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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

i like that idea a lot

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.

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

I would increase the workload of mapping TV-size maps rather than only reduce 4+min maps.

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.

Kurokami wrote:

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 middle ground (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.

A lot of things wrong with this comment. //Stupidity and laziness level intensifies// (I am merely quoting an ex-QAT).

1. Hard level is also worked into the proposal, being specifically for songs 3:30 and above. The proposal is effectively scaling time-length with difficulty.

2. Hard is not a middle ground, it would be the lower limit.

3. A "huge number of players" is just rhetorical nonsense... Where did you get your numbers from?

4. As someone who is over 50k, I can assure you that I can very easily play "Insane" level maps.

5. I can assure you that many 250-300k players can play Insanes. Where am I getting my statistics? From places like: https://osu.ppy.sh/p/pp/?c=GB&m=0&s=3&o=1&f=0&page=150 . A simple review of random players' top scores show the majority of them are Insane maps. Even random 300k+'s https://osu.ppy.sh/p/pp/?c=GB&m=0&s=3&o=1&f=0&page=200 ...

Okoratu wrote:

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

Oh, I know! No idea how to word it but as an example: the Hard difficulty to be the lowest one in the set should be as easy as Oko's Normal (that actually is and works as an Advanced/a Hard): https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/450762#osu/1629268

BUT it mustn't be as hard as Reiji's Hard here: https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/666566#osu/1418862

I mean, the hard-to-read stacks not being allowed, high density and high spacings forbidden, not too many triples/streams in a row, something like that would be defined in such a kind of hard and it wouldn't hurt to add a guideline saying "you might want to keep it as simplistic in some terms as Normals" or should I say when you make a Normal it is suggested we should follow guidelines from a difficulty below the Normal, then why not using something similar for a Hard?

EDIT: In this case I REALLY think star rating would be helpful here. If a Hard has an Insane icon, you know for sure it is NOT easy enough.

kurokami 6 digits are faming Tons of low end 4 stars

i had my first 5* FC when i was 45k.....a year ago. and thats late to have that. most people i see get their first 5* FC well before 50k. some asspull it while still 6 digit now

Wutever wrote:

i had my first 5* FC when i was 45k.....a year ago. and thats late to have that. most people i see get their first 5* FC well before 50k. some asspull it while still 6 digit now

Yeah lol I fc'd shiori with some luck when I was still 110k or something

Yeah I had a 4.83* fc as my top play when I was 30k. That was over three years ago with less than 2k pp total. Most highish 6 digits will be able to play mid-4* nowadays, quite a few players between 100k and 200k are in 5*+ multi lobbies even.

Aside from that, I definitely agree with Krfawy that SR for the lowest end difficulty should be within whatever the icon for that difficulty is.

Regarding more specific guidelines, I still don't think too much is needed. Others would need to weigh in on this but imo all the spacing stuff would be covered by the SR limit usually, so what might be needed to add would be reading and stamina related things. Therefore, just taking guidelines that currently apply to normals I would propose adding to lowest diff hards I'd suggest the following - I'm basing this on the goal of making these difficulties not frustrating to play as a whole, this is again based on personal experience but if there was one part I couldn't play that never felt like much of an issue, if the entire map was out of my level it just felt bad. (personal annotations in blue)

Avoid long chains of active hit objects with 1/2 gaps. Too many consecutive clicks can be exhausting for new players. - in my experience most hard diffs of decently fast songs do this already anyway so it shouldn't be an issue, and would ensure playability

avoid switching between 1/1, 1/2 and 1/4 stacks repeatedly. This may cause reading issues for new players, since two different rhythms are visually the same. - especially if someone is already challenged by the general speed of a map, having to switch up the rhythm on visually similar patterns can be hard

In addition to that, for lowest diff Insanes:

Avoid frequent streams made of more than 5 notes. Short reversing sliders can be used in exchange for these when the song supports it. - stamina is an issue, and while a single longer stream is just a problem on that stream, having many of them can make the entire map frustrating

not the right place to suggest osu specific guidelines, a thread for that will follow.

this draft is now applied

Note: the QAT reserves the right to reevaluate if this approach made the quality of spreads that end up in the Ranked section significantly worse within the next 6 months of this being applied in case this proposal spectacularly falls flat on its face

The wiki pache is cached and can take up to 3 hours to refresh with the new information

OK so here's clarification:

- The guideline about beatmaps should have 2 difficulties was not added to the final draft, because the exhaustive reasoning required to ignore such a guideline would be "nope, i dont want to"

I forgot mentioning this on the thread, sry

If you think this should be added, please bring forth arguments and how you would evaluate such a guideline under the definition of what a guideline is

moving the thread back to RC proposals

ah, this entire "all or nothing" attitude is horrible. So the only solution you guys managed to find was to draw shitty red lines of where stuff is either "too long to have an beginner difficulty at all" or "not long enough so map a full beginner difficulty".

I'd like to repeat what I repeated on other places already, but please somebody explain me why you guys think that "all or nothing" is the only approach that you actually were able to go with?

You say "Hey, look, we get it, mapping a 5 minutes Easy is awful and boring to everybody, it's stale and uninteresting" and then you deduct "SO DON'T MAKE THEM AT ALL!" instead of "Make an Easy that has a 1 minute of drain time, that's enough!"

It doesn't make sense. Sure, for some shitty reason or another, making beatmap sets with varying drain times between difficulties is frowned upon to heavens. (I don't know why, but ok). Also there is this one rule that prohibits you to use less than 80% of the song or something. Fair enough, but why must this be adhered to in all difficulties? Why does the rule not say "If you never use more than 80% of the song in any of the difficulties, then you can't rank it, because you should cut the song, since you never use a huge chunk of the song in any of your difficulties, but if you use 80%+ of the song in at least one or two or whatever amount of difficulites and you can do whatever length on the easier ones, then be my guest".

What I am proposing instead is to keep beginner difficulties mandatory as prior the change and as we are used to it, however, allow people to map easier difficulties of shorter drain time, so they keep getting created for beginners to enjoy, but still don't make mappers vomit the same copypaste pattern into a 5 minute map, where even the untrained monkey from the basement would fall asleep at playing it.

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Difficulties lower than the hardest difficulty of a beatmapset 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. (Not applicable to difficulties below 30 seconds of drain time.)

From what I can tell this basically just wants to accomplish allowing breaks in lower difficulties, but along with that it also implies that only the top difficulty can have less than 80% of play time as drain time, which seems a bit strange.

In order to allow lower difficulties to have breaks and stuff, you could instead base the drain time used in judging spread on the top difficulty, rather than each and every difficulty individually with an 80% play time exception on all difficulties but the highest. So rather than saying "If the drain time of a beatmap is...", it would probably be better if it said "If the drain time of the highest difficulty within a beatmapset is..." (or something similar).

Nice change, less unnecessary work for mappers. Tbh, mapping deathcore or neuro on lower diffs is a pain in the ass and nobody play them (and u cant reflect the song properly due to restrictions). So yeah, im happy with this change.

I am not talking about breaks. I am talking of lower diffs to simply have a shorter total drain time, whether or not the objects are placed on the start, end or middle of the songs, with our without breaks, fragmented or as one piece somewhere in the song is some entirely different topic of detail.

BUt yes, you quoted the right rule and yes, changing it to something like that and actually tell people to just make *shorter* Normals instead of no Normals at all is an actual middle ground between people screeching "too much work to make redundant 5 minutes Normals" and "but we need beginner content on all sets".

There is no reason as of why it is strange, it was common practise years ago and I don't know what has changed so people randomly hate it other than "I want people to enjoy the full song". So right now, you rather gut out the majority of the playerbase out of your mapset when the song is too long altogether and deny them ANY experience at all instead of at least offering them a fragment of the song as game content, which makes way more sense to me, to be honest.

You obviously would keep the 80%+ rule for the highest difficulties and only allow reduced drain time for the beginner difficulties as per your length tiers in your current (and shitty) amendment of the spread rules.

Just clarifying that my post was not a response to yours, Loctav, I just happened to take a really long time before actually posting mine.

While I would agree with you that this probably isn't an ideal solution, it at least makes the step from full spread to marathon a bit smoother, allowing for more of 3 and 4 minute maps to enter the game. And although it ultimately shifts the audience of maps above the 3:30 threshold to where they are no longer beginner friendly, there is unlikely to be lack of maps entering the game that are when considering that most of songs mapped are not 3:30+ (as of this moment, anyway). Again, we'll be reviewing this later, as mentioned by Oko.

varying drain times just widens the gap in difficulty between diffs which will make spreads have to be even denser negating the entire purpose of this proposal

Trigger Me Elmo wrote:

varying drain times just widens the gap in difficulty between diffs which will make spreads have to be even denser negating the entire purpose of this proposal

excuse me, what?

You are suggesting that we require shorter lower diffs in place of not requiring them at all. However, longer difficulties are inherently harder to play, as they require better concentration, endurance, and consistent finger control - things that the players that current spread rules are meant to accommodate almost universally lack.

By only requiring shorter lower difficulties with scaling drain time length (as I understand it), the ramp up in difficulty between diffs becomes larger (If I'm missing something here, please feel free to clear up this misunderstanding without being condescending). To compensate for this, the (completely subjective) rules of "reasonable spread" will be enforced and require mappers to have a greater number of lower diffs in general. This causes the entire goal of this spread, encouraging more mappers to map and rank longer but non-marathon songs, to be completely voided. In fact, I see only detriment in that: less people will be willing to map this length of song, and it becomes so arduous to rank these sets that nobody wants to deal with it, BN or mapper.

Loctav wrote:

ah, this entire "all or nothing" attitude is horrible. So the only solution you guys managed to find was to draw shitty red lines of where stuff is either "too long to have an beginner difficulty at all" or "not long enough so map a full beginner difficulty".

I'd like to repeat what I repeated on other places already, but please somebody explain me why you guys think that "all or nothing" is the only approach that you actually were able to go with?

You say "Hey, look, we get it, mapping a 5 minutes Easy is awful and boring to everybody, it's stale and uninteresting" and then you deduct "SO DON'T MAKE THEM AT ALL!" instead of "Make an Easy that has a 1 minute of drain time, that's enough!"

It doesn't make sense. Sure, for some shitty reason or another, making beatmap sets with varying drain times between difficulties is frowned upon to heavens. (I don't know why, but ok). Also there is this one rule that prohibits you to use less than 80% of the song or something. Fair enough, but why must this be adhered to in all difficulties? Why does the rule not say "If you never use more than 80% of the song in any of the difficulties, then you can't rank it, because you should cut the song, since you never use a huge chunk of the song in any of your difficulties, but if you use 80%+ of the song in at least one or two or whatever amount of difficulites and you can do whatever length on the easier ones, then be my guest".

What I am proposing instead is to keep beginner difficulties mandatory as prior the change and as we are used to it, however, allow people to map easier difficulties of shorter drain time, so they keep getting created for beginners to enjoy, but still don't make mappers vomit the same copypaste pattern into a 5 minute map, where even the untrained monkey from the basement would fall asleep at playing it.

Just curious why you're so upset at a change that's meant to allow mappers more leeway in what they want to map and possibly have more interesting content in the ranked section? The same way you don't understand why people are so against different drain times in varying difficulties I don't understand why you're advocating so vehemently on keeping beginner diffs at all. Certain songs simply don't reflect them well, and I only see this change being a positive thing in making more interesting ranked content, not a laziness thing.

There's SO many more Easy/Normal difficulties. Like actually a metric fuckton. Literally over half of all ranked maps for standard are under 3*. That's not an exaggeration.

Let mappers rank harder stuff. If newer/lower ranked players want to have an experience at all, maybe it can be a challenge to work up to in order to play a map they want. They'd have to do that for marathons anyways and I don't see anyone complaining that their favorite Mazzerin map doesn't have a beginner diff.

I DO however like the idea of varying drain time IN ADDITION to the proposed changes to the RC. While I still think forcing beginner diffs is a bit silly, giving the mappers an option to map it or not with a lower drain time could lead to some interesting ranked mapsets in the future.

[deleted as part of purging my old post history]

loctav, how can u see this working on practice? say, you got an easy with less drain required, so you gonna ignore intro or outro? like, it completely doesnt make any sense. when you map a song, you shud cover the entire thing to make it completed as a thing, otherwise it will look like a joke to be honest.

how can you ignore some part of song and map another one? lets say its some DnB map, so all you do is map drop part without introduction? LOL its just a terrible idea to allow drain time manipulations depending on a diff name. as i can see it working in some cases like infamous 30 second CBCC or w/e when the introduction is cut and all the player does is retry till he gets the concept of the map such as patterning and the rhythm.

not to mention that we already have this in place, some people put breaks in lower diffs, nobody cares. so yeah leave it as it is now since its the most healthy change in rc for a while.

hi-mei wrote:

nobody cares. so yeah leave it as it is now since its the most healthy change in rc for a while.

Healthy? ... Try to think like a responsible adult, please... How healthy is making rules that serve for the only purpose of encouraging mappers to be lazy and ignoring the need for new content for beginners in the ranked section?

I'm all against this new change even though I don't agree with Loctav in the idea we should go back to these times where you had a 3:10 insane and a 0:50 Normal, but beginner diffs should be mandatory...
The "marathon" with one diff rule kinda made sense because they were like "boss songs" (try to think of them as if they were in a official rhythm game) even though they were a lot of them that could've easily had a full spread judging on how their rhythms allowed easy charts on them.

Also the increasing number of Marathon maps is a problem, maybe not in osu because you have a lot of BNs, but in Taiko, Catch and Mania the thing works really different... The most worrying case being the Taiko one where currently there are times when you find the QF section with 4 marathon and 2 sets.

Is it really ok for you to forget the core of games are PLAYERS? I don't want to brought some unrelated issues to this into this discussion, but this always comes on point when discussing about changes: You are ignoring what is better for players every time you make decisions as BN/QAT.

There is so much yet to say in this discussion, but the whole "give more ease to mappers" argument is not helping the community at all, if anything, nobody is asking you to rank maps. If you want to rank maps, then just put a bit more of effort and map lower diffs, isn't it simple?

Give me an example of how I should map multilayered Neuro song that cant be simplified to 1/1 rhythm on easy? or deathmetal etc?
The rule change is completely okay, nobody restricts you from mapping low diffs, go ahead if you want. But from my perspective its just a waste. The low diffs on hard songs are usually low quality because nobody cares about them, everyone knows it as a "filler diffs".

I am fully against spreads as a thing since it just kills any enthusiasm of people who puts lots of effort in their maps (I usually spend 200-300 hours on each map i make to find fitting patterns and keep the structure at the same time), and there are lots of people with the same mindset.

I got so many these 4:30 min songs that I could bring into this game but when I think about how much time it will take, I choose to better not even start mapping them.

So the only argument I see here is "b-b-but new players...." Well fuck. There are literally millions of low diffs you can evolve from. I basically got into this game by not being able to pass End Game so I started tryharding and eventually got better.

I only see this as a positive change since there will be more content in ranked, not the opposite.

LIf you think you are a good mapper then you should be able to map lower diffs on any song of w/e quality of a mapper you are. Being lazy is not a good reason to deliver an unfinished product

But overall good changes for the general public of mappers. Will destigmatise those naughty 4:55 min songs and we will finally see more attempts on those.

only thing I can see going wrong with these new rules is that there is a likelihood of there being a shortage of maps for players who are new to the game since I've noticed that many people want to map songs that are 4 minutes, so since a lot of mappers are lazy, they wouldn't make anything for new players

ARGENTINE DREAM wrote:

Healthy? ... Try to think like a responsible adult, please... How healthy is making rules that serve for the only purpose of encouraging mappers to be lazy and ignoring the need for new content for beginners in the ranked section?


Is it really ok for you to forget the core of games are PLAYERS? I don't want to brought some unrelated issues to this into this discussion, but this always comes on point when discussing about changes: You are ignoring what is better for players every time you make decisions as BN/QAT.

_DUSK_ wrote:

only thing I can see going wrong with these new rules is that there is a likelihood of there being a shortage of maps for players who are new to the game since I've noticed that many people want to map songs that are 4 minutes, so since a lot of mappers are lazy, they wouldn't make anything for new players

There are 30,000 ranked maps for osu!standard under 3*. That's over half of all ranked maps. There are also 2,500 maps above 5.5*. That's less than 5%.
There's plenty of content for new players. Higher ranked players are still players, and fundamentally make up more time spent on the game than anyone new.

Toy wrote:

There are 30,000 ranked maps for osu!standard under 3*. That's over half of all ranked maps. There are also 2,500 maps above 5.5*. That's less than 5%.
There's plenty of content for new players. Higher ranked players are still players, and fundamentally make up more time spent on the game than anyone new.

I remember someone up in the thread stating that we recommend newer players to play newer maps rather than older ones because mapping improves over time so they are usually more inuitive for players and gets them into the harder difficulties in the current meta. Ofcourse, we shouldn't hinder this proposal in favour of something like this at all as it doesn't seem like it'll affect players for now, like you said they aren't running out of maps to play any time soon, but atleast it's something to think about while developing the RC in the future.

If one day I only map an easy diff with a fast song like Road of Resistance it would be funny xD

Toy wrote:

There are 30,000 ranked maps for osu!standard under 3*. That's over half of all ranked maps. There are also 2,500 maps above 5.5*. That's less than 5%.
There's plenty of content for new players. Higher ranked players are still players, and fundamentally make up more time spent on the game than anyone new.

How are higher ranked players being affected negatively by mappers also mapping easy diffs? What. Your post doesn't really make any sense.

bossandy wrote:

If one day I only map an easy diff with a fast song like Road of Resistance it would be funny xD

Late to the party! Sorry.

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1240759

re: "How are higher ranked players being affected negatively by mappers also mapping easy diffs? What. Your post doesn't really make any sense."

Pretty much the entire point of this proposal is under the theory that there is a theoretical amount of potentially quality Insane+ diffs of songs that are at the 4:15 or 3:30 thresholds that were not ranked because of the requirement of mapping lower difficulties for them. The idea is that with the proposal, those maps can now be ranked.

TBH personally I don't really hate Loctav's suggestion but I was thinking about some of my own maps and how I would map 1:30 or whatever maps out of the full 3:30 songs and in some cases it would just end up being really weird lol

ok even more clarification because people keep flipping out:

- the current wording on the RC page is active and in effect (it's rules being made more liberal and doesnt require anything that wasnt previously the case) with a 6 month trial
- this draft was not denied or whatever, it was moved back to debate the point of having something about having two difficulties at least in a beatmap set on the Ranking Criteria

--

Naxess point is fair it's a confusing clusterfuck to read for that case
ARGENTINE DREAM: Toy's point was that hard maps on long songs oftentimes get made first and then neglected because lower difficulties are required to get them ranked
the change loctav proposes ignores the years of debate that has taken place prior to this thread becoming a thing so im not quite sure what to do with it - the suggestion doesnt seem like a middle ground between any of the previously discussed ideas or the core idea of this change

---

also for some reason the mania rc from like 2012 or whenever mania was introduced now lists that you must have 2 difficulties
which is hilarious but also conflicting information that we should clean up whichever way we go