Vacuous wrote:

I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Vacuous wrote:

I think it's really nice that they removed the "no editing the audio file to reach minimum drain time". But I did see where they were coming from, I think it's a lot better as a guideline so if BNs see a map that's say, Harumachi Clover looped 5 times they can choose to not bubble it without having the mapper say "but it didn't break any rules.
TL;DR it's better as a case-by-case guideline

i mean
they can still just not bubble it

1. added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
2. clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule

pishifat wrote:

we're back! this draft will be open for one more week of revision, ending on September 24th!

---

little feedback this time, so only a couple changes:

1. added "or more" in two rules as Sinnoh suggested
2. clarified how inactive/disagreeing guest difficulty mappers are treated with the addition of the last rule

other feedback is addressed in the box here:

SPOILER

quotes are paraphrased

Sinnoh: In my opinion, that needs to be revised to mention that the Ctb spread should still be reasonable after the std are converted
>this rule already exists. it's the second thing under "If a hybrid mapset includes osu!standard difficulties..."

Naotoshi: what happened to top diff spread gap?
>Monstrata explained on the thread

Amaikai: can we have lower spread requirements for 3-4 minute maps in the same vein as marathons? why were they rejected from previous round of revision?
>people exploit 5 minute limit to make songs/maps pass threshold, setting similar things for 3-4 minutes makes that happen more in different situations

Amaikai: what are spread regulations?
>explained on difficulty-specific sections of the ranking criteria (not what this draft is for)

Vacuous: can we make editing songs a guideline?
>not really practical when the quality of an edited song has so many variables/is not easily detectible. the example you gave would never be ranked regardless of a rule/guideline being in place, so i don't think that's much to worry about

if no major changes pop up in the next week, we'll transfer this draft to the wiki!

tatatat wrote:

I don't see any changes on the draft.. ??

Naotoshi wrote:

My suggestion is to change the rule to say that, while the top diff does not need to use a difficulty level, it must be related to the song in some way.

A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.

• 
  Difference between lowest and highest difficulty in star rating is calculated.
  This difference and song length is matched on 2 dimensional table to see number of required difficulties.
  Mapper maps that amount of difficulties with linear/gradual spread.
  Reference table is absolute, it's up to mapper if he wants to extend the mp3 or nerf highest difficulty to map 1 difficulty less.

• 
  Number of difficulties within specific range on ranked mapsets are counted
  When there is oversupply of specific difficulty range, new mapsets can exclude that difficulty range from their set
  When there is undersupply of specific difficulty range, bonus incentives to map specific difficulty range.
  Bonus: You can append difficulties to already created sets later on to fill in the gaps.

• 
  Beg peppy to allow different songs in same mapset
  Concept is to have set with multiple different songs in it
  Set has difficulties which are around same range
  Packs can be for beginner, advanced, insane, extra, ultra
  Only X amount of sets for Y range can be ranked each month
  Exceptional sets can go to loved if they don't get ranked
  (Get some BN collaboration to decide which packs get ranked)

• 
  Have contest to map single song.
  Make spread for mapset from entries, pick argueably best for each range
  Rank it, exceptional single difficulties go to loved
  In case of extremely popular song, make 2 sets from the map pool
  (Get some BN to handle this)

Amaikai wrote:

Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai". The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing!

I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.

[ Space ] wrote:

Gonna go through your suggestions on these and state at least why I wouldn't want them. My answers are in red.

Are there plans to make document of what bn's are looking for when they browse through maps that are NOT included in rules or guidelines but are standard practises instead? Something like "Introduction to BNG", "BNG and You", "Is my map ready for BN senpai".
The thing is, that opinion can change from map to map. There's no real defined thing BNs would be looking for as all they do is hold a map to the ranking criteria and add normal mod suggestions. Adding this wouldn't honestly help and make the process even more confusing![/Quote]

You are missing the point. Bns are diverse bunch and each have their own tastes, I agree with that. But doesn't change how there are too many unsaid things NOT listed on guidelines or rules that you need to figure out on your own.

I would have hoped to reduce incentives to abuse the system instead of saying "we can't have do that because A is abused. If we make B it will also get abused". I see that as shallow reasoning, it hasn't been tested how changing 2 step system 3 step system affects abuse aka mp3 stretching. Does abuse increase because it's now possible to edit 2:40 songs to 3min and do less strict spread? OR does abuse decrease because 4:40 songs fit on less strict spread and incentive to make it 5minute is less? Or does the amount of abuse stay same? What effects this abuse has to players, mappers, bns? I find having a gut feeling as justification for rule to be unacceptable. The only thing reducing the approval-length time does is cause people to time-strech to 4 minutes instead. I get that there might be a mapper who wants to map a 4:50 song but doesn't want to go through the hassle of mapping a full spread, but it's just tough luck to be honest. Your gut feeling has no stance in an argument and I could say I have a gut feeling that we should make the approval length 10 minutes instead but nobody would agree with that because I have no proof that the amount of abuse would be lower. Lowering it to 3-4 minutes would also be more harmful to mappers because it advocates for low-effort, TV size sets and it makes mappers who do map songs over 3-4 minutes put less effort into songs over 3 minutes because "oh, I only need to map a single diff for this song". 5 minutes is enough to put effort into creating a map worth a single difficulty and anything below it is still short enough to map normally. In the end it comes down to this- do you want to put in the effort or not? If you don't, go ahead and map TV size. If you do, go map those 4 minute songs with full spreads and over 5 minute songs.

1. A difficulty’s name must be unrelated to a username. Guest difficulties, however, may indicate possession with its mappers’ username or nickname. (e.g. Guest Mapper’s Insane). Words that happen to be usernames are acceptable within difficulty names as long as they relate to the song.
2. A mapset host and guest mappers can make changes to their respective difficulties as they wish. If there is a disagreement between both, the mapset host must delete the guest contribution upon request. If a guest mapper cannot be contacted for a month, they will be assumed to agree with any changes.

rc wrote:

A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

rc wrote:

Single-mode mapsets must include a reasonable spread of at least two difficulties. The lowest difficulty cannot be harder than a Normal and it must comply with its respective mode’s difficulty-specific ranking criteria.

UndeadCapulet wrote:

A mapset host must have equal or more drain time mapped than any guest difficulty mappers. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

current wording of this disallows gd'ers from mapping intros/outros/break that the set owner didnt map if the set owner only mapped one difficulty. theres no real reason to disallow this kind of thing, since it just boils down to different song interpretations.

rc wrote:

Additionally, a mapset host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty’s name. (e.g. Mapset Host’s Insane). Metadata conflicts caused by mapping a song multiple times are the only exception.