I believe that the majority would agree with it but I only suggested a few more words for the guideline, not a rule.
From what I understand, they're working on rewording it so that 2 song mashes are ok with reasonable justification rather than just extending drain time.tatatat wrote:
So instead of combining two 4:30 songs from the same artist and album into one 9 minute diff, I'd have to combine three 4:30 songs into 13:30 length diff? that just seems absurdly dumb. Why should there be any restrictions of what songs can be mapped. I do agree that just patching together two random songs from two random artists isn't okay, but why not from the same artist and same album? Why map two diffs of a 4:30 length song when you can map one diff of 9 minutes of two song? There is much more variety. If I can't combine two 4:30 length songs from the same album, I'd just be... inclined to extend the compilation with a r3 music box to fit the 3 song requirement. and thats even dumber? right?
Two songs from the same artist should be perfectly acceptable, such as https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1639326 . I see nothing wrong with the way two songs were combined.
Also I'm still not entirely sure whether or not the rule of requiring a "spread of at least two difficulties." is required for maps shorter than 5:00 in drain time. Can you please clarify?
I'd assume so, the reasonable spread rule is still in place.Irreversible wrote:
Does the spread also have to remain linear?
Example:
if the drain time is 3:30-4:30 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower (excuse me if that is outdated, just took it from the first post)
Let's say I still want to make an Easy for this diff- is a normal still required then?
That's what's attempting to be discussed with t/756468 iircpimpG wrote:
one last thing that i'm concerned
there should be some limitation to what songs can be combined into a rankable compilation
the way the Proposal right now basically you can put songs from 6ix9ine, BABY METAL, and Beethoven in the same compilation
first thing gets removed, 2nd would have this now https://i.imgur.com/alU9tH5.pngtimemon wrote:
I have a question, do every non marathon maps always have to have 2 diffs or more? Like if 4:45 map is a hard diff, does it need another difficulty? The proposal isn't clear on this one
Also what about the break on lower difficulties? The top diff might hit 3:30 drain but lower diffs might not.
timemon wrote:
I have a question, do every non marathon maps always have to have 2 diffs or more? Like if 4:45 map is a hard diff, does it need another difficulty? The proposal isn't clear on this one
Also what about the break on lower difficulties? The top diff might hit 3:30 drain but lower diffs might not.
Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties.
Difficulties lower than Insane can use their play time as a metric instead of drain time, but their play time must be equal to at least 80% of their drain time.
timemon wrote:
So this essentially lower the bar for marathon by 30 seconds, if you map insane.
Maybe I'm lacking sleep cause its 2am but if you guys get rid of the forced "2 diff" rule in favor of this proposal. Can't I just make a TV size map with only normal diff and rank it, or I am missing something again.
Mao wrote:
timemon wrote:
So this essentially lower the bar for marathon by 30 seconds, if you map insane.
Maybe I'm lacking sleep cause its 2am but if you guys get rid of the forced "2 diff" rule in favor of this proposal. Can't I just make a TV size map with only normal diff and rank it, or I am missing something again.
I mean you could right now just rank a TV size with E/N, doesn't make that much of a difference.
I'm not sure if I like that you don't have to make two difficulties anymore though, the marathon bar for Hards would be lowered to 3:30 and that's pretty low imo.
Single-mode mapsets must form a reasonable spread. This spread must comply with its respective mode's difficulty-specific Ranking Criteria.
The audio file of a song should not be artificially extended in order to meet a time limitation in the mapset section of this criteria. This can include (but is not limited to) looping sections of the audio file, lowering the bpm of the song or section of the song, or adding small amounts of music to the song without incorporating it throughout the entire song. This does not apply to song compilations or audio files less than the minimum rankable mapset length.
ZiRoX wrote:
As others have said, I don't think the minimum 2 diff rule should be gone. As the proposal stands now, I could map a 1 min Normal and get it ranked. You could say that the proposal mentions that maps require a proper spread (and you can't have spread with only 1 element), but an explicit mention of this minimum number of diffs required would be good.
I agree. There should always be at least 2 diffs unless its a marathon. Thats what differentiates a marathon from a normal set.ZiRoX wrote:
As others have said, I don't think the minimum 2 diff rule should be gone. As the proposal stands now, I could map a 1 min Normal and get it ranked. You could say that the proposal mentions that maps require a proper spread (and you can't have spread with only 1 element), but an explicit mention of this minimum number of diffs required would be good.
i agreetatatat wrote:
I agree. There should always be at least 2 diffs unless its a marathon. Thats what differentiates a marathon from a normal set.ZiRoX wrote:
As others have said, I don't think the minimum 2 diff rule should be gone. As the proposal stands now, I could map a 1 min Normal and get it ranked. You could say that the proposal mentions that maps require a proper spread (and you can't have spread with only 1 element), but an explicit mention of this minimum number of diffs required would be good.
Nao Tomori wrote:
if you people want linear just go with 3:30 - 4:15 - 5. that both avoids the "issue" of non linearity while also keeping fairly normal standards for drain time per set; for a 3 minute nhix set, that's 12 minutes and about the max amount ever needed for a set, which is perfectly fine imo... at 3:30 hix that becomes 10:30 which isn't a huge reduction and then 4:15 ix is 8:30 which is also not a big difference.
ZiRoX wrote:
As others have said, I don't think the minimum 2 diff rule should be gone. As the proposal stands now, I could map a 1 min Normal and get it ranked. You could say that the proposal mentions that maps require a proper spread (and you can't have spread with only 1 element), but an explicit mention of this minimum number of diffs required would be good.
tatatat wrote:
Thats what differentiates a marathon from a normal set.
Doormat wrote:
The idea that I could make a “marathon” for a TV Size if I only mapped a Normal difficulty completely undermines the original intent of this proposal to begin with (balancing spread requirements for longer songs).
Single-mode mapsets must form a reasonable spread. This spread must comply with its respective mode's difficulty-specific Ranking Criteria.My main issue is the wording here. Most people are worried that this removes the 2 diff requirement but you can't really have a spread if you only have 1 diff so it's kinda ??? In addition, this change wouldn't allowed NN or II stuff to be ranked if the two diffs are very similar in difficulty since once again having 2 incredibly similar diffs difficulty doesn't make a reasonable spread?????????
I used “marathon” in quotes because that’s probably the most recognizable thing that this new proposal will get compared to. I know it technically isn’t a marathon; I just used the word for the sake of simplifying my argument.Mir wrote:
Marathons should be defined by song length and length alone, difficulty count should be irrelevant - and kinda is - because some marathon maps have full spreads/more than one diff. Forcing 2 diffs for the sake of differentiating sets from marathons is unnecessary imho (not saying that's what your point is but I want to dismiss that idea entirely)
I think what maybe needs to happen is a rethink of what "marathon" constitutes, because it shouldn't be "1 difficulty mapset" by any means.
The "effort" argument can be seen as being "for the sake of effort" as well and may not have a benefit to the mapset at all despite being more work for the mapper in the long run. AFAIK the proposal's main aim is to gear sets towards the people that get the most out of playing them, and those people likely won't care much for filler diffs that are there just to fulfill the 2 diff minimum.
i kinda used words from UC and Hobbes2 in here too since we had a discussion about it on Discord so disclaimer some of the phrasing isn't mine
UndeadCapulet wrote:
"it promotes laziness"
it also promotes caring about the single difficulty you want to make instead of phoning in a forced difficulty you don't want to make. people are always going to be lazy but at worst we get 1 lazily made difficulty, which surely is better than 2
my argument here was that if we're using the argument that filler difficulties are largely seen as obsolete, what is the point in requiring a spread? why should tv sizes be required to have a full spread when we're going to be exempting longer length maps from the same, just because they have meet a difficulty level requirement?UndeadCapulet wrote:
"i could make just a 1 minute normal and rank it"
yeah and you can make a 1 minute EN set right now and rank that, there's basically 0 difference in effort or value. 2diff requirement doesn't keep people from making stupid sets, and it doesn't even discourage it. changing this to a single diff requirement will not encourage it any further because people don't really like to make stupid sets anyway, or else we'd see a lot more of them rn
"it defeats the point of having spreads to begin with"
again, marathons are already very prolific and are not inhibiting spreads in any way. tv sizes are super popular and always will be and will require a full spread, 3:30 H sets will not intrude upon that
i think this is a very pessimistic way of looking at things; just because lower level difficulties may take considerably less time to make does not mean that the same level of care/effort hasn't been put into them. there are still a lot of people in this community that do put a lot of care and effort into making a balanced spread so that people of all skill levels can enjoy them. even then, if the mapset host doesn't want to make a lower-level difficulty, there are plenty of others in this community (guest difficulties) that would be more than willing to give their take on making something so that players of all skill levels can enjoy a mapset for a given song.UndeadCapulet wrote:
"it promotes laziness"
it also promotes caring about the single difficulty you want to make instead of phoning in a forced difficulty you don't want to make. people are always going to be lazy but at worst we get 1 lazily made difficulty, which surely is better than 2
the benefit that i've been trying to argue is that it provides more options for players to enjoy the songs they want to play to. not everybody is going to have access to all maps, or may be selective in the type of songs they choose to download, so ensuring that there is a wider selection of difficulties for players to choose from that suit their skill level is crucial, in my eyes.UndeadCapulet wrote:
basically by removing the 2diff requirement it makes for overall more clarity when the proposal goes through as all you need to understand is "linear spread from this diff onwards." forcing II sets in 4:30 songs is very awkward and unwarranted as it does not promote good content but instead just arbitrarily forces more content. from what i can see there is no benefit whatsoever from requiring 2 diffs
i actually think that these two go hand-in-hand. if potential ranking criteria changes have the potential to affect the rate at which maps will be ranked, then it can become a potential problem for the community: nominators will be swamped with an even bigger workload, and mappers will grow more frustrated at having to wait for their maps to enter the Qualified section if it so happens that somebody else qualified a smaller-sized mapset before theirs. getting rid of the "same song restriction" is also open to a whole bunch of new issues as well, as i'm pretty sure nobody wants to see the same song in qualified a bajillion times. these issues should be addressed and solved together, not separately.UndeadCapulet wrote:
@doormat your concern about the bn rule interacting poorly with single-diff sets is valid, but that seems more of an issue with the bn rule itself, which is a very different topic. we shouldn't let bn rules interfere with improving ranking criteria.
Doormat wrote:
my argument here was that if we're using the argument that filler difficulties are largely seen as obsolete, what is the point in requiring a spread? why should tv sizes be required to have a full spread when we're going to be exempting longer length maps from the same, just because they have meet a difficulty level requirement?
Doormat wrote:
i think this is a very pessimistic way of looking at things; just because lower level difficulties may take considerably less time to make does not mean that the same level of care/effort hasn't been put into them. there are still a lot of people in this community that do put a lot of care and effort into making a balanced spread so that people of all skill levels can enjoy them. even then, if the mapset host doesn't want to make a lower-level difficulty, there are plenty of others in this community (guest difficulties) that would be more than willing to give their take on making something so that players of all skill levels can enjoy a mapset for a given song.
Doormat wrote:
the benefit that i've been trying to argue is that it provides more options for players to enjoy the songs they want to play to. not everybody is going to have access to all maps, or may be selective in the type of songs they choose to download, so ensuring that there is a wider selection of difficulties for players to choose from that suit their skill level is crucial, in my eyes.
Doormat wrote:
i actually think that these two go hand-in-hand. if potential ranking criteria changes have the potential to affect the rate at which maps will be ranked, then it can become a potential problem for the community: nominators will be swamped with an even bigger workload, and mappers will grow more frustrated at having to wait for their maps to enter the Qualified section if it so happens that somebody else qualified a smaller-sized mapset before theirs. getting rid of the "same song restriction" is also open to a whole bunch of new issues as well, as i'm pretty sure nobody wants to see the same song in qualified a bajillion times. these issues should be addressed and solved together, not separately.
That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're going to need to come to a compromise in regards to the current proposal; we shouldn't be trying to brute force the proposal in its current state when there are proponents on both sides arguing for and against difficulty count requirements. I was giving my points to (hopefully) explain why I think we need difficulty count requirements.Mun wrote:
Are you implying that you want to force mappers to map at least two difficulties no matter what because it limits the speed at which they can produce sets, effectively trying to kneecap them?