Hailie wrote:

I really don't agree with this new KD system whatsoever - I can even get kds from my own map which doesn't make sense...

Confirming this, I made an issue for it on github.

Hailie wrote:

Apparently I can go straight to someone's map and downvote a modder's mod and take away their kd from it (I tried it on a random map and one of my maps - oh course I remove the downvote after that lol)
I think that is... pretty dumb and that just goes back to my point of why I believe the mapper should determine if a mod deserves a kds once more because that just cause even more abusive issues

I kind of agree with that idea. I'll bring it up and see where it goes.

If somebody had some experience with qualified map on mv2 discussion, sharing would be nice. Preferably examples in which modders amass to bring the map down, but any viable discussion is welcomed. I personally think multiple discussions won't show as much pressure on mapset as it does in mv1 especially on overall quality issues.

I think the main concern I have about this entire thing is the fact that it's being forced when it's not complete- I think 90% of the complaints that we currently have are mainly due to the incomplete nature of mv2. I don't know though, that's just my opinion based on what I've seen. As for suggestions, most of what's been mentioned I agree with, including changing beatmap descriptions post-rank. I don't see how abuse can occur here, and I would like to see examples (if possible)

Anyway, just my two cents. Modding with mv2 is straight to the point and easy, I just worry about the set owner and GDers more

Quite minor but it would be nice to see who has favorited your map

cococolaco wrote:

Quite minor but it would be nice to see who has favorited your map

it was added recently
hover over the part of the map page that states the number of favorites and it'll show user's icons (up to 50) that you can then hover to see their names

LowAccuracySS wrote:

I think the main concern I have about this entire thing is the fact that it's being forced when it's not complete- I think 90% of the complaints that we currently have are mainly due to the incomplete nature of mv2. I don't know though, that's just my opinion based on what I've seen. As for suggestions, most of what's been mentioned I agree with, including changing beatmap descriptions post-rank. I don't see how abuse can occur here, and I would like to see examples (if possible)

Anyway, just my two cents. Modding with mv2 is straight to the point and easy, I just worry about the set owner and GDers more

If you think it isn't complete, or something is missing, you should give us a list of what you think needs to be added. We can't do much with just "this isn't complete".

Can you give more details on why you worry about set owner and GDers more ?

Mainly just that GDers can't resolve points I guess, but peppy confirmed that would be added eventually. And downvoting to remove kds is kinda dumb too xD

I suddenly got 8 kudosu out of nowhere, so looks like devs actually made resolved giving kudosu

didn't see anything about irc modding in the thread aside from being mentioned twice;

A lot of people don't really irc mod, but for some people, myself included irc mod is more convenient as u can get direct feedback near instantaneously. On v1, u could post your chat log and other people could read over the discussions had on each point, but in v2, you'd have to take every single timestamp, and recreate the discussion, or post your chatlog to pastebin or something, and then post it.

additionally you can't really give multiple kds for 1 post, and theres no reason to have to retype every issue back up, just to have it remarked as resolved and given kds, so it doesn't work well with the new modder feedback system either.





edit: in regards to the issue of whitespace, it's less about getting used to, and sure you might be addressing one point at a time, but having more points on the screen imo is much more useful.

Would also like to add a small detail for the cons (well, it's basically a suggestion); the map(set) host should be able to mark one's point as either accepted or denied instead of just "resolved". Otherwise, why do we colour our mod replies in v1? They're way easier to distinguish and it would be a cool (and helpful for some) detail to have plus it isn't that hard to implement.

Furthermore, something a bit more complex but one that could prove VERY useful and should be more compatible with v2 rather than v1: Give permission to GDers to do what I mentioned above on their own diffs. The host could give permission for the GDers to do so in their diffs, and each diff's permissions should be seperated so (example:) the GDer doesn't accept/deny a point in another diff they haven't mapped etc.. This is a bit more complex to do but I'm confident it's going to be more compatible with v2. The GDers updating their own diff could also be a thing but I'm not sure how that would work.

I believe modding v2 has much potential, and as long as it's made a bit more intuitive to use it'll be quite a good step for the modding scene.

LowComboFC wrote:

Would also like to add a small detail for the cons (well, it's basically a suggestion); the map(set) host should be able to mark one's point as either accepted or denied instead of just "resolved". Otherwise, why do we colour our mod replies in v1? They're way easier to distinguish and it would be a cool (and helpful for some) detail to have plus it isn't that hard to implement.

Furthermore, something a bit more complex but one that could prove VERY useful and should be more compatible with v2 rather than v1: Give permission to GDers to do what I mentioned above on their own diffs. The host could give permission for the GDers to do so in their diffs, and each diff's permissions should be seperated so (example:) the GDer doesn't accept/deny a point in another diff they haven't mapped etc.. This is a bit more complex to do but I'm confident it's going to be more compatible with v2. The GDers updating their own diff could also be a thing but I'm not sure how that would work.

I believe modding v2 has much potential, and as long as it's made a bit more intuitive to use it'll be quite a good step for the modding scene.

I agree with only about GD mappers. Current system has no function for GD mappers. For now, host is checking all GD mappers respond and check resolved. It's too unproductive.

Kawashiro wrote:

LowComboFC wrote:

Would also like to add a small detail for the cons (well, it's basically a suggestion); the map(set) host should be able to mark one's point as either accepted or denied instead of just "resolved". Otherwise, why do we colour our mod replies in v1? They're way easier to distinguish and it would be a cool (and helpful for some) detail to have plus it isn't that hard to implement.

Furthermore, something a bit more complex but one that could prove VERY useful and should be more compatible with v2 rather than v1: Give permission to GDers to do what I mentioned above on their own diffs. The host could give permission for the GDers to do so in their diffs, and each diff's permissions should be seperated so (example:) the GDer doesn't accept/deny a point in another diff they haven't mapped etc.. This is a bit more complex to do but I'm confident it's going to be more compatible with v2. The GDers updating their own diff could also be a thing but I'm not sure how that would work.

I believe modding v2 has much potential, and as long as it's made a bit more intuitive to use it'll be quite a good step for the modding scene.

I agree with only about GD mappers. Current system has no function for GD mappers. For now, host is checking all GD mappers respond and check resolved. It's too unproductive.

This has been pointed out already, although not discussed much. I'll keep bringing it up and see what we can do.

When I mod a map which already received many mods, Mapper sometimes already resolved some issues what i want to suggest without any more discusses. For now, only writer and mapper can reopen resolved issues. But I think this is blocking the way to others to join the discussion which is already resolved. For example, If someone suggested what i want to suggest and mapper rejected and check "resolved" icon, then nobody (except mapper and writer) can't show his own suggestion again.

I strongly think others (not a writer or mapper) should be able to reopen discussions which already resolved.

alright, popping is now a thing, though a bit different, check undiscussed at the OP.

Changing description via the new site is also available, though not sure if it's posssible to do when a map is ranked.

MaridiuS wrote:

alright, popping is now a thing, though a bit different, check undiscussed at the OP.

Changing description via the new site is also available, though not sure if it's posssible to do when a map is ranked.

I tested it on my ranked maps and it appears their descriptions can be edited through the new web this way. Not sure if this will be true for maps using v2 modding discussions when they get ranked, however.

tfw can't prepare massive veto mods

Kawashiro wrote:

When I mod a map which already received many mods, Mapper sometimes already resolved some issues what i want to suggest without any more discusses. For now, only writer and mapper can reopen resolved issues. But I think this is blocking the way to others to join the discussion which is already resolved. For example, If someone suggested what i want to suggest and mapper rejected and check "resolved" icon, then nobody (except mapper and writer) can't show his own suggestion again.

I strongly think others (not a writer or mapper) should be able to reopen discussions which already resolved.

This

The point of modding v2 is to simplify issues so that people don't repeat the same thing in another discussion. So anyone should be able to open resolved discussion. Mappers will most likely organize by pending rather than all, so the additional mod given is likely to not be seen.

FiddleBlue wrote:

The point of modding v2 is to simplify issues so that people don't repeat the same thing in another discussion. So anyone should be able to open resolved discussion. Mappers will most likely organize by pending rather than all, so the additional mod given is likely to not be seen.

If people repeat the same issues in different mods, it's maybe the meaning that this issue have to be fixed?
To me upvote/downvote is not as similar as repeating the same thing in different person's mod, cause text mod have more impact than just clicking on a button.

Pachiru wrote:

FiddleBlue wrote:

The point of modding v2 is to simplify issues so that people don't repeat the same thing in another discussion. So anyone should be able to open resolved discussion. Mappers will most likely organize by pending rather than all, so the additional mod given is likely to not be seen.

If people repeat the same issues in different mods, it's maybe the meaning that this issue have to be fixed?
To me upvote/downvote is not as similar as repeating the same thing in different person's mod, cause text mod have more impact than just clicking on a button.

Or we can simply just add more to the discussion to what the initial modder has missed, like he didn't offer suggestions or didn't explain really well.


Anyways, did character limit got introduced recently? It's really annoying as I don't even see how many characters have I used. If I reach character limit, I will just break down the post into responses to the initial post which is just annoying. Since mv2 encourages use of pick 1 example and say "same for this" in the same paragraph, limiting characters just hinders that and suggests that you just do "^ same" to farm more kudosu.

Another issue, could it be implemented to make the box in which you write automatically bigger or remember your default setting somehow? When it covers 2 rows, I can't really go back to what I've wrote as scrolling is also weird too, skips rows. Took me a while before I realized I could enlarge it, but still, I hate being forced to enlarge it manually by mouse everytime I need to when bigger box is always handy.

It'd be pretty sweet when highlighting a pinpointed dot by moving your cursor to be shown at what exact time was the pinpoint without having to click. If you click and it's not what you thought it was you just have to scroll back up and try again lo.

Maybe add "comment" option for when people would like to be edgy and jsut say "meh I don't like how the meta has evolved with this hexagrid aesthetics smh" "hmm, overall I think you could use more variety in future maps, don't you think that it's too stale" "lol trash map dxdxd" and other stuff for which might comment option be used.

Once again filtering per modder would be quite handy. The discussion on https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/659328/discussion wouldn't be so dynamic if it was spammed with 50+ more irrelevant posts. By simply enabling filtering per modder (which goes from newest to oldest) discussion after nomination would be a thing for itself, and checking out BN's posts would be more easier for those not involved in the set. Other uses many time mentioned are like be able to look up to mods, more easily revisit things mentioned by this one modder that seemed helpful, and other stuff already commented on this thread.



Possibly allow upvotes on comments? If I were to reopen a resolved thread and it got fixed, my efforts would not be rewarded.

Why is upvoting system even a thing, massively upvoting some comments doesn't make sense especially to people not involved. Sheer number of upvoting, as a concept of persuading the mapper, is really stupid because it should always depend on the quality of the post. There is also no clear way to indicate in which modders friends don't simply come and upvote his comments because it costs them nothing. It was discussed multiple times but only the mapper should judge the quality of a post relating to his map.

Anyways soon redoing the op a bit with changed stuff, so I think then would be the time for peppy to revisit the op.

If you want to request good features like that, then ask for them on github here, make sure it's not duplicate. https://github.com/ppy/osu-web/issues/new
(Someone already posted that for you)

Lets go over issues from the start of the thread to see where it stands now.
Mv2 is in a working state. There are still issues that need fixing, but there are fewer issues now.