exact same song shouldn't be required of that easier difficulty.

Discuss.

That is completely nonsensical. Ever mapset should be accessible to new players, because the average novice wouldn't look at more than on set of the same song. They're not going to think, "oh, this beatmap sucks, but there might be another that I can play!" They're going to think, "well this game sucks" for it being hard. Think!

this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love.

If someone really wanted to play a very specific song, then they would search for it, and if available, there will be more than one map set for that specific song, it will be stupid not to download them all if they really wants to play that song. I don't know the rest, but at least that's how it is for me.

Sure, you could say that we should make lots of easies for the same song to give out more variety, but you have to keep in mind that most people will just half do it, besides the fact that most easies have almost the same rhythm of 1/1 because they have to be as simplest as they can be.

It is quite easy to know if something is an Insane or not. Usually it's a star rating, but really it's valued in intensity. Insanes are generally quite a degree more intense than Hard modes. In most cases it's notable. If you are unsure about how difficult your map is, you should ask someone to testplay it. It's nothing we could define in words other than "Generally more intense than a Hard mode".

ErufenRito wrote:

besides the fact that most easies have almost the same rhythm of 1/1 because they have to be as simplest as they can be.

You know, I mod that crap out whenever I see half-assed easies like that.

You can also turn this around and say "why give another Hard/Insane when there's already one ranked?" You're providing beatmap sets. As such, your set is required to have certain things in order to be considered for ranking. If you don't want to do it, then don't waste people's modding time in trying to rank it.

Garven wrote:

You can also turn this around and say "why give another Hard/Insane when there's already one ranked?"

Because the mapper wants to.

Also, rules states that the map set should have easier difficulty so that newer players can also enjoy the song, but as I said, this isn't the case, cause even if there's another ranked map set with easier difficulty, mapper is still required to do it. So either stop forcing mappers to make easier difficulties when there is already one ranked but in another map set, or change the wording of the rule.

Errrr.... wait what? I could swear that... D:!

I know I'm not crazy!! D:!!!

Anyways, going to just box the post for now... >_>''

Yeah I deleted my post 2 mins after writing it cause I actually thought that you were trolling. :v
But I stand behind the stuff I said.

About the last paragraph, your post is telling me that you really don't want to make easier diffs in your mapset, which happens to be a song which already has a ranked mapset. Mind you, these are assumptions.
So far you are the only person who is complaining about this, I acted (made the post) before thinking, that you want this to be gone so you can have a 1 diff mapset that would be rankable. This is what I mean that the world doesn't revolve around one person.
I guess you could say that I didn't act really professional with that post, but I made my point, I think.

However, if you would want this, you should open a new topic with a suggestion about it, since your current suggestion goes completely against what the difficulty spread should mean. I am still against it though, easier diffs don't really take much time to make, even if a person really puts some effort for them not to be boring.

Way to pick one phrase in the post and ignore the meat of it.

You're providing sets of beatmaps for ranking. You want a spread to cover all levels of players in each set. If someone doesn't want to put the effort into the spread, then they shouldn't try to get it ranked and waste people's time modding it, since modding is to improve the beatmap set to ranking standards.

Anyway, I don't understand your reasoning. Nobody is forcing you to make easy difficulties. So far your only reasoning is "I'm lazy" for making a less than desirable map set. Tell me why a good difficulty spread shouldn't be provided in a map set that is going for ranking.

I didn't ignore the rest, and I'm not against having a Hard - Insane - Extreme difficulty spread. It's you that didn't provided more reasoning to have an easy difficulty, rather than "So all players of all level can enjoy the song". And that's why I'm proposing to either change the wording to something else like "this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy every map set available" just like you're saying in your last post.

I personally dislike catering to the newbies requiring easier difficulties. Not every single song is designed to be RIDICUHARD, and likewise, not every song fits easy well. In other games (yeah yeah, osu isn't other games) frequently songs only have one or two difficulties. Newer folk generally understand that they can't possibly handle a 5 star or even a 4 star map. There will always be easy songs being created and played, but they are clearly not for everyone. For that reason, we do not need a good difficulty spread for every single beatmap.

As for the flip side, what the forced easy difficulty has done is make it very easy for any player to immediately join osu and be able to pass (almost) every single song with no previous experience, or at least a couple of retries. This in itself is admirable and shows that peppy (or whoever decided this rule should exist in the first place) wants to keep newer members and make them improve by giving them songs that they like which they can play multiple difficulties of. A newbie might only get the latest version of the song too, which is likely of better quality, and skip the previous versions. Likewise, by adding extra difficulties, more maps are produced, while less songs are produced. We already have an over-abundance of songs being ranked. Can you imagine how that would change if everyone just made one or two hard difficulties for every single map they made? Requiring 3 difficulties for an insane means 3x the chance for errors, more modding, and more experience.

I both support and dislike the rule.

most rhythm games (at least the ones that I know) have 3 or so difficulties per songs, so that people of all skill levels can participate. Imagine DDR with only Expert songs, no one would play because only a few people could actually do them. Now if people aren't required to do easier songs then all we would have a database of insane songs and the community would stagnate cause no one but the elite could play then they would eventually get bored and leave and then osu! would be dead. I would say if you want your map ranked with all the features that come with it, this rule is the price of admission.

I don't understand the "some songs don't fit easy diffs" logic. Rhythms can always be simplified. If anyone is having trouble with a song they are welcome to message me for a guest.

RandomJibberish wrote:

I don't understand the "some songs don't fit easy diffs" logic. Rhythms can always be simplified. If anyone is having trouble with a song they are welcome to message me for a guest.

I actually agree with the fact that some songs just don't allow easy diffs. The reason is, normal diff is usually simple and easy enough for the easiest diff, while still having a fun rhythm. If you have a, lets say, 100~120bpm techno song which has untz untz rhythm with almost no variance in "melody", where everything is going along beats, would you find pure 1/1 fun? Hell no. This is just an extreme example though.
You can't take into account that every music genre produces same kinds of diffs, especially the lower ones where you have to keep things simple and easy.

edit:
Oh and before you ask why shouldn't we call that normal an easy then, it's because I did take an extreme example which doesn't really explain this reason. There are songs with small variance in rhythm, which are just not appropriate for an easy, especially if they deal with syncopation. Such things could be considered a bit weird in an easy and only in rare cases would be handled well, which is why such diffs should be called normal.

ErufenRito wrote:

I didn't ignore the rest, and I'm not against having a Hard - Insane - Extreme difficulty spread. It's you that didn't provided more reasoning to have an easy difficulty, rather than "So all players of all level can enjoy the song". And that's why I'm proposing to either change the wording to something else like "this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy every map set available" just like you're saying in your last post.

Um, players of all levels of experience includes new players. Guess what mapsets they will be excluded from if what you proposed goes through?

Also: what's wrong with the reasoning I have provided? So far you seem to be shoving aside newer/casual players with your current proposition.

Edit:

@lolcubes
If there is such little rhythmic variance, I'd almost say that the song isn't suited very well to mapping then. Trying to interpret 4 minutes of a constant 1/8th note rhythm with little melody line to follow would feel rather empty.

this thread is pointless we already have a spread thread made and amended do not add useless topics.

Alright, I will repeat this one last time, your faults if you can't understand this.

Change this text:

"this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love"

To:

"this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy every map set available"

And no, I'm not against having at least one easy difficulty for each song available, in fact, I'm all in for it, but it is also seems pointless to force mappers to make 10000 easies, when the rule actually requires you to have at least one easy diff for that song, and not the map set, I mean, even the current rule agrees with me, but hey! As you all can see, no one agrees me, so that's why I'm proposing the changing of the wording stated earlier in this post, a thing that I have been doing almost from the beginning.

ErufenRito wrote:

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love.

So the only reason to have easier difficulties is so that even newer player could also enjoy playing maps of songs they love, but so far, from what I have seen, is that all MATs and BATs are forcing mappers to include an easier difficulty even if there's already another map set of the exact same song ranked with that easier difficulty included as well, and this rule seems to be taken in that way as well.

I guess that what I mean is if there is already a map set of a song with an easy difficulty ranked, newer map sets of the exact same song shouldn't be required of that easier difficulty.

Discuss.

Even when I agree mapping 9999 easy diffs for each song is retarded, if it wasn't for this rule there would be no easy diffs (pretty much) since mapping them is really boring.

I mean how the hell enjoys mapping something that's basically about ignoring the whole song and doing it so simple that it doesn't fit with the music at all. Really man I got many friends say this game is shit because the maps don't follow the music. And it is true, many times you play Easy/Normal maps and can't find any relationship between the map and the song (at least not easily).

make mapping your easy interesting if you find it boring

I should take my own advice

EDIT: Discussion about this is ridiculous because it doesn't make sense as to why you wouldn't need or want a good difficulty spread for your map

(i'm such a hypocrite ;_;)

Sync wrote:

make mapping your easy interesting if you find it boring

I should take my own advice

EDIT: Discussion about this is ridiculous because it doesn't make sense as to why you wouldn't need or want a good difficulty spread for your map

(i'm such a hypocrite ;_;)

XD XD XD xd

This rule kind of overstates things in a confusing manner. I mean look at that wall of text just to state simple things.

Original

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love. It's really hard to define how a specific spread could work in a specific song beforehand, but here's a list of things to consider: the difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order and/or with a reasonable gap between them; there should be at least one difficulty around ~2.5/3 star difficulty level; if your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be insane (this basically means that it's highly recommended to have 3 difficulties unless the song itself doesn't allow much variety); if your mapset has three difficulties, one of them should be about ~2.5/3 star difficulty level, and the second should not be Insane; if your map has four or more difficulties, at least two should be something other than Insane. The difficulty level of Taiko-specific difficulties does not follow this.

Edited

(I split it into two rules instead, because the wall was just all over the place.)

The mapset must contain an Easy or similar difficulty (according to how it plays). This difficulty must be straightforward, and contain as few Normal or higher criteria elements as possible. It is highly recommended that this difficulty avoid 1/2th spaced notes and that it falls into the ~2.5/3 star difficulty range. This difficulty can count as both the Normal and the easy, but only if it's beat is simple enough to be the easiest difficulty and something easier cannot be made.

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, with each difficulty being harder than the previous one, starting with an Easy/Normal. A mapset should be in sequential order (based on how the map feels as star ratings can be flawed) and must not skip over a difficulty level. This is to ensure players of all skillsets can enjoy the song. Keep this as a rule of thought: You must have an Easy/Normal or both to have a hard and you must have a hard to have an Insane. Taiko/CTB specific difficulties do not count towards this rule.

Nobody readed the Rules in the draft? General section ...

TheVileOne wrote:

This rule kind of overstates things in a confusing manner. I mean look at that wall of text just to state simple things.

I didn't read either of those. Both were walls of text. No thanks.

Look at the Mapset Section in the Current Draft.

ziin wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

This rule kind of overstates things in a confusing manner. I mean look at that wall of text just to state simple things.

I didn't read either of those. Both were walls of text. No thanks.

Perhaps it's because the rule tried to cram as many guidelines together under one issue. My version removes the redundancy of the curent rule, and tries to explain in more detail what an Easy is rather than saying vaguely Easy or Normal. So my version is more purposeful and I went a step further and suggested that a mapset must be in consecuative order. There's no point to explain specific cases where an insane should not exist when gaps in difficulty should not exist.


Updated....

Um, erufen, each set is required to have that easy. It's right there in that line that you quoted at the beginning 'ere.

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love.

You may be misinterpreting how the line is phrased. It doesn't mean "once this song is ranked, there is no need to make a good spread for it ever again since one now exists!" It's saying that each set for that song needs to have that balance of difficulties. Think of a new rank of a previously mapped song as an update/style change. You'll still need those easier difficulties to reflect that change. Also, as pointed out before, people tend to grab the latest map instead of searching through all of the currently uploaded sets just to find a map to play.

Also rephrasing it to have mapset twice so close to each other is just redundant. The meaning remains the same with your proposed change - it just reads worse.

I'm sorry, I still read it as the only reason one should have an easy difficulty is so that even new players can enjoy that exact same song, not map set.

was my explanation lacking?

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love.

Notice the plural

ErufenRito wrote:

I'm sorry, I still read it as the only reason one should have an easy difficulty is so that even new players can enjoy that exact same song, not map set.

Yet two mappers maps different easies....

Isn't that enough to make new players enjoy more than one style of easy?

ziin wrote:

I personally dislike catering to the newbies requiring easier difficulties. Not every single song is designed to be RIDICUHARD, and likewise, not every song fits easy well. In other games (yeah yeah, osu isn't other games) frequently songs only have one or two difficulties. Newer folk generally understand that they can't possibly handle a 5 star or even a 4 star map. There will always be easy songs being created and played, but they are clearly not for everyone. For that reason, we do not need a good difficulty spread for every single beatmap.

As for the flip side, what the forced easy difficulty has done is make it very easy for any player to immediately join osu and be able to pass (almost) every single song with no previous experience, or at least a couple of retries. This in itself is admirable and shows that peppy (or whoever decided this rule should exist in the first place) wants to keep newer members and make them improve by giving them songs that they like which they can play multiple difficulties of. A newbie might only get the latest version of the song too, which is likely of better quality, and skip the previous versions. Likewise, by adding extra difficulties, more maps are produced, while less songs are produced. We already have an over-abundance of songs being ranked. Can you imagine how that would change if everyone just made one or two hard difficulties for every single map they made? Requiring 3 difficulties for an insane means 3x the chance for errors, more modding, and more experience.

I both support and dislike the rule.

I just want to chip in here. If a mapper finds it impossible to simplify the contents of even a busy track, then they're either a poor mapper or they shouldn't map the song in the first place (or, you know, both). There is always a way to convey the intensity of frenetic music, even in easier maps. Guiding the player on and off the beat, using more hitsounds and using edgy patterns would usually work pretty well. To me, mapping is not about adhering to everything in a piece of music--it's about picking out what's important and embellishing it. Even a series of objects of two or more beats apart can have a profound effect on the player, as long as they're placed cleverly and provide enough rhythmic variance.

Additionally, what if we did have a sudden influx of hard/insane-only mapsets? If this became commonplace, then we've wiped out a good chunk of new players, who either can't find playable maps of their favourite music or who attempt harder maps, fail them constantly and get sick of osu! as a whole. It's a worst-case scenario, but the fact is that almost every mapset should be accessible to everybody. Otherwise, people will get scared off. If osu!stream does end up drawing more casual players to this game, then they will become very important to consider.

Your point about slowing the flow of maps is good as well, if only because it means that mappers need to consider a song more thoroughly. However, an over-abundance of mapsets isn't a bad thing, as long as they're all good. This game is built around user contribution, so any amount of good content should be welcomed. Either way, I think that quantity should be a mere byproduct of making mapsets which can actually be played by most users.

In short, proper difficulty spreads in ranked maps is the best way to attract and keep new players, as they can be nursed into playing more maps of increasing difficulty.

I disagree with this rule and I think the way low difficulty diffs are mapped is retarded (AR 3 is harder then 6 even for new players), but this rule has been proved to work so fuck everyone.

it's not the rule, it's the way people respect it that suck.

But it's not worth saying people to stop mapping boringly easy easies.

Truth is that many players never even play easy diffs, most just jump to normal or even hard. And even if you started playing on easy it wouldn't be long (a few hours maximum?) until you jumped to normal... and then well it won't be more than a few days until you're playing on hard, maximum a week I'd say.

^Based that on my own experience and my friend's.

nope, many players play easies for the first months, and play them with mods after.
If the difficulty of something is higher, you'll never gain any new players.
Read some game rewievs ranting about games that are hard (example: Devil Survivor 2 was taken as "hard" while actually it isn't so hard) and that make people go away from that game. I'm sure there are many other examples.

HakuNoKaemi wrote:

nope, many players play easies for the first months, and play them with mods after.
If the difficulty of something is higher, you'll never gain any new players.
Read some game rewievs ranting about games that are hard (example: Devil Survivor 2 was taken as "hard" while actually it isn't so hard) and that make people go away from that game. I'm sure there are many other examples.

First day of osu!
lol. never felt like fixing that score xD. though it is always a great memory to have and to leave there forever :3

and I do agree with D33d very much so. There are many ways to make very neat and clever easy maps. However, a lot of times I don't see as much effort as can be put into Easy maps. It's also not about "people skip Easy" anyways, but it's just something that people can fall back on. It's like beginner's mode on Guitar hero 5 if you know what i mean. It's such a complete joke >_>, but it's kind of the same idea. The easiest maps should not be a difficulty where people who are just beginning to learn osu! should have trouble on. They should be difficulties where those beginners should have relative ease in beating.

I don't like mapping Easy diffs that much but i do put in effort to make them as neat and clever as I can.

^I agree with that guy with my entire liver and half a kidney stone.

fast learner maybe, anyway there are people that take more time learning (osu! were the 1st rhythmn game I played, and as so i had more problems in skilling, not that after 2 years i'm so much skilled anyway... )

anyway is not "that easies are completely unuseful", is "that people mapping them don't care, because MATs and BATs don't care too"

Anyway, Guitar Hero easies don't have sense though (that's rare note spamming,.. how's that easy?)

I was playing normals and hards on my second day already

Natteke wrote:

I was playing normals and hards on my second day already

So? You don't represent players who take a while to pick up the game. It doesn't take that much effort to make a good easy map and it's there to cater to the lowest common denominator. Again, if stream somehow manages to attract seriously casual players to osu!, then they're going to want something that gets them used to playing with a mouse. When I tried playing this game in 2008, I couldn't even play normal maps because of how horribly uncomfortable my old mouse was.

I said that not because I don't want to make easy diffs but because people seem to speak for beginner players too much these days.

That is true. You don't have to make an easy diff if your normal is acceptable enough for an easiest diff, noone says you need to have a 1/1 spammed diff, what we want is to have a nice spread which would make the mapset accessible to everyone. If you can do it in your normal diff, then that is fine.
Also, just to clarify, nothing in the rules says you have to make an easy diff, it says you need to have an easy enough diff (which is around 2.5~3 stars) in your mapset, which is possible to be achieved in a normal diff. I find this acceptable, and some mappers find this a way to go, their choice. Before you say that you can fake your star ratings, I think it's clear that if you don't fake anything and keep things pretty simple and have that much stars, that diff is good enough for the lowest diff.

As for speaking for beginners, well, everyone is different. When you look at things from our perspective where pretty much everything needs to be covered, I think it's understandable that we want to make things easier on people who are terribad at the start and prefer only easy diffs. There is already a criteria I mentioned in my previous paragraph, and that criteria isn't really that hard to achieve.

However all this discussion drifted offtopic much, the original question was, what was the definition of [Insane].
You cannot exactly define it, without it being clearly obvious (AR9 and stuff), but if a diff is clearly harder than a [Hard] in the mapset, then it's a good candidate for an insane, even if it's on the easier side compared to the insanes we see today (sometimes). This is one of the reasons why a diff spread is important, just so you have some sort of a tier between your difficulties.
Ofcourse it is possible to nitpick here, for example, how can you tell a diff is actually a [Hard], or how can you tell a diff is [Normal], but I think the above example is sufficient enough to apply the similar (or should I say the same) logic for these cases.

Natteke wrote:

I said that not because I don't want to make easy diffs but because people seem to speak for beginner players too much these days.

It's not so much speaking for beginners as it is giving them a bit more consideration. The same thing goes for the differences between normal, hard and insane maps. When making an insane map, it's probably reasonable to suggest making it at least vaguely familiar to hard, so as to reign in the difficulty a bit. As for easy diffs, they can seem a lot like normals with a few objects missing or 1/1 maps, which are both boring and too hard for an easy. In this case, a proper easy would be made and doing so could be suggested in the case of normal being too hard. Of course, if it's easy enough to count as an easy, then it should probably be renamed as an easy anyway.

wasn't this already talked about and falls under a rule we have already amended?

Plus we have it nicely divided in more than one rule in the draft