hello,

over the time i’ve been a beatmap nominator and a quality assurance helper, i have seen one issue arise more than any other in my vetoes and in other’s vetoes and DQ mods: the lack of versatility in the Ranking Criteria regarding break times. since the RC was written under the assumption of a song timed in 180 BPM, the guidelines established per difficulty are up to the mapper’s discretion when given a song marginally lower or marginally higher than 180. while the basic understanding of higher bpms require more breaks and lower bpms can live with less breaks, i think there is still a severe gray area regarding the break times in higher and lower BPMs.


with that said, i believe the following should be amended in the taiko ranking criteria (Underlined portions are added):


Kantan (Guidelines):

1. You should insert at least 1 rest moment that is 3/1 or longer after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140. Less frequent rest moments or shorter ones may put too much strain on beginners.
2. As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 2/1 or 3/2 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give beginner players ample and frequent time to avoid strain.
3. Use a base slider velocity of 1.2x in a BPM higher than 220. This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.

Futsuu (Guidelines):

1. You should insert at least 1 rest moment that is 2/1 or longer after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140. Less frequent rest moments or shorter ones may put too much strain on beginners.

If you plan on using a Futsuu as the lowest difficulty of a mapset, it has to abide by the following guidelines:

1. 1/2 patterns should not be longer than five notes. (Note: While this amendment has no direct correlation to the gray area I discussed earlier, using 4 notes as a cap implies the song has a syncopated beat-and that is not always the case).
2. Use a base slider velocity of 1.2x in a BPM higher than 220. This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.

Muzukashii (Guidelines):

1. You should insert at least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140. Less frequent rest moments or shorter ones may put too much strain on intermediate players.
2. As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 1/1 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give intermediate players ample time to avoid strain.

Oni (Guidelines):

1. You should insert at least 1 rest moment which is 1/1 or longer after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140. Longer periods of continuous mapping may put too much strain on players of this difficulty level and shorter rest moments would count as continuous mapping.

rationale:

1. in moderate bpm (~140), i decided that the best course of action to edit the current guideline would be to double the amount of time mappers have to insert a proper break moment that follows the song. musical ideas are usually represented in 4 bar phrases, so increasing the current guideline by only a matter of 2 or 3 bars wouldn't be ample enough to insert a proper break that didn't sound forced.
2. as for the addition of the new break time guideline, i wrote this with the idea that, essentially, two 1/1 breaks in an 8/1 phrase is equal to one 2/1 break every 16/1 phrase. breaks as frequent as that, as many maps and players have shown, do not cause any sort of strain on the target audience. since that was the point of the current guideline, i feel that the new one also accomplishes just that.
3. i also think with there being two proposed options, the gray area i talked about will shrink tremendously, and will give mappers more room to execute more creative ideas.

feel free to discuss these proposed additions
shoutout to nepuri for helping me a little bit <3

i guess you had enough of me explaining why 1/1 breaks are enough to compensate for the lack of 2/1 or 3/2 spam in a muzukashii. lol

lole

I agree, current guidelines about breaks are not good enough, your proposal is cool but I think you should handle it by measuring time in miliseconds, just take a look at the new osu!catch ranking criteria to have an example of what I'm talking about. o/

So k_hand:

I disagree on something. Specifically the high BPM part. Because while making a spread the general idea above 240 BPM is to reduce snappings themselves; as in 1/1 maximum snap in Futsuu and 1/2 maximum snap in Muzukashii instead of 1/2 and 1/4 respectively. Above that, increasing break amount by decreasing continuous mapping is not a good idea at all, because it will make the map A LOT easier compared to lower BPMs. So keeping the amount of continuous mapping as 16/1 and 20/1 is a better idea to represent the hardship of the high BPM.

Another opinion about having a 1/1 break on every 8/1, personally, I find it logical but when you put that out in the gameplay, giving a 2/1 break indicates more relaxation. You can think like this: On an Inner Oni, no 1/1 gaps whatsoever but frequent 1/2 breaks. It's almost as straining as having a 1/4 plain stream. So, even though in math they seem equal, their effect on the player is not. So my opinion is to keep old rules and counting 1/1 breaks as continuous mapping instead of adding them up.

I support the idea of the proposal. Having more guidelines with respect to different range of BPMs is great for beginner mappers, and modders as well, especially the lines regarding high BPM. It is, however, essential to have more opinion flowing through the exact numbers that will be using.
I personally feel positive about the proposed values above-mentioned

Guidelines

Ya meant rules, roight? Given the fact it's heavily enforced for a guideline :^)


On-topic:
New break proposals:
I don't think there's got to be so much of a reason in precising scalings for breaks - the current RC clearly state that they are using a base BPM of 180. Everything scales for higher or lower BPM, no matter what, and hardsetting more values will just cause maps to be closer to have very similar structures.

Splitting breaks in half-values however is a good idea for some mappers usually use 7+1 beats for the basic skeleton - forcing a 2/1 break after two occurences of this just breaks the structure overall.

Lower SV on high BPM:
Just go along with "Use a lower base slider velocity in higher BPMs" - same argument, too many hardset values and you're restricting. Of course these values have to be reasonable, to avoid garbage like SV 0.4 on 186 BPM.

However, this guideline shouldn't be so much of an issue given how many players play 16:9. Sure, it would have been a guideline back in the olden 4:3 days, but players usually play on 16:9 nowadays so 220 BPM still gives plenty of time for a player to react.

Case in point, using 1/4 timing signature and 1.4 base SV - you notice that there are roughly 3.5 beats to see ahead of the receptor, which at 220 BPM is nearly a full second ahead. I think this needs more debate.

Futsuu base and 5 max notes
why was it 4 anyway

I agree with everything except the Futsuu part. I don't think players of this difficulty level should have to play at x1.2 SV. I still remember not having any problems reading with faster maps when I was at that level, so although it might just be me and some others, I think Futsuu should be played at x1.4

frukoyurdakul wrote:

I disagree on something. Specifically the high BPM part. Because while making a spread the general idea above 240 BPM is to reduce snappings themselves; as in 1/1 maximum snap in Futsuu and 1/2 maximum snap in Muzukashii instead of 1/2 and 1/4 respectively. Above that, increasing break amount by decreasing continuous mapping is not a good idea at all, because it will make the map A LOT easier compared to lower BPMs. So keeping the amount of continuous mapping as 16/1 and 20/1 is a better idea to represent the hardship of the high BPM.

Another opinion about having a 1/1 break on every 8/1, personally, I find it logical but when you put that out in the gameplay, giving a 2/1 break indicates more relaxation. You can think like this: On an Inner Oni, no 1/1 gaps whatsoever but frequent 1/2 breaks. It's almost as straining as having a 1/4 plain stream. So, even though in math they seem equal, their effect on the player is not. So my opinion is to keep old rules and counting 1/1 breaks as continuous mapping instead of adding them up.

i don't think it'll make them a "LOT" easier than lower bpms, since if you have a song in 240 and you played a song in 120, the time that passes in between notes is literally cut in half, but since those are perfect numbers to work with you do have some validity in this point. i do think in faster bpms, there should be more frequent break times specifically in the lower difficulties, maybe not the higher diffs, so maybe setting the guideline to say 12/1 or 16/1 is a good way to compromise there? i think 3-4 measures is enough as oppose to 2-3, 3 measures for REALLY high bpms and 4 measures as per usual for somewhat high ones

as for what you said about the new guideline, i held the same philosophy until i started working in the qah and saw a lot of maps with the same idea of "a lot of 1/1 breaks compensate for a lack of 3/2 or 2/1 breaks." to be honest, even then, i usually would think that it's just an excuse to avoid a veto or a DQ to fix the issue, it was fairly often that a player of that respected skill level would comment smth along the lines of "i didn't find this to be straining or difficult at all," so i started to kind of change my opinion on that.

Gezoda wrote:

On-topic:
New break proposals:
I don't think there's got to be so much of a reason in precising scalings for breaks - the current RC clearly state that they are using a base BPM of 180. Everything scales for higher or lower BPM, no matter what, and hardsetting more values will just cause maps to be closer to have very similar structures.

Splitting breaks in half-values however is a good idea for some mappers usually use 7+1 beats for the basic skeleton - forcing a 2/1 break after two occurences of this just breaks the structure overall.

Lower SV on high BPM:
Just go along with "Use a lower base slider velocity in higher BPMs" - same argument, too many hardset values and you're restricting. Of course these values have to be reasonable, to avoid garbage like SV 0.4 on 186 BPM.

However, this guideline shouldn't be so much of an issue given how many players play 16:9. Sure, it would have been a guideline back in the olden 4:3 days, but players usually play on 16:9 nowadays so 220 BPM still gives plenty of time for a player to react.

Case in point, using 1/4 timing signature and 1.4 base SV - you notice that there are roughly 3.5 beats to see ahead of the receptor, which at 220 BPM is nearly a full second ahead. I think this needs more debate.

i have to disagree with your first point-hardsetting more values won't necessarily cause map structures to be universally similar since every song is radically different and many people, especially when gds are on the set, execute breaks in a different way respective to the song. while i do agree big time that everything scales according to the rc's 180bpm, as i've seen time and time again, people don't take that scaling into account, which is the main reason for this proposal

about your lower SV comment, i think i can agree with the wordking "lower" instead of specifically 1.2x. that's personally just the value i see most often to compensate for higher bpms. and since you also have a good point about the 16:9 ratio (some people do play 4:3 still tho), perhaps increasing the guideline to 240 as oppose to 220 would be better then? because while in my opinion 220 is the point at which notes are coming faster than a beginner player is used to, i remember having trouble reading 240 when i was just a regular oni player, so, i get it

edit: one of the goals here is to hopefully enforce these as guidelines, not semi-rules, and i think by giving people two options to choose from by defining them clearly apart from each other will help that. that guideline logic as well, SHOULD give some leniency regarding the "This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140" part. i wrote that with a guideline mindset in mind, not a rule one.

thanks for y'alls feedback

after some discussion with gezo in discord, we came up with some edits n stuff:

General (Rules)

1. Use a lower base slider velocity for the Kantan and Futsuu in sets timed in a BPM faster than 300. You may apply a similar slider velocity to the Muzukashii and Oni if necessary.

anytime "Use a base slider velocity of 1.2x in a BPM higher than 220. This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs." this guideline appears, we decided to make the guideline a little bit more lenient and versatile by changing it to the following:

1. Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240.This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.

hopefully that helps some things out

edit: as per discussion with fruko, i've edited the guidelines for the already existing break times:

anytime "This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140." this shows up, i've instead changed the higher bpm's limits to be 12/1 to 16/1-so edited, it appears as this:

1. You should insert at least 1 rest moment that is 3/1 or longer after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. This can be adjusted to 12/1 or 16/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140. Less frequent rest moments or shorter ones may put too much strain on beginners.

The scaling thing about rest moments being like typed out doesnt seem to make sense, it doesn't add anything. That's what it's supposed to state right now in the current criteria and is what gezo was saying - the breaks scale depending on tempo, writing out more values doesn't add information it's not written out to avoid running into this "oh my god there's 1500 hard set values in the RC that we have to follow now"

Okoratu wrote:

The scaling thing about rest moments being like typed out doesnt seem to make sense, it doesn't add anything. That's what it's supposed to state right now in the current criteria and is what gezo was saying - the breaks scale depending on tempo, writing out more values doesn't add information it's not written out to avoid running into this "oh my god there's 1500 hard set values in the RC that we have to follow now"

okay, but once again i bring up that the biggest motivation for this proposal is the fact that most people don’t really have any idea of how things scale when higher or lower than 180

that aside, assuming that those specifications were removed, would the new guideline be sufficient enough to accomplish the same sort of idea?

I kinda agree with Gezo and Okotaru here, if anything setting more values would lower the "freedom" part of guidelines. The prob here is more about those who apply guidelines as if they were rules without considering the song's settings.

"Rhythm related guidelines and rules apply to approximately 180 BPM maps. If your song is drastically faster or slower, some variables might be different. Apply reasonable judgment in these cases."
This means common sense should be used for bpms that are higher or lower than 180. BNs and QATs exist to prevent the ranking system from being defined by values that can't cover all situations because of subjectivity. Thought from my personnal experience some members of these groups (Nardoxyribonucleic and Aloda, if not more) have a pretty mysterious way of "applying reasonable judgment in these cases".



What i understand from this is that it would be perfectly normal to apply the current values of guidelines for a very high bpm song even thought those guidelines were designed for songs around 180bpm. If i understood this correctly that is.

okay, so since most of you have come to the consensus that adding more specific guidelines isn't a great idea, let's just remove those additions from the time being, although the question still remains on how to give mappers a proper idea on how to scale breaks according to much higher or much lower bpms, since that knowledge seems to be lost in general

gezo also said this however:

Gezoda wrote:

Splitting breaks in half-values however is a good idea for some mappers usually use 7+1 beats for the basic skeleton - forcing a 2/1 break after two occurences of this just breaks the structure overall.

is this something we can all agree on?

"Splitting breaks in half-values" sounds alright, thought it actually ignores one of the main issue we keep hearing about which is "continuous mapping". Isn't having more shorter breaks instead of less longer breaks like having no breaks at all for our current standards? It would be interesting to get more opinions from those who directly apply that mindset, as-in BNs and QATs. Afaik only 2 BNs answered here.

"by current standards" yes, you'd be right, by current standards that idea would be correct-but current standards aren't doing a good job of actually understanding what can be understood as straining for certain players of respective difficulties and instead just throw a guideline as a blanket for what is understood as straining

edit: continuous mapping as defined by the rc is any break shorter than 1/1, which is why that guideline or any variation of it was not applied to the oni

let me just clear up what's been changed up to this point:

1. the addition of the following proposed rule in the general section:
   Use a lower base slider velocity for the Kantan and Futsuu in sets timed in a BPM faster than 300. You may apply a similar slider velocity to the Muzukashii and Oni if necessary.
2. the revision of the 1.2x sv proposed guideline in kantan and futsuu to state the following:
   Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240.This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.
3. the removal of the following phrase from any proposed guideline:
   This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140.
   
   new/possible ideas:
4. since the biggest problem is the mapper's awareness that the guidelines are set in a 180bpm environment, it may be a good idea to end something along the lines of "Be sure to adjust these values in a BPM much higher or lower than 180." to the end of the break time guidelines. it may be redundant, but at least it is explicitly stated at the end of each guideline, hopefully avoiding the "i didn't know" excuse
5. addition of a similar alternative break time guideline to the futsuu? i personally don't think it's necessary since finding a 2/1 break is normally very easy, but it does seem a bit weird to offer an alternative for k/m but not futsuu. perhaps using the same structure but "two (or three) 3/2 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping" may be a good idea?

edit: removed one of the edits bc i think i was thinking about it wrong, sorry ab that

seconding the new edit and the two ideas
i'll take a closer look at everything later

I agree with the edits although to say:

The Rule about lower base SV in kantans and futsuus should have added: "Or equivalent adjustment via inherited timing points".

Newer mappers should not face a wall like this when people come to them in their kantans saying "screw you make this 1.2 or ill punch you", some should be able to do it with green lines if they want to, people might find that easier to manage.

I don't really have a clear opinion about the matter tbh, but I'd say the only time the rule is kinda wacky to follow is when the song isn't composed in 4/4 because that ends up making the breaks feel weird on their placements most the time
As for the using a "second ruleset" as you stated (like, instead of doing a 3/2 rest in muzu, doing continuous 1/1 for a while) I think is nice to limit at which point we can appeal to the "guideline" nature of these rules.

I will agree with lower SV, that's what I've done in the past anyway lol

definitely agree with those new substitutes for break times, as a newish taiko mapper i don't particularly have the reflexes to constantly check for breaks, so this helps out a ton.

also, since i'm only able to play up to muzu diffs at the moment, i find most of them to be really sparse and it doesn't really help with transitioning to oni diffs, so hopefully this'll lead to harder muzukashiis

Nepuri wrote:

I agree with the edits although to say:

The Rule about lower base SV in kantans and futsuus should have added: "Or equivalent adjustment via inherited timing points".

Newer mappers should not face a wall like this when people come to them in their kantans saying "screw you make this 1.2 or ill punch you", some should be able to do it with green lines if they want to, people might find that easier to manage.

i think that's a fair addition, though i'm reluctant to add it since newer mappers most likely would think using a greenline to change the sv of the entire diff would be a little bit too complicated (bc imo it is harder than just lowering the value in the timing section lol)

but a fair point nonetheless

-Kazu- wrote:

I don't really have a clear opinion about the matter tbh, but I'd say the only time the rule is kinda wacky to follow is when the song isn't composed in 4/4 because that ends up making the breaks feel weird on their placements most the time
As for the using a "second ruleset" as you stated (like, instead of doing a 3/2 rest in muzu, doing continuous 1/1 for a while) I think is nice to limit at which point we can appeal to the "guideline" nature of these rules.

another good point, but seeing as though the current criteria is set revolving a song in 4/4 (3/4 doesn't divide into 16 or 20, and 5/4 doesn't divide into 16), for 3/4 songs, as an EXAMPLE, it could be changed to 9/1 instead of 8/1 since 1 beat isn't too much extra.

Please do not forget that your proposal directly affects the current guideline:

The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.

Please deal with this in your proposal. Thank you c:

Also, can you unnest the lists? its very disorientating to read. The comments at the end seem like they are part of the proposal, but the language used wouldn't be acceptable.

tatatat wrote:

Please do not forget that your proposal directly affects the current guideline:

The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.

Please deal with this in your proposal. Thank you c:

Also, can you unnest the lists? its very disorientating to read. The comments at the end seem like they are part of the proposal, but the language used wouldn't be acceptable.

the guideline in question should simply be edited to say:
The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.

good thing to bring up, editing it a tiny bit will keep all the proposed sv guidelines coherent.

and uh no the separations are clearly divised by bolded headers, i'm not unnesting the lists lmao

incandescence wrote:

tatatat wrote:

Please do not forget that your proposal directly affects the current guideline:

The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.

Please deal with this in your proposal. Thank you c:

Also, can you unnest the lists? its very disorientating to read. The comments at the end seem like they are part of the proposal, but the language used wouldn't be acceptable.

the guideline in question should simply be edited to say:
The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.

good thing to bring up, editing it a tiny bit will keep all the proposed sv guidelines coherent.

and uh no the separations are clearly divised by bolded headers, i'm not unnesting the lists lmao

Can you include that change to the guideline in your main post? Thank you c:

(also why are they nested in the first place. its ugly)

since discussion has come to a halt for now, i'll restate all changes that have been discussed:

1. the addition of a new guideline for break times in the kantan and muzukashii that states the following:
   
   As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 2/1 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give beginner players ample and frequent time to avoid strain. (Kantan)
   
   As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 1/1 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give intermediate players ample and frequent time to avoid strain. (Muzukashii)
2. the revision of the of the 1.4x base sv guideline in the general section to state the following:
   The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.
3. the addition of the following proposed rule in the general section:
   Use a lower base slider velocity in the Kantan and Futsuu for sets in a BPM equal to or higher than 300. You may apply a similar slider velocity to the Muzukashii and Oni if necessary.
4. the revision of the 1.2x sv proposed guideline in kantan and futsuu to state the following:
   Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240. This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.
5. the removal of the following phrase from any proposed guideline:
   This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140.
6. the revision of the futsuu guideline not allowing more than 4 notes when the futsuu is the easiest difficulty to state the following:
   1/2 patterns should not be longer than five notes.

along with those discussed edits, the following ideas have yet to be discussed thoroughly:

1. addition of a similar break time alternative to the futsuu, since one is not present in the current proposal
2. reiterating that the guidelines are set with a 180bpm song in mind to the end of each break time guideline as oppose to just once throughout the entire RC to eliminate the "i didn't know" excuse
3. revision of the lower base SV in kantans and futsuus to state that an equivalent adjustment using inherited timing points is allowed as oppose to changing the base SV of the difficulty.

for an easier to read, less cluttered version of the current already discussed edits, feel free to check out the google doc: click here

thank you all

incandescence wrote:

since discussion has come to a halt for now, i'll restate all changes that have been discussed:

1. the addition of a new guideline for break times in the kantan and muzukashii that states the following:
   
   As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 2/1 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give beginner players ample and frequent time to avoid strain. (Kantan)
   
   As a substitute for the above guideline, you may insert no less than two 1/1 breaks after no longer than 8/1 of continuous mapping in a BPM equal to or lower than 180. This should give intermediate players ample and frequent time to avoid strain. (Muzukashii)
   
2. the revision of the of the 1.4x base sv guideline in the general section to state the following:
   The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM. This is to ensure optimal quantity of notes on the playfield, as well as the optimal distance of separation between different notes.
   
3. the addition of the following proposed rule in the general section:
   Use a lower base slider velocity in the Kantan and Futsuu for sets in a BPM equal to or higher than 300. You may apply a similar slider velocity to the Muzukashii and Oni if necessary.
   
4. the revision of the 1.2x sv proposed guideline in kantan and futsuu to state the following:
   Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240. This is simply to ensure the readability of notes for beginners at higher BPMs.
   
5. the removal of the following phrase from any proposed guideline:
   This can be adjusted to 8/1 or 12/1 in a BPM higher than 240, or 32/1 or 36/1 in a BPM lower than 140.
   
6. the revision of the futsuu guideline not allowing more than 4 notes when the futsuu is the easiest difficulty to state the following:
   1/2 patterns should not be longer than five notes.

along with those discussed edits, the following ideas have yet to be discussed thoroughly:

1. addition of a similar break time alternative to the futsuu, since one is not present in the current proposal
   
2. reiterating that the guidelines are set with a 180bpm song in mind to the end of each break time guideline as oppose to just once throughout the entire RC to eliminate the "i didn't know" excuse
   
3. revision of the lower base SV in kantans and futsuus to state that an equivalent adjustment using inherited timing points is allowed as oppose to changing the base SV of the difficulty.

for an easier to read, less cluttered version of the current already discussed edits, feel free to check out the google doc: click here

thank you all

Mister tacoman, your suggested guidelines for slider velocity leave a blindspot at 240 bpm. "The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM." "Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240." neither one of these suggested guidelines have a "or equal to" one of them should be greater than or equal to/less than or equal to.


Also I think it would be a good idea to somehow combine "The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM." and "Use a lower base slider velocity in the Kantan and Futsuu for sets in a BPM equal to or higher than 300."


Also probably my final suggestion, can you please make it more immediately clear what are rules and guidelines? Perhaps with rule and guideline headings? I believe it'll make discussion easier.

tatatat wrote:

Mister tacoman, your suggested guidelines for slider velocity leave a blindspot at 240 bpm. "The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM." "Use a lower base slider velocity in a BPM higher than 240." neither one of these suggested guidelines have a "or equal to" one of them should be greater than or equal to/less than or equal to.


Also I think it would be a good idea to somehow combine "The base slider velocity should be 1.40 throughout all difficulties of a mapset timed slower than 240 BPM." and "Use a lower base slider velocity in the Kantan and Futsuu for sets in a BPM equal to or higher than 300."


Also probably my final suggestion, can you please make it more immediately clear what are rules and guidelines? Perhaps with rule and guideline headings? I believe it'll make discussion easier.

1st thing: okay, that can easily be edited, but adding that phrase makes things just a little bit more "wordy," and i'm trying to keep most things as simple as possible

2nd thing: yeah, but that'd be one long guideline

3rd: if you're discussing an RC proposal, you should already know what the two is-if this proposal goes as far as to need a final draft, or anything as such that will be published , then the definitions will be added

why is the break guideline for muzukashii so stupidly restrictive? 16/1 is... nothing. Gonna ignore 20/1 cause 5 bars of song is just w/e anyway. Muzukashiis are basically the starting point for maps to slowly being able to follow the music, the melody better, by allowing more consistent usage of 1/4. Not a lot of it, but more than Futsuu. And forcing a break after 16/1 of mapping is just restricting this so much, and the fact you can go for MUCH longer with MUCH shorter breaks in Oni is ridiculous - the jump from Futsuu (2/1 break after 16/1 of mapping) to Muzukashii (3/2 break after 16/1 of mapping - which in a lot of cases also sounds bad so it's not even a change in reality) is small. Is there any reason why a single section of a song - which is normally 32/1 - can't be mapped with 1/1 in Muzukashii when breaks before and afterwards are given?




And yes I'm salty

at one point in the draft it used to be 32/1

and then it wasnt and i forgot why

also the described 3/2 is very close to 1/1, so if a map uses predominantly 1/1 that should be able to compensate the absence of rest moments in comparison to more 1/2 heavy maps for any given section

re: oni - 1/1 is considered a rest there so oni suddenly are full of breaks usually

Okoratu wrote:

at one point in the draft it used to be 32/1

and then it wasnt and i forgot why

also the described 3/2 is very close to 1/1, so if a map uses predominantly 1/1 that should be able to compensate the absence of rest moments in comparison to more 1/2 heavy maps for any given section

re: oni - 1/1 is considered a rest there so oni suddenly are full of breaks usually

the hard set values y'all are speaking of were removed because a lot of people had concluded that hard-setting those values even more would just lead to less creative freedom, which is the opposite of what this proposal is trying to do

and unless i'm interpreting Nwolf's post wrong, i agree which is why this proposal is here @_@

archived after talking to incandescence, there'll be a new thread