what other ideas do you/others have in mind for determining set contribution? i agree that they could be worth talking about, but discussion is stuck until those alternatives are brought upThis is what I’m unsure of, but based off what people in favour of changing set contribution requirements seem to want, I assume these are some more of the general ideas we should consider:
- Drain Time: currently the only method we use to determine “majority set contribution.” It’s the easiest form factor, since we’re looking at an objective measurement that can be quantified, but people argue that forcing host mappers to be required to map to at least equal drain to a guest mapper may compromise on their vision of the map they originally wanted to create, and forcing guest mappers to map to equal or less than the host mapper will have the same effect. The counterargument “the host can just make another difficulty” can also prove to be problematic as well, as they may not be confident or lack experience in making other difficulty levels. Setting a maximum threshold like Nao suggested (for example, a guest mapper cannot map more than 5% of what the host mapped) could possibly work, but could just as easily be abused so that host mappers only need to provide the least amount of drain time required and then use this rule as justification for mapping the objectively least amount of song length. It will also vary considerably depending on the song length.
- Hitsounding: it takes time to hitsound a map, and they can easily be copied to other difficulties through third party programs like Hitsound Copier, so there’s an argument that if the map host did the hitsounding, it should count towards set contribution. However, this is under the assumption that the host is the only hitsounder; what do we do if hitsounding is outsourced to another person, or if a guest mapper decides to hitsound their own difficulty? These definitely make it harder to use hitsounding as a measurement.
- Mods: people argue that finding modders takes time, and I agree that they take up a large chunk of time and effort to find people willing to provide feedback so that maps can be improved. However, as I previously mentioned, there are too many variables to make this a viable measurement as well: how do we determine the value of mods if guest mappers help contribute to finding mods? How do we measure who contributed more if the host found shorter, but more plentiful mods, but a guest mapper found more substantial, but fewer mods?
- Consent: this has been waved around the discussion here a bit, so I figured it might be worth including here. Guest mappers consenting to a host would definitely eliminate all the problems associated with “needing to provide a majority of contribution to the set,” but then I think the rule would need to be reworked as well. Using what you posted as an example, a host shouldn’t be able to get away with hosting a set without providing any tangible contribution that can be attributed to them. I can see this becoming more of a grey-area in certain regards though: for example, if the host didn’t provide any difficulties but did contribute in the form of hitsounding or storyboarding, should they still be allowed to host the set, even if they get consent from all guest mappers?
There are definitely positives to each point I listed, but I think we need to factor in the negatives as well. If anyone wants to list more ideas/suggestions, that would be great for discussion as well.