[Proposal] osu!mania Ranking Criteria (whole draft)

posted
Total Posts
56
show more
MEGAtive

tailsdk wrote:

I think just talking about insane as 1 difficulty can be tough since a 4.8 star is still an insane difficulty. I personally think it should be split up into a higher insane and lower insane araound 4.4 or 4.5 since its a pretty big gap in between
I think since they try to make things very friendly with the Normal and Hard as lowest difficulty, this is probably aimed as a Lower Insane.
Tailsdk

MEGAtive wrote:

tailsdk wrote:

I think just talking about insane as 1 difficulty can be tough since a 4.8 star is still an insane difficulty. I personally think it should be split up into a higher insane and lower insane araound 4.4 or 4.5 since its a pretty big gap in between
I think since they try to make things very friendly with the Normal and Hard as lowest difficulty, this is probably aimed as a Lower Insane.
Yeah i agree its aimed at a lower insane but there should be something mentioning that
Kuo Kyoka
Quote: tailsdk
To be honest it's quite useless for being so, not to mention the SR system is broken and pushing a rule over that is completely absurd, and yes, Hard can be count as easier Insane already, and it's depending in the song with the top diff's patterning in thus to compares the amount of notes using between diffs is reasonable or not for the spread itself.
The terms of Light/Easier diff of the main diff with the same icon would only make senses whenever it does need a diff between it to fulfill the spread
Example: Normal / Hard / Light Insane / Insane / Extra (1,94* / 3,21* / 5,1* / 5,07* / 5,87* ) - And remember that SR isn't matter
Or else wouldn't make it on the right term
Bad example: Normal / Hard / Light Insane (1,78* / 2,9* / 3,82*) and meanwhile why Insane is the only diff have the light name while the other didn't? 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.
TLDR: using chord or not is depending on how you control your spread, and you got the point of "harder" insane and "light" extra shouldn't be included, but as MEGAtive said, I also don't see any one in the ranked map done that before (Or I did, maybe is Identity Part 3), but in that case, it's more on "patterning and BPM" instead, and since hard isn't even possible for 1/8 (for example: 180 tempo), adding chord between 1/8 on insane will make you needs to have 2 Insane diffs to fulfill that anyway.

Difficulty Specific
- Insane Guidelines
Using jump trills of any kind that lead to a hand is discouraged. Unless a beatmap uses jacks frequently or other complex patterns frequently, this pattern is difficult to hit at a moderate to high speed. For 4K, this creates a mini jack that drastically increases the pattern difficulty. If a hand is really necessary, delete the note before it that would create the mini jack.

Why?
From then till now I have no problems in trying it and yet I saw most to everyone can do it perfectly to frequently in mapping.
Not only because it's now common that makes everyone can stick it with it in every maps but also for some reasons
But first, jumptrill with hand
[12] [34] [123]
[12] [34] [124]
[13] [24] [123]
[13] [24] [124]
[14] [23] [123]
[14] [23] [124]
Thus the opposites
Not to mention other possibilities as
[12] [24] [134]
[12] [23] [134]
...
And don't forget, 4K is not the only keymode have jumptrill

And why you need an extra note?
First in musical logic, if the bass continuously and have no changes in the volume, you can stick with 2 notes jumptrills for challenge and specific the difficulty of the map, and second is the cymbal after it, and yes it's common in most songs, making it 2 notes and classify it being the same with the bass/snare next to it is quite absurd because, kick/snare already 2 notes while cymbal + kick/snare should have higher amount of notes, when normal kick/snare regularly with jumptrill of 2 notes.
I would say it's more of the song itself, if it sounds lighter and you put the same jumptrill wouldn't make senses, meanwhile if its building up stronger and you delete a note before it would make any senses either, it lost the purpose of it, and thus, for consists between parts with that same kind of sounds. However, it's being more on the mapper's judgment of his/her's map as well, restricting something that already happens over the years would be pretty absurd since literally nobody to a real small amount of people did complains to it, over than that, I have never seen other having trauma from passing it during qualified section and yet I user it pretty common, even [12] [34] [1234] (so does 7K).
Mapping it in a freedom way, let the mapper choose what is the best for the map, but yet needs to be reasoning for it, as I mentioned above, so this guideline is quite useless imo.

And, I think I will post some opinions as well when I got the time
MEGAtive

Kuo Kyoka wrote:

Why?
From then till now I have no problems in trying it and yet I saw most to everyone can do it perfectly to frequently in mapping.
Not only because it's now common that makes everyone can stick it with it in every maps but also for some reasons
But first, jumptrill with hand
[12] [34] [123]
[12] [34] [124]
[13] [24] [123]
[13] [24] [124]
[14] [23] [123]
[14] [23] [124]
Thus the opposites
Not to mention other possibilities as
[12] [24] [134]
[12] [23] [134]
...
And don't forget, 4K is not the only keymode have jumptrill

And why you need an extra note?
First in musical logic, if the bass continuously and have no changes in the volume, you can stick with 2 notes jumptrills for challenge and specific the difficulty of the map, and second is the cymbal after it, and yes it's common in most songs, making it 2 notes and classify it being the same with the bass/snare next to it is quite absurd because, kick/snare already 2 notes while cymbal + kick/snare should have higher amount of notes, when normal kick/snare regularly with jumptrill of 2 notes.
I would say it's more of the song itself, if it sounds lighter and you put the same jumptrill wouldn't make senses, meanwhile if its building up stronger and you delete a note before it would make any senses either, it lost the purpose of it, and thus, for consists between parts with that same kind of sounds. However, it's being more on the mapper's judgment of his/her's map as well, restricting something that already happens over the years would be pretty absurd since literally nobody to a real small amount of people did complains to it, over than that, I have never seen other having trauma from passing it during qualified section and yet I user it pretty common, even [12] [34] [1234] (so does 7K).
Mapping it in a freedom way, let the mapper choose what is the best for the map, but yet needs to be reasoning for it, as I mentioned above, so this guideline is quite useless imo.

And, I think I will post some opinions as well when I got the time
Well, it is still a guideline so it may be broken on practice. But speaking of freedom of choosing a pattern, most people only do (12)(34)(124) or (34)(12)(134) because of how exploitable it is for SR hence seldomly using other variation you just wrote. Also (12)(24)(124) is already a chordglut, not jumptrill anymore lul.

And yea the wording is kind of generalizing all the keymodes here, as higher keymodes tend to have these kind of patterns but not have them minijacked. I think it should be stated that this guideline only considers 4K since it's a pretty common keymode.
Kawawa
I think It's pointless to think of the possibility of being exploited in relation to that part. Yeah It's impact for SR, but a little.
so It does not increase that absolutely. As we know For 4K, determining the SR is depends on how long that trill lasts.
And about the jump between the trills is, It may be very uncomfortable according to the bpm, so It is necessary to know whether the chart has reached reasonably about that. but the jump at the end is actually works as an extra-code for the last part for highlight.
so yeah, communities are using it frequently but nevertheless no complaints. because they are mostly analogous in the way to reaching freedom of the pattern choices and reasonable points. so as I said, so for apply the guidelines reasonably It would be great when the mapsets have the two insane diff(so for lower insane diff). 4K is actually limited to songs that can reach 'EX' icon. so most of their last level are mapped to Insane diff. so It's frequently see the 4k sets have 2-3 Insane spread. therefore If it is exist, It can maintain the same way as the past for freedom of the pattern choices and provides a reasonable technique spread between two identical icons.
Topic Starter
Feerum
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!

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!
MEGAtive

Kawawa wrote:

And about the jump between the trills is, It may be very uncomfortable according to the bpm, so It is necessary to know whether the chart has reached reasonably about that. but the jump at the end is actually works as an extra-code for the last part for highlight.
so yeah, communities are using it frequently but nevertheless no complaints. because they are mostly analogous in the way to reaching freedom of the pattern choices and reasonable points. so as I said, so for apply the guidelines reasonably It would be great when the mapsets have the two insane diff(so for lower insane diff). 4K is actually limited to songs that can reach 'EX' icon. so most of their last level are mapped to Insane diff. so It's frequently see the 4k sets have 2-3 Insane spread.
Yea 4K maps mostly barred within I Icon due to the fact that SR only counts density of the notes. But at least they denote the difficulty as "Extra" "Expert" etc. even though they are I Icon, which is the most important thing on determining what difficulty it is (Even my Expert are I icon, Insane are H icon, Hard are also H icon so this thing should work for the diffname instead of the icon). As far as I can see, most 4K maps fell to this category with Insane and Expert both rated as I Icon. And I think this rules/guidelines works to the difficulty name instead of the difficulty icons so "Expert"/"Extra" should abide to the "Expert" rules/guideline, "Insane" following the one for "Insane", etc.

So I think it doesn't need to be specific for which kind of Insane, and just let your workflow justify the pattern. But again, this is only a guideline which can be broken at any time.

This is kind of rant so do not comment on this, okay? Good.
Yea, people didn't complain about it much because they already used to it. Not that this is a bad practice, but at least do things differently and don't do the same, exact, pattern, again, and again, on, every, maps, ffs.


Also I think a musically appropriate dump should be fine since some simplification of a pattern like 1/8 to 1/6 doesn't really make sense either
Ryu Sei
Slider Velocity to alter the scrolling speed (not to normalize them) for all difficulties should be in guidelines, not rules. (this should apply even to Easy diff.)

As we know, the difficulty of players transitioning from easier difficulty to harder difficulty is the existence of what we call "Slider Velocity" or speed gimmicks. It would also increases the amount of possiblities can be made in a map.

However, the intensity of the Slider Velocity must be less dense for easier difficulty.
For example, you don't put random warp gimmicks/hard stutters to easier difficulty, unless it's very appropiate.

This is, also need to consider the key amount, so the intensity of Slider Velocity gimmicks should be linear to Star Rating and key amount.

Just my two cents.
abraker

Feerum wrote:

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.
Since this is not following SR, this raises a question. There isn't anything in the proposed ranking criteria that establishes what makes easy easier than normal, what makes normal is easier than hard, and so on. The proposed currently acts as categorical checklists will a lot of room for overlap. What prevents mappers from labeling the difficulties arbitrarily and passing them off while technically satisfying the criteria for the difficulty labeled?
MEGAtive

abraker wrote:

Since this is not following SR, this raises a question. There isn't anything in the proposed ranking criteria that establishes what makes easy easier than normal, what makes normal is easier than hard, and so on. The proposed currently acts as categorical checklists will a lot of room for overlap. What prevents mappers from labeling the difficulties arbitrarily and passing them off while technically satisfying the criteria for the difficulty labeled?
I believe Easy-Normal-Hard progression is a common sense that need no further breakdown. Patterns used in these diffs are pretty basic. They only need a pattern/rhythmical limitation to shape the structure up.

What needs to be breakdowned is Insane-Expert as these two in execution may intertwined with each other. As defining difficulty may be subjective and each people skillsets are different which makes some people believe the Expert felt easier than Insane.
lenpai
Expanding on abraker's concerns but with regards to duration based spread rules. If I have a severely underrated 4.8* chart being pushed as a single diff for 4:15, would it be considered an insane or an expert? Where do you draw the line? Should the QAT be consulted with these things? The same could be said for 3:30 H single H diffs that may be underrated. If these said underrated diffs would be subject to QAT rulings, would overrated charts be treated in the same manner?

EDIT: I know I shouldn't be mentioning SR but the point still stands on defining what should set the difference between Hards and Insanes / Insanes and Experts. The purpose is to avoid potentially frustrating DQs over single diff maps over a hidden rule of some sorts.
Ryu Sei

MEGAtive wrote:

I believe Easy-Normal-Hard progression is a common sense that need no further breakdown. Patterns used in these diffs are pretty basic. They only need a pattern/rhythmical limitation to shape the structure up.

What needs to be breakdowned is Insane-Expert as these two in execution may intertwined with each other. As defining difficulty may be subjective and each people skillsets are different which makes some people believe the Expert felt easier than Insane.
Considering patterns and notes density too, it is far more easy to differentiate Easy-Normal-Hard rather than Insane/Expert maps.

Lenfried- wrote:

If I have a severely underrated 4.8* chart being pushed as a single diff for 4:15, would it be considered an insane or an expert? Where do you draw the line? Should the QAT be consulted with these things? The same could be said for 3:30 H single H diffs that may be underrated. If these said underrated diffs would be subject to QAT rulings, would overrated charts be treated in the same manner?
In my opinion, it should be consulted with QAT members, or together with community.

The main problem is one: how does one define Insane/Expert?

The main difference is the note density and pattern complexity/difficulty. Still the definition of Insane/Expert maps should be discussed further with moderators and experienced players. And, yes, despite the same note count, patterns should be taken look at. However, quoting MEGAtive that every players have different skill sets and experience, one can look a pattern as "slightly hard" while other could look at it as "piece of cake".


One of severe case is "swingy" patterns, which involves "rainbow" snapping (combination between general 1/4~1/16 snap and triplets). I already experimented with some maps, and mostly (in my test) "Star Rating" doesn't always reflect the actual difficulty of a map.

That's why discussing about the difficulty definition in a map is important.

Another example is (as MEGAtive said after discussing privately with me), a 10 notes/sec double trills and double-jacks (or even one-handed jacks) has entirely different difficulty. Though, on slower density, 2 notes/sec double trills and double-jacks has slight (or even no distinguish) difference on difficulty.

From what am I thinking, underrated and overrated charts should be treated evenly; look through the patterns, analyze it, and check playability difficulty. The most concerning problem (I think) is "PP maps".
dudehacker
Avoid using storyboard sampled hitsounds with similar volume to hitsounds on notes
what u want me to do with a kick and crash hs in easy with 1 note? make multiple samepleset to stack them? I usually use W for kick, C for snare, F for close or open hat.

I am against mutiple sampleset:
1. annoying to manage/mod
2. duplicate samples across samplesets (wasted space/bandwidth/ more files to check for BN)

therefore im in favor of SB when usee properly

How about add a rule for hs
If you have used any custom sampleset, you must provide the samples used including hitnormal

since it will default to hs in player skin if absent in song folder, must assure hs consistency regardless of skins

Btw, love the guidelines for Easy diff, 99% of easy diff has hard pattern/density nowdays

Consecutive 1/4 snaps may only be two notes long
why 2?, its so rare
make it 3 at least for snares

can u add a guideline
Enable widescreen doesnt do shit unless u have a SB
Kuo Kyoka
Quote MEGA
And yea the wording is kind of generalizing all the keymodes here, as higher keymodes tend to have these kind of patterns but not have them minijacked. I think it should be stated that this guideline only considers 4K since it's a pretty common keymode.

So why only 4K have it? I mean that was a relieve when this rule only mention 4K, because Im totally up for 13 57 1357 in 7K because why not?
But I'm saying this as, even it's a guideline and yet you can choose to broke it or not, but having it is already a trouble in the neck, not to mention some songs can allow this kind of it, and yet you can tend to do it correctly based on what you choose to follows it or not.
I didn't say it's an useless guideline, but it's quite unneccessary, I already said what was it supposed to be why it exists and why it should be used.
New comers to Insane difficulty can find it difficult to give it a try at first, but when you are experienced enough as a tap away, it's pretty easy when all you do is pressing the note next to it on the exact timing.
If you said is to avoid abuse, I would rather stating another rule of, do not using 4 notes chord to present snare sounds, usually is on 5/16 and 12/16 while there is a fast yet complicated 1/4 note before/after it, and even in melody logical, it doesn't even the same pitch for having jacks like that and tend to push the difficult so far for challenge. (Example (123) 4 2 3 (1234) 1 3 2 (134) 2 4 1 (1234) 3 4 2 ...) ... which is less common and yet more troublesome than 12 34 124 or 12 34 1234 for an Insane diff
And of course, it's depend on BPM too, I'm quitr surprise after look thought most of it there is no rule mention about BPM, im wondering which BPM we are using the scale of?
-MysticEyes
The fact that a lot of the new additions are guidelines make me a lot more comfortable with it since I definitely think that it would be really limiting to mappers otherwise (though I'm not sure how strictly they'll be enforced, honestly I think these should be loosely enforced for the sake of keeping diversity in ranked, only penalizing maps that are obviously trying to take advantage of their spreads in comparison to the music).

It’s been brought up a lot of times already but I feel like the rule involving LNs being simultaneously held should be a guideline, at least in Normal diffs. For instance, if you’re playing a song where 2 notes are being held at the same time at the very end on different hands, and one note is released say, 4/1 after the other one, I don’t think that would be too difficult for players playing normal diffs to execute and making this a rule seems a little too limiting to me, even at a normal difficulty level. (Tbh I think it should be a guideline for easy diffs too but that might be asking for a bit too much)

Shoegazer wrote:

This is extremely important (and I'm not sure if this is overlooked), but consecutive 1/4 snaps should be three notes long at least. In a map with mostly 1/2 rhythms, a 1/4 gallop (2 consecutive 1/4s) requires omitting a potential 1/2 note, which would cause timing difficulties (especially for new players) and major issues if you were to layer a certain sound consistently.
(refers to the normal difficulty guideline where if a normal diff is the lowest diff in a set, consecutive ¼ snaps can only be 2 notes long): Bumping this because I heavily agree with it, I think this could prove problematic in making normal diffs with occasional ¼ note usage for playability reasons as he stated. The fact that this is a rule is even more concerning to me. I think it should be a guideline at most.since even though most things account for BPM since you're normalizing things to 180, this doesn't and I feel like it's a little excessive, especially in low BPM maps (though if it has to be a rule I think Shoegazer's suggestion is more appropriate, well...it works well if this becomes a guideline too tbh.)

Shoegazer wrote:

You should specify that you are referring to 1/4 jack usage. 1/2 jacks (90 BPM 1/4s in this example) are usually far more bearable to players who are just approaching Hard difficulties.
(refers to the hard difficulty guideline where jack usage is discouraged). Bumping this because I agree that clarifying what snap is discouraged would be helpful for mappers, since it isn’t indicated whether 1/3 or ½ jacks are acceptable.

Kawawa wrote:

4K is actually limited to songs that can reach 'EX' icon. so most of their last level are mapped to Insane diff. so It's frequently see the 4k sets have 2-3 Insane spread. therefore If it is exist, It can maintain the same way as the past for freedom of the pattern choices and provides a reasonable technique spread between two identical icons.
Hopefully I’m not being too pedantic here since Feerum did bring up that low BPM spreads can have their higher diffs “rounded up” in a sense to follow E/N/H/I spreads but I’m assuming that this applies to higher diffs too? For instance if someone had a E/N/H/I/I spread, I think the top diff should be treated as an Extra diff by the RC. (Sorry if this sounds dumb but I just want to make sure). But a few people have brought up that it’s difficult to determine if some diffs are Insane or Extra diffs and I think this would solve that problem.

Lenfried- wrote:

Expanding on abraker's concerns but with regards to duration based spread rules. If I have a severely underrated 4.8* chart being pushed as a single diff for 4:15, would it be considered an insane or an expert? Where do you draw the line? Should the QAT be consulted with these things? The same could be said for 3:30 H single H diffs that may be underrated. If these said underrated diffs would be subject to QAT rulings, would overrated charts be treated in the same manner?
EDIT: I know I shouldn't be mentioning SR but the point still stands on defining what should set the difference between Hards and Insanes / Insanes and Experts. The purpose is to avoid potentially frustrating DQs over single diff maps over a hidden rule of some sorts.
Lenfried brings up a really good point here, I think single diffs should be taken into account since there isn’t anything in the proposed draft addressing them. That being said I think they should be given more (preferably a lot more) leeway since they don’t fit in a spread to avoid limiting mappers. Since SR isn’t tied to difficulty level and single diffs aren’t tied to spreads, I think intended difficulty level should be left to mapper discretion for single diff maps in order to avoid penalizing underrated maps.

Honestly the “avoid unjustified spikes in difficulty” guideline should apply to every difficulty level imo since it’s possible to make extremely overrated difficulties that aren’t representative of the song’s intensity for any difficulty level, though

Shoegazer wrote:

- "Difficulty spike" needs to be defined further. Are you referring to difficulty spikes in terms of density, or can it refer to difficulty spikes in timing difficulty? Maximally accurate guitar solos are notorious for being very difficult to time for KB play, and they would be considered "spiky" despite not being too much harder than a straight 1/4 or a 1/6 stream.
This is a really good point that should be addressed as well, and I think density spikes should be differentiated from actual difficulty spikes (for instance if you had a 6-bar long jumptrill/jumptrillable pattern in a diff with mostly easy ½ patterns vs. a 6-bar long non-jumptrillable 1/8 stream in a diff with mostly easy ½ patterns ). Both should be avoided imo for the sake of keeping difficulty level consistent in maps, but I think stating both in the guidelines would be good for clarification.

I would like to talk more about semi-dumps/dumps (specifically how to define a continuous sound and whether its acceptable to map out or not since many genres of music such as drumstep/neuro/neurofunk/dubstep etc. call for it imo) but it’s understandable that it needs to be discussed after a new RC is implemented.

Aaa I think that’s all I have to say for now? Might have to look over this a bit more/see what else has to be said but my post is kinda long anyways so I should probably stop for now lol. In any case I appreciate the hard work you guys put into this and I hope that what I have to say is at least a little helpful!

Edit: one more thing, I feel like the rules/guidelines are a little too 4k-centric as of now (for instance the jumptrill into-hand guideline), I really think things should be revised so that higher keymodes are taken into consideration here.
lenpai

-MysticEyes wrote:

Edit: one more thing, I feel like the rules/guidelines are a little too 4k-centric as of now (for instance the jumptrill into-hand guideline), I really think things should be revised so that higher keymodes are taken into consideration here.
adding up to this quote

i mentioned this in the previous thread and ill mention this again. Some terminologies shouldn't be thrown around just because people can and this RC draft is supporting that. Reading a mod that would say something like "a handstream would be nice here" for a 7k chart is just wrong.

might as well jump in the jumptrill convo

guideline has its merits as there are times where long jt->hand patterns are used when the rest of the chart has little to no rigidity which places the pattern at a weird spot of being cheap, bland, and off putting at the same time. This doesn't mean the pattern should be avoided at all costs but they should be used with discretion.
MEGAtive

Lenfried- wrote:

i mentioned this in the previous thread and ill mention this again. Some terminologies shouldn't be thrown around just because people can and this RC draft is supporting that. Reading a mod that would say something like "a handstream would be nice here" for a 7k chart is just wrong.
I think the terminologies isn't a big deal. I mean, if it's a handstream, it's a handstream. Although the execution may be totally different. It's just that 7K has more terminologies to offer, but the basic terminologies is the same thoroughout keymodes (stream, (chord)stream, jacks, gallops, etc.)

But I do think the terminology section need to provide the method of constructing a more advanced terminology such as adding the type of the chord used in a stream as a prefix. And maybe provide an image link to the corresponding terminology to give the user more visualization of how the terminology works instead of only providing lexical stuff which at some point more straining to understood.
lenpai
Providing images for terms is 10/10. will really help newcomers fully understand patterns
abraker
^ I second that
DDMythical
this RC tries to awkwardly double up as an introductory charting-guide alongside an objective set of rules for what is rankable or not. in my opinion, it should not cover explicits in its charting guide segements, but rather explain the implicits around charting with regards to overarching techniques that are almost entirely colloquially accepted by the charting community (such as intensity congruency, or sound representation.) As of now, some of the things written in RC are incorrectly advising people on how to chart, and forcing unnecessary restrictions on charts.

why is 180bpm picked as the standard for what measures are determined as too difficult for the player at any given level, if anything, pick 150 - it divides much better into certain bpms which are common at certain difficulty levels:
1/4 = 150
1/6 = 200
1/8 = 300
1/12 = 450 (I CANT COUNT LOL)
as opposed to:
1/4 = 180
1/6 = 270
1/8 = 360
1/12 = 540
which are significantly more illogical.
Slider velocity changes that alter the scrolling speed of the map are disallowed. An exception to this rule would be creating slider velocity changes to unify the scroll speed in BPM-variable maps. Scroll normalization is mandatory and must be done in maps with variable BPM.


would https://osu.ppy.sh/s/704987 be regarded as an exception to this rule? This should not be a rule; it should be a guideline, and, if that, this presumes a congruency between physical difficulty (what star rating assesses, and determines whether the difficulty is an easy/normal/whatever) and visual/mental difficulty, with regards to svs. There is no major correlation between these two factors. A chart that is harder physically does not mean it is better suited for harsher svs than a chart physically lighter. In fact, it's the complete opposite. Looking at some of the most popular harsh sv charts in the game (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/572000 - Coinage
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/723624 - Back Of The Yards
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/108708 - dEKA
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/591171 - Groundhog
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/415946 - Chloroplast Skin
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/673208 - Cycles)
you can see that most, if not all of them, fall around a low difficulty range relative to the ability necessary to learn the SVs. As such, no explicit rule should be included which dictates congruency between physical ability and SVs, I don't disagree with it being a guideline, but even-so, it's presented in a sense which implies that as your chart is harder physically, it becomes better to use harsher svs, when, in reality, it is the complete converse. this is harmful to new charters.
these are arbitrary and an extremely stupid way to dictate what is expected of players around x skill level. The best way to do this would involve looking at the rough patternical levels at x skill level, and dictating what is regarded as "too difficult" for players at that skill level.
if anything, this should entirely be up to bn discretion for what constitutes as too difficult for a difficulty level, but hey.

Note snappings of consecutive 1/6 and above should not be used. This is to make sure beginner players start off with an easy experience in the game.


what is absurd about this, is that absolutely no time frame (or note frame) is dictated. A 1/6 in isolation is absolutely no harder than a 1/1 in isolation, or a 1/16th in isolation, or a 1/10000 in isolation; context is extremely important with regards to difficulty as, on their own, every note is equal in physical difficulty.
addendum: Consecutive implies that two consecutive 1/6's are too difficult for a given difficulty - two 1/6s on alternate hands will have no additional difficulty -- just like how two consecutive 1/100000000s
also have no additional difficulty. Using snaps to determine what can and can't be done in a chart is arbitrary and restrictive.

What is not accounted here, at all, is patterning. Even if you were to include a time-frame for difficulty (lets say, 10 notes) the difference between a 1/6 10 note 2h trill and a 1/6 10 note 1h trill is huge, and this rule has absolutely no dictation between the two. What you'd need to do for this rule to make any sense, is to gather data on all common patterns, and assess what BPM they are roughly playable by by a player at this skill level.

I would say, above anything, that common sense, and the dictation of the BNG should decide what is playable, roughly, for players at whatever skill level.

There is almost no way to list what is expected from players at any given skill level due to the huge variation in patterning that can be brought. 250bpm jumpstream for just 1 measure can range from, say, 7dan to luminal; WITH NO SPECIFICITY TO PATTERNING, A RULE BASED ON WHAT SPEED IS EXPECTED FROM PLAYERS AT ANY GIVEN SKILL LEVEL IS, AT BEST, A SHOT IN THE DARK.

as such this rule should be removed; no specification on what snaps are or are not okay for players at any given skill level should be given, as, if anything, it would be almost entirely incorrect as it doesn't account for technical or physical difficulty. it is an arbitrary number - is 1/4 dense chordjacking okay when 1/6 streams are not? I believe almost everyone able to competently play would agree that a 1/6 stream is significantly easier than 1/4 dense chordjacking at the same bpm, yet this guideline dictates that the former is harder than the latter.

So, what should be done instead? Note that it is near-impossible (if not) to truly dictate what is capable by players at a given difficulty level. Even moreso, when the element dicating what is in which skill level is SR, which is absurdly flawed, and should not even be used as a metric for determining anything.

I suggest that, instead of providing objectivity in what BPM is playable, or not playable, by players at a given level (even with regards to patterns), you should explain the difficulty of patterning in the RC; explain concepts such as the difficulty of jacks, as they increase in length, they do not increase linearly but instead exponentially, and as such it should be understood that a chart utilising 2 note long jacks (minijacks) should not suddenly change into 3, or 4 note long jacks, as these are significantly more difficult, despite not being much of a change in patterning. Conveying this to charters reading RC will provide (atleast to some extent) a more competent understanding of the structure of patterning in comparison to other patterns at the same BPM.

Furthermore, explaining that 1H trills are more difficult than 2H trills, because 1H trilling increases in difficulty much faster than 2H trills (300bpm 2H trills are doable by most players at 9/10dan level; 300bpm 1H trills are beyond the peak of any top-tier player for any sustained period of time.) Would be significantly more useful than what is provided now. Then, a rough bpm (WITH LENIENCY) can be provided for each pattern, and then atleast, to some extent, a difficulty level acceptable for each difficulty can be determined.
As example:
Hard (As hard constitutes for 1st dan->4th dan)
Streams should be between 180bpm-230bpm, taking the length of a measure as baseline. Leniency should then be taken dependant on the length of the stream, longer streams increase the difficulty in stamina, so they should be slower for the same difficulty to apply (a 250 stream extended for a longer period of time would stretch into low/mid-insane) and vice versa. The same leniency should be applied to the technicality of patterns, the more technically challenging a pattern is, the slower it needs to be to exert the same overall difficulty, and vice versa. This leniency should be entirely down to the judgement of the bng.

With this; a basic understanding of difficulty can be presented in the RC.
(if you'd like more numbers for this, i can work them out roughly over the week, but you need to understand that SR is completely unusable to calculate the difficulty of patterns, and that hard-level chordjacks may rate a chart as insane, and extra-level longjacks may rate a chart as hard.)
Long term slider velocity changes should be in between 0.??x and 1.??x.


I also vehemently disagree with the nature of this rule - the numbers selected for these (0.90/1.05 for normal; 0.75/1.10 for hard; 0.5/1.10 for insane and extra) are completely arbitrary and make almost no consistent sense. Considering the gimmicky nature of SV usage and how it applies over other skillsets, to limit long-standing sv usage which may be contextually acceptable with the concept of the chart is absolutely absurd in my opinion. Like I say above, this takes the physical difficulty of a chart and compares it to the difficulty of the SVs - there are plenty of difficult SV charts that are not physically demanding; the physical aspects of a chart as assessed by SR should have absolutely nothing to do with what SVs are acceptable in your chart, ironically enough, as the physical difficulty of your chart increases. If anything, your SVs should get less effective on the song so as not to overwhelm the player or obscure other concepts at play - but this is tangential.
Inverse patterns must not be used. They are a very advanced type of pattern and that they require a lot of coordination to properly execute it.


the lack of explanation with regards to what constitutes an "advanced pattern" is painful here. What it should refer to, is to the technicality of a pattern - inverse patterns are technically complex, and, as such, are a higher difficulty than most patterns at the same bpm. This goes for OHTrills, polyrhythms, etc. which are technical. Why this rule is only presented in hard is beyond me, as, logically, it should apply to normal and easy inherently anyway but w/e.
Inverse patterns are also not the only type of "advanced pattern"; all it's specifying is that this pattern is more difficult than other patterns at the same bpm. as such, 50bpm inverse in a 200bpm stream chart is perfectly okay, because it is *that* much slower, the added technicality does not create an unfair difficulty spike. This rule is simply incorrectly labelling technical patterns and not accounting for difficulty properly.


this rule was removed


most of what is written in this is actively detrimental to newer charters reading it, as it's actively teaching and conveying concepts that simply are not correct - or undermining/ignoring important concepts (notably with regards to difficulty).

this is a repost of https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/719936/start=45 from 4 months ago, i have edited the parts that have been edited in RC.

i might've restated some things other people have stated.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply