forum

[Guideline Addition] Content bloat and score inflation

posted
Total Posts
54
show more
lewski

-Liban- wrote:

things

It might be a good idea to go back and read the thread more carefully since you seem to have misunderstood what the proposal aims to do. Also, everything you brought up either has already been addressed or is currently being discussed.

-Liban- wrote:

I think you're only doing this out of self interest trying to get rid of pp maps.

I can't really see what personal interest anyone could have in this. In any case, whether or not there's a hidden agenda behind the proposal isn't even relevant to the discussion.
Gens
So so glad that this proposal was brought up, and I really really hope that it doesn't end as a dead proposal. I think for any game, or even for any service with user-submitted content, it's much more healthy for it to keep the redundant content or the content bloat at bay, right?

Well, I think that depends on what we want osu! to become in the long run. I always advocate for having a permissive ranking criteria that allows many things for it to get through, in order to have more variety in the ranked section... but at the same time, since many people do like to map in this sort of way, implementing something like this would be the exact opposite of being permissive, rather barring maps from getting to the ranked section. So, pros and cons, yeah.

Looking at the two perspectives:

If we were to continue with the current system, where mappers go for pp/attention most of all, it's not necessarily a bad thing. As people have said, there's people right now that do enjoy the current state of things despite them being 'bad', and I think pp mapping, or mapping for attention will never truly disappear (think of them like the clickbaity videos in YouTube... they work, that's why they exist). Continuing like this sets a standard on what is 'common' ranked mapping, thus making maps that are different really stand out, plus everyone gets a true and fair chance on getting to the ranked section. As a player, once you happen to stumble upon a mapper that maps this kind of way, you rather just know that you want to stay away from his/her maps - and the issue of the players feeling pressured to play these types of maps to stay in the top rankings, that may only be related with the pp system directly, and not so much with the mapping it has influenced, at least from my point of view.

So the current state of things, I see it as an even ground for everyone (or at least, as even as it can get) but... for the game as a whole, it does not give it a good image. It may make players think that this is all osu! is about and make them quickly quit the game, and sure enough, in an ideal world you wouldn't need to dig too deep to find something interesting out there. We wouldn't be able to pride ourselves in belonging to a community where only the highest standard is held - since we know so many things pass through without too much effort, or that there are many other interests for mappers than just trying to bring something interesting to the table. We would know as a community that there's too much content bloat, and aren't really doing anything to change that. But just maybe that can be countered with the beatmap spotlights, or with the staff trying to bring more attention to maps that really deserve it in some other way, I'm not sure if that's as effective though.


Now, if something like this were implemented...

Hopes are that, pp maps would be more limited. Less pp difficulties in the same set, or even less pp sets entirely. No more grinding the same songs over an over with similar mapping ideas - we know there's no content bloat happening, and that you can find something new and unique on each map. Even though there would be lots of backlash from mappers, the game as a whole would become more interesting, even if it's forcing the mappers to change their habits/way of mapping. I don't think it would make the game instantly better, as the first sets of a song, or first difficulties of a set, would still be pp and still get more plays (and I guess that's why this is called a 'band-aid' solution?) but, I think it would be a great first step as other mappers would need to forcefully find other, more interesting ways to represent a song in a map.

If I put myself in the shoes of someone who made a pp map and tried to get it ranked as a GD, but was told later that it was removed due to ranking criteria standards, and would not be able to get it through with significant changes, it would make me really mad, since I had spent so much time and effort mapping that (also because I would not be provided the opportunity to push it through, just because someone else beat me to it). Despite my rage though, for the game it would also make perfect sense since, if the map I created is extremely similar to an already ranked one, or a difficulty of the same set, what are you really going to provide to the ranked section? It would be time to ask myself, am I really bringing anything interesting or anything new to the table? That's why I think, if we were going this way, barring sets or difficulties from ranking is completely valid, as we want the game to provide something different and unique for everyone - as painful as it would be to the mapper putting their effort and time on the map, just telling them "sorry, you can't get in, try again - the game requires something different now".

I mean, we kinda know already that with any sort of change, people are going to get mad. But if it's for making the game better as a whole (better in this context meaning to provide more variety), then I think we should go ahead and embrace ourselves for the outrage this is going to cause. Myself personally, I'm all for a proposal like this.



tl;dr - I think this most of all depends if we all, as a community, want to start enforcing subjective quality standards again, with the mapper outrage it's going to ensue, Loctav-era style again. Do we want to keep mappers happy, or do we want to make the game more varied with its maps?
As I see it right now, the community is divided and has been for some time. If we can all get on the same page though, I'm on board.

(Sorry if I actually failed to tackle the currently discussed points or digressed a little bit, just felt like that's a strong point that should be clarified first. There is another thing I wanted to say, but I'll leave it like this for now I guess).
Topic Starter
yaspo
- Liban : There's a lot of wrong interpretations here. More maps to play is fine, Taeyang is definitely not Sotarks and variety is cool. Lack of variety is an issue however (see Sotarks & mentees). mp3 issue is already prevalent (see harumachi clover, re:tryment, etc), might be an interesting fix for osu!Lazer to have them use the same mp3 instead.

- Gens : Thanks a lot for your in depth post. It details exactly the two opposing sides of the argument, mapper freedom vs stricter content moderation. Since this is a game with user-created content and user-moderated content, it causes conflict between these users and their goals.

So, yeah. I'm not eager for a "Loctav style era", nor am I trying to stop pp mapping. Beyond restricting cases where content gets excessively repetitive (same song + same map), the Ranking Criteria should remain as permissive as possible. So for example, ranking set with 4 overly similar difficulties or pushing popular song x for the 5th time without a different approach is an issue. A second or maybe third version in similar vein should be fine; it seems unreasonable to expect everyone to do different things considering the size of our community and the meta.

To extend that thought to my current version of the proposal, here's an adjustment.
  1. Avoid having too many similar sections with several already ranked difficulties of the same song. This is to ...
This seems as specific as it gets, though idk how others feel between this and previous iteration. This does seem more realistically enforceable, since when more cases of 'the same thing' pop up, it becomes a lot more clear and easier to point out compared to when there's only 2 things to compare.
Gens
When I was writing the previous post, one thing that crossed my mind was exactly that - since we're going to have two sides of the spectrum, then what we would need is strike a balance between these two things, so cases where mappers are dissatisfied are minimal but variation in the game overall is upheld. So I like where this is going!

At first I thought it may be too lenient to have up to 3 or 4 difficulties with similar design ideas, but actually, revisiting your previous examples it is obvious that, it is valid and necessary. My only thought would be possibly the word "several" having too much room for interpretation. Does several mean 3 or more? Should it be until 4? 2 is already plural isn't it? Perhaps more specific wording there is needed, so that discussion isn't brought up at the moment it's applied.

And the only other thing I wanted to mention was also including the difficulty level wording in the proposal itself too. Everyone so far, as least the way I see it, already knows difficulty progression among the entire spread, where easy difficulties share ideas with the Insane and so, are perfectly valid and shouldn't be barred from ranking at all, so I don't think there's much to be discussed there but, the wording should also be included in the proposal to avoid misinterpretation. I think something like "...difficulties of the same song, of the same difficulty level" should suffice.
Topic Starter
yaspo
- Specifying amount of difficulties
Has been brought up quite a bit as I talked to people, but ultimately doesn't work out well. It really just ends up being an arbitrary number, and the difference between 2,3 and 4 difficulties is unsurprisingly huge. Prefer this to be vague so people can apply their own judgement. This mindset fits most of the ranking criteria (?) (eg how bpm gets handled on low difficulties)

- Specifying difficulty level
Felt like this was implied by 'too many similar sections'. When targeting different difficulty levels, you'll inherently end up adjusting certain things to fit that difficulty level. As a result the current guideline shouldn't cover those by nature. But you do make a valid case.

At this point I'm trying to find a more suitable way to word the guideline, maybe there's a way to group all the different things to be said together better. Words are hard.
Topic Starter
yaspo
Alright, thread's kinda dead, but I'm not (yet)!
Going to at least leave a post with current state of affairs.

- Specifying amount of difficulties
In hindsight still good to add it, to avoid mappers and BNs having a different interpretation of what is fine and what isn't.

Current version of the guideline :

  1. If multiple difficulties of the same song exist in the ranked section or on the same mapset, avoid having many similar sections with 2 or more of these difficulties. Similar refers to sharing a combination of mapping concepts such as rhythm, movement ideas, visual design, intensity, difficulty level, etc.

"If .. ," -> states when this guideline applies, as it's fairly specific. Preferably there'd be a way to combine "in the ranked section" and "on the same mapset" in one overarching term, but I can't find the word for it.
The part referring to difficulty level could also be moved here if necessary

"similar sections" -> what is "similar" is clarified in additional info, though could be reworded or added to

"with 2 or more" -> implies the current difficulty should be different from any 2 similar ones that already exist. Could be bumped up, and/or reworded to "between 3 of them"

With as result that excessively repetitive content (same song + overly similar map) is a valid, enforceable issue as per the ranking criteria. This is to combat content bloat, and also target the score inflation that naturally comes with it.

That's the thought process behind it, though with all the parts to it I feel like it gets convoluted? On the other hand, I've also been struggling to find a more effective way to word it.
Gens
Sorry about that, just figured earlier it was as much as I could contribute to the thread. But hey, with this new version of this guideline, I like it much better! It's got everything I mentioned earlier, and I'm satisfied with it. I think the number on it is reasonable and it is as specific as it can get, preventing misinterpretations - and I don't really see the wording on it as if it was convoluted or bad in any way. I think this is as good a guideline as it gets.
fieryrage
hey so i'm a bit late (oops) but

MaridiuS wrote:

Against the argument off "this will limit the freedom of mappers" well sorry it may but, maps are being ranked for the sake of the community not just the individual mapper that wants to rank it, you're not disallowed to map the song if your heart wills it.


what is this argument

why do you think people rank maps solely for themselves (with the exception of MAYBE sotarks because of his personality)? so very few people do that that it's not even an issue. you're basically enacting support for limiting guest diff's creative interpretations of the song if they have the exact same ideas because "some people do it for attention". that should never be how mapping works and there should be no reason to limit creative freedom of expression for the few people who abuse it.

you linked axion in your example and that literally would be unrankable with this guideline because all of the maps are alternating-tech maps with the exact same rhythms and more or less the same emphasis (hollow wings excluded). i don't understand what point you were trying to make by linking that, going to be honest.

MiGGo wrote:

pp will never be perfect and it doesnt matter how many times pp is "fixed" there will always be someting to exploit and abuse. Stop blaming the pp system for mappers exploiting it, the pp doesnt exploit itself. Grow a backbone please and add this guideline so mapsets that deserve to be unranked jump map compilations stay in the graveyard.


ignoring the attack on basically any mapper that maps jump maps at the end there:
pp system isn't entirely to blame, of course, but saying "the pp doesn't exploit itself" is just ridiculous. hidamari no uta was a no-name map until the speed buff and then suddenly everyone started playing it, alongside other very-easily doubletappable maps. would those maps then be unrankable because they exploit the pp system after a change? on top of that, you're generalizing approximately 3 mappers for abusing the system openly and saying every mapper does it. that makes no sense.

in any case, my thoughts on the proposal:
i will say yaspo makes a really good point in regards to the simplification of extra difficulties, so i will definitely vouch for that. it is bland to play maps that are essentially 1/2 spam with 1/4 repeats where there should be bursts or even streams. however, i disagree entirely with avoiding similar sections in difficulties; that is almost entirely based on the song itself and is easily subjective. ranking criteria needs to be objective, not interspersed with subjective guidelines.

as a top player, i would love to see less of these pp maps around and have the ranking system actually represent skill level, but i acknowledge that you aren't going to easily be able to counter them without doing them almost entirely on a case-by-case basis. mapper intention is key here.

in regards to the original proposal i think i made my stance decently clear on this map. i explain more of my thoughts in what spawned this guideline here if you wanna read it, interspersed with a lot of random stuff regarding the set though
Topic Starter
yaspo
Fiery : Would prefer if you didn't pick the 2 strongest opinions in the thread just to argue them, since they're not really relevant anymore (Maridius' suggestion is not covered in current ver and Miggo was kinda just being a salty player).

For the actually relevant things you said.
on thread :
- "Similar sections" : emphasis on "many" similar sections, and across multiple maps (3 or more). If a lot of sections are mapped in the same way then it's fair to consider the difficulties excessively repetitive, especially if this happens many times over. With this degree of occurrence it should be fairly clear and less subjective.
- "Subjectivity" : Kinda agree, though certain RC rulings build on personal judgement, eg. reasonable spread, I don't find this proposal to be any different when looking at the long run.
- "Case by case basis" : yes, guidelines can be enforced on a case by case basis.

on map :
- "stance on single map" : I agree and that's why this proposal is a thing instead
- "butchering creative mapping by limiting freedom of expression" : Creative is a weird word here but w/e. In a sense limiting freedom is the point, from a content perspective it makes sense to not want the same thing over and over. Since mapping is content creation (and mappers should be aware of this), this is universally applicable. Mappers therefore lose a bit of freedom, but can take plentiful other freedoms, like trying a new interpretation of the same song or mapping a different song.
- "mapping should not be limited by the everchanging PP value" : luckily the proposal isn't oriented at PP itself (did strongly imply that at the start but things changed), but more-so at excessively repetitive content

Next time instead of replying to old posts and posting a link to a map thread filled with unrelated stuff, try being productive and focus on the current and relevant parts of the discussion. Thanks.
DeletedUser_12001243
well first off im just gonna say, fiery you probably shouldnt have responded here. your points are just "someone else did it so let me do it". anyway, on to my thoughts about this proposal. i totally agree with pretty much everything here, if you can map an entire spread im pretty sure you can make difficulties that differentiate in structure. mapping soley for score abuse too like this wont help new mappers at all. they will most likely look at popular maps that have similar difficulties and get a mindset of "this is fine to do because it's ranked" which really isnt something i would like to see happen. feel free to discredit me though for i am only mr man
MBomb
I ultimately disagree with this proposal, because to my eyes it seems pretty pointless.

Firstly, from what I understand/hear from many standard players/mappers is that a lot of recent maps feel the same to play. In fact, the whole argument of this thread is against people doing "pp map" spreads where all of the difficulties play similar, however what's the difference between one map with 8 extras mapped in a similar style vs 4 maps with 2 extras mapped in that style? Other than song variety, nothing ultimately. Whilst song variety may be slightly better in some people's eyes than all of these maps being on the same song, in the end it provides the same playing experience.

The above being said, you of course can't restrict people doing "similar" maps to other ranked maps as a whole, as this is highly restrictive and would be chaos both to determine what's too close to another map, and to keep every map ever in mind when nominating a map.

Secondly, limiting someone's ability to gd on a set purely because of their similar mapping style is quite an unfortunate thing to have to do, especially when some people don't do it intentionally. Each mapper has their own style, yes, however some of these styles are often inspired by others, whether it's a mapper they like, or a mapper who taught them. Especially in the former case, though it applies to both, these are probably the people mappers would most like to gd for or get gds from, as these are the mappers who were their inspiration, and so they end up having a lot of respect for.

This becomes even more of an issue if you don't let these people make seperate sets, as an even stronger case here is that mappers are more likely to be inspired by people who map the kinds of songs they like to map, so it's highly possible for these people to map the same songs, either by coincidence or by a popular artist they both like enjoying it. Personally, I think these mappers being able to work on the same set is nice for this, even if their overall style ends up with very similar mapping, however having each work on seperate sets also would be fine, yet both cases are limited here.

Thirdly, whether or not you enjoy it, there are other players that will enjoy these mapping styles, and reducing the type of content these players enjoy for no real reason other than that it's similar to another map of the song seems rather unfair to these players, as well as to the mappers who enjoy mapping in these styles.

In conclusion, I find a guideline like this highly and unnecessarily restrictive given the fact these mappers are generally inspired by, or in some cases are friends with, the people with similar mapping styles to them, and so saying these people are disallowed from gding with their inspirations or people they get along with seems bad in general, especially considering the lack of real justifiable reasoning behind doing it.

Also, why do I feel like neither of the responses to fiery read his actual post at all...?
Pachiru
yaspo's proposal is interesting

there is no point having 5 insane with the same concept, same rhythm pattern, same difficulty and same movement. i don't think it would restrict mapset too hard tbh
DeletedUser_12001243

Pachiru wrote:

yaspo's proposal is interesting

there is no point having 5 insane with the same concept, same rhythm pattern, same difficulty and same movement. i don't think it would restrict mapset too hard tbh

yes but the proposal isnt about restricting mapsets? its about score inflation and content bloat? cmon bruh
Topic Starter
yaspo
MBomb
I agree with your overall message, the proposal is a hindrance for a bunch of social interactions that come about naturally. The mindset behind the proposal is that inspiration and working together is fine, but there needs to be a line drawn for more extreme cases without hurting other ones. It also seems that, even though inspired, different people usually still do things differently by the nature of individual expression. I've been trying to rework the proposal to reach an agreeable middleground with this in mind, but as you put it, that might not be possible with what the proposal aims to do? Though since plenty of people agree on content bloat & score inflation being an issue, I still want to approach addressing it.

Some of your argumentation doesn't really make sense to me though.
osu primarily is a music game, song variety is essential to the overall experience. Listening to a lot of different songs freshens things up compared to listening to the same song many times over. That's why same map on different song isn't discouraged. You're right about trying to enforce something like that being silly.
For "there are players who like these maps", well .. there also are players who don't and it's hard to ignore (due to frequency + competitive aspect). "players like it" vs "no they don't" is an infinite back and forth, a balance should be struck rather than favoring one audience. Players who like it would still get plenty of content, these maps and mappers won't magically disappear. It's also unhealthy for players to spend a lot of time playing same map+same song while there is other content to explore. Lower diff players technically get derived from content because they get 1 normal / 1 hard / 1 insane compared to 6+ extras. Also hurts competition on the ranked ladder, too many of these maps blatantly inflates scores. So, there seems to be a considerable imbalance.
Hope this also clears up the reasoning, you seem to imply there isn't any, which kinda confuses me.

All that said, while the current proposal is made with your concern in mind, I realize that there might not be a good/fair way of executing it. Thanks for your post, it does really put the current version into question.
Also for Fiery's post it's kinda like .. when ignoring his replies to old posts there's only a couple lines left and the rest is mapthread clutter. You could imply he means that certain songs call for certain maps, which is understandable but it's far from a 1 to 1 relationship.

Other stuff
mr man - yeah, but it affects those things through restricting certain mapsets .. , cmon bruh

There's been a lot of comments along the lines of "pp should be fixed", "should have no bns that nominate this", "most played listing is stupid" etc. The hard work of everyone involved in these fields is invaluable (praise vinxis+xexxar, NAT, .. peppy does things sometimes I guess). But, I personally feel that's just waiting for other people to do stuff and wanted to try taking initiative. Maybe I'm not very good at that. Though, this line of thinking shouldn't be used to imply the impossibility of a fitting RC addition for the case at hand, that's just not productive. Actual counterarguments would be better (for example MBomb's or Gens') over this, we might gain some new insight or ideas.
DeletedUser_12001243
ok i did an oops in my reply sorry yaspo. but uh yeah i still agree with this proposal and i think more feedback from others can shape this up to what it needs to be. so to anyone reading this, feel free to leave your opinion on this thread!
clayton
Sorry for the kind-of necro :thinking:

I feel like this proposal is targeting a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. "Content bloat" in this way is clearly an issue, but controlling all content bloat with this guideline (or rule) makes too many assumptions about why we might be in this situation in the first place.

Before my argument though I want to agree with some of your points and Pachiru's, I don't think the effect of adding this would ultimately mean anything bad for the community. The only practical cases I could imagine this guideline being applied are exactly the ones you describe in the OP, meaning I think it'd be beneficial for most people. The few people that actively support the copycat mapping you listed are likely in it to gain something for themselves (popularity, ranking, ...) while making the experience worse for everyone else. This is, of course, assuming the guideline is used sparingly.

One small criticism I have that others have already said is that content bloat across multiple mapsets is still possible with your proposal, and that might be a practical way to circumvent the guideline. You made this counter-argument in the OP:

yaspo wrote:

Similar maps of the same songs on different sets [...] require a full set to be made and more nominations, this evens out the amount of potential bloat causes

While that could be true, it doesn't outright prevent someone from putting in that extra bit of effort to get more nominations and make more difficulties. The guideline is just begging to be broken there.

Anyway my main disagreement with this is that it's covering a broad topic that's pretty unrelated from the main culprit of the outrage here, being mapping for competitive abuse ("pp mapping"). Consider a case where the difficulties in direct violation of your guideline are some 4-star maps that aren't out to abuse pp or whatever. Would anyone really care? Sure it's a bit redundant, but I really doubt the community would be throwing a fit over having more content rather than less, if that were the only reason. There are hypothetical situations where the redundancy might be warranted too, such as how MBomb mentioned with mappers being (heavily) inspired by each other or just unknowingly creating GDs that use the same style as other maps in the set.

The reason people are angry and disappointed is undoubtedly because of the pp mapping itself, whether it takes the form of bloated mapsets or not. I'd also argue that pp mapping is a main reason that content bloat exists in mapping at all (it's easy to seek popularity by abusing competitive play, so naturally some people will try to do that while minimilizing effort).

If there were instead a guideline proposed to curb abusive mapping, it'd be much more effective at solving the issues touched on by this proposal. I know it's not easy to make that happen, because concerns like Taeyang's and fieryrage's need to be kept in mind; the line between "abusive mapping" and mapping styles that happen to reward pp is hard to put into words. It's also (unfortunately) not possible to just say "don't map with bad intentions" because humans exploit each other to get what they want and the "bad guys" don't give up so easily.

Other than very partially addressing the underlying issue, this proposal won't have any practical effects, and hypothetically it just doesn't solve any meaningful problems. So that's why I don't support it as-is (or probably any variation of it)
FlagFlayer

clayton wrote:

various things


For your main disagreement: If anyone copy pastes patterns from one song to another, it doesn't matter if it's a 4* pp-less map, it's outright stealing, and, while it doesn't bloat pp and score, it does bloat the amount of ranked maps for no reason. There's no reason a map that is completely a copy of another map should ever be ranked. For mappers that are inspired by each other, the proposal addresses this: "...avoid having many similar sections with 2 or more of these difficulties." You want to have a diff that is VERY HEAVILY inspired by another mapper? You can have 1, that's it. There is literally no point in ranking 5 maps which are the same map, this is here to prevent this.

We NEED this guideline. No, it doesn't fix pp, sure it's "dealing with symptoms", but that doesn't make it any less necessary in the current state of things. This is absolutely ESSENTIAL to dealing with stuff like outright theft of patterns, and also as a more than decent fix to cases of score bloating.

We have 6 ranked maps on osu!std for Chikatto Chika Chika by Fujiwara Chika. These, of course, don't lack any pattern and rhythmic overlap. There is NO reason for all 6 of these maps to get ranked, this shouldn't happen, and yet it did. We need this guideline to prevent stuff like that. Chika Chika isn't even the first time this happened, to a lesser extent this happened with Black Rover, but if you're not convinced, just look up Harumachi Clover and tell me this isn't a problem that needs fixing NOW.

All of this is completely disregarding the bloat that got ranked from the whole JUSTasICE fiasco.

Worst case scenario: This guideline doesn't do enough to prevent these mappers from bloating scores and pp, but no harm is done.

Best case scenario: This guideline addresses a SERIOUS ISSUE that is plaguing the mapping community.

There is no reason for this guideline to not be accepted. It NEEDS to be accepted, as soon as possible, preferably.
clayton
->FlagFlayer

stealing content (or reusing your own ranked content in another ranked map) is already not allowed

the proposal would need to change a bit to match what you describe, since currently it only says it'd prevent single-mapset issues

I see your point, but making too many bandaid fixes like this that don't directly target issues is usually a poor direction to go. "no harm is done" isn't likely to be true either; some other posts in this thread highlight how mappers could be really put off by a rule/guideline similar to this one
FlagFlayer

clayton wrote:

things



I suppose "harm" would be done, but it'd specifically be done to the ones abusing the current system to score bloat. This is a guideline, not an outright rule: it's use is in allowing NAT to disqualify blatant, content-less, very similar maps that cause score bloat. This is targeting a symptom, sure, but, just like a person, could die from an untreated fever that is a symptom of a disease, this issue needs to be addressed. As I said before, this is a problem which needs fixing. Now.

This guideline allows quite wiggle room for mappers who aren't copying blatantly to map songs, it's aim should be to attack the blatant stuff, rather than also attack less-blatant examples and causing chaos by limiting mappers.

Should pp maps exist? Sure. Should there be 6 ranked maps for the same song, most of which use exactly the same rhythm, patterns, and all for the same goal of content-less score bloat? No.
pishifat
i feel like this is just too loose of an idea to put on the ranking criteria. the line determining how similar 2 diffs are is never going to be clear and setting a # of diffs that can be similar is pushing that ambiguity too much for my taste. there's also the "other mapsets will have repeated content too" argument that people are pointing out, which can't really be solved without saying certain maps for songs are off limits once its type of map has been created

i understand the sentiment of not wanting these kinds of mapsets to exist tho, so i'd suggest bns veto when they feel a mapset is going too far with this, as yaspo explained he did in the op. vetoes can be done for these loose issues, and as seen by the conclusion, it can be effective to prevent the mapsets if it's agreed by multiple bns that hte mapset is going too far
Please sign in to reply.

New reply