1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Management
  4. Archive
show more

ailv wrote:

Kuron-kun wrote:

Even if they're minor gameplay changes a whole recheck is necessary and some things might be missed.
Doing a whole recheck is independant of 24 hr rule. All the 24 hr rule would serve to do in this case is have some wait 24 hr's then renominate from their phone or w/e without actually checking. A map should be good to go after being rechecked without regards to 24 hr for minor stuff.
First, it is totally not recommended to nominate a map without checking, which means it requires a check to make sure there is not anything that slept into the mapset by accident.

Second, the reason I am bringing this topic up, is because we do not know what is counted as a "minor" change, and it will be much better if we get to the same path and have a clear definition. In this case, that is why I am suggesting to only insta-requalify when there was something changed for the metadata. Either way, back in mv1, QATs were the only one who would insta-requalify, and not BNs, which is a thing that is happening too often nowadays.
I remember we got it rammed by Loctav that any gameplay-related change is disallowed from insta-qualifications by the logic you just don't qualify a beatmap as single individual.
but on mv2 both nominators are nominating again. i agree in v1 about insta qualifies but through mv2 that isn't an issue. i'll stick with my proposal that the 24 hour limit be needed only for difficulties being added or removed or completely remapped.
i'm fine with gameplay-related change requires delay before nomination, for any dq aside of 1 letter metadata incorrect or missing tags.
If the changes are small, there's no need to wait 24 hours, indeed.

However, like Gabe said, if the changes are quite important, it's better to wait 24 hours, in order to avoid more disqualifications.

In short, I agree with the first post.
Is the point of the 24h rule just to waste time or to give time for people to veto? Wasn't the original purpose of it the latter there? I mean, yeah you can say its good to give 24 hours to make sure more people check it over, but people don't actually just check bubbled maps like that. Getting it in qualified faster actually means people will look at it and find issues. If there's a change to a few sliders it's not going to cause someone to want to veto the map the map.

I don't think it's a huge deal if you have to wait 24h every time there's a gameplay related dq but I think it makes sense if you only have to wait 24 hours if there was a major issue like nao says. the nominators are still checking the maps when they nominate it, it's not like waiting 24 hours will make them somehow check it more intensely.

If a map has changes that would allow the mapper to ignore the 24 hour rule under the current rules after a map has its nomination reset, the map should be allowed to skip the 24 hour delay for requalification in my opinion.
i'm up with Gabe on this!
pretty similar opinion to hobbes and nao

24h rule should only apply after the first nomination on a set, and only apply again if major changes are made, since the point of it should be to let people post whatever issues they have with the map/veto if necessary.

In case of gameplay related things, both people that nominate to requalify should check the map again anyway, regardless of the 24h rule, and if they don't do it without the rule, they also won't do it with rule.
agree with nao+hobbes+lasse
nao's point was pretty good imo
only unrankable issues or extreme remapping/hisounding would need to wait 24 hrs
but some unrankable issues like metadata or single offscreen object etc doesnt rly need to wait imo since its just a small change and doesnt really effect the whole map/set
changing gameplay elements at all should prompt a 24h wait, saying that waiting could be void if a difficulty was remapped will just lead to debates surrounding what counts as “remapped”
whole sections? the entire diff? parts of sections? that’s just unclear

i’m sticking with gabe’s proposal on this one, much easier to understand and much easier to uphold
I think it would be better to let the QAH/QAT who has dqed a certain map or proposed certain issues for this map to decide if the change is minor enough to permit an insta-qualify
Currently we do have some conventions on that (fix metadata = can be insta-qualified etc.) but for other aspects, as people have diverse opinions on what’s a “minor” issue, so I think it would be better to just let concerned QAH/QAT to decide if an insta-qualify is possible (once they think it is/it isn’t possible, they could post in the map’s thread to clarify their reasons)
I think such solution is simpler than making a complete rules
Agree with Gabe's proposal, I think it's reasonable and will give sufficient amount of time, mainly for non BN people who may be involved in discussions or might be interested to leave more feedback.

Tho it might be better to change 'between the first and the second nomination' to 'between the disqualification and the nomination', to not give additional pressure on mapper to care more about nomination timings instead of focusing on changes made, feedback received.
Agree with Lasse, Hobbes, Nao, kwk.
Agree with Lasse, Hobbes and Nao, if its not any major changes I don't really see the point of holding back the set for 24 hours
Current rules do sort of cover this, though, at least for nominators:

BN Rules wrote:

At least 24 hours must pass between a first nomination and a qualification on every mapset, ignoring renominations for minor changes. This gives other Beatmap Nominators and also the wider community the chance to provide additional suggestions before qualification and veto the placed nomination if necessary.
The part "renominations for minor changes" only refers to nominations after the mapper made a change that caused BanchoBot to pop the map. Disqualifications and manual pops (any non-automatic response), however, are not part of this, which means nominators will always need to wait 24 hours after those, unless a member of the QAT says otherwise in the case of a disqualification (basically is about to instantly requalify the map, but can't without help of a nominator or other QAT, since modding v2 doesn't have that option).

Think of it like this: The 24 hour clock, that starts upon first nomination, is not stopped by self-pops, but are by dqs and manual pops, restarting the clock from 0.

Essentially what we were trying to do with this was mimic the way instant requalifications worked in modding v1. This way, just like in modding v1, the QAT determines whether the map is ready for nomination again and whether to instantly qualify it or leave a delay. This is done in the same way as the "renominations for minor changes" part works in the rule, except with additional guidelines more or less stating the same as what Gabe suggested above.

That means if the QAT determines the changes made to be minor according to those, they can instantly requalify, just like how a BN would determine whether the changes to a self-popped map were minor or not. Although, this is where the actual problem lies; what does "minor changes" actually mean?

Just noting that the thread looks a bit misleading with the first post and title only referring to one but not the other, as this not only applies to instant qualifications after disqualifications (which is what's brought up here), but also qualifications without a 24 h delay after a self-pop, since they both work the same, only difference being when and by who.

That being said, I do think the suggestions brought by Gabe makes sense as a way to define this, and is how we've been doing it in the past. However, things like adding a few hitsounds or resnapping a 5 ms unsnapped slider end (which are technically gameplay changes), barely affect the map, and are things we normally wouldn't even disqualify for unless they were really noticeable, so forcing a 24 hour wait time for that doesn't make a lot of sense. It could even end up being detrimental in the long run, as too small changes may not even be considered worth pursuing, especially when it comes to the regular 24 hour rule, which is part of why it was changed.

tl;dr: defining what minor changes are is kinda tricky and I'm not sure if applying arbitrary rules on top of it to create a cut-off will actually be beneficial in this case. Having this as guidelines and keeping it case by case seems to make the most sense, at least from how I see it.
hitsounds, timing points, settings

i disagree with these ones needing 24 hour delay.

sometimes mapper requests dq for something like 'missing clap, etc' those minimal hitsound changes should not require u to wait another 24 hours.

if there was a massive hitsounding overhaul, then it should obviously require 24h

timing points, yes if its related to red lines and timing actually changes
green lines:
-SV obviously require 24h cuz that would change objects too
-volume depends on how big the change i imo, but most cases should not require 24h rule
-sampleset, refer to hitsounding above, if there were significant changes in hitsounding, then yeah.

settings was something i've never seen before, but if it was to fix some obvious mistake (like od10 on a normal diff) then it shouldn't require 24h

i would say in most cases this would be a "no" because i don't think there would ever be such cases of a massive diff settings overhaul, and plus there are guidelines for this anyways.
I have an idea.

Maps are disqualified when a user makes a complaint against the map. That user is the one who is the most likely to want time to check for any changes. Why not let that user decide if this a major or minor change?

One extra rule for submitting DQ requests would be to say if this is a major issue or a minor issue. If the user does not label this as major or minor, it would default to minor since the user did not care enough to mention.

This would keep common sense changes like one missing hitsounds from being heavily penalized while still having a good definition of when to apply a 24 hour wait period.

Otherwise, I think the current rules outlined by Naxess make sense and would like to stick to those rules.
Agreeing with Naxess' post above, it's really hard to draw a line what's being minor and what's not so keeping the way it is right now seems to be the best option at least to me.
Quickly looking at what everyone said, I believe, as an alternative, the disqualifier could be the one to judge if it is minor or not? Which means they will only be the one to make an "insta-qualify" without any confusions?

What do you think of this?
show more
Please sign in to reply.