Much feedback till now, makes me happy to see this.
I gonna partially reply to some points and later to more!
First of all i want to mention that all rules and guidelines use as BPM 180. It seems some have overread this because they bring up different BPM/Songs as argument.
Most of Guidelines which would limit songs too much are exactly for this in Guidelines. We are fully aware that some Guidelines can get broken because a song simply calls for it!
First we wanted to make it a wider range, but we realized really fast that going too high/too low is not a good idea.
Let's take a player who plays on 24 Scroll speed, 1.1 would make it 26 over a longer section. This is really a noticeable and even when these two seem to not affect it much, i have to confirm it really does because i play on 24 and really have problems on 26.
However, it is indeed just a guideline because not everyone plays on 24. Some play the game faster/slower. Also a song might call for even more/less so we don't want to limit mapper too much.
Thanks! We will look at it as soon the week is over and we going to look over it again!
About using jump trills that lead to a hand:
I saw some brought up as argument older maps and that this was done already for a long time. Please let not start to take old maps as an example because really a lot of bad are far behind the mapping standard we hold up today. In the past random jacks and overall uncomfortable pattern were pretty common.
With this Guideline we want to avoid having pattern like this:
Many people miss on these pattern, and also the unnecessary mini-jack (to see on the screen on column 4) is there for no reason. Minijacks should at least have a reasoning when used, these are just very random placed and cause in an unnecessary difficult "spike". I read that some used emphasize as a argument and i have to contradict this. They emphasize absolute nothing. The hand is there to add a emphasis into the pattern, not the minijack.
However, please take into account that this is a Guideline. Especially on lower BPM such pattern can be nice to play, while they should really be completely avoided on higher BPM.
------------------------------------
Another thing i need to mention is: Please stop taking SR into account for this Ranking Criteria. It is true we used "SR" as a measure of difficulty in the past simply because it was worded like this in the old Ranking Criteria.
With the new Ranking Criteria we want to get rid all of SR-Related Rules and Guidelines (And they will be removed from the General Ranking Criteria as soon this draft is finalized)
A low BPM E/E/N/N spread can be treated as E/N/H/I, only by used pattern.
The meaning behind the difficult-specific Rules and Guidelines is to set a line when does a Normal count as Normal, when does a Hard count as Hard etc.
Yes, i know. Dumps were a topic like a half year ago, and it's really not completely gone. We simply reached a dead end in the discussion that's why we put it on ice for now to push at least the normal Ranking Criteria. (will reply to more of your points later!)
We removed the "+" now already some years ago. But the reasoning was not because of some diff icon or anything else. "+" is just an extremly bad way to call a diff. What does it mean? What is a "Hard+"? Is it a Hard? Is it a Insane? It's better to use something like "Light Insane" because it explains the difficulty better. I think it was Loctav back then who wanted to have it removed so we just stick to it. But it really changed to the better with not having it there anymore.
Alright, that's all for now. We will continue obverse this and reply to feedback as soon as we can. I also will reply to more on a later time!
I gonna partially reply to some points and later to more!
First of all i want to mention that all rules and guidelines use as BPM 180. It seems some have overread this because they bring up different BPM/Songs as argument.
Most of Guidelines which would limit songs too much are exactly for this in Guidelines. We are fully aware that some Guidelines can get broken because a song simply calls for it!
tailsdk wrote:
I feel like the long term SV for expert difficulties could be a bit bigger imo, but i guess its just a guideline so i dont mind it.
First we wanted to make it a wider range, but we realized really fast that going too high/too low is not a good idea.
Let's take a player who plays on 24 Scroll speed, 1.1 would make it 26 over a longer section. This is really a noticeable and even when these two seem to not affect it much, i have to confirm it really does because i play on 24 and really have problems on 26.
However, it is indeed just a guideline because not everyone plays on 24. Some play the game faster/slower. Also a song might call for even more/less so we don't want to limit mapper too much.
UndeadCapulet wrote:
std person here, just popping in to request y'all try to stick to glossary terms being singular instead of plural, for consistency w/ the other sections of the rc. ty~
Thanks! We will look at it as soon the week is over and we going to look over it again!
About using jump trills that lead to a hand:
I saw some brought up as argument older maps and that this was done already for a long time. Please let not start to take old maps as an example because really a lot of bad are far behind the mapping standard we hold up today. In the past random jacks and overall uncomfortable pattern were pretty common.
With this Guideline we want to avoid having pattern like this:
Many people miss on these pattern, and also the unnecessary mini-jack (to see on the screen on column 4) is there for no reason. Minijacks should at least have a reasoning when used, these are just very random placed and cause in an unnecessary difficult "spike". I read that some used emphasize as a argument and i have to contradict this. They emphasize absolute nothing. The hand is there to add a emphasis into the pattern, not the minijack.
However, please take into account that this is a Guideline. Especially on lower BPM such pattern can be nice to play, while they should really be completely avoided on higher BPM.
------------------------------------
Another thing i need to mention is: Please stop taking SR into account for this Ranking Criteria. It is true we used "SR" as a measure of difficulty in the past simply because it was worded like this in the old Ranking Criteria.
With the new Ranking Criteria we want to get rid all of SR-Related Rules and Guidelines (And they will be removed from the General Ranking Criteria as soon this draft is finalized)
A low BPM E/E/N/N spread can be treated as E/N/H/I, only by used pattern.
The meaning behind the difficult-specific Rules and Guidelines is to set a line when does a Normal count as Normal, when does a Hard count as Hard etc.
Shoegazer wrote:
For instance, there was a discussion on whether dump charting/mapping should be permitted, but there are several rules that go against this (e.g. the general LN length guideline and how each note must correlate to specific sounds). I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of allowing dumps, but I know that a fair section of the community is quite accepting of dump charting.
Yes, i know. Dumps were a topic like a half year ago, and it's really not completely gone. We simply reached a dead end in the discussion that's why we put it on ice for now to push at least the normal Ranking Criteria. (will reply to more of your points later!)
Kuo Kyoka wrote:
I remember there was once time people using the "+" term for diffname too in the same case and ended up have to DQ to remove that because obliviously it only have one diff on the same icon.
We removed the "+" now already some years ago. But the reasoning was not because of some diff icon or anything else. "+" is just an extremly bad way to call a diff. What does it mean? What is a "Hard+"? Is it a Hard? Is it a Insane? It's better to use something like "Light Insane" because it explains the difficulty better. I think it was Loctav back then who wanted to have it removed so we just stick to it. But it really changed to the better with not having it there anymore.
Alright, that's all for now. We will continue obverse this and reply to feedback as soon as we can. I also will reply to more on a later time!