With the advent of greater amounts of slider overlap and stricter rules about sliders overlapping themselves, it might be useful to make a guideline concerning how much of a slider needs to be visible (not covered in other notes or hitbursts) before the slider starts. I personally would recommend 1. no more than 50% obscured and 2. no directional changes in the slider that cannot be seen before the slider starts, although other people might have differing opinions.
forum
[Guideline] Maximum Slider Overlap
posted
Total Posts
24
Topic Starter
No, because this is more of personal preference and aesthetic thing
EDIT: and if you are bad at playing
EDIT: and if you are bad at playing
oh, you guys were talking about this on #modhelp.
not very sure what "not more than 50% obscured" mean because here's some examples which may similar to your opinion:
1: from t/51905
it's obviously 50%+ invisible, but a classicle style, and easy to read out.
2. from this map, Insane diff, 00:10:327 (5) -
apparently, over 50% of its square is hidden by itself.
3. from this map, Insane diff, 01:52:739 (3) -
1/3 square is hidden by prev notes, and approx another 1/4 square invisible for it's curved, (Easy to caculate by integral, won't list whole step here).
4. form this map, Insane diff, 01:15:920 (3) -
over 50% square is overlapped by prev notes.
5. from this map, Hard diff, 00:38:586 (1) -
over 50% invisible for prev score burst.
6. from this map, Another diff, 00:32:475 (2) -
overlapped by both score and prev slidertrack
7. from this map, Another diff, 00:15:576 (11) -
slider in stream which is hidden for score and prev objects.
and some other cases, including both self-overlap or overlapped by other objects.
all of these cases are rankable and playable now.
1: from t/51905
it's obviously 50%+ invisible, but a classicle style, and easy to read out.
2. from this map, Insane diff, 00:10:327 (5) -
apparently, over 50% of its square is hidden by itself.
3. from this map, Insane diff, 01:52:739 (3) -
1/3 square is hidden by prev notes, and approx another 1/4 square invisible for it's curved, (Easy to caculate by integral, won't list whole step here).
4. form this map, Insane diff, 01:15:920 (3) -
over 50% square is overlapped by prev notes.
5. from this map, Hard diff, 00:38:586 (1) -
over 50% invisible for prev score burst.
6. from this map, Another diff, 00:32:475 (2) -
overlapped by both score and prev slidertrack
7. from this map, Another diff, 00:15:576 (11) -
slider in stream which is hidden for score and prev objects.
and some other cases, including both self-overlap or overlapped by other objects.
all of these cases are rankable and playable now.
As long as it's just a guideline then I don't see a problem. Avoiding covering up more than about half of the hit circle is generally a good idea, though I usually don't have too much trouble reading it regardless.
EDIT: I'd rather just have a "don't be a ninny" guideline, but eh.
EDIT: I'd rather just have a "don't be a ninny" guideline, but eh.
Quit overlapping shit.
You mean something like this rule?
Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous (including "burai sliders") cannot be used. This is so that no slider has an appearance that is confusing or impossible for the player to read. Additionally, the slider borders must never be covered up from the slider being packed in too tightly. However, sliders that cross over themselves are fine as long as the borders are clearly visible.Been discussed throughly before: t/63979 if you wish to revive such a thread to make it stricter be my guest, but i doubt that will happen.
ftfyziin wrote:
Quit shit overlapping.
I guess we should only decide whether a partially obscured slider should be fixed after testplay it(means treat it only when it is in motion.) because elements in a map influence each other. So a exact number limitation sounds less flexibility
Well if it doesn't fully overlap itself for more than two times or it doesn't overlap itself partially too many times, it's still playable.
And No One will do something more awful than the scenario I described that is arleady much more than unrankable with current rules(but still playable). So there is no need for a guideline, while there is a certainly more strict rule.
Even if I would prefer substituting it with a guideline.
And No One will do something more awful than the scenario I described that is arleady much more than unrankable with current rules(but still playable). So there is no need for a guideline, while there is a certainly more strict rule.
Even if I would prefer substituting it with a guideline.
No. Both mapping techniques and playing skills improved a lot in the 3 years.
"New" is not what you should be afraid of, learn today's mapping/playing more and you'll get used to it.
Also, Ranking Rules are very accurate lines. Guidelines is more flexible but still about that. Any preference issues shouldn't be put here.
"New" is not what you should be afraid of, learn today's mapping/playing more and you'll get used to it.
Also, Ranking Rules are very accurate lines. Guidelines is more flexible but still about that. Any preference issues shouldn't be put here.
ziin wrote:
Quit overlapping shit.
/end thread
overlapping =/= messy. Should mention that having a slider end overlapping a slider body is considered normal.
Unless you're not playing with doubletime + AR10, you can see most notes before hitting them.
Stacking notes under sliders however is not accpetable since that's so much harder to see. But it's not like most people are following these guidelines anyway. >:
Stacking notes under sliders however is not accpetable since that's so much harder to see. But it's not like most people are following these guidelines anyway. >:
I think that something like a <50% hitburst overlap guideline would be effective and would quell the most messy and confusing overlaps. Of course, streams and some back and forth notes would be exempt from this, so maybe it could be applied to certain non-consecutive objects only. Either way, I rarely see a reason for really cluttered overlaps and this sort of thing seems to happen because of spacing that's too close or patterns which don't really move anywhere.
As for hit objects themselves, perhaps the guideline could be extended to objects in general. I just think that there should be a few stringent guidelines for presentation and readability. Because they'd be guidelines, there'd be no need to kick up a stink about THE MAN crushing all mapper spirit. All that would happen would be that the worst instances don't happen as often and the better instances remain in a map.
Furthermore, excusing sketchy occurrences by blaming bad playing is moot if something is genuinely confusing and something becomes highly ambiguous or obscured.
As for hit objects themselves, perhaps the guideline could be extended to objects in general. I just think that there should be a few stringent guidelines for presentation and readability. Because they'd be guidelines, there'd be no need to kick up a stink about THE MAN crushing all mapper spirit. All that would happen would be that the worst instances don't happen as often and the better instances remain in a map.
Furthermore, excusing sketchy occurrences by blaming bad playing is moot if something is genuinely confusing and something becomes highly ambiguous or obscured.
Notes-under-Slider visibility depend, like Stacked Notes, on Approach Circles, So you should make sure Approach Circle+Hit Circle doesn't get covered and not only the Hitcircles.theowest wrote:
Stacking notes under sliders however is not accpetable since that's so much harder to see. But it's not like most people are following these guidelines anyway. >:
And usually a Slider won't overlap it a circle that much.
And if it's a slider, if there is a circle in a certain point, and a slider burst out of nowhere from another part of the overlapping slider, you can assume the Circle is a Slider start, and the the slider pass under the overlapping slider.
Hmm, is there something in the guidelines about obscuring approach circles? Certainly, with AR8 or 9, I've found that cluttered patterns make the reading of approach circles more difficult than it should be.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
Notes-under-Slider visibility depend, like Stacked Notes, on Approach Circles, So you should make sure Approach Circle+Hit Circle doesn't get covered and not only the Hitcircles.theowest wrote:
Stacking notes under sliders however is not accpetable since that's so much harder to see. But it's not like most people are following these guidelines anyway. >:
And usually a Slider won't overlap it a circle that much.
And if it's a slider, if there is a circle in a certain point, and a slider burst out of nowhere from another part of the overlapping slider, you can assume the Circle is a Slider start, and the the slider pass under the overlapping slider.
Like everytime, it does depend. Higher ARs make cluttered FAST patterns harder, while Slower cluttered pattern suffer from slow ARs.D33d wrote:
Hmm, is there something in the guidelines about obscuring approach circles? Certainly, with AR8 or 9, I've found that cluttered patterns make the reading of approach circles more difficult than it should be.HakuNoKaemi wrote:
Notes-under-Slider visibility depend, like Stacked Notes, on Approach Circles, So you should make sure Approach Circle+Hit Circle doesn't get covered and not only the Hitcircles.
And usually a Slider won't overlap it a circle that much.
And if it's a slider, if there is a circle in a certain point, and a slider burst out of nowhere from another part of the overlapping slider, you can assume the Circle is a Slider start, and the the slider pass under the overlapping slider.
Imagine a slow map with lower than normal AR and cluttered patterns.
But nothing that does follow music is completely unreadable, though
This is still readable, for example, due to approach circle being visible.
Of course--I would find that to be needlessly awkward, so it's about how readable something is, and if there is enough in the map to make something readable on a fundamental level. I find that the best course of action is to get a very specific reason for making a map awkward in an equally specific fashion--otherwise, it's usually best to remove it. For what it's worth, I rarely deem "flow" to be an acceptable reason for creating awkward and ugly patterns, because there are plenty of alternative approaches which would negate more problems than benefits.
Just my take on it.
Just my take on it.
In the end it's a bit too subjective to create an objective guideline about something like overlaps.
"Don't overlap partially ( it do cover part of the circle and of the approach ) too many times in the same part" is a suggestion, though something like that is already said by many modders.
"Don't overlap partially ( it do cover part of the circle and of the approach ) too many times in the same part" is a suggestion, though something like that is already said by many modders.
As long as the shape of the track is visually identifiable, it's fine. No need for a percentage rule.
"Don't make ugly maps" can't be a rule.
"Don't make ugly maps" can't be a rule.
So basically, "Don't be a ninny."mm201 wrote:
As long as the shape of the track is visually identifiable, it's fine. No need for a percentage rule.
SPOILER
Ekaru wrote:
So basically, "Don't be a ninny.(while creating maps)"mm201 wrote:
As long as the shape of the track is visually identifiable, it's fine. No need for a percentage rule.
Don't be a nanny.(while taking care of maps)
Don't be Repede.(while taking care of food)
Don't be a dog.(while cooking food)*Fun fact: Repede cook.
Anyway, the discussion basically ended :3
So i guess this is the end of this. No change