1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments
show more
posted


Curious if people think this is rankable or not. I showed it to a few QAT's and the majority said it was questionable but not unrankable, and its actually rather clear where you're supposed to go, you just have to think a bit. Well, this one's a bit easy.



This one might be trickier but should still be obvious with a bit of elimination, and operating under the assumption that one does not go back on itself unnecessarily. (ie, it's not logical to go directly to the slider-end, and then go back to play top and bottom sections)
posted
whole burai thing highly depends on slider lenght and sv, really short ones wont be a problem even today, but longer ones can be, so as i stated it's a bit too soon for those immo (at least not for a baby ones) because judging playability of burais highly depends on person's opinion about how fast slider should be to be readable. No offence but i dont think there is a lot of people who can do this good enough to please at minimum half of the community. Hope to be mistaken thought
posted
Giving more stuff to mappers when they can barely manage to make things with what they already have smh

Well, jokes aside, the whole burai concept is too subjective to make it a guideline imo. People will argue whether one of those is good or not (and we know how it usually ends).

I'd rather have a special category for maps implementing this stuff (you know, maybe making "approval" maps worth something).
Saying this I'm also accounting for the fact mappers WILL do some sort of shit and people will complain.
If you make a whole section for all of them people will know what they are going into at their own risk.
posted

Hobbes2 wrote:

you can say this about any rule change ever, so..
That was exactly what I meant with my post lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted
people already argue about just what circle placements are good or not, should we just make circles illegal too

saying "some integrations might be bad, so we should ban all of them" is a very flawed argument. if there are good integrations, those should not be banned
posted
Circles placement and burais are slightly different things though. Second one is supposed be to hard to read edgy thing, while circles are in general standard object which you can put in a missleading way, but it doesnt makes it missleading by nature. So point is if you would make already screwed stuff even more screwed it would end with babyraging people. Just to be clear, personally im up to whatever shit if it fits well, so i wouldnt mind, but my opinion is far from being defining, so i have to be reasonable. Lazer when
As for integrations, if ut would be possible to make clear which burai slider can be considered acceptable and which is not i'll be the first saying my yes, i just dont see it coming
posted
gut response here is no, followed by no followed again by NO

monstrata's cited examples don't look that bad upon a cursory appraisal of more than a few seconds, but when faced with that kind of pattern or placement in an actual track, it essentially almost forces an automatic drop in a large percentage of people

slider paths need to be clear and not ambiguous because ambiguous ones are absolutely awful to play almost universally. at least from my perspective anyway

i could see some relaxation of this rule with concessions given to readability and concept (also similar to what monstrata expressed), but i'm not sure i trust mappers enough to do this properly at the moment generally speaking
posted

Ephemeral wrote:

gut response here is no, followed by no followed again by NO

monstrata's cited examples don't look that bad upon a cursory appraisal of more than a few seconds, but when faced with that kind of pattern or placement in an actual track, it essentially almost forces an automatic drop in a large percentage of people

slider paths need to be clear and not ambiguous because ambiguous ones are absolutely awful to play almost universally. at least from my perspective anyway

i could see some relaxation of this rule with concessions given to readability and concept (also similar to what monstrata expressed), but i'm not sure i trust mappers enough to do this properly at the moment generally speaking
If they're only allowed for the higher difficulties, then the fact that you have to look at them for a bit to process them isn't a problem. There are already patterns today that could be intentionally misleading (such as a loop) which just gets removed during the modding process, so players expect that sliders will follow their natural pathing (how else would you read something like notch hell? You could technically make sliders go in all kinds of directions without actually making a burai slider, but we do accept the most logical path. For burai's to be allowed all they have to do is to be unambiguous, which can be achieved in the same way we keep complex sliders unambiguous; to require them to follow whatever is the logical path.

I wrote a thingamathing a few years ago about burai sliders that kinda just got lost to time (t/369339), but I still stand by that any burai slider that does not cross itself more than once on the same spot are fine and completely readable by any player who's at a high enough level, given enough time to get used to the concept of burai sliders in general .
posted
is every burai slider under this rule rankable? or does it still need the opinion of others to be considered as rankable cause both these options seem bad.
if you leave it up to the bn iconing to decide if a slider is rankable then itll just lead to way more discussions and controversial maps being popped.

you need an objective way to judge them being fair, and ofcourse there will be doable cases that will be judged as unrankable with this rule, but I'd rather have that than drama on tons of maps cause of it all being subjective
posted
YES

PLEASE
posted
this is good
posted
as long as sliders are forbidden from going back on themselves more than one time in the same section they usually end up readable. The position of the sliderend also matters, if it's inside of the part that is overlapping it can create situations where the slider could also just overlap itself just once

i was thinking about proposing this but couldnt think of a wording that was not batshit abusable.

@UC: When making threads, please propose concrete alternatives. Pointing at something and saying "it shouldnt be X" and not stating what it should be just leaves everyone else to figure this out on their own all the time and that's annoying - i mean you want a change to begin with >_>

refer to t/720532/start=0 for more information and please adjust your opening post accordingly
posted
So first you would want to define what non gamp lay inhibiting burai sliders are because you can clearly create something bonkers with burai mechanics which no one would be able to read (similar to obstructing reverse arrows with other objects).
You dont want to remove the rule you want to allow easially identifiable movement in sliders to be allowed.

I think we can trust palyers at an Extreme level to be able to identify visual cue' s on sliders to decipher their slider path. But what i am concerned with is if you take it too far and the reasoning becomes "it doesnt break the rules so its fine because its my style". Dont alienate players for the sake of being the sick mapper dude who does cool wierd slider in the editor. If you think that wont happen or get through into ranking ever then there is no reason to remove the rule in the first place because experienced mappers are already ranking these type of sliders as you have stated yourself.

Bottom line is making it a Guideline but that wouldnt change anything.
I would propose we wait for osu!lazor cause god knows how it will end up with all the twist and turns it has taken so far
posted
I think it's better to wait to lazer.

Actually the game have a section for that kind of maps: Loved.

I agree that there are ways to do burai slider readable, but are they really fun?, I think not, and because it is not obvious how to deal with burais in a nice way, I don't see why allow this (except for people that love long discussions about subjective things).
posted
something that should or shouldnt be rankable shouldnt be dependent on what u personally think is fun


heres a problem that comes from letting literally any burai sliders rankable



let me know how u read this (ur gunna read it wrong and i doubt its readable on osu!lazer either)

https://puu.sh/Akfc1/9459b9fe83.osz slider diff 03:54:021 -

it needs to be more clear as to what burai sliders are actually rankable
posted

VINXIS wrote:

something that should or shouldnt be rankable shouldnt be dependent on what u personally think is fun


heres a problem that comes from letting literally any burai sliders rankable



let me know how u read this (ur gunna read it wrong and i doubt its readable on osu!lazer either)

https://puu.sh/Akfc1/9459b9fe83.osz slider diff 03:54:021 -

it needs to be more clear as to what burai sliders are actually rankable
Only the red arrows are unreadable if you follow what would be the logical path of the slider (similarly to how loops are treated)


If you're crisscrossing it, it's about as readable as allowing loops to not be actual loops, or doing weird pathing to notch hell sliders rather than what would look like the obvious path.

Since I guess no one really read the thing I linked (t/369339) I'll just copy what I proposed back then again since people seem to want some kind of definition for what would be okay and what wouldn't.

A slider should not be ambiguous. The sliderball can not travel across the same path more than 2 times in a row, and no slider head and tail can be on the same place. There can be no closed shapes if a slider has any burai segments or overlapping red points.
You can click on the link to read why I think it's appropriate, although it might be too simple in definition and might rule out things that would still be readable.
posted
This thread seems to be about the same thing i was proposing like a week ago here.

I think the issue is simply about perfectly overlaping ends and red anchors.
posted
before you guys say no I think you should look at a recently ranked map with burai sliders here: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/694402

Myxomatosis wrote:

This is kind of a loop hole in the RC though that needs to be fixed (the wording of the current rule is ambiguous).
Strange to see members of the QAT struggling with the current rule and even letting what we do consider burai sliders through the ranking system.

So no, we should not wait until lazer to talk about this when these maps are getting ranked right now

__

for the record I think it should move into guidelines to be some amount more lenient so maps like the one linked above are totally okay and we can have a discussion about burai's on map threads like we are having in this one

also the whole "this is what loved is for" thing , , BNs can't nominate maps into loved so not really, its just for popular maps rn like some cool maps and then other shitty maps where mapper doesn't want to improve so they push it for loved by guilting people into favoriting etc
posted
There are a few other "loopholes" in the RC, but I think this one makes sense... The RC technically allows burai's as long as they are not "unreadable or ambiguous". The rule lists "burais" as an example of an unrankable issue, but only when they do not have "straightforward slider borders".

(Grammatically, "straightforward slider borders" modifies both "burais" and "hold sliders" so you should read it this way, not "burais (all) and hold sliders (but only when they don't have straightforward slider borders).)

Burai's with predictable slider paths have already seen use in the ranked section, but they are currently being used in very rare instances.

Some examples like:

It is not a stretch to extend some of these elements and create small bumps and grooves that are potentially burais but play well. Furthermore, using angle shifts would make the slider explicitly rankable as it is now mathematically not going over itself no matter how close to a burai it may appear.

Example of ranked sliders:

This is not a burai as the slider never actually goes back on itself due to angle change:


Similarly, sliders like this don't break the rule for burai's either because the slider never actually goes back on itself and doesn't qualify as burai to begin with.


People are pushing the boundaries of slider creation in part because the "tech map" meta is evolving to include more creative and unique slider patterns. That's one of the recent characteristic changes in "wub" or "experimental" mapping etc... Whether this rule is changed or not, there are already a lot sliders that technically do not break the rule to begin with.
posted

Monstrata wrote:

There are a few other "loopholes" in the RC, but I think this one makes sense... The RC technically allows burai's as long as they are not "unreadable or ambiguous". The rule lists "burais" as an example of an unrankable issue, but only when they do not have "straightforward slider borders".

(Grammatically, "straightforward slider borders" modifies both "burais" and "hold sliders" so you should read it this way, not "burais (all) and hold sliders (but only when they don't have straightforward slider borders).)

Burai's with predictable slider paths have already seen use in the ranked section, but they are currently being used in very rare instances.
I'm a native English speaker and this doens't make sense to me :(
can you reword things to make more sense
show more
Please sign in to reply.