Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

Set Contribution

posted
Total Posts
58
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
so set contribution things are handled badly imo. this is because the only metric it uses is drain time. this is not really an accurate metric alone, and it's also a restrictive one in some ways.

why inaccurate?
- set host has to find mods, bns, coordinate the thing, find hitsounds/SB/blah blah
- making an extra takes way more effort than a normal (in 99% of cases)

why restrictive?
- set host cannot use breaks if a gder also doesn't > leads to conflicts where set host either has to delete a gder's drain time or map part of the song they want a break over

while i'm sure plenty of people will complain if i propose something like "the set host must map a diff at most one difficulty level below the top diff" (so extra top diff > set host has to map insane, insane top diff > hard etc) i would like to at least deal with the second issue.

Contribution to a set can be counted in terms of full diffs. A full diff would be defined as at least 80% of the maximum drain time of any diff on the set. (the 80% number comes from the low diff thing in the spread rules)
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.
With these changes it would make it much less irritating to deal with situations where you don't want to map a part of a song but your gder went ahead and mapped it so you're obligated to, or having to carefully count parts of a collab where you switch off every section or something and make sure that you have more than half.
anna apple
1,256 posts
Joined March 2014
anna apple
I think if participants are consenting someone with 0% drain time should be able to host a set

plus that stuff sort of happens with people like puxtu making only mania diffs and getting all std gds so its easier to rank his stuff, but yeah its also different since he mapped some the mania diffs (?)

but yeah its really silly that hitsounds aren't considered part of contribution to a set since its unrankable to have no hitsounds.. .

overall, no reason to not push for this since ya its super inaccurate and restrictive
Last edited by anna apple , edited 3 times in total.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
i don't think we need to be so finicky with what counts as a full difficulty, but i agree that at the very least the rule should be changed so people dont need to worry about drain time discrepancies across diffs

that fix wrote:

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.
i do agree w/ bor tho that there really is no reason to care about the set owner being the biggest contributor to a set. the only people that should care about "not getting credit" are the people involved in the set. if they are all ok with the set owner doing literally nothing for their own set, why should any of us care either? we already have a rule requiring all participants be included in the tags, we don't need anything more than that.

uhhhhhhhhh so yeah w/ enough support i think we should just remove the set contribution rule altogether
Kyuunex
99 posts
Joined November 2016
Kyuunex
set host cannot use breaks if a gder also doesn't > leads to conflicts where set host either has to delete a gder's drain time or map part of the song they want a break over

not sure why it took this long but i agree this should change
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
yes
Smokeman
463 posts
Joined November 2012
Smokeman
Tbh allow GDer's to resolve mods as well at some point while you at it. Like the set owner or admins can give users (in this case GDers) the ability to resolve in the threads.

its the logical next step after this imo
Doormat
2,050 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat
I think a large part of why this has remained unchanged for so long is because everything to do with contribution is subjective and qualitative, with drain time really being the only quantitative measure.

How do you prove that someone spent more time making a higher difficulty than somebody who made a lower difficulty? What happens when we have two conflicting accounts on who contributed more to the set? If a guest mapper helped contribute to finding mods/feedback, how do you quantify who found more? Is it fair if the host mapper found more modders with less detailed mods than the guest mapper, who found fewer but more detailed mods? I can go on and on, but that’s not the point I want to make here.

The point I want to make is that because this is such a qualitative and subjective area, it’s hard to quantify it, which has traditionally been what we used to determine set contribution. I agree that Set Contribution needs to be overhauled, but perhaps we’re looking at it under the wrong lens.
Last edited by Doormat , edited 4 times in total.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
yeah so lets not do it at all and let any set design be legal regardless of contribution
raechel
68 posts
Joined August 2015
raechel
While I do agree that there is a lot of extra effort that isn't shown by the rules, like you guys mentioned with hitsounding, resolving and all the behind the scenes jazz, and that the rule is way too restrictive and pretty much meaningless... I still feel like the host would at least need one diff (or at least take part in one of the diffs in the set).

I don't even mean it in the sense of the effort behind it. More of a symbol that they are indeed part of the map and not just "the guy handling stuff bts". They are collaborating on a set of beatmaps, after all.

That said, that's more of a personal feeling than an actual, full fledged opinion, and I do still agree that the full "at least half the drain time" rule is way too heavy and should be removed.
Pachiru
osu! Alumni
2,956 posts
Joined June 2013
Pachiru

Mordred wrote:

yes
tatatat
923 posts
Joined March 2015
tatatat
I think set hosts should map at least double the drain time anyone other guest mapper maps. GDing is lazy. Laziness should be eliminated.
Teky
359 posts
Joined July 2017
Teky

tatatat wrote:

I think set hosts should map at least double the drain time anyone other guest mapper maps. GDing is lazy. Laziness should be eliminated.

There is so much wrong with this man; People don't just get gd's because 'they are lazy', people sometimes get gd's as a sign of collaborating on a mapset with their friends or other mappers, to fit room for variated and different styles between difficulties, to make a project where everyone interested in a song can map without having to make a set, etc...

Even then, getting gd's because you don't have time, or because you are looking for a decent quality of a certain difficulty (hard for example), is never 'lazy', what you're suggesting is too overboard, and kills collab single diffs, or sets where two mappers are sharing difficulties in a set (I.E a set with a normal and insane of the same gd'er, hard and extra from the host.)

The idea of mapsets itself is that it's a spread of difficulties of a map of a song; I agree with removing set limitations like that entirely, while it'd be awkward seeing a mapper do literally nothing for their own mapset and seeing it ranked but it's only the contributers, modders, and beatmap nominators involved who are supposed to be comfortable/uncomfortable with that.
Last edited by Teky , edited 2 times in total.
Serizawa Haruki
1,696 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki
I agree that drain time alone shouldn't be taken into consideration for the reasons Nao explained. For example if the mapset host has 10 seconds less drain time than a GDer that shouldn't be prohibited. However, I think the mapset host needs to map at least 1 difficulty or if it's a single collab diff they should map more or less half of it. Mapping significantly less than everyone else as the mapset host wouldn't make sense because in-game it says "mapped by..." and if that person didn't map anything at all or just very little, I don't see a reason for that person to host the set in the first place. Like, if someone creates a mapset, they are expected to be somewhat interested in it and map the song etc. Of course getting mods, hitsounding and all the other stuff are a lot of work too but that's just part of mapping.
Basically, change the drain time rule to amount of diffs (like some people mentioned before)
Last edited by Serizawa Haruki , edited 1 time in total.
tatatat
923 posts
Joined March 2015
tatatat
I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
Aiseca

tatatat wrote:

I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.



Hmm... Think this first.
>If you have made a collaboration or a GD on a specific song, then both you and the host's has a duty for to meet a consensus or guidelines before entering such contract. You making a GD or a collaboration on someone's map is not possible unless you or the other agreed to it. If you agreed to a collaboration or a GD without knowing the rules/ guidelines/ or mapping stuff that needs to be clearly stated before you've accepted it, only ending up in an opposing manner on how to tackle the map (e.a. host did a full map; GD made a break or GD map is longer than the host map.),then you cannot blame the host for misunderstandings on several cases.

Making GD or collab without any cooperation coming from the respective host itself (like even not asking for a few things to consider when you are mapping your chosen difficulty to guest with) is a complete no no. It is like you're entering a loan at a bank without knowing at the contract you've signed.


Collaboration and GD were a cooperation, and teamwork thing, simply put (as silly as it may sound). These two were established at the game for it to be more proactive towards building/making/completing a map project things up together as a group in a community.

-------------------------------------------

About contribution stuff, I would like to call it as a cr*pload of a burden to the hosts' side [A.K.A "unbalanced" than call it "inaccurate"] when you as the host (when your mapset sprinkled with 4-5 GD) has to find these essentials alone and those who made a GD just passed their homework on you then flew off the office never to return.

And restriction should be enforced to the GD or Collaborators and NOT on the Host itself. Host must have the absolute power to decide on his or her own mapset and not the outside forces. Suggestions however isn't restricted if it can enhance or improve the map for good (like modding)

About making Extra mode.... hmmm... I would like to guess that the most part that eats time the most is mapping it the edgiest way possible :) (besides making it rankable)
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
Topic Starter
Nao Tomori
i don't think allowing people to rank sets that they didn't map anything for is a good idea. not gonna bother explaining why because my argument is self evident.

@doormat, how many sets have you been in or hosted where the gders find modders and/or bns? aside from hybrids, probably 0. the responsibility for ranking the thing is the host's - that's why he's the host. but that isn't that important since my point is, as you mentioned, contribution is qualitative and not quantitative, so using a hard set quantitative rule is not a great way to judge it.

as such i still think the best way to do this is just based on full diffs, and whether a diff is a full diff or not can be judged by the nominating bns.
Doormat
2,050 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat

tatatat wrote:

I actually believe that collaboration and guest difficulties shouldn't be allowed period, but most people will think this is too extreme.
This is quite ironic seeing as how your latest ranked map from August has a guest difficulty in there.

Nao Tomori wrote:

@doormat, how many sets have you been in or hosted where the gders find modders and/or bns? aside from hybrids, probably 0. the responsibility for ranking the thing is the host's - that's why he's the host. but that isn't that important since my point is, as you mentioned, contribution is qualitative and not quantitative, so using a hard set quantitative rule is not a great way to judge it.

as such i still think the best way to do this is just based on full diffs, and whether a diff is a full diff or not can be judged by the nominating bns.
Actually, Kencho helped contribute to finding modders for my Hitorigoto set, so the answer is definitely not 0. There have also been other times where individual mappers have asked for my opinion/feedback on a guest/collab difficulty of theirs: the most recent example I can think of was when Ascendance asked me for feedback on a collab diff he made with Ayyri, with Ayyri being the set host. Getting back to my point, what I was trying to get at with my original post was maybe we should look towards other ideas of determining set contribution, rather than relying on a quantitative measurement.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,812 posts
Joined August 2013
pishifat

bor wrote:

I think if participants are consenting someone with 0% drain time should be able to host a set

to clear this up: a mapset host not mapping anything will not be allowed so long as sets are marked as "mapped by user" on all site listings/profiles

Doormat wrote:

Getting back to my point, what I was trying to get at with my original post was maybe we should look towards other ideas of determining set contribution, rather than relying on a quantitative measurement.


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
Doormat
2,050 posts
Joined September 2013
Doormat

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.
lazygirl
506 posts
Joined February 2016
lazygirl
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.
quila
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 1 time in total.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 1 time in total.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
osu! Alumni
5,846 posts
Joined August 2013
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?
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
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
1,281 posts
Joined November 2014
Namki
ppl are known for not following guidelines, they'll try abusing it for sure, I think we need have it as a rule
Last edited by Namki , edited 1 time in total.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
1,696 posts
Joined June 2015
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
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 1 time in total.
Naxess
Nomination Assessment Team
390 posts
Joined March 2016
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
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 2 times in total.
defiance
503 posts
Joined July 2015
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
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 2 times in total.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
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
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
osu! Alumni
5,846 posts
Joined August 2013
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.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
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
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
osu! Paragon
3,812 posts
Joined August 2013
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?
Last edited by pishifat , edited 1 time in total.
Refills
318 posts
Joined October 2017
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
1,696 posts
Joined June 2015
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
318 posts
Joined October 2017
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?
Last edited by Refills , edited 4 times in total.
Serizawa Haruki
1,696 posts
Joined June 2015
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
318 posts
Joined October 2017
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
358 posts
Joined February 2016
quila
[deleted as part of purging my old post history]
Last edited by quila , edited 3 times in total.
Aiseca
451 posts
Joined February 2017
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
318 posts
Joined October 2017
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
1,696 posts
Joined June 2015
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
923 posts
Joined March 2015
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.)
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 58