[Proposal] Spread requirements based on song length

posted
Total Posts
360
show more
tatatat
I agree. Requiring at least 2 diffs is perfectly reasonable, thats what sets apart a marathon from a reasonable spread.
Mun
I don't see what the case is for exploitation of removal of the 2-diff rule is.

If you do not want to see stupid single-diff R3 music box ringtone size sets in ranked, then the solution isn't to outlaw them - it's to encourage the BNs and QATs who actually have the privilege and right to decide whether they get to ranked or not to stop the low-effort content that adds nothing from getting into the ranked section.

We shouldn't be disallowing content we don't like, that's exactly the wrong mentality to have. This is why I somewhat agree with ZiRoX on this one - move it to guidelines - although I disagree that it should only be allowed in clearly defined niche cases.

I'm more concerned that requiring 2 diffs encourages behavior like putting no effort into a secondary diff. Not requiring diffs that are generally unnecessary and don't fill any specific purpose means less work for mappers, less detritus in the ranked section, less work for BNs checking the maps, and quite likely more good content, and a greater variety of good content. Time that is not spent, but wasted on mapping or trying to find a GD for a second difficulty required for no good reason by RC could be better spent making more maps, modding other people's maps, or even just looking for BNs to check and nominate their single diff set.
ZiRoX
That's precisely why I'm suggesting that the rule is moved to guidelines instead. For those songs that it is really hard to make a difference between 2 diffs, which is a really edge and niche case, you're still allowed to rank 1-diff mapsets provided you can actually justify that. Allowing 1-diff sets for this sole reason is going completely overboard.
Ascendance
completely agree with zirox

btw, this spread idea has gone from the diff requirements at different lengths being adjusted, which i supported, to removing the two-diff rule and changing things with hybrids, which i really can't support at all. we're taking a step back with the additional proposals being made in my opinion, when we could easily be passing the changes to the length for lowest difficulties like it was originally intended.
Sinnoh
Regarding why we use minimum drain time, why not just replace it with minimum length
There's been plenty of cases where it would be preferable to have a break in a low intensity section, but having one prevents reaching the minimum drain. In some cases, it even feels overdone to map sounds for that section, but there's no way around it.

Imo all diffs should be allowed to use breaks since the player's total play time is unaffected,
Something like that would let marathons that are 5:01 give players recovery, 5 minutes without breaks is not fun for anyone and is just bad game design.

edit
ok so just have at least 80% of time must be mapped, problem solved?
tatatat
I don't agree Sinnoh. That could be abused to have less than 10 seconds of actual draintime, like a 1 minute map with 50 seconds of breaks. That'd be horrible. A minimum of 30 seconds of drain time is perfectly reasonable. Also there isn't much use for a break in a 30 second map. Its over very quickly. Also how could you reasonably measure length? From the start of the audio file to the end of it? From the first object to the end of the audio file? From the first sound to the last sound? What if at least 20% of the outro isn't mapped? What if the mapper decides to have 40% of the song be an unmapped intro to beef up the length? It seems abusable.


About the 2 diff rule, I still think it should stay. Even with simple r3 music box songs, its always possible to make at least two different diffs if the mapper actually tries. Its also not an issue in any other gamemode besides osu!std. There can be full 3-4 diff spreads out of a r3 music box song in taiko/ctb/mania. If the mapper actually tries to represent different rhythms in a song, they can easily make at least 2 diffs. One of you gave an example of a two diff r3 music box spread with only a 1 object difference between the two diffs. Thats just a bad spread because of the mapper.
Mun
oh come on tatatat stop saying the same thing over and over again and not even acknowledging anything that's been said to the contrary

"that could be abused," is not a usable argument, nor is "a mapper can make multiple diffs if they try!" and the reasons why this is have been explained for you several times.
Okoratu
for what it's worth i can see this work while requiring 2 diffs minimum because a spread doesnt work as a spread if there isnt anything to spread out

to the contrary i forgot updating the gist for the first post with the changes pertaining to what's been said so i'll do that sometime

REEE done


I think 'Reasonable Spread' shouldn't skip any levels from the difficulty you start at btw
because doing the optional easy if your normal is optional and then doing no normal is ????????????????????????????????
Topic Starter
UndeadCapulet
https://gist.github.com/Okorin/190bc363 ... 919eb8e1cf we made some further updates

tl;dr drain time scales linearly now as requested by a bunch of people. other than that we just further clarified some things
Mun
In response to oko:

I was afraid of this coming up. If it is required that a spread be "reasonable" (not clearly defined) and linear even in sections where the spread is not required at all, then we run the risk of depriving the game of content, because in this case it is possible that a mapset would be completely acceptable and rankable without a low diff, but then have spread problems when that low diff is added.

Now, I'm sure you are already fully aware of my relationship with reasonable spreads, but I genuinely think it would be counterproductive to strictly enforce spread rules on low difficulties that are not required at all in the context of the mapset.


On another note, I am also concerned at the challenge of, "what constitutes an acceptable bottom diff?" As it stands, many Normal difficulties are viewed as unacceptable as the lowest difficulty on a set not because of their star rating, but because of density and difficulty elements present in the map.

My main concern is that when we have challenging Hard or Insane difficulties, will these be at risk of being blocked from the ranked section due to the challenge they provide? As a side-effect of this, won't we just see people making sets that go one diff lower than the minimum required in order to have an acceptable lower diff, defeating the purpose of this amendment altogether?
LwL

Mun wrote:

My main concern is that when we have challenging Hard or Insane difficulties, will these be at risk of being blocked from the ranked section due to the challenge they provide? As a side-effect of this, won't we just see people making sets that go one diff lower than the minimum required in order to have an acceptable lower diff, defeating the purpose of this amendment altogether?
I don't think the majority of Hards will have a problem with this, and if they violate

proposal wrote:

Single-mode mapsets must form a reasonable spread. This spread must comply with its respective mode's difficulty-specific Ranking Criteria.
then I think it's entirely reasonable to require a normal or more appropriately mapped Hard. Star Rating is so broken that it should really not be used as the sole judge of whether something constitutes a reasonable spread, the difficulty-specific criteria exist for a reason and if there's concern about elements found in Hards that are not appropriate for players at that level, imo it would belong there rather than having anything to do with this proposal. Basically, if it's mapped like a Hard according to RC, it should count as a Hard, if it's mapped like an Insane, make another diff.
Okoratu

Mun wrote:

In response to oko:

I was afraid of this coming up. If it is required that a spread be "reasonable" (not clearly defined) and linear even in sections where the spread is not required at all, then we run the risk of depriving the game of content, because in this case it is possible that a mapset would be completely acceptable and rankable without a low diff, but then have spread problems when that low diff is added.
but we added a definition, did you read that lol it's pretty clear atm i just suggest it should be different from what it is atm

Mun wrote:

Now, I'm sure you are already fully aware of my relationship with reasonable spreads, but I genuinely think it would be counterproductive to strictly enforce spread rules on low difficulties that are not required at all in the context of the mapset.
most of these diffs we're talking about are going to be cases where someone includes the optional easy or normal, at that level people haven't really figured out why and what is going on for their own sake im suggesting this to avoid confusion among the players downloading a set

Mun wrote:

On another note, I am also concerned at the challenge of, "what constitutes an acceptable bottom diff?" As it stands, many Normal difficulties are viewed as unacceptable as the lowest difficulty on a set not because of their star rating, but because of density and difficulty elements present in the map.

My main concern is that when we have challenging Hard or Insane difficulties, will these be at risk of being blocked from the ranked section due to the challenge they provide? As a side-effect of this, won't we just see people making sets that go one diff lower than the minimum required in order to have an acceptable lower diff, defeating the purpose of this amendment altogether?
That was on my agenda for all the modes already - we will need to define what and if we need additional guidelines the same way we have them for normals as the lowest difficulty right now because i think these work.

@LwL there's a definition of the term reasonable spread in the glossary which probably explains whatever you were suggesting already
LwL

Okoratu wrote:

Mun wrote:

On another note, I am also concerned at the challenge of, "what constitutes an acceptable bottom diff?" As it stands, many Normal difficulties are viewed as unacceptable as the lowest difficulty on a set not because of their star rating, but because of density and difficulty elements present in the map.

My main concern is that when we have challenging Hard or Insane difficulties, will these be at risk of being blocked from the ranked section due to the challenge they provide? As a side-effect of this, won't we just see people making sets that go one diff lower than the minimum required in order to have an acceptable lower diff, defeating the purpose of this amendment altogether?
That was on my agenda for all the modes already - we will need to define what and if we need additional guidelines the same way we have them for normals as the lowest difficulty right now because i think these work.

@LwL there's a definition of the term reasonable spread in the glossary which probably explains whatever you were suggesting already
The idea was the same as what you said, though I never believed that it should be particularly needed. What I was trying to argue was that a Hard diff following the current difficulty guidelines should be able to fulfill the purpose of being the lowest difficulty if the spread can end at a hard, it shouldn't be different from how it is now. If you had an N-H-I spread currently, and the Hard would be way out there in terms of playability, that brings up the same issue as having H-I-X after this proposal with a challenging Hard, as the spread doesn't work as intended for a spread. For that reason any issues arising in this regard would not be exclusive to this proposal, but rather still be an issue with the current RC, and therefore should be discussed seperately.

I did forget about the current rule regarding bottom diff Normals though, but if I understood it correctly Muns concern was that the existence of such a rule (or a common perception that the principle should be followed) would lead to a significant amount of sets ultimately mapping a Normal or a very easy hard to avoid any problems, and then end up with the same number of difficulties as now. I think it's a valid concern, but for above stated reason it should be enough for this to maybe clarify that a bottom diff Hard or Insane has to strictly follow the difficulty guidelines (basically turning the Guideline part into additional rules, while staying relative to song speed of course), without a need to follow anything further than that as that would partially defeat the point of the change.
Okoratu
Nah it just means we need to define how easy we expect a hard to be rather than taking sets down for it so that we're all on the same page
pishifat
If the drain time of a song is lower than 3:30, the lowest difficulty of each included game mode cannot be harder than a Normal.
Difficulties lower than Insane can use their play time as a metric instead of drain time, but their drain time must be equal to at least 80% of their play time.
so if you've got a set with only a hard, minimum drain required is 2:48 for 3:30 songs? from a talk with oko, the play time thing was added so additional lower diffs dont need to force non-stop gameplay to meet minimum drain requirements, but having it apply to lowest diff hards like this seems to make it more lenient htan intended (and plain weird because fully mapped songs between 2:48 and 3:30 arent rankable).

may make more sense to apply the play time thing to diffs below the highest
Topic Starter
UndeadCapulet
i like that idea a lot
Mcen314
I think low diffs can be mapped by computer AI rather than by mapper. Since low diffs are rigid and people always want computer to do those rigid things. You can map high diff first and have it hitsounded, then computer can map low diff with modelling high diff's hitsound after.
defiance
haven't checked this in a while but i completely support this and i have no complaints :) i literally already mapped a 4:30 set for these new additions
Mcen314
I would increase the workload of mapping TV-size maps rather than only reduce 4+min maps.
Kurokami
Stupidity and laziness level intensifies

UndeadCapulet wrote:

  1. if the drain time is 4:15 - 5min your set's lowest diff must be insane or lower
While I do agree with the question at hand I do not get why there is no need for a middleground (Hard) level above 4:15. You are technically closing out a huge number of players with this step since no one will ever map a Hard if a standalone Insane is enough. We are talking about 30-50k people whose will be able to play these maps while the rest has to skip them because of the unreachable difficulty level.

I would lower the requirement to Hard. That is a far more acceptable difficulty level and can actually reach over 100k people which is double the size of the current number.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply