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

posted
Total Posts
56
show more
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.
Noch Einen
Bro, you got the wrong point here. I believe it is "RC" and yet you give example on "Loved" state which "we made map based on creativity / anything"

DDMythical wrote:

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.
I don't know if i should post this, i think BN / QAT should checked a map more carefully when qualify something.
I'm cool with upcoming RC guidelines.

Timing
I believe this guideline is from the past
"Also you need to add SV changes to your map when your song has multiple BPM changes. As an example: If your song has a BPM change from 150 to 200, the scroll speed of your notes will also get higher! To prevent this, we need to add an SV point at the BPM change to adjust the scroll speed to the average BPM."
I found some map were "breaking the guidelines" like Timing, hitsounding, offsets / BPM / snapping.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/189643 - dreamin' feat.Ryu☆ [2nd Kiai place as x1.05] (2014) (INFINITE)

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/113175 - Phantasmagoria (not quite same, yet similiar) [1st BPM place as half or 2nd BPM as double or reversed, idk which one] (2013) [All diff]

Hitsounding
I'm certainly sure hitsound consistency is brought up by Protastic101 before his map got ranked Camellia - Exit This Earth's Atomosphere
Yet i found inconsistent hs on jioyi - cyanine Rivals_7's map [Ultimate] is like this at 03:02:161 (182161|3) -
and hs vol conflict between [Another] & the rest of those diff (at some part) i can't tell where it is, i lost my data >:(

Snapping
There is 1 song has weird snapping (currently on pas ranked map) Mitsuyoshi Takenobu no Ani - Amphisbaena (i think this one is fine because minor problem, but i just pointed it out, so upcoming weird snap on other song would not be like this again)
Both ranked are using same pattern on 1 part (00:26:681 - which are late on vocal offsets, applies on 02:05:275 - too)

BPM / Offsets
Actually this is 1 of other big mistake on ranked map. Why do i say this? Because it has really early offset than precise location?
The song is Team Grimoire - Sheriruth. Try take a deep observation & listen carefully at 25% & 1/16 snapping from the whole diff / early (regardless of what diff they are, those are same). Still didn't believe it? try at 00:44:345 - and go 1/16 further & listen at 25%
MEGAtive

DDMythical wrote:

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 = 400
as opposed to:
1/4 = 180
1/6 = 270
1/8 = 360
1/12 = 540
which are significantly more illogical.
Seconding this.

Noch Einen wrote:

I found some map were "breaking the guidelines" like Timing, hitsounding, offsets / BPM / snapping.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/189643 - dreamin' feat.Ryu☆ [2nd Kiai place as x1.05] (2014) (INFINITE)

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/113175 - Phantasmagoria (not quite same, yet similiar) [1st BPM place as half or 2nd BPM as double or reversed, idk which one] (2013) [All diff]
Uh, you do realize you are using a 2013/2014 era maps where ranking criteria are still being constructed from the ground right? This rules/guidelines is written to guide upcoming maps, not to adapt its way with a 5-year old maps.

And 1.05x isn't a big deal. You can still see the notes traversing vertically.

Noch Einen wrote:

Hitsounding
I'm certainly sure hitsound consistency is brought up by Protastic101 before his map got ranked Camellia - Exit This Earth's Atomosphere
Yet i found inconsistent hs on jioyi - cyanine Rivals_7's map [Ultimate] is like this at 03:02:161 (182161|3) -
and hs vol conflict between [Another] & the rest of those diff (at some part) i can't tell where it is, i lost my data >:(

Snapping
There is 1 song has weird snapping (currently on pas ranked map) Mitsuyoshi Takenobu no Ani - Amphisbaena (i think this one is fine because minor problem, but i just pointed it out, so upcoming weird snap on other song would not be like this again)
Both ranked are using same pattern on 1 part (00:26:681 - which are late on vocal offsets, applies on 02:05:275 - too)

BPM / Offsets
Actually this is 1 of other big mistake on ranked map. Why do i say this? Because it has really early offset than precise location?
The song is Team Grimoire - Sheriruth. Try take a deep observation & listen carefully at 25% & 1/16 snapping from the whole diff / early (regardless of what diff they are, those are same). Still didn't believe it? try at 00:44:345 - and go 1/16 further & listen at 25%
Also this is a thread for discussing the upcoming ranking rules/guidelines, not a thread for discussing the times where Nominators weren't paying attention, missed something or two back then and should DQ or Derank stuff. It is already in the past, and this is discussing the future of osu!mania ranking scene rules/guide.
DDMythical
itt ddmythical evaluates (150/4)x12 as 400
lenpai
Seconding DD's notion that the reference bpm works better at 150

At this point ill assume my memory of the proposed RC is correct. Im on mobile and it's not worth the effort to open the document.

As the mapper of lesson by dj, the set does not break the rule. The BASIC diff exists to fill in the "Easy" diff of the spread. Challenge is the secondary and top diff of the spread which gives it all the creative freedom with sv usages. The only limitation is that it cannot be a Hard diff or harder (snap + pattern rule/guidelines considered). Note that the easy rule/guideline section pertains to an intended Easy diff in the spread and not necessarily every single E icon map.

If anything, i think single diff E icon sv challenge can be ranked with the duration based spread rules in place. Else, a filler NSV note reduced diff will need to be added. Confirmation needed.

If the diff next to the filler easy would be subject to Normal's sv rules, that would stink a lot.
Maxus
Thank you for all the feedback guys! we will sort all the problems that being pointed out and tried to come out with alternative solution that will be implemented in the next RC draft round of community feedback. For now will lock the thread.
Maxus
So, we are back with another update for mania RC!
The new update can be seen here for everyone : https://gist.github.com/pishifat/3983da22af830b120bf566addf1425ae

For most part, we already revise some of the guidelines based on the community feedback, but some of them we keep based on the full consideration of the difficulty level for the mentioned difficulties. (In case there's something that we missing, it may be mentioned again)
Also, we add some of the rules on our own that we think are necessary to be implemented in the RC. The most notable changes are the separate guidelines for both 4K and 7K that need further discussion from community input.

We'll leave this open for 1 week to gather community feedback before we locked this thread again.
abraker
Two notes cannot be placed in a single column at the same timestamp
Which makes me wonder: Should 1ms jacks be rankable? 10ms?

Every note should correlate to a sound present in the music. This should be a distinct sound, but can also coherently represent a continuous sound with an indistinguishable start or end.
Might be picky on the wording, but it feels like this is saying only one note can be allocated for each "sound". "Sound" ofc is rather abstract, but it's easy to misinterpret that to be notes in the actual music as well. So if you have a wub, for example, it would be easy to misinterpret, accidentally or otherwise, that you can't have a burst of notes representing that, and instead need to use a single LN instead. I suggest using "noise" instead of "sound" since it relates more to how something actually sounds instead of the objectified concept of some kind of sound.


Overall, great improvement!
-mint-
at first glance common terms looks badly organized especially with the SV stuff

the definition for Grace can be misinterpreted to something jacky, might wanna clarify
actually that whole section needs a cleanup too

the second bullet point for rules as abraker pointed out should mention what aimod says is allowed (iirc, 20ms?)
lenpai
I dont think there's a great need to mention on what limits is there on spacing between two jacking notes. Community feedback and modding will weed out fringe cases like these. I doubt anyone tried to rank a map with a 1ms jack let alone a 1/16 jack.

What constitutes a distinct sound is a good point to talk about as it gives way to arguments on what's chartable or not. This goes for noise elements like static or wubs. I'm inclined to believe that degree of dumping would be allowable due to this clause:
"would be effectively represented with a consistent, predictable snap"

with that said, i still believe this guideline is unnecessary:
"Long notes should not have release timings that use different timing snaps. For example, long note releases should not have a 1/3 snap on the end of it and a 1/4 snap at the end of another. However, long note releases that are used with common multiples can be used."

I doubt newbie mappers would really try to do this and just simplify and that leaves the more experienced mappers that intentionally follow certain snappings not to mention fringe cases for sound durations. With o2 style lning (ln overextentions and quick presses of varying lengths) permissible i really dont see the need for this.

"Rhythm related guidelines apply to approximately 180 BPM maps." Try to make a poll on this. I still strongly believe 150 BPM should be the standard as it enforces the guidelines better particularly E/N diffs for a greater scope of music.

Normal Rule: "A long note cannot be released during another long note’s body. This requires a level of finger independence that players of this difficulty cannot handle."

While a perfectly sensible rule for faster music, this eliminates potentially very fitting patterns for calmer music. It enforces the idea, for example, that holding a 4/1 LN at 1 and hitting a 1/2 LN at 4 is "too difficult" for a player to handle. Take it from me i have the tendency to suggest general nerfs to a couple of Normals i mod. What i agree with though is that releases cannot happen on the same physical hand (not to be confused with 3-not hand) where say if an LN is held at col 1, and an LN is held at col 2, releasing at col 2 while holding col 1 can be prohibited. Separate hand releases demand much less coordination.

That being said, the existence of the normal rule makes this 7k rule unnecessary:
"Long notes played with adjacent keys that are held simultaneously should be released at the same time. Long notes with multiple release timings require coordination that players of this level cannot reasonably handle."

If normal is the lowest diff rule: I'm inclined to think thay the forced normalization rule should be out as something as tame as a 0.9 slowjam is transistion material to stronger values. That being said the 0.9 to 1.05x sv rule should be the rule in place relative to their normalized values.

Everything else looks sensible. While i still disagree with the existence of other guidelines, removing them is not as necessary as the LN snap thing
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply