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

show more
posted

pishifat wrote:

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 up
This 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
posted
For hitsounds, it could make sense to just count every hitsounded and non copied diff as a drain time of its own (e.g. half the drain time hitsounded or smth). Would make it easily quantifiable. As for mods/finding bn's, I know that in most sets I've gd'd for I have looked for and found mods as well as bn's, so this is probably the hardest part to quantify as such.

If all gd'ers consent to the host, as long as the host has done any work on the set (would probably make sense to leave the decision as to if that's enough or not to the bn's) I don't see the issue.
posted
delete the current rule and add "a beatmapset host must/should have contributed equal or more to the beatmapset than any guest difficulty beatmap creators" as either a rule or a guideline

contribution is subjective, no matter how many lines we draw there will always be edge cases and exceptions, as lazy said it's better to leave subjective matters to bns/mappers or add a guideline at worst
posted

4n3c wrote:

"a beatmapset host must/should have contributed equal or more to the beatmapset than any guest difficulty beatmap creators" as either a rule or a guideline
It must be put as a solid rule. Putting it as a guideline is close to useless, cause it can be loop holed even if the lining sits around "case by case" basis.
posted
it doesnt make too much of a difference either way, but for reference "Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation."

if that condition is met it's probably not a loophole.
posted

4n3c wrote:

it doesnt make too much of a difference either way, but for reference "Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation."

if that condition is met it's probably not a loophole.
Has a point. But whichever this might be put, even if it's closely has the same intent, can make each person's view at it to vary.(I assume)
posted
I also don't really see the point of being so anal about drain time.

When somebody GD's on a set, it's pretty obvious that they have given consent that they are okay with the set owner hosting the set, and using their GD..

I want to know what the actual harm is that the set owner doesn't quite map the most drain time in a set though.
Is it because of discredit in their ranked map status?
posted
trying to quantify hitsounding is kind of a bad idea imo, i spend more time hitsounidng my extras than i do mapping normals usually but the normal would still count for more drain? i think 4n3c's idea is a good one, making a guideline would give more flexibility so that things like being forced to map a break don't need to happen but massive drain time imbalances in collabs or something could still be avoided
posted
ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
posted

Namki wrote:

ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
This is what I'm pointing earlier -.-....

Aiseca wrote:

It must be put as a solid rule.
posted

Aiseca wrote:

Namki wrote:

ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
This is what I'm pointing earlier -.-....

Aiseca wrote:

It must be put as a solid rule.
It is already a rule, but the idea of this proposal is to make it less strict because mappers were forced to map or delete certain parts even if they didn't want to. I think it would be enough to change it to a guideline (can also be a rule) where the amount of diffs is used as a metric and the drain time is only considered if a diff has significantly less drain time (for example 20% less than other diffs) or when the host mapped less than other people in a collab, like mentioned before by some people. I don't think it can be "abused" because if someone really mapped a lot less than other diffs it would be pretty obvious anyway and BNs would likely point out that issue.
posted

Namki wrote:

ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
this is kinda the same as what aiseca wrote, but guidelines can't be abused unless a bn nominates a map without exhaustive explanation from the mapper. if that happens and a guideline is being clearly violated without good reason the map should be disqualified at that point

a possible example where it would be better to let someone without the most contribution host a set is when a mapper becomes inactive and is unable to upload/maintain a set, forcing one of the guest mappers to either take over the set or let it grave
posted
Pretty sure if this is made into a guideline, the only exhaustive explanation you'll see is people arguing that them finding mods and bns is enough contribution to warrant them only mapping 1 out of 3 or even 4 diffs, and at that point the guideline would basically be useless since that's what most mappers do regardless. Once a few maps get through like that, even bns and qat wouldn't know where the line should be drawn since there's no point of reference, and at that point it's pretty difficult to enforce things consistently, even if everyone wanted to.

The original proposal sounds feasible though, since that still has hard limits, but with room for people to use breaks differently. That way you wouldn't need to be as strict with draintime, while still keeping the intentions of the original rule intact.

The stuff about harder difficulties contributing more and hitsounding counting as contribution and all that would probably need a metric to be taken into account, since just leaving it up to the bns is going to lead to a lot of confusion due to everyone having different ideas of how much xyz contributes to a set. There are also people confusing effort for contribution so there's that too. Only problem with adding more metrics is that it'd get increasingly complicated, and somewhere along the line it'd get more complicated than it's worth.
posted
if what you say is a negative outcome then it's not valid reasoning to break a guideline
but if we are amending the rule, it might be better to integrate what pishi wrote about "mapped by user" on site/profile listings instead of using all the metrics associated with contribution
posted
I agree with drain time being bs but I'd rather have some hard rule to go off of rather than having arguments over something that would be guideline, it saves a lot of time and a lot of trouble.

Understandably it is difficult to quantify set contribution from anything that isn't drain time. Usually because each mapset is different in hitsounding, modding, etc. Lazyboy's suggestion on hitsounding seems to make the most sense to me.

Trying to add mods into set contribution is kinda dumb imo. It is true that you are contributing to the set by attempting to get it to the ranked section, yet there is too many variables to consider it and I think it would just be used as an excuse for a lack of contribution to the actual map. A lot of times finding mods is the easier part of getting a map ranked(for me, its just asking people to mod your map or just posting a link into a queue), and experienced mappers sometimes don't even really find mods and go straight to BNs.

imo its really dumb to think that the set host should not have the equal/most contribution to the set, because when its ranked the name that is plastered on the Creator or "mapped by" is the person that hosted the set, and if you don't contribute the most or the same as someone else, whats the point of hosting it in the first place?
posted
the goal of the rc is to ensure certain standards are met. it's not worth sacrificing quality(or in this case, accuracy) for time. that said, the few places a hard rule saves time are the very cases this proposal was made to address. anything else naturally falls within the bounds of both rules because the proposal fully encompasses the current rule

i do agree with naxess that nao's proposal is at least better than what we have now. i highly recommend doing this on top of the metrics people come up with to account for any ambiguities within the rule

4n3c wrote:

if we are amending the rule, it might be better to integrate what pishi wrote about "mapped by user" on site/profile listings instead of in addition to all the metrics associated with contribution
posted
Playing devil's advocate:

Does that mean my irl friend who has no idea how to map can host a set, and then get me to just map all the diffs for him (calling them Monstrata's _____" not ghostmap of course xD) and let him be set owner?

Also, the original reason for keeping this a rule was more due to the "Creator" tab implying, or giving people an expectation, that the Creator was most responsible for the set. Evidently, multiple GD'ers cannot all be listed in the "Creator" field, so it was implied that it would only be fair for X to be the "Creator" if they "mapped the most".

^This was more or less the old staff, Loctav ztrot p3n etc...'s reasoning for not making this a guideline when I proposed it like two years ago lol.
posted

Monstrata wrote:

Playing devil's advocate:

Does that mean my irl friend who has no idea how to map can host a set, and then get me to just map all the diffs for him (calling them Monstrata's _____" not ghostmap of course xD) and let him be set owner?
That is weird to be possible.
posted
Back in the old days, we counted solely based off # of diffs...

The only case where we would need to look at drain time would be collabs.
posted
Mapping the most is not a great way to quantify this, that's what this post is about. Number of diffs is more accurate, and is probably the best way to approximate it as there are plenty of qualitative things otherwise (a noob mapper making a normal might have to put more effort than Kibb making an insane or extra gd for him for example).

So yeah I think number of diffs and then a % drain time being mandated for mapping for a diff to qualify as a "full" diff is the best way still.
show more
Please sign in to reply.