What you need to realize is that not all music is meant to be mapped. If a song is to be mapped it should be done according to what's in the music. Otherwise, you can just create something over a blank audio file and come up with some reason that somehow satisfies someone. Mapping on nothing is a lazy excuse for not wanting to think about how to actually make the objects fit or align with the music. This applies to both objects and end of objects.Desperate-kun wrote:
but there also needs to be proper emphasis and the maps need to be playable, which may require mapping on nothing at some point
forum
[Proposal] osu!standard ruleset draft (General)
posted
Total Posts
106
It really isnt since mapping is interpreting a song, and if you have an unclearly ending and prolonged sound you really shouldnt be forced to just use a circle because there isnt a distinct sound to snap things to.
It doesnt go against mapping to the song either, because if the song calls for a held /prolonged note and you enforce something shorter because there isnt any clear sound to end that on then you are actually ignoring the song by being for disallowing that. For the objects starting on nothing or being against simplifying snapping for the sake of keeping rhythm 100% accurate you support disregarding that osu is also a game and as such meant to be played and your example of mapping over a blank mp3 is rather extreme
However i think we can address what you called arbitrary usage of 1/4 or 1/6 or whatever extends as a guideline in a revision
It doesnt go against mapping to the song either, because if the song calls for a held /prolonged note and you enforce something shorter because there isnt any clear sound to end that on then you are actually ignoring the song by being for disallowing that. For the objects starting on nothing or being against simplifying snapping for the sake of keeping rhythm 100% accurate you support disregarding that osu is also a game and as such meant to be played and your example of mapping over a blank mp3 is rather extreme
However i think we can address what you called arbitrary usage of 1/4 or 1/6 or whatever extends as a guideline in a revision
Lemme call you out on this one first: not mapping everything (as you describe as "simplifying snapping") is a skill and nobody should be against that at all.
However, putting things in the map that isn't in the music suggests that you aren't able to come up with rhythms that are present and instead, have to throw in your own rhythms just because you want it mapped a certain way. Refer back to the idea of laziness, etc.
Regarding slider ends: the idea is simple; you cannot simply go by the fact that you don't click the end of the slider. There is a reason why sliders have a distinct length and not just an arbitrary length or a length that fades into nothing - and that reason is that the end of the slider is to be mapped to something in the music. The biggest clue of why this is true is because the game was programmed with ends of sliders and spinners playing a hitsound. If there isn't a place for you to end the slider at a beat in the music, you should be considering (a) maybe there is a different way to map it, or (b) maybe this song isn't meant to be mapped, and not (c) maybe I'll just settle and use the "next best thing" [but is still wrong].
Arbitrariness is no fun. It's not a skill having to guess when sliders should end, and it's not a legitimate punishment for losing score/accuracy just because you held for a few milliseconds less than what was required.
Instead of settling, however, we should look at ways to allow objects to be placed on the end of objects. After all, that is what the essence of sliders that end on nothing is, right? Not being able to hold the beat until the next clickable point so you arbitrarily end it some time before the next beat. It makes absolutely zero sense, and has made zero sense for the past four years.
However, putting things in the map that isn't in the music suggests that you aren't able to come up with rhythms that are present and instead, have to throw in your own rhythms just because you want it mapped a certain way. Refer back to the idea of laziness, etc.
Regarding slider ends: the idea is simple; you cannot simply go by the fact that you don't click the end of the slider. There is a reason why sliders have a distinct length and not just an arbitrary length or a length that fades into nothing - and that reason is that the end of the slider is to be mapped to something in the music. The biggest clue of why this is true is because the game was programmed with ends of sliders and spinners playing a hitsound. If there isn't a place for you to end the slider at a beat in the music, you should be considering (a) maybe there is a different way to map it, or (b) maybe this song isn't meant to be mapped, and not (c) maybe I'll just settle and use the "next best thing" [but is still wrong].
Arbitrariness is no fun. It's not a skill having to guess when sliders should end, and it's not a legitimate punishment for losing score/accuracy just because you held for a few milliseconds less than what was required.
Instead of settling, however, we should look at ways to allow objects to be placed on the end of objects. After all, that is what the essence of sliders that end on nothing is, right? Not being able to hold the beat until the next clickable point so you arbitrarily end it some time before the next beat. It makes absolutely zero sense, and has made zero sense for the past four years.
But didn't you say yourself that sliderends are only used in this poor way due to the following mismatch?
It is a band-aid indeed and it is poor in its own way but I think floating sliderends with low hitsound volume can be justified due to their better expression of the head(=the important stuff) in comparison to the alternatives. I agree that it's not cool but as long as peppy sticks to "no 2 objects at the same time" there isn't a 100% satisfying solution to this from a mapping perspective imo. Enforcing the one suboptimal solution over the other suboptimal solution via RC doesn't look like a valid approach to me.
Such sliders exist because there are consecutive sounds that definitely ask for a slider and the sounds are equal in importance so that it would be poor to highlight some over the others by giving them heads instead of tails.those wrote:
Furthermore, the only reason these sliders of arbitrary length exist is because the game for some reason does not allow an object to play at another object's end.
It is a band-aid indeed and it is poor in its own way but I think floating sliderends with low hitsound volume can be justified due to their better expression of the head(=the important stuff) in comparison to the alternatives. I agree that it's not cool but as long as peppy sticks to "no 2 objects at the same time" there isn't a 100% satisfying solution to this from a mapping perspective imo. Enforcing the one suboptimal solution over the other suboptimal solution via RC doesn't look like a valid approach to me.
We are aware that your reasons for not using extended sliders are somewhat valid, but that still doesn't mean our reasons are invalid, if you basically don't claim anything against them.those wrote:
Regarding slider ends: the idea is simple; you cannot simply go by the fact that you don't click the end of the slider. There is a reason why sliders have a distinct length and not just an arbitrary length or a length that fades into nothing - and that reason is that the end of the slider is to be mapped to something in the music. The biggest clue of why this is true is because the game was programmed with ends of sliders and spinners playing a hitsound. If there isn't a place for you to end the slider at a beat in the music, you should be considering (a) maybe there is a different way to map it, or (b) maybe this song isn't meant to be mapped, and not (c) maybe I'll just settle and use the "next best thing" [but is still wrong].
"There is a reason why sliders have a distinct length and not just an arbitrary length or a length that fades into nothing - and that reason is that the end of the slider is to be mapped to something in the music." - I don't see why'd this be an argument. Sticking to the "original" and "authentic" purpose of the slider is cool, but doesn't mean that everyone needs to be conservative about it. Sliders also have a sliding sound so I could say that it's only supposed to be used for the long sounds and disallow it for drums. Yes, you can mute the sliderslide making it 100% viable for these sounds and it's a practise used by most of mappers. This also ruins point of sliders, but people aren't conservative about it and accept that it could also be used this way abusing something. That means muting end of a slider is not much different from muting its sliding sound, it's exactly the same kind of "abusing" the original intention.
"If there isn't a place for you to end the slider at a beat in the music, you should be considering (a) maybe there is a different way to map it, or (b) maybe this song isn't meant to be mapped, and not (c) maybe I'll just settle and use the "next best thing" [but is still wrong]." - If there isn't a place to end the slider, then you put it on the place where it feels natural. I'll bring an example from real life, if playing any instrument (for simplification, let's consider a piano), if there are very short sounds, you just simply "click" them, you barely hold the key. However, if there is a long sound you'll hold the piano key for a long time, but you need to put your finger off at some point which is not defined by beats and it's usually approximately before playing another note. This is a thing that every musician is going to experience, so it's very relevant to music. Holding a slider with muted end and releasing a while before next note is none different from how the instrument is in reality played.
What I want to say here is that not all of your points are incorrect, most of them have some meaning, but assuming that it is incorrect just for the sake of authenticity (coming from how sliders are programmed) is a bit off if it plays just the same as real instruments. Of course I am against them to some point, if there is no long sound that requires a hold, then ending on nothing feels very weird, but if you hear the long sound, it's absolutely fine to "hold it" as you'd do with any instrument. You don't need to guess when the slider ends, sliders don't require that much of accuracy and you can usually detect it easily by the length of the slider and speed.
There's a fundamental difference between the scoring of music and the way it is mapped, especially between the length of a note and the length of a slider. A player's interpretation only comes into play when he can decide without penalty the duration a tone should be held. In classical music for example, tenuto markings tell the player to hold the note for its "full value", and do not tell the player to hold for precisely x amount of beats, whereas in an osu! map, it tells the player to hold for precisely x beats, but there is no way to be precise except by having musical cues. Not mapping to the music (that is, ending in nothing) does not allow any form of precision and is punishable by slider 100s and even broken combos. With respect to held tones, the mapper doesn't say to the player "hold for as long as you can before the next object", but instead, he says "hold for x length, but I may or may not give you any musical cues."
At the very least, we're understanding each other's points. My argument is that just because a quarter beat before the next object has been the popular way to do it, it doesn't make it any less arbitrary and any more natural. If there is a way to accurately depict the length of a slider by beats in the music, it should be taken. If this requires the mapper to not use a slider, then that's the way it should be. In other words, only use a slider to represent a held tone if you can end it on a beat present in the music. Otherwise, reconsider general slider usage in the entire section or the entire map.
At the very least, we're understanding each other's points. My argument is that just because a quarter beat before the next object has been the popular way to do it, it doesn't make it any less arbitrary and any more natural. If there is a way to accurately depict the length of a slider by beats in the music, it should be taken. If this requires the mapper to not use a slider, then that's the way it should be. In other words, only use a slider to represent a held tone if you can end it on a beat present in the music. Otherwise, reconsider general slider usage in the entire section or the entire map.
Uh well.
Whether a sound warrants it to have a hold-sound with a dead sliderend is highly dependant on the individual case and I think we're indeed discussing on a level that adresses what the Code of Conduct calls "intersubjective issues".
Fact is, those sliders aren't a problem in terms of playability because as you mentioned, the slider accurately depicts for how long it has to be held. Unless there are random bpm-changes like in a rubato-section the sliderend will always be well in time and not disturb the flow of the music. Even though it ends "on nothing" it still ends "in time".
It's a different kind of approach that has its focus on other elements than yours. I think every mapper has to decide himself what is more important (to him) in individual cases:
a) an accurate expression of the soundfeeling through the active tapping and hold experience
b) sticking strictly to the present sound resources
I think b) is the more logic approach indeed as it is a very general concept that should be applied pretty much all the time but experience has shown (me at least) that an appropriate stylistic choice that ignores this concept can yield enough gain in expression to make up for the loss.
One should be able to provide good reasons to break with it but I hope that's common sense.
Whether a sound warrants it to have a hold-sound with a dead sliderend is highly dependant on the individual case and I think we're indeed discussing on a level that adresses what the Code of Conduct calls "intersubjective issues".
Fact is, those sliders aren't a problem in terms of playability because as you mentioned, the slider accurately depicts for how long it has to be held. Unless there are random bpm-changes like in a rubato-section the sliderend will always be well in time and not disturb the flow of the music. Even though it ends "on nothing" it still ends "in time".
It's a different kind of approach that has its focus on other elements than yours. I think every mapper has to decide himself what is more important (to him) in individual cases:
a) an accurate expression of the soundfeeling through the active tapping and hold experience
b) sticking strictly to the present sound resources
I think b) is the more logic approach indeed as it is a very general concept that should be applied pretty much all the time but experience has shown (me at least) that an appropriate stylistic choice that ignores this concept can yield enough gain in expression to make up for the loss.
One should be able to provide good reasons to break with it but I hope that's common sense.
Regarding the slider-end discussion:
If you've ever played the piano, you'll often encounter notes that you have to hold and release. Same idea with a guitar strum, or just holding a note on a woodwind instrument. There is a clear beginning, but an unclear end, as the sound fades away rather than stopping. Mapping stuff like this to slider-ends fits pretty well because the release of the piano key, or the release of a held note when playing say a flute or clarinet, mimic the releasing of your mouse/keyboard key.
It's true that the game programs a hitsound to be played at the end of a slider, but slider-end hitsounding doesn't actually give feedback to the player. It's known as "passive" hitsounding because the hitsound feedback you get doesn't actually correspond with when you release on the slider-end or when your cursor touches the slider-end. The hitsound from slider-end will occur exactly when the slider is supposed to end. In that respect, the slider-end hitsound doesn't actually tell you if your timing is slightly early or late, just where its supposed to be.
Slider-end hitsounding is not strong enough of an argument to say that every slider-end should be mapped to something in the music. Rather, i think the release mechanic is quite different from the clicking mechanic, and should be allowed to be mapped to nothing. When you release a note on an instrument, you still perform an action, even if that action results in absence of a sound.
If you've ever played the piano, you'll often encounter notes that you have to hold and release. Same idea with a guitar strum, or just holding a note on a woodwind instrument. There is a clear beginning, but an unclear end, as the sound fades away rather than stopping. Mapping stuff like this to slider-ends fits pretty well because the release of the piano key, or the release of a held note when playing say a flute or clarinet, mimic the releasing of your mouse/keyboard key.
It's true that the game programs a hitsound to be played at the end of a slider, but slider-end hitsounding doesn't actually give feedback to the player. It's known as "passive" hitsounding because the hitsound feedback you get doesn't actually correspond with when you release on the slider-end or when your cursor touches the slider-end. The hitsound from slider-end will occur exactly when the slider is supposed to end. In that respect, the slider-end hitsound doesn't actually tell you if your timing is slightly early or late, just where its supposed to be.
Slider-end hitsounding is not strong enough of an argument to say that every slider-end should be mapped to something in the music. Rather, i think the release mechanic is quite different from the clicking mechanic, and should be allowed to be mapped to nothing. When you release a note on an instrument, you still perform an action, even if that action results in absence of a sound.
I guess the question is, how can you possibly choose the correct place to end the slider if the end of the held tone is unclear? Having to accept that the end is in an arbitrary place is an unfortunate conclusion.
Additionally, a map should cater to the greatest number of players possible. Hit sounding for Taiko converts, for example, requires the samples to use the right names. For mania, ends of sliders are counted towards play accuracy. I'm sure I'm not the only one unwilling to accept that this is a standard that the cannot reach, but from the looks of it, it's almost as if we don't care enough at all.
Additionally, a map should cater to the greatest number of players possible. Hit sounding for Taiko converts, for example, requires the samples to use the right names. For mania, ends of sliders are counted towards play accuracy. I'm sure I'm not the only one unwilling to accept that this is a standard that the cannot reach, but from the looks of it, it's almost as if we don't care enough at all.
Isn't the use of the word effective here a bit misleading? When using the word effective, I usually think of a property that is cross comparable across all mediums. Since actual SV, is a multiplier of BPM, I always judged effective slider velocity as the BPM * SV * inherited timing section multiplier. If it is just SV * inherited timing section multiplier, then I still just call that SV, since you can never judge the actual sv, off the base SV alone.Desperate-kun wrote:
Effective Slider Velocity: Equals Base Slider Velocity of the difficulty multiplied with the current inherited point.
The problem with that was that people think of SV as the base setting in the editor. We just used an additional word for it to avoid confusion with this and to get people to read the definition this is talking about.
If you think effective is misleading, what would be less misleading given the concern we have using just SV for it.
As for those's concern i still think having a guideline that captures the most common uses for these into sth "that should be done 99% of the time when handling these unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise" would solve the problem of it being arbitrary. As in: if we define how to handle these sliders unless you have a good reason to not handle them like this would give a lot of people a good basis to work with. Sliderends are and as far as i know will stay lenient in terms of hitwindows or even the requirement to release a button so standardising their length while allowing other lengths provided there is exhaustive explanation for it
Also maps are designed for standard and for nomod playing, catering to convert players should not really be any objective for mapping standard due to how different the gamemodes are. For example mania converts wont ever have notes during LNs because that mechanic is completely disallowed, taiko converts are made based on hitsounding and most taiko maps arent made around consistent hitsounding but more for consistent patterning while layering instruments in the song which would sound pretty weird considering default hitsounds in standard. Most lower difficulty converts for either mode arent even really working for proper lower difficulties in these two modes (i heard catch works the best among those 3) so all in all while catering to the biggest audience possible would be cool i dont think converts should be considered for the rankability of an osu! Mode beatmap
If you think effective is misleading, what would be less misleading given the concern we have using just SV for it.
As for those's concern i still think having a guideline that captures the most common uses for these into sth "that should be done 99% of the time when handling these unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise" would solve the problem of it being arbitrary. As in: if we define how to handle these sliders unless you have a good reason to not handle them like this would give a lot of people a good basis to work with. Sliderends are and as far as i know will stay lenient in terms of hitwindows or even the requirement to release a button so standardising their length while allowing other lengths provided there is exhaustive explanation for it
Also maps are designed for standard and for nomod playing, catering to convert players should not really be any objective for mapping standard due to how different the gamemodes are. For example mania converts wont ever have notes during LNs because that mechanic is completely disallowed, taiko converts are made based on hitsounding and most taiko maps arent made around consistent hitsounding but more for consistent patterning while layering instruments in the song which would sound pretty weird considering default hitsounds in standard. Most lower difficulty converts for either mode arent even really working for proper lower difficulties in these two modes (i heard catch works the best among those 3) so all in all while catering to the biggest audience possible would be cool i dont think converts should be considered for the rankability of an osu! Mode beatmap
thats like making a rule how to map music in generall. it feels like your dictating how a map has to be like.those wrote:
I guess the question is, how can you possibly choose the correct place to end the slider if the end of the held tone is unclear? Having to accept that the end is in an arbitrary place is an unfortunate conclusion.
if all mapping would be done automatically by a programm that would be something to think about but in my opinon that really should be open for eachs own interpretation of the song "how long" would fit, if you see the problem there.
sry if im leading this off-topic..
Alright here I go: I'd like to propose a standard rule in regards to adding two additional difficulties with fixed names for a balanced mapset spread that MAY be included in a mapset. I will analyse, evaluate and provide an alternative solution to the current star rating and difficulty naming for an even mapset spread. I'd also like to discuss their characteristics that will be provided as a guideline for mapping each difficulty. Furthermore, I want to suggest having a fixed set of difficulties as base for this game that have to be playable by average players AND experienced ones.
These are the current and commonly chosen difficulty names: Easy - Normal - Hard - Insane - Extra
These are my suggestion for an even mapset to provide easier to understand and reasonable difficulty names: Easy - Normal - Intermediate/Medium - Hard - Advanced - Insane - Extra
Of what is currently suggested as "Advanced" should be a standard allowed difficulty that is called "Medium" instead. First of all, it would fit to the rest of the difficulty names that already exist. Advanced is commonly used in relation to Beginner - Intermediate and then Advanced difficulty names. Hence, it's rated higher than an "Intermediate/Medium". The option of using Advanced would come after Intermediate which could be interpreted as Medium, whereas Advanced can be interpreted as Hard.
Furthermore I'd like to have a discussion about strict rules regarding the built of each difficulty that informs mappers how they must look like and which mapping characteristics it may include. This includes the allowed star rating that has to be used for each difficulty.
Star rating gaps between each difficulty:
E - N: 0.75
N - H: 1.5
H - I: 1.5
Introducing one new difficulty between Normal - Hard will erase the 1.5 star gap and even out the star ratings from Easy - Hard but it will leave the gap between Hard - Insane. Including just one completely new difficulties for a standard mapset would mean having to adjust the star rating between Normal - Medium, Medium - Hard AND Hard - Insane by 0.75 or 1 stars to even the star spread. By modifying this already existing rule and applying my suggestion according to the ratings for just one difficulty between Normal and Hard, the star rating will be as followed:
Below 1.50: Easy
1.50-2.25: Normal
2.25-3 : Medium
3-3.75: Hard
3.75-5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
The maximum star rating for each difficulty would gradually increase by 0.75 stars without the Advanced difficulty that fills the gap between Hard and Insane. 0.75 stars seems rather low compared to how big the gap is between Hard - Insane. With another difficulty between Hard and Insane, the star rating would have to be modified in order to provide an evenly calculated mapset spread. Adding an Advanced difficulty for the gap between Hard and Insane would be reasonable because it has been included in a couple of mapsets I've seen, just in a wrong way.
Lately I've seen a couple of mapsets that had a "Light Insane" included in the spread. I'd like to point out why "Light Insane" does not suit as a difficulty name and suggest an alternative to use.
First of all, "Light Insane" would make mappers justify having a "Light" Easy, Normal, Hard, Insane, Extra. Which is nonsense. Instead, I'd like to propose to have a completely new difficulty introduced that fills the gap between Hard and Insane with an even star rating as listed above, and also related to the other already existing names without causing confusion. This will give the mappers a justified name that they can use 100%.
The general mapping characteristics, this excluded various mapping styles and difficulty settings for Hard, Insane and Extra are;
Hard: consistent, spacing, small streams and small jumps.
Insane: more vividly used spacing inconsistencies, longer streams and farther jumps.
Extra: extraordinary jumps, intense and long streams and also reasonable spacing inconsistencies that are comprehensible enough for gameplay.
Some analytics: A "Light Insane" would be a mixture between Hard and Insane. This means that a "Light Insane" should consist of jumps, streams and spacing inconsistencies. The spread would be Easy - Normal - Medium - Hard - "Light Insane" - Insane - Extra. This makes the mapset spread uneven, as it will make Hard the middle piece of the mapset spread, while Medium should serve as this middle piece if the suggestion would be applied. The gap between Medium and Insane would be filled with a Hard. The gap between Hard and Extra already is Insane. Given that, if there would be a "Light Insane" allowed as difficulty, it would mean that there has to be a difficulty added between EACH other already existing difficulty. This would make a mapset spread consisting of Easy - Normal - Hard - Light Insane - Insane - Extra, extremely uneven, since the harder difficulties Hard - Light Insane - Insane - Extra would outweigh the Easy and Normal by far.
I do propose to forbid naming a difficulty between Hard and Insane "Light Insane" in the future and introducing a new rule for the following reasons, in addition to the analysis above that add a fixed naming policy for a difficulty that is between Hard and Insane:
Below 1.50: Easy
1.50-2.25: Normal
2.25-3 : Medium
3-3.75: Hard
3.75-4.5: Advanced
4.5-5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
Since the rules are not set yet and the purpose of this thread is to develop new rules that will be applied in the future, this spread would be perfectly reasonable and easy to follow for anyone. It will definitely add a change to the already existing Insanes as the star rating would have to be harshly modified in order to grant an even spread, but it would be comprehensible enough for everyone to understand.
I also would like to support my reasons with the fact that Easy - Insane should be playable for an average player, who would be slowly increasing their knowledge of gameplay and skill with each difficulty, while Extra + is for very experienced players above the average. The base game (Easy - Insane difficulties) HAS to be playable for everyone in order for the game to be balanced and not be dominated by experienced players. Thus, lowering the minimum star rating for Insane is justified. An even spread will also provide a gradual increase of knowledge about the gameplay and help the player to gain more experience with each difficulty successfully passed.
There already is another suggestion of adding Extreme and Ultra to the existing Extra as additional difficulty increase. When agreeing to my reason that Easy - Insane HAS to be playable for the average player, anything above Insane should have an according rating rule as well. I do propose to adjust the star rating for this as well, in order for it not to get out of hand so that mappers have a guideline/rule they can follow for naming their difficulties.
Any suggestion mentioned can be discussed and I'm willing to alter my suggestion accordingly to the majority of matching suggestions provided. To me, the suggestions mentioned are perfectly reasonable, though.
I do sincerely hope to be able to discuss and elaborate this further with upcoming posts that follow in order for this community to have a new, positive and reasonable change in regards to mapping, mapset spread and star rating. Thanks for reading.
These are the current and commonly chosen difficulty names: Easy - Normal - Hard - Insane - Extra
These are my suggestion for an even mapset to provide easier to understand and reasonable difficulty names: Easy - Normal - Intermediate/Medium - Hard - Advanced - Insane - Extra
Of what is currently suggested as "Advanced" should be a standard allowed difficulty that is called "Medium" instead. First of all, it would fit to the rest of the difficulty names that already exist. Advanced is commonly used in relation to Beginner - Intermediate and then Advanced difficulty names. Hence, it's rated higher than an "Intermediate/Medium". The option of using Advanced would come after Intermediate which could be interpreted as Medium, whereas Advanced can be interpreted as Hard.
Furthermore I'd like to have a discussion about strict rules regarding the built of each difficulty that informs mappers how they must look like and which mapping characteristics it may include. This includes the allowed star rating that has to be used for each difficulty.
Source: https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Ranking_Criteria#MapsetRC wrote:
The difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order. Easy or Normal can be skipped if the gap in the star rating spread allows it. The order can be seen in the chart below. If your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be an Insane or Expert. The lowest difficulty must be below 2.0 stars. The difficulty spread is determined by the map's star rating. A map falls under a certain difficulty when having a specific star rating:
Below 1.50: Easy
1.50-2.25: Normal
2.25-3.75: Hard
3.75-5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
Star rating gaps between each difficulty:
E - N: 0.75
N - H: 1.5
H - I: 1.5
Introducing one new difficulty between Normal - Hard will erase the 1.5 star gap and even out the star ratings from Easy - Hard but it will leave the gap between Hard - Insane. Including just one completely new difficulties for a standard mapset would mean having to adjust the star rating between Normal - Medium, Medium - Hard AND Hard - Insane by 0.75 or 1 stars to even the star spread. By modifying this already existing rule and applying my suggestion according to the ratings for just one difficulty between Normal and Hard, the star rating will be as followed:
Below 1.50: Easy
1.50-2.25: Normal
2.25-3 : Medium
3-3.75: Hard
3.75-5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
The maximum star rating for each difficulty would gradually increase by 0.75 stars without the Advanced difficulty that fills the gap between Hard and Insane. 0.75 stars seems rather low compared to how big the gap is between Hard - Insane. With another difficulty between Hard and Insane, the star rating would have to be modified in order to provide an evenly calculated mapset spread. Adding an Advanced difficulty for the gap between Hard and Insane would be reasonable because it has been included in a couple of mapsets I've seen, just in a wrong way.
Lately I've seen a couple of mapsets that had a "Light Insane" included in the spread. I'd like to point out why "Light Insane" does not suit as a difficulty name and suggest an alternative to use.
First of all, "Light Insane" would make mappers justify having a "Light" Easy, Normal, Hard, Insane, Extra. Which is nonsense. Instead, I'd like to propose to have a completely new difficulty introduced that fills the gap between Hard and Insane with an even star rating as listed above, and also related to the other already existing names without causing confusion. This will give the mappers a justified name that they can use 100%.
The general mapping characteristics, this excluded various mapping styles and difficulty settings for Hard, Insane and Extra are;
Hard: consistent, spacing, small streams and small jumps.
Insane: more vividly used spacing inconsistencies, longer streams and farther jumps.
Extra: extraordinary jumps, intense and long streams and also reasonable spacing inconsistencies that are comprehensible enough for gameplay.
Some analytics: A "Light Insane" would be a mixture between Hard and Insane. This means that a "Light Insane" should consist of jumps, streams and spacing inconsistencies. The spread would be Easy - Normal - Medium - Hard - "Light Insane" - Insane - Extra. This makes the mapset spread uneven, as it will make Hard the middle piece of the mapset spread, while Medium should serve as this middle piece if the suggestion would be applied. The gap between Medium and Insane would be filled with a Hard. The gap between Hard and Extra already is Insane. Given that, if there would be a "Light Insane" allowed as difficulty, it would mean that there has to be a difficulty added between EACH other already existing difficulty. This would make a mapset spread consisting of Easy - Normal - Hard - Light Insane - Insane - Extra, extremely uneven, since the harder difficulties Hard - Light Insane - Insane - Extra would outweigh the Easy and Normal by far.
I do propose to forbid naming a difficulty between Hard and Insane "Light Insane" in the future and introducing a new rule for the following reasons, in addition to the analysis above that add a fixed naming policy for a difficulty that is between Hard and Insane:
- Light Insane would serve as a difficulty that i between Hard and Insane. It's not a difficulty that is close to Insane but far from Hard, right? Otherwise it would be "Hard-Insane". This makes "Light" unjustified.
- "Light Insane" does not make sense as it's own difficulty because the mapping characteristics would vary only a tiny bit from Hard to Insane and the preferred mapping characteristics used, like the name says, would be from Hard. Which again, makes a "Light Insane" as gap filler between Hard and Insane not justified.
- The star rating and mapset spread would be uneven once a Medium difficulty is added. There would have to be a difficulty added that fills the gap between Hard and Insane. But a "Light Insane" will outweigh the spread, because see point 1.
- Additionally, adding too many gap filling difficulties would make the gaps between the star ratings smaller and smaller each time another difficulty gets added. With too many added, the mapset spread will only have minimal differences that are hardly discernible.
Below 1.50: Easy
1.50-2.25: Normal
2.25-3 : Medium
3-3.75: Hard
3.75-4.5: Advanced
4.5-5.25: Insane
Above 5.25: Expert
Since the rules are not set yet and the purpose of this thread is to develop new rules that will be applied in the future, this spread would be perfectly reasonable and easy to follow for anyone. It will definitely add a change to the already existing Insanes as the star rating would have to be harshly modified in order to grant an even spread, but it would be comprehensible enough for everyone to understand.
I also would like to support my reasons with the fact that Easy - Insane should be playable for an average player, who would be slowly increasing their knowledge of gameplay and skill with each difficulty, while Extra + is for very experienced players above the average. The base game (Easy - Insane difficulties) HAS to be playable for everyone in order for the game to be balanced and not be dominated by experienced players. Thus, lowering the minimum star rating for Insane is justified. An even spread will also provide a gradual increase of knowledge about the gameplay and help the player to gain more experience with each difficulty successfully passed.
There already is another suggestion of adding Extreme and Ultra to the existing Extra as additional difficulty increase. When agreeing to my reason that Easy - Insane HAS to be playable for the average player, anything above Insane should have an according rating rule as well. I do propose to adjust the star rating for this as well, in order for it not to get out of hand so that mappers have a guideline/rule they can follow for naming their difficulties.
Any suggestion mentioned can be discussed and I'm willing to alter my suggestion accordingly to the majority of matching suggestions provided. To me, the suggestions mentioned are perfectly reasonable, though.
I do sincerely hope to be able to discuss and elaborate this further with upcoming posts that follow in order for this community to have a new, positive and reasonable change in regards to mapping, mapset spread and star rating. Thanks for reading.
holy moly hey there BounceBabe
This post exists to remind Oko to replace every instance of the word 'repeat' (in relation with sliders doing the Cha Cha Cha) with 'reverse'.
This post exists to remind Oko to replace every instance of the word 'repeat' (in relation with sliders doing the Cha Cha Cha) with 'reverse'.
I think your proposed naming set collides with the past usage of "advanced" for example.
It has also been agreed on by many people that star rating is not a reliable benchmark to evaluate which category a difficulty belongs to. (can't find the thread in the mass of recently blazed threads though)
Last but not least Desperate-kun announced the following
It has also been agreed on by many people that star rating is not a reliable benchmark to evaluate which category a difficulty belongs to. (can't find the thread in the mass of recently blazed threads though)
Last but not least Desperate-kun announced the following
which I'm still eager to see. Possibly I overlooked it somehow though as I didn't give the entire thread a thorough read yet.Desperate-kun wrote:
The draft for the difficulty-specific ruleset will be released soon.
We will take the feedback collected in this thread to revise the draft so this will be locked for the time being seeya soon with the revised draft and the difficulty specific draft!
Yay for things actually happening!
Changelog:
Short answers to other concerns on the thread:
Status of the specific draft: we're still testing but hope to release asap after getting the last bits of discussion out of the way
Changelog:
- The following rules had their wording changed:
- All reverse arrows on sliders must be visible, excluding short reversing sliders.
- The following guidelines had their wording changed:
- All circles and slider heads should be snapped to distinct sounds in the music.
- Avoid using combo colors, slider borders or hitcircleoverlays with ~50 luminosity or lower.
- Avoid major composition differences in similar sections of a song.
- Avoid overlapping objects with other elements of the default skin.
- Avoid using high tick rates combined with low slider velocity.
- Buzz sliders must have appropriate delay before the next note.
- Try to spread your object placement evenly across the playfield.
- The guideline "Avoid beginning ¼ sliders on unsupported blue ticks." has been removed from the draft. This is because the guideline was entirely centered around a very specific circumstance regarding "Sliders should begin on stronger beats and end on equal or weaker sounds.". Being that if multiple ticks are of the same intensity, that the more straightforward rhythm should be used.
- The guideline "Slider ends of extended sliders should be snapped according to the song’s beat structure." has been added. This happened in response to the discussion with those on this thread.
Short answers to other concerns on the thread:
- Regarding Endaris' suggestion of adding anti-jumps:
-> General consensus was that we don't think this adds any valuable content here. Anti-Jumps are a kind of jump characterized through absence of more spacing so the jump guideline against using these randomly but in order to stress certain sounds applies. - Regarding blissfulyoshi's concern regarding effective:
-> We forgot posting that all guidelines are to be applied to approximately 180 bpm so mentioning the bpm there again seems redundant now that we added that sentence (it was on the draft but never made its way to the thread) - Regarding Krimek's concern about comboing:
-> Consensus was reached that your reasoning to break this guideline is very specific and actually proves that the map is better off with combospam than without it so it's exhausting the arguments against it and is thus a valid argument for your case breaking the guideline. - Regarding Cherry Blossoms's concern about ninja spinners:
-> This problem situation is covered in the difficulty-specific criteria for E/N/H. For Insane and above we think the minimum length which is 1000 bonus score should suffice. - Regarding Bonsai's notice to fix up repeats for reverses:
-> yes. - Regarding BounceBabe's really big suggestion about mapset spread:
-> This is not standard specific, you may want to wait with such a discussion until we actually handle the general ranking criteria. Generally speaking we do not believe that evening out the icon ranges is a good way to go either, because especially for slow songs it'll result in a lot of mislabeling due to SR being suboptimal reflections of that. - Regarding Shad0w1and's glossary concerns:
-> Both of these terms just mention snapping as "what 180 bpm beatmaps snap these usually". The usually is the keyword in this because this is usually the case, but doesn't have to be. - Regarding fastmarkus' concerns about hold sliders:
-> Per definition of a hold slider such a slider is set up in a way that does not require you to move at all after clicking the sliderhead. Sliders like this can be hold sliders and have clear paths from start to end and thus end up being rankable. - Regarding abraker's stacking suggestion:
-> This is covered in difficulty specific ranking criteria which we hope to make public soon. Past Hard we believe such techniques don't need regulation because reading in itself is a skill. - Regarding Sieg's concerns:
-> Yes, this is limiting. The sliderborder limitation is there for the same reason so we do not see how the same reasoning does not apply to slidertrackoverride as well. Currently a feature request thread is open concerning this, if anyone has a clear argument against it, they should voice it here! Supporting the feature request can be done in t/502887
Status of the specific draft: we're still testing but hope to release asap after getting the last bits of discussion out of the way
- Difficulty should be appropriately expressed to represent the intensities of different sections in the music.
- Avoid major composition differences in similar sections of a song.
I hope he does too!
Why do we need these in osu!specific RC too, while they're in general RC already? Also this statement is just "allowing" things and is not really a rule, probably both being guidelines would be enough.Desperate-kun wrote:
The end of a spinner (or even the entire spinner), the sliding sound of a slider, and the end of a slider can be silent. While hitsounds must be audible, these elements are not actively clicked and therefore do not always need feedback.
Avoid silencing both slider ticks and slider slides together. Low volume or blending sound samples are similarly discouraged when inaudible. If a slider tick does not snap to a distinct sound, it can be inaudible.
It should be a rule to map the music lol.Okorin wrote:
[*]The following guidelines had their wording changed:
- All circles and slider heads should be snapped to distinct sounds in the music.
Not necessarily. There are some cases when people put a triplet for emphasis, or to represent a trembling sound, which is not really a distinct sound.Kin wrote:
It should be a rule to map the music lol.Okorin wrote:
[*]The following guidelines had their wording changed:
- All circles and slider heads should be snapped to distinct sounds in the music.
and other case just to put circle on a no existant beat/sound.Doyak wrote:
Not necessarily. There are some cases when people put a triplet for emphasis, or to represent a trembling sound, which is not really a distinct sound.
Snapping simplifications for gameplay reasons. If your song does 1/16, 1/12, 1/6 and 1/8 mixed in a stream because the composer was being fancy overmapping a stream for gameplay may oftentimes be the better solution than doing something completely unpredictable.
Uh the exception to a rule was supposed to change, we'll look into that again
The silencing files stuff is on here because it's osu!specific and should disappear from the general rc in the future as the files that are talked about pretty much are specific to osu and not the other modes
will look into revising this as we forgot that
Uh the exception to a rule was supposed to change, we'll look into that again
The silencing files stuff is on here because it's osu!specific and should disappear from the general rc in the future as the files that are talked about pretty much are specific to osu and not the other modes
will look into revising this as we forgot that
The trembling sound is fine as long as it is easily understandable but dumb ghost triplets are not. Where there is no beat in the music there's not a single reason to put a clickable object imoDoyak wrote:
Not necessarily. There are some cases when people put a triplet for emphasis, or to represent a trembling sound, which is not really a sound.
It's something we can discuss case by case, and at least that's why it's on Guidelines, but doesn't need to be a rule.
"The end of a spinner (or even the entire spinner), the sliding sound of a slider, and the end of a slider can be silent. While hitsounds must be audible, these elements are not actively clicked and therefore do not always need feedback."You can add slider ticks into that list as well.
Also maybe there could be a guideline about readability. I'm talking about things like hiding stuff under sliders so that they're really hard to read (or close to impossible on hidden) like stacking two sliders directly on top of each other so that even the bodies stack. Maybe a word about using NCs to make sudden SV changes or beat snapping changes more noticeable and readable could also be added. The maps should be intuitive to play and not require multiple plays before you manage to read what's going on, and it's even more important on easier diffs.
Mods wont be considered, only the default osu experience. The way hidden works can be changed and new mods could be added, also i doubt you want all maps to be passable on spun out and HR or something.
Stacking sliders and readability limitations are specific to certain difflevels and will be handled there.
If you have to resort to comboing in a weird attempt to make something more intuitive you should question the pattern itself...
Why should being intuitive be a requirement? Some songs arent intuitive because they weirdly change tempos etc, why should such parts of maps be intuitive to play?
Whats intuitive and what isnt is largely depending on your skilllevel how do you want to find a baseline for intuitive?
This seems like writing "maps must be fun" into the RC to me
Stacking sliders and readability limitations are specific to certain difflevels and will be handled there.
If you have to resort to comboing in a weird attempt to make something more intuitive you should question the pattern itself...
Why should being intuitive be a requirement? Some songs arent intuitive because they weirdly change tempos etc, why should such parts of maps be intuitive to play?
Whats intuitive and what isnt is largely depending on your skilllevel how do you want to find a baseline for intuitive?
This seems like writing "maps must be fun" into the RC to me
It's not a requirement, just a guideline.
So it's fine to make the map completely unreadable then and say the players just aren't experienced enough to read it?
Also even if the song makes sudden changes in tempo or something, the mapper can still affect the intuitiviness of those parts, so why shouldn't they?
The baseline of intuitiviness lies in the difficulty of the map which is aimed at a specific part of the playerbase separated by skill, so I don't think it's recommended to pull off stuff like completely overlapping sliders on Hards for example.
Why should the maps be intuitive to play? Because it reduces frustration and makes them generally more enjoyable to play. I'm not saying every map has to be like this and I'm sure there's people who enjoy reading challenges and mappers who like to use a complex style, but if you have a chance to make your map much easier to read by adding a new combo for example, I think that should be recommended. I don't think most people like breaking combo like 3/4ths into the song on their first playthrough because something was completely unexpected and unreadable. And if they do, I think the mapper should have to explain why they're doing this and why it would benefit their map more, so I see it as a possible guideline.
Also I don't care if you disagree on this, but yes I think all maps should at least be passable on Hard Rock. The mods are kind of a big part of the game too and I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into account when mapping.
So it's fine to make the map completely unreadable then and say the players just aren't experienced enough to read it?
Also even if the song makes sudden changes in tempo or something, the mapper can still affect the intuitiviness of those parts, so why shouldn't they?
The baseline of intuitiviness lies in the difficulty of the map which is aimed at a specific part of the playerbase separated by skill, so I don't think it's recommended to pull off stuff like completely overlapping sliders on Hards for example.
Why should the maps be intuitive to play? Because it reduces frustration and makes them generally more enjoyable to play. I'm not saying every map has to be like this and I'm sure there's people who enjoy reading challenges and mappers who like to use a complex style, but if you have a chance to make your map much easier to read by adding a new combo for example, I think that should be recommended. I don't think most people like breaking combo like 3/4ths into the song on their first playthrough because something was completely unexpected and unreadable. And if they do, I think the mapper should have to explain why they're doing this and why it would benefit their map more, so I see it as a possible guideline.
Also I don't care if you disagree on this, but yes I think all maps should at least be passable on Hard Rock. The mods are kind of a big part of the game too and I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into account when mapping.
Guidelines are to be treated as rules unless you can exhaust all arguments against your choices.J1NX1337 wrote:
It's not a requirement, just a guideline.
Also the reloading sliderthing you mentioned in your first post is already on the draft (relevant part in italics):
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 cannot be used, such as burai sliders and hold sliders without straightforward slider borders. Perfectly overlapping slider bodies must give enough time to fully read each slider’s path.
J1NX1337 wrote:
The baseline of intuitiviness lies in the difficulty of the map which is aimed at a specific part of the playerbase separated by skill, so I don't think it's recommended to pull off stuff like completely overlapping sliders on Hards for example.
Okorin wrote:
Stacking and readability limitations are specific to certain difflevels and will be handled there.
The point being is: What's unreadable to you might be perfectly fine to other people around your skill level or around the level of the target audience of the map. Reading in itself is a skill too and limiting reading challenges for the sake of what some people find "more enjoyable" doesn't make the most sense to me.J1NX1337 wrote:
Why should the maps be intuitive to play? Because it reduces frustration and makes them generally more enjoyable to play. I'm not saying every map has to be like this and I'm sure there's people who enjoy reading challenges and mappers who like to use a complex style, but if you have a chance to make your map much easier to read by adding a new combo for example, I think that should be recommended. I don't think most people like breaking combo like 3/4ths into the song on their first playthrough because something was completely unexpected and unreadable. And if they do, I think the mapper should have to explain why they're doing this and why it would benefit their map more, so I see it as a possible guideline.
Let's say it like this: You are mapping for the default experience. If someone goes to your map and decides "I want to play this with a mod", then they're modifying the map from its default experience and addressing things in such a setting for a mod whose behaviour can be modified (see the semi-recent change to the way hidden handles sliders which makes a few things a lot easier to comprehend) and as such it shouldn't require a map that is not passable on HR to be disqualified and a change enforced. People would only notice this behaviour if HR plays are reasonable for a human to begin with.J1NX1337 wrote:
Also I don't care if you disagree on this, but yes I think all maps should at least be passable on Hard Rock. The mods are kind of a big part of the game too and I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into account when mapping.
so regarding this maps previous version of sliders https://osu.ppy.sh/s/464485
would these still be unrankable? the current wording is as following:
as it says "without straightforward sliderboarders " im guessing that it wouldnt be allowed, although i personally (and what the threads discussion concluded) think that it should be :s
would these still be unrankable? the current wording is as following:
Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous cannot be used, such as burai sliders and hold sliders without straightforward slider borders
as it says "without straightforward sliderboarders " im guessing that it wouldnt be allowed, although i personally (and what the threads discussion concluded) think that it should be :s
And this is the presumed disagreement. Why aren't you mapping for the largest audience possible? In addition, why should you be allowed to map a theoretical score and make it impossible to attain?Okorin wrote:
Let's say it like this: You are mapping for the default experience.
Okorin wrote:
- Buzz sliders must have appropriate delay before the next note.
I didn't see this mentioned, so felt that I'd just point it out.
edit: mistakes were made in the page 5 post lul
It's the mapper's decision which audience they want to map for, some want to map for the largest audience possible, which they are still free to do, but some don't want to make the original map suboptimal just so it can be played with every mod (which, as has already been stated multiple times, can be changed - not just visually like HD, score-wipes are still a possibility)those wrote:
And this is the presumed disagreement. Why aren't you mapping for the largest audience possible? In addition, why should you be allowed to map a theoretical score and make it impossible to attain?Okorin wrote:
Let's say it like this: You are mapping for the default experience.
I'm siding with Okirin's decision on not to impose the rule. Let the mapper decide whether he/she wants the map to be mod friendly or not. The point of the ranking criteria (as I understand it) is to disallow shit maps that would be too cringe to play otherwise to be ranked, not to force making maps for a wide demographic.J1NX1337 wrote:
Also I don't care if you disagree on this, but yes I think all maps should at least be passable on Hard Rock. The mods are kind of a big part of the game too and I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into account when mapping.
Also this makes me think about something. Does taking a map that would be unplayable with a mod, changing it slightly to be playable with the mod while preserving most of the map's structure, and then submitting it for ranking count as stealing the map?
All reverse arrows on sliders must be visible, excluding short reversing sliders. Covering up slider reverses can result in sliders being ambiguous to read. Short reversing sliders only require the first reverse to be visible, since the other reverses are expected. Test play your map to confirm if reverse arrows are visible.might want to say something like using default skin as a guideline for that, because some skins have really massive hitbursts
The end of a spinner (or even the entire spinner), the sliding sound of a slider, and the end of a slider can be silent. While hitsounds must be audible, these elements are not actively clicked and therefore do not always need feedback.are we allowed to silence both slider slide and ticks now?
Kibbleru wrote:
The end of a spinner (or even the entire spinner), the sliding sound of a slider, and the end of a slider can be silent. While hitsounds must be audible, these elements are not actively clicked and therefore do not always need feedback.are we allowed to silence both slider slide and ticks now?
a guideline wrote:
Avoid silencing both slider ticks and slider slides together. Low volume or blending sound samples are similarly discouraged when inaudible. If a slider tick does not snap to a distinct sound, it can be inaudible.
so its only a guideline now? as rather to being fully unrankable?
Yeah.Kibbleru wrote:
so its only a guideline now? as rather to being fully unrankable?
The idea that players require audio feedback for holding a sliderbody is pretty outdated. Silencing both parts can still be avoided most of the time, but there are plenty of cases where that shouldn't be required.
basically after 5 days of discussion and hours of headaches the scenario undeadcapulet described is what we viewed as most reasonable to agree on (Wafu and I legit suffered headaches from that topic, if i recall that correctly)
lol i forgot to close this, expect me to open this up with last changes along with posting the diffspecific draft. ok
Hopefully last reopening time
Answers to concerns in the thread
Closing this on the 7th of December as the changes to the draft here were rather minor. If anyone has something to add about whatever changed, please do so!
Changelog
- Moved from the diffspecific draft to general guidelines:
Avoid polarity issues to rhythms that differ from the map's expected rhythm, or use a slider after an irregular gap. This ensures easily understandable rhythm for players. - Reworded:
- Try to spread your object placement evenly across the playfield. Objects cluttered in one region of the screen for no reason are highlighted by being cluttered without intent. (previous wording: "are standing out due to this without intent.")
- Avoid overlapping objects with other elements of the default and beatmap-specific skins. This refers to all elements that are part of the interface and can be skinned.
- All reverse arrows on sliders must be visible with the default or beatmap specific skins, excluding short reversing sliders. Covering up slider reverses can result in sliders being ambiguous to read. Short reversing sliders only require the first reverse to be visible, since the other reverses are expected. Test play your map to confirm if reverse arrows are visible. (previous wording had the italic part omitted)
- Moved from Rules to guidelines and reworded:
Spinners and sliderends should have hitsound feedback. If either are used to represent a held sound and do not end on a distinct sound, no feedback is acceptable. (previous wording: The end of a spinner (or even the entire spinner), the sliding sound of a slider, and the end of a slider can be silent. While hitsounds must be audible, these elements are not actively clicked and therefore do not always need feedback.) - Added:
Avoid using similar combo colors in successive combos. Players should be able to differentiate between different combos in a map.
Answers to concerns in the thread
- @phaZ question about Shiirn's sakuraburst sliders: one didn't have a clear path, the others: yes.
- @Kibbleru: done
Closing this on the 7th of December as the changes to the draft here were rather minor. If anyone has something to add about whatever changed, please do so!
Spinners and sliderends should have hitsound feedback. If either are used to represent a held sound and do not end on a distinct sound, no feedback is acceptable.
"having no feedback is acceptable". is a better wording. otherwise it can also be read as "no form of feedback is acceptable".
"having no feedback is acceptable". is a better wording. otherwise it can also be read as "no form of feedback is acceptable".
adjusted
since apparently nothing else seems to require changing, I'll go ahead and bubble this for the time being.
Lol, dat bubble.
What do you think about the possibility to pass a map (with every mod)?
I mean something like this https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21928
Even Auto would fail this map in terms of HP gauge.
Still a nice map overall.
What do you think about the possibility to pass a map (with every mod)?
I mean something like this https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21928
Even Auto would fail this map in terms of HP gauge.
Still a nice map overall.
No. IIRC, it was decided that it needs to be at least FCable no mod to be rankable.bulli wrote:
What do you think about the possibility to pass a map (with every mod)?
I mean something like this https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21928
Even Auto would fail this map in terms of HP gauge.
I realize that I didn't really state my point.
This map is fcable no mod, but cannot be passed with hr (even if you fc' it til the last spinner, you will fail afterwards).
Do we want that every ranked map is passable with hr? Do we want that as a part of the ranking criteria?
This map is fcable no mod, but cannot be passed with hr (even if you fc' it til the last spinner, you will fail afterwards).
Do we want that every ranked map is passable with hr? Do we want that as a part of the ranking criteria?
According to the rules, you could skin hitcircle and not sliderstartcircle and endcircle or you could skin hitcircle with one style, and start/endcircle with a completely different style that looks very different. Shouldn't they be made to be "similar" or something like that for rankability?
extreme example: i could make http://puu.sh/sSrGH/61fda42b68.png my hitcircle, http://puu.sh/sSrLZ/50c8948833.png my slidertick, http://puu.sh/sSrOc/1ce9a125bf.png into the slider start circle and http://puu.sh/sSrPd/7a2b1ae358.png into the slider end circle. obviously this wasn't a problem before the introduction of "new" sliders ( with skinnable start and end ) but now I believe that there should be some guideline about visual cohesiveness or similarity between elements of a custom skin extending beyond being centered and not being the same color.
In addition, it's apparently also rankable to blank out sliderfollowcircle.png which I believe should at least have a guideline against it.
as a further addition, something about not putting transparent hitcircle select thingy would be great for helping out mappers or modders!
extreme example: i could make http://puu.sh/sSrGH/61fda42b68.png my hitcircle, http://puu.sh/sSrLZ/50c8948833.png my slidertick, http://puu.sh/sSrOc/1ce9a125bf.png into the slider start circle and http://puu.sh/sSrPd/7a2b1ae358.png into the slider end circle. obviously this wasn't a problem before the introduction of "new" sliders ( with skinnable start and end ) but now I believe that there should be some guideline about visual cohesiveness or similarity between elements of a custom skin extending beyond being centered and not being the same color.
In addition, it's apparently also rankable to blank out sliderfollowcircle.png which I believe should at least have a guideline against it.
as a further addition, something about not putting transparent hitcircle select thingy would be great for helping out mappers or modders!
I somewhat second this,considering all maps should be able to be played AND completed using ANY mods. I do get that Hard Rock is something that players need to manually turn on to play,and therefore there isn't a need to force the player to play it. But if a map is not do-able with one of the mods on,whats the point of it(the mod) being available to select?bulli wrote:
I realize that I didn't really state my point.
This map is fcable no mod, but cannot be passed with hr (even if you fc' it til the last spinner, you will fail afterwards).
Do we want that every ranked map is passable with hr? Do we want that as a part of the ranking criteria?
We can't just be like 'Oh its a challenge for players to pass this with HR' kind of thing,if the thing is already impossible in the first place,then it needs be fixed or changed
As of today, this set of rules counts as amended and can be found in its valid form at https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Standard_Ranking_Criteria. As of the big amount of changes, only beatmaps submitted past this amendment are going under this new set of rules. Every beatmap submitted prior this amendment will get treated and handled under the previous set of rules.
This legacy regulation expires in 6 months from today on. Everything that is not bubbled within the next 6 months will also be treated under the new ruleset then.
Pay attention to the altered wording regarding guidelines. Guidelines now make you have to follow them, unless you put the effort to explain your reasons for violating them exhaustively and whether or not you can showcase that *not violating them* would harm the quality of your beatmap more than *violating them*. (e.g. if your map would be as good with the violation as without the violation, you still have to comply to the guideline you violated and make amendments accordingly)
This legacy regulation expires in 6 months from today on. Everything that is not bubbled within the next 6 months will also be treated under the new ruleset then.
Pay attention to the altered wording regarding guidelines. Guidelines now make you have to follow them, unless you put the effort to explain your reasons for violating them exhaustively and whether or not you can showcase that *not violating them* would harm the quality of your beatmap more than *violating them*. (e.g. if your map would be as good with the violation as without the violation, you still have to comply to the guideline you violated and make amendments accordingly)