ok, will add those 3 words those places
… lower than 4:30, the lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Hard.
… lower than 5:00, the lowest difficulty cannot be harder than an Insane.
Monstrata wrote:
1. Take out mp3 editing as a rule. Optionally you can make it a guideline that artificially edited mp3 extensions must sound natural/unnoticeable in order to be acceptable.
2. Remove the crossfade rule, and put it in as a guideline so people have the option to call a map out for its low quality crossfading, but not the ability to completely prevent it from being ranked. It is far too subjective to be an objective rule anyways.
Maybe I misunderstood something in your post, but I'm pretty sure this ain't forcing anyone to map those diffs or over them, but rather those diffs and under (for atleast the lowest diff); and thus in case of calmer songs having all diffs under those shouldn't be contradicting the idea of the wording there.Nozhomi wrote:
There's some songs who don't support difficulties above Hard or Insane (depending of their BPM / density / etc...) who will lead this to mappers having forced difficulties who won't fit the song at all to have a spread as rules expect (example : https://osu.ppy.sh/b/481272 / https://osu.ppy.sh/b/550579). So I don't think than you should force people do to a Hard / Insane in case of the songs can't support it, or allow them to fall under Marathon rule.
Same but not restricted to two, considering there's compositions consisting of more parts than that still working as one whole. Basically restricting this with any number shouldn't really be necessary. In most cases songs ain't so short that you'd need like half dozen to get to the 5 min mark (so it ain't really abusable anyways), so putting the max amount for this will only end up forbidding mapping some pieces as whole, while their length would be over the 5 mins for single-diff-mapset even without all parts.Halfslashed wrote:
I think an exception should be made for using two songs that were composed to transition into each other.
Lasse wrote:
agree with both of these, mainly the bold partMonstrata wrote:
1. Take out mp3 editing as a rule. Optionally you can make it a guideline that artificially edited mp3 extensions must sound natural/unnoticeable in order to be acceptable.
2. Remove the crossfade rule, and put it in as a guideline so people have the option to call a map out for its low quality crossfading, but not the ability to completely prevent it from being ranked. It is far too subjective to be an objective rule anyways.
agree with Halfslashed's point about combining two songs, since there are a lot of cases where songs work much better if you combine them, just look at https://osu.ppy.sh/s/100348 which would be affected by this change since it technically combines two songs, it's split like this https://i.imgur.com/3fhDLNU.jpg on the album. where the actual kanshou no matenrou starts at 00:43:271 -
also with how this change is currently, if you're mapping a song that is just slightly above 3:30 you wouldn't be allowed to put breaks on your hard diff because then it wouldn't reach the drain minimum to not need a normal.
For example https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1072897 higher diffs on this are ~3:40, so lowest diff could be a hard, but then diffs below another are <3:30.
Or https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1590239 where Insane+ diffs are all above 3:30, but hard is 3:29 due to breaks.
Breaks can be very important on <Insane diffs of this length and this would discourage using them, so I think this should somehow be accounted for, but I can't really come up with a nice solution right now.
Other drain time related spread changes look nice to me
No, cutting a full version of a song to make it "tv size" is basically just been lazy to map a spread of 1:30 minutes for each diff despite a spread of 4:30 for each diff lolpeppy wrote:
Cutting shorter is done to make it more playable/suited to a rhythm game. Making longer is done to avoid mapping certain difficulties with basically no exception.
shorter songs will not be affected, anything shorter than 3:30 minutes will still have to follow the current spread rulesmoonlightleaf wrote:
Happy ! but if do this , e E&N diff will decrease ? (just imo
so i suggest if do TV size(<2min?) , should be map E N at least ?
timemon wrote:
I've only read the spread proposal. I quite like it, though 3:30 drain time is very hard to reach.
1) full ver maps have lots of break (because they don't have to care about drain time)
2) some full ver songs can be quite short (3:30 to 4:00) so they might even fail to hit the rules designed to help them.
Maybe adjust the drain time a bit? I think 3:00 is good for the lowest point.
Lasse wrote:
Breaks can be very important on <Insane diffs of this length and this would discourage using them, so I think this should somehow be accounted for, but I can't really come up with a nice solution right now.
Monstrata wrote:
1. Take out mp3 editing as a rule. Optionally you can make it a guideline that artificially edited mp3 extensions must sound natural/unnoticeable in order to be acceptable.
2. Remove the crossfade rule, and put it in as a guideline so people have the option to call a map out for its low quality crossfading, but not the ability to completely prevent it from being ranked. It is far too subjective to be an objective rule anyways.
-Mo- wrote:
Suggestions:
- Move the cut-off point for Normal difficulties up to 4:00. I think this is a more reasonable place to put it given the demand for full length songs.
- Add a new guideline that relaxes what a reasonable spread is for maps above 3:00. This is my compromise for raising the normal diff cut-off. One of the problems mappers face is having a low level normal diff and a high level hard diff, and requiring either remaps of the current diffs or the addition of an advanced diff to fill the gap. This problem is amplified for longer maps because more effort etc etc. This new guideline would allow spreads with wider gaps between each difficulty, lowering the workload on the mapper by not having to worry about spread too much and having less drain time to map whilst keeping maps accessible for lower level players.
I completely agree with these since I dont even see what can make a crossfade low quality and mp3 extensions that are done well you cant tell are extended.Monstrata wrote:
1. Take out mp3 editing as a rule. Optionally you can make it a guideline that artificially edited mp3 extensions must sound natural/unnoticeable in order to be acceptable.
2. Remove the crossfade rule, and put it in as a guideline so people have the option to call a map out for its low quality crossfading, but not the ability to completely prevent it from being ranked. It is far too subjective to be an objective rule anyways.
Problem with this is not all songs will be the same difficulty example being https://osu.ppy.sh/s/744238 which has a 206bpm song and a 86bpm which are completely related as its part of the same album project so its a completely logical compilationpimpG wrote:
not really looking forward to see the beginner difficulties decreasing but the boss has spoken and he doesn't really mind that...
"only allow compilations to be mapped as the same difficulty level each song..."
^ I think this should be considered
This is what I also suggested here https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6655193Mir wrote:
I actually agree with this, full version songs are more likely to have breaks in them so having slight leeway for breaks in longer songs would be nice. Instead of 3:30 -> 4:30 -> 5:00, I would prefer 3:00 -> 4:00 -> 5:00. Not only is it more linear (there's a lot of room between 3:30-4:30 to require a hard but half that from 4:30-5:00 to require an insane) but it could also allow more breaks in 3:00+ songs.timemon wrote:
I've only read the spread proposal. I quite like it, though 3:30 drain time is very hard to reach.
1) full ver maps have lots of break (because they don't have to care about drain time)
2) some full ver songs can be quite short (3:30 to 4:00) so they might even fail to hit the rules designed to help them.
Maybe adjust the drain time a bit? I think 3:00 is good for the lowest point.
This pretty much solves Lasse's concern I think?Lasse wrote:
Breaks can be very important on <Insane diffs of this length and this would discourage using them, so I think this should somehow be accounted for, but I can't really come up with a nice solution right now.
That was the very beginning of the thread though. Since we have a lot more people in on this discussion now and we're approaching spreading from different perspectives, I think we should reconsider a linear 3:00 -> 4:00 -> 5:00 draintime spread.UndeadCapulet wrote:
@squirrel
please read the first few pages for why we can't do 3/4/5 for time limits. it was almost exclusively seen as too lenient.
Tfw tried looking the previous pages like where the hell's this, only to realize in the end it's prob just sarcastic remark forOkoratu wrote:
very good list kibb
FeelsBadManKibbleru wrote:
the only exception i could make with the 3 song rule is red like roses 1 and 2 from rwby. but iirc that was an official track released by the artist?
The problem with the graphs shown as well as the data via twitter poll is that it does not take into account that people wanting full length songs are invested in the game. The purpose of the proposal is to incentivize mapping more songs of that length for that audience, as opposed to the newer audience that tires out. Given that, I still think 3:30 for a minimum difficulty of hard is a good place to put the cutoff.-Mo- wrote:
Suggestions:
- Move the cut-off point for Normal difficulties up to 4:00. I think this is a more reasonable place to put it given the demand for full length songs.
- Add a new guideline that relaxes what a reasonable spread is for maps above 3:00. This is my compromise for raising the normal diff cut-off. One of the problems mappers face is having a low level normal diff and a high level hard diff, and requiring either remaps of the current diffs or the addition of an advanced diff to fill the gap. This problem is amplified for longer maps because more effort etc etc. This new guideline would allow spreads with wider gaps between each difficulty, lowering the workload on the mapper by not having to worry about spread too much and having less drain time to map whilst keeping maps accessible for lower level players.
sure but what if the songs have similar bpm and intensity, shouldn't the RC at least discourage mappers from mapping them inconsistently?Nevo wrote:
Problem with this is not all songs will be the same difficulty example being https://osu.ppy.sh/s/744238 which has a 206bpm song and a 86bpm which are completely related as its part of the same album project so its a completely logical compilationpimpG wrote:
not really looking forward to see the beginner difficulties decreasing but the boss has spoken and he doesn't really mind that...
"only allow compilations to be mapped as the same difficulty level each song..."
^ I think this should be considered
I personally haven't seen a compilation which maps 2 slimiler bpm/intensity songs in completely different levels of difficulty. So i dont really see what making people stay consistent would do since its like their interpretation of the songs and stuff.pimpG wrote:
sure but what if the songs have similar bpm and intensity, shouldn't the RC at least discourage mappers from mapping them inconsistently?
if the songs have similar bpm and intensity then I don't see how the interpretation could be different. i'm talking about obvious SR differences... what if the mapper decides to have the compilation mapped as (Extra ~ Easy ~ Hard) when all songs in the compilation supports the same level. That's subjective so what are the chances that you will be able to convince him that this is a bad idea if not even the RC mentions anything about it. sure I don't remember seeing anyone doing this so far but it doesn't means it won't happen in the future.Nevo wrote:
I personally haven't seen a compilation which maps 2 slimiler bpm/intensity songs in completely different levels of difficulty. So i dont really see what making people stay consistent would do since its like their interpretation of the songs and stuff.
could be something like:Proposal wrote:
Guidelines
- Each song in a song compilation should be similar in audio quality, volume, and length.
Proposal wrote:
Guidelines
- Each song in a song compilation should be similar in audio quality, volume, length and difficulty level.