agree with ancul, insane as the lowest diff sounds to me like too much for something non marathon, but otherwise it's a neat idea
yeah this seems the most reasonable at least from the suggestionsAncuL wrote:
I'm thinking more like this. since H is way more accessible than N. IX only is just too small imo. Since we are having problems with 4:30 maps, we don't need to do anything with anything below 4:00
- if the drain time is <4:00 your set's lowest diff must be normal or lower
- if the drain time is 4:00-5:00 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower
- >5:00 can be anything
AncuL wrote:
- if the drain time is <4:00 your set's lowest diff must be normal or lower
- if the drain time is 4:00-5:00 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower
- >5:00 can be anything
I'm thinking more like this. since H is way more accessible than N. IX only is just too small imo. Since we are having problems with 4:30 maps, we don't need to do anything with anything below 4:00
i tried to do that it didnt get received wellSaturnalize wrote:
It's only a minimum requirements for a map to get rank. If you really that carz about making a fullspread for 4+mins then there's no ine stopping you. The minimum requirements need to be reworked and the reason are already well stated by many user up there. However, I'm jot against fullspread either, it's harder to find modder for it than to map it after all.
Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
CXu wrote:
I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).
If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.
Okoratu wrote:
Saturnalize wrote:
Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
i tried to do that it didnt get received well
I would like to know the final conclusion about this. So you know, I can avoid attempting an Artist / R3 Music Box-map : )Okoratu wrote:
i tried to do that it didnt get received wellSaturnalize wrote:
Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
Stefan wrote:
Okoratu wrote:
Saturnalize wrote:
Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
i tried to do that it didnt get received well
still sad people prefer to put less time on their creations than making it available for a fairly larger audience :/
CXu wrote:
I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).
If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.
I know. I'm not talking about the current state of things, I'm saying that it would be good if the difficulty requirement for those lengths were lowered. Currently, if you have a 4:50min song and you have a really difficult map at like 7* or something, you would be required to map at least NHIX, most likely another X and possibly an E too, because people see the spread as not good. What I'd like is basically that something like, say, HX, IX, NX or something along those lines would be okay instead.AncuL wrote:
i don't remember correctly whether there's a rule regarding difficulty count, but i'm sure that the only length appropriate for a one-diff map is 5 minutes and above. 5 minutes of length and below still needs to make at least 2 diffs. therefore it isn't valid and the mapper still needs to map another diff (whether it's normal, another hard, or insane) for the map to be able to be rankableCXu wrote:
I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).
If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.
kwk wrote:
Didn't the old approval thing work for years and was only changed cause it was redundant cause of pp leaderboards?
No, I just said that I want the requirements of a spread to be laxer, regardless of if that's based on the gap between diffs, or what the lowest diff required is (which is the proposal in OP). The first "alienates" players inbetween (so H/I players, if the spread is NX), while the other "alienates" new players (if IX), but we already do this at a hard cap at 5min. It's not so much about if someone can or can not map a proper spread, but if enough people are willing to do so that it's worth keeping the current system over changing it to make more people willing to map songs of these lengths. Most 5min+ songs can have a full spread, if people are willing to put the time into it, but as we saw before the approval limit was lowered as well as the trend now, they're not really willing to spend that much time, and we're seeing a similar thing happening for maps around 4:30-4:59min.AncuL wrote:
I kinda disagree about huge diff gaps like NX or HX being okay. If you can map both N and X for a song, there's almost no way you cannot map anything in-between.
But i think you are saying that you want a spread based on star rating instead of difficulty name? Mind you that SR gap issue is already very subjective (with a certain value being the exact limitation), so I wouldn't agree to make it laxer with length as it isn't that necessary, this proposal is already enough to make mapping 4-minute maps rankable easier, and a good spread that isn't skipping a difficulty is good for certain audience who think 3.9* hard is too easy but 5.3* extra is too hard
Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?x86 wrote:
My interpretation is that the majority of Easy, Normal, and Hard plays are not on long (4+ minute) marathon (5+ minute) maps. Feel free to draw your own conclusions or request other graphs.
Sinnoh wrote:
Seems reasonable to conclude that Normals shouldn't be required for maps that are 4:00 or longer.
Should hards also be required at 4:00, or have that requirement to 4:30
Mentai wrote:
@x86 it also seems insane is not played as much either. we need to compare it to the playtime of all harden and insane’s because our samplset for 4 min+ is very small comparatively. i think what i suggested holds water at least, considering the amount of plays we see on Expert+ on the graphs
this could maybe support the idea of having insanes on these sets even more then. i think having a hard as well would be a good idea stillsdafsf wrote:
the fact that insane play counts bump up at 300seconds implies that players at that level do in fact have interest in longer maps id say.Mentai wrote:
@x86 it also seems insane is not played as much either. we need to compare it to the playtime of all harden and insane’s because our samplset for 4 min+ is very small comparatively. i think what i suggested holds water at least, considering the amount of plays we see on Expert+ on the graphs
im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
I'm not a fan of juxtaposed bars so I've used stacked bars here.Sieg wrote:
Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?
To clarify, I am subsetting every ranked/loved standard map on every combination of hitlength (30 s) interval and difficulty, and then summing the playcount for all those maps.sdafsf wrote:
im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
x86 wrote:
.
bor wrote:
because people who are bad at the game tend to not care about length of beatmap for the most part, they just end up playing their favorite music.
bor wrote:
I believe if you guys move forward with this there should be an incentive or safety net for these lower difficulty players otherwise there exists a possibility that lower difficulties will become arbitrarily extinct and the player base for this game will no longer grow.
>being fatalistic? that's no argument against what I've said. you shouldn't restrict a playerbase you are trying to appeal tox86 wrote:
How do you know? 4 min maps require a lot of stamina just to play once.bor wrote:
because people who are bad at the game tend to not care about length of beatmap for the most part, they just end up playing their favorite music.
>bor wrote:
Also I remember when i tried to get better at the game, at some point I would player the longer easier maps to try and create a sort of stamina or real consistency lol, and without longer songs having lower diffs to them that kind of approach would no longer be possible.
Similarly saying I'm not saying that lower diffs wouldn't exist anymore, but think about how newer players get into this game, they don't spend 15 minutes looking for the perfect map for them to play. They look at the recently ranked section and just download some song they might recognize, or they search for the songs they like to see if there is something with their SR to it. So having lower difficulties end up being much more sparse just makes it to where they can't just find that one recently ranked map that has a diff they can play (given the possibility stated prior).There is no need to be so fatalistic. The vast majority of easy/normal plays are already on short maps.bor wrote:
I believe if you guys move forward with this there should be an incentive or safety net for these lower difficulty players otherwise there exists a possibility that lower difficulties will become arbitrarily extinct and the player base for this game will no longer grow.
From the graph I can see that pc on normals for 4:00 - 4:30 min is a bit more than pc on hards for 4:30 - 5:00 and even on insanes for 5:30, how is that - almost not played?UndeadCapulet wrote:
i agree with others that ratios would be nicer but those numbers already tell a lot, hards seem valuable for 4min length and normals are almost not played at all for that duration
It's like really late so this might make no sense at all, but could you scale these in terms of amount of maps in each subset?x86 wrote:
I'm not a fan of juxtaposed bars so I've used stacked bars here.Sieg wrote:
Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?To clarify, I am subsetting every ranked/loved standard map on every combination of hitlength (30 s) interval and difficulty, and then summing the playcount for all those maps.sdafsf wrote:
im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
Which subset - the song length categories, or the diff spread categories, or both?CXu wrote:
It's like really late so this might make no sense at all, but could you scale these in terms of amount of maps in each subset?
It doesn't really help to know that there're more plays on easy diffs on shorter maps than longer maps, since that's probably going to be the case anyway because there're way more shorter maps overall. More interesting would be to see if the proportion of easy diff plays goes down or not as we reach 3-4min long songs.