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?
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.