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

show more
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.
posted

Nao Tomori wrote:

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.
It is pretty evident that mapping more ≠ greater contribution. I will agree to your given example. Getting diffs done with effort is better than just basing the contribution to solely diffs made by a certain mapper without making a few considerations on certain aspects of mapping like quality (the biggest factor imo) and stuff. Efforts made as well to make the mapset can be included, but that I think is leaning at the 'subjective zone' (or case by case basis, again, i think)

At the end, the judgement falls under the people who will look at it if it fails or pass at the parameters given.

So your proposal for computation be like: Full diff = (diffs made + quality + drain time)?

or something else?
posted
reading through the thread after https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/posts/6813028 i haven't seen any other ways of valuing set contribution that are more reasonable for the ranking criteria than the idea proposed in op. hitsounds/mods seem too variable between sets and naxess explained why a looser guideline wouldn't be a good idea

so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
it may be worth explaining what "if necessary" means in the last sentence too. the proposal makes it sound like there should be some leniency for collabs and the guy who worded this based it off the proposal, but the wording itself makes it sound like it's a strict line. anyone have ideas for how to handle this better if it's a problem?


Aiseca wrote:

So your proposal for computation be like: Full diff = (diffs made + quality + drain time)? or something else?
a full diff is more or less controlled by the rc already because of the "you must map up to 80% of the mp3" rule. that means tehre would only be slight variations in drain time between diffs on a set


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
isn't that what "This is to provide credit where credit is due." in the rule is already doing?
posted

pishifat wrote:

tehre
ok



pishifat wrote:

so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
The problem I find with this is that mappers who are trying to push their first map to rank is that they might want a GD for a certain diff (say Hard, if they're bad at mapping Hard difficulties) and put a request in the Mapping Projects subforum, and end up getting a full mania spread by accident (unlikely, but can happen) and has to map more difficulties otherwise it's unrankable.
The rule is a bit unfair, but I think it would be better to have the RC be a bit more lenient, something like: The mapset host's difficulties must have around 80% drain time compared to the biggest contributor. While still giving "credit where credit is due", it provides more leniency for aspiring mappers who can't map low difficulties.
posted

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

pishifat wrote:

so unless someone's been hiding a groundbreaking option, i think we can go forward with the wording proposed near the beginning:
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used if necessary to determine the amount of contribution.
The problem I find with this is that mappers who are trying to push their first map to rank is that they might want a GD for a certain diff (say Hard, if they're bad at mapping Hard difficulties) and put a request in the Mapping Projects subforum, and end up getting a full mania spread by accident (unlikely, but can happen) and has to map more difficulties otherwise it's unrankable.
The rule is a bit unfair, but I think it would be better to have the RC be a bit more lenient, something like: The mapset host's difficulties must have around 80% drain time compared to the biggest contributor. While still giving "credit where credit is due", it provides more leniency for aspiring mappers who can't map low difficulties.
Getting a full mania spread "by accident" is not really possible, it's the mapset host's choice to add difficulties to the map, if he doesn't want certain diffs he can simply decide not to add them. Also, usually people ask for permission before they map a gd. If new mappers are unable to map low difficulties, they can either learn how to map them (since it's probably even easier to map them compared to insane/extra) or they can get a normal and hard gd and map insane and extra and it would be a rankable spread.

I agree with what pishi said about the amount of diffs being the only possible measurement as of right now. The "if necessary" thing could be explained by determining that drain time is only taken into account in collab diffs when the spread is arranged in a way that would make someone else other than the mapset host the biggest contributor, for example: The mapset host mapped Insane, while mapper x made a normal gd. The hard diff is a collab between both of them. In that case, the respective drain time each mapper mapped is considered. If the gd mapper made like 75% of it, it's probably not okay, while something like 50/50 would work.
But in cases where the mapset host has more drain time than the others anyways, for example if he also mapped an extra diff for this map, then the drain time of the collab diff doesn't matter. This is probably hard to word and implement into the rule but it's quite simple to understand I think.
posted

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I agree with what pishi said about the amount of diffs being the only possible measurement as of right now. The "if necessary" thing could be explained by determining that drain time is only taken into account in collab diffs when the spread is arranged in a way that would make someone else other than the mapset host the biggest contributor, for example: The mapset host mapped Insane, while mapper x made a normal gd. The hard diff is a collab between both of them. In that case, the respective drain time each mapper mapped is considered. If the gd mapper made like 75% of it, it's probably not okay, while something like 50/50 would work.
But in cases where the mapset host has more drain time than the others anyways, for example if he also mapped an extra diff for this map, then the drain time of the collab diff doesn't matter. This is probably hard to word and implement into the rule but it's quite simple to understand I think.
The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
posted

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
posted

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
Yeah, that seems fair.
posted

pishifat wrote:

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
isn't that what "This is to provide credit where credit is due." in the rule is already doing?
not really, there's often a correlation but they're not the same. i suggested this initially because i thought we could come up with something more comprehensive after seeing https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6813335 (aka not drain time), but for the purposes of what's being discussed now there's no difference in effect between two
posted

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

The mapset host must have an equal amount or more difficulties than any other contributor. This is to provide credit where credit is due. If there is a collab difficulty, drain time may be taken into account, depending if the biggest contributor has the same amount of difficulties.
How about something like this?
I'd rather use pishi's wording and add something to it because it seems clearer to me.
A beatmapset host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty beatmap creators. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collab difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution if it may cause someone other than the mapset host to be the biggest contributor of the mapset.
Yeah, that seems fair.
Same page as Jax.
---------------
This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it is applicable acceptable the parts that have been made if the drain time will be used?

Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
posted

Aiseca wrote:

This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it is applicable acceptable the parts that have been made if the drain time will be used?

Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
Depends how much effort that was put in basically in that situation. For example, slidershapes would be taken into account of how complex they are.
posted

[ - Jax - ] wrote:

Aiseca wrote:

This question maybe needless, but just wondering...: How to determine if it is applicable acceptable the parts that have been made if the drain time will be used?

Ex. 15sec slow section collab (particularly long notes) of mapper A vs 15sec section collab of mapper B on a normal speed (which may contain density and complexity).
Depends how much effort that was put in basically in that situation. For example, slidershapes would be taken into account of how complex they are.
That's not really possible because you can't measure how calm/intense a part is or the effort that was put into mapping it. RC rules should be as clear as possible and stuff like this would only add unnecessary confusion/ambiguity imo
posted
I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
posted

tatatat wrote:

I think how it is right now is perfectly fine. There is one simple solution to all your problems. Map more difficulties than your GD'ers. Laziness should not be encouraged. You should ALWAYS map more than your GDer's, otherwise how can you post it as your content and upload it yourself? It should be the GD'ers mapset who put more work into it than you. (I'm not saying you as in you Nao Tomori, but you as in a general you.)
That's not an actual solution, especially due to the new spread rules. Imagine a 4:15 song where the mapper wants to map an Extra. Since he also needs an Insane, somebody else makes a gd for him (there can be various reasons for this, laziness is not one of them). In this case, the gd mapper must map the same amount of breaks in the map even if he doesn't want to. And you can't tell the mapset host to just map an additional difficulty because it's simply not needed for the spread.
show more
Please sign in to reply.