forum

Set Contribution

posted
Total Posts
58
show more
Aiseca

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.
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Aiseca

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)
Kibbleru
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?
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
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
Namki
ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
Aiseca

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.
Serizawa Haruki

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.
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Naxess
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.
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
defiance
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?
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Monstrata
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.
Aiseca

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.
Kibbleru
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.
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
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.
Aiseca

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?
pishifat
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?
Refills

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.
Serizawa Haruki

[ - 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.
Refills

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?
Serizawa Haruki

[ - 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.
Refills

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.
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Aiseca

[ - 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).
Refills

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.
Serizawa Haruki

[ - 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
tatatat
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.)
Serizawa Haruki

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.
tatatat

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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.
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.
Serizawa Haruki

tatatat wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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.
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.
I said the same amount of breaks. The GD mapper can't map the entire song if the host decided to have a break somewhere. This proposal is supposed to fix that issue.
tatatat

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

tatatat wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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.
The GD mapper doesn't need to map the same breaks as the mapset host(as far as I am aware of the rules), the host has to not include any extra breaks not included in the GD mapper's diff. GDer can map a many breaks as they want within reason.
I said the same amount of breaks. The GD mapper can't map the entire song if the host decided to have a break somewhere. This proposal is supposed to fix that issue.
imo the mapper should always map more than the GDers, whether they mapped 30 seconds a person, or 30 minutes a person. Always more drain time for the host. If you can't get more drain time as the host, you should map more of it yourself(or remove all GDs). I see absolutely no problem with having to map more drain time than any GD'ers, in fact I think it should be even more strict and require the host to have more drain time than the total of all GDer's drain time combined but thats not what this post is about. Drain time is an objective way to measure the amount of work contributed by each person working on a mapset.

This will also probably be my last post in this thread. Goodnight!
pishifat
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 when a guest has beatmapped significantly more than the host.


adjusted the last sentence based on some of the discussion above. i'd rather not draw a strict line for what's "significantly more than the host" because that's what sucks about the current rule. best to assume something like what the proposal says is in effect and pushing the limits could result in stricter rc clarification:

Nao Tomori wrote:

BNs can use their judgement in collab situations, so strict 50%+ does not need to be enforced; something like 45/55 split would also be acceptable, 35/65 not so much.


tatata seems to be saying strict drain time is better, which everyone else on the thread disagrees with, so i'll keep it as is

pr coming soon
Okoratu
REE

any guest difficulty creator should be singular to avoid people thinking this applies to the total amount of difficulties in a set (beatmap creators together vs singular guest difficultes)
pishifat
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply