Right now, there is a rule that says:

Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous (including "burai sliders") cannot be used. This is so that no slider has an appearance that is confusing or impossible for the player to read. Additionally, the slider borders must never be covered up from the slider being packed in too tightly. However, sliders that cross over themselves are fine as long as the borders are clearly visible.

I'll talk about the Burai sliders later on. First I want to talk about some of the other parts of this rule.

"Additionally, the slider borders must never be covered up from the slider being packed in too tightly."
With mm sliders, borders automatically disappear (and not just covered up as they used to be a long time ago) when the sliderpaths touch each other. We rank a bunch of maps with sliders similar to these, which I'd say falls under this part of the rule:

"However, sliders that cross over themselves are fine as long as the borders are clearly visible."
This is actually also no longer the case with mm sliders:

The way people read these loops is that they expect that the mapper isn't trolling them and making something like this:

Which leads me to the ambiguous sliders part of the rule. Right now, loops are actually ambiguous, but as we've standardized one of the slidershapes as the "correct" way to read it, the ambiguous version is unrankable.

So, we can actually do the same thing for Burai sliders. If the sliderball only travels the sliderpath twice, the slider will never be ambiguous to read:

In the image above, we have two scenarios:
1. Sliderball travels across the same path 2 times. This is good, and completely readable. The side of the slider without a sliderend is obviously where we're supposed to go, as if it went the other way, the sliderball would travel across the same path more than twice.
2. Here, the sliderball travels across the same path 4 times. This is unreadable, as a player can't guess how many times the slider overlaps with itself.

Again:
1,2. Here, the sliderball never goes across the same path more than twice. It is easy to tell how you should play this slider.
3. In this one, the sliderball will travel across the middle 3 times. If this were allowed, it would be impossible to tell the difference between the above, and this.
Update 23.09.15: Sonnyc brings up that these are ambiguous and might not be as intuitive as I think they are: p/4526204 Discuss?


And as long as the orange slider doesn't overlap more than twice, I'm sure everyone here would be able to correctly determine how to play it, while the green slider is ambiguous as it overlaps itself at least 3 times (or maybe even more.)

What I propose is to word this part of the rule as:

The sliderball should never travel across the same path more than twice.

If we do this, we would allow for more creative slidershapes and sliderart:

While disallowing things such as:

If we add in the rule where a sliderhead and slidertail can't be on the same spot, and combine everything here, we should (I think) be able to have a rule that catches all the ambiguous sliders:

A slider should not be ambiguous. If a slider has a section where it crosses itself, the slider must cross itself at that point. The sliderball can not travel across the same path more than 2 times in a row, and no slider head and tail can be on the same place.

Of course, there's room for better wording, and there might be other ambiguous crazy sliders you can think of, so discuss if this is possible.


B-But they're super hard to read ;;
Well yeah, which is probably because we never allowed them before. We can just use skystar maps as an example. They were often considered horrible and hard to read in the beginning, but as players adapted to the style, they started being able to read them just fine, so it's mostly just a matter of time before players adapt and adjust to the possibility of overlapping sliderpaths and whatnot.

Update 23.09.15: p/4526243

MillhioreF wrote:

It's been pointed out that a slider like this is ambiguous but would still be rankable under this definition:

SPOILER

So I'd like to amend that there can be no closed shapes if a slider has any burai segments or overlapping red points. Theoretically everything should be readable with this extra restriction, as it would exclude ambiguous loops as well.

In which case, something like:

A slider should not be ambiguous. The sliderball can not travel across the same path more than 2 times in a row, and no slider head and tail can be on the same place. There can be no closed shapes if a slider has any burai segments or overlapping red points.

could work.
Update 24.09.15: I goofed the rule wording, so fixed that.

Image 5 looks a little ambiguous for me.

But anyways considering the current usage of sliders, I see why not for burai sliders.

Do you mean this?:

I'm not sure how it would be ambiguous actually, since you're most certainly going to start by going left (since going right would result in the 2nd version at the bottom, which would be unrankable).

So like you've said, there are both scenarios. I highly doubt whether it is readable intuitionly when first confronting that slider. Readability is analyzed with the pattern itself, not like whether it follows the ranking criteria or not.

Hmm. I'm not sure. You may be right that it's not intuitively clear which way to go. For me, I think it makes sense in that I always see overlapping sliders as like a snake lying on top of itself kinda, so the first one would be, if seen from the side:
-_____
|_____|

which makes sense, while you can't really create the 2nd shape if it were laying on top of itself, as then either the start or the end would be covered by its body:
-____
| _ ___
|_____|

if that makes any sense.

It's been pointed out that a slider like this is ambiguous but would still be rankable under this definition:


So I'd like to amend that there can be no closed shapes if a slider has any burai segments or overlapping red points. Theoretically everything should be readable with this extra restriction, as it would exclude ambiguous loops as well.

Oh wow, all of my support.

don't we already have a ranked burai slider map

Frostwich wrote:

don't we already have a ranked burai slider map

Do you mean recently? I know some older Burai maps, such as Border of Death, that have these (01:38:388 (4) - ), but I don't follow new ranked maps closely enough to know if anything similar has been ranked recently.

uh im like 50 / 50 atm, since this make sense, but I can see a lot of people abusing this as well

uhm, there will be issues with new skinable sliderendcircle
transparent sliderendcircle.png (inb4 will be used really often) will lead to something like

sliderpath is not really obvious..

As long as there wont be any "bullshit" Sliders coming up (such as the one MillhioreF pointed out) I'd be all for it. Since we're handling everything case-by-case anyway, I think this could work.

Edit to Sieg: Do skin advantages/disadvantages affect the RC yet? If I had to guess; Everything's being judged with the Default skin (or isnt it?).

Ohh, dunno what song you're mapping but judging by that BG you got good taste

The map just happened to be the one I have opened. I'm not planning to use these in a map for now atleast xd.

@Sieg: Unless something has changed the past year or something, everything should be judged by default skin. So if someone makes a huuuuuuuge hitcircle and then complain about unreadable circles, then that's kind of their own fault for making things less readable.

@CXu yes you right, but this is intended usage
http://blog.ppy.sh/post/125927071388/20150805

Edit2: CXu posted at the same time I did, his wording is better tho.

Well, all skin elements are possible to make transparent, so you could make a transparent hitcircle, and it's still within intended usage (as in, removing a skin element I guess).
I dunno though, I kind of think removing the sliderend is kind of a dumb thing to do in general, and is basically just decreasing the amount of possible information you can get from reading, although I guess you'd use that ( part of the slider to indicate a sliderend (in which case you could maybe skin something similar?)

Maybe it will be a problem, but to me it sounds like it would be a readability issue that players put themselves in.

I guess you don't realize what is intended usage and what is not.
Anyways, I hope too that this can be allowed in some way, will definitely push mapping creativity if will be used correctly.

YES PLEASE
As long as it's done in a readable manner, it's fine

Sieg wrote:

I guess you don't realize what is intended usage and what is not.
Anyways, I hope too that this can be allowed in some way, will definitely push mapping creativity if will be used correctly.

I dunno. Intended usage how I interpret it is that we are now allowed to customize the sliderend. How we decide to use that intended usage is up to us.

Basically what CXu said. We're not forced to use the new possibilities, but the change allows us to use the new style if we want to. If the Default Skin doesnt use transparent 300's, O-Hitcircles or transparent Sliderends, then that's not the "standard".

There has also been a guideline around Hiterrors, Sliderrepeatarrows and their visibility. Imagine there are some Sliders overlapping each other and the 2nd Sliders' tail has a repeat on it. That repeat is "hidden" by Slider 1's hitburst (300, 100, 50, Miss), so it's barely visible for the default skin, yet is perfectly fine to a skin with transparent hitbursts. What do? You have to change it, because default says so (well, a QAT said so, but you get what I mean)

hmm when i saw the topic i thought this would be conpletely ridiculous but after reading it through, it makes sense.
but i doubt peppy would allow this anyways tho

peppy is never going to allow this.
This game's concept aims more for simplicity. It got lost over the years with slidershapes like the one you pointed out at the beginning and other techniques, but this would push it too far in that manner.

My personal opinion: I would be quite alright with it, sure it would allow for some creative mapping. But I don't see it coming, ever.

The problem with Burai sliders is that even with logics on your side they're unintuitive to play.
As you elaborated there is no way to distinguish the green slider here
from a straight slider which means that the player has to grasp the concept of Burai sliders by external means upon seeing one for the first time with the following two options that are both not self-explanatory under a gameplay-aspect:
1. Using the editor to see how the slider-anchors are placed to determine how it flows.
2. Reading the ranking criteria to reassure yourself that there can't be any trollsliders that use the path more than 2 times. Without reading ranking criteria burai sliders can't be fully understood/confidently read by the player and reading ranking criteria should not be a requirement for playing the game.

Another thing that puts Burai sliders apart from sliderarts like
is that these actually have a direction and a concept of flow that is intuitive to a player. You don't have to play osu! to know what a loop is and in which direction you have to follow through at the spot where the pathes cross. That ensures intuitivity and doesn't hinder gameplay while Burai sliders following your concept aren't self-explanatory like that(see above).


Another weakness in your argumentation is the following slider you take as an example to prove that the rule for covered slider borders is useless and we never followed it in the first place:
One sliderborder is hidden but by concept you can determine a slider's path with only one sliderborder being completely visible as the size of the sliderball doesn't change(so you could figure out where the overlapped border has to be) and you can clear every slider just by following along the one border that is visible.
So just from seeing one sliderborder completely the player can figure out a 100% working way to clear that slider.
Which is why the rulechange

Additionally, the slider borders must never be covered up from the slider being packed in too tightly.

should rather adress one border being completely visible.(no idea for good wording currently)

Last but not least you should ask what Burai sliders are good for?
Which kind of sound or song characteristic could it represent like no other slider?
What speaks against making a slider like
instead of a burai slider?
If you ask me, absolutely nothing.
It achieves almost the same kind of flow-turn, is pretty much identic in shape but it's much more readable(it follows the same concept as the hook-sliders, having one sliderborder you can follow along trustfully).
And hook-sliders are nothing else but a concept to make this buraislider readable:

I'm using bold red to answer some parts of things, so it's clear what I'm saying and what you're saying.

Endaris wrote:

The problem with Burai sliders is that even with logics on your side they're unintuitive to play. - They're unintuitive? I find them unintuitive only when they don't do what I expect them to do from what I see visually. The first time I played a burai slider I did instinctively know what I was supposed to do.
As you elaborated there is no way to distinguish the green slider here

SPOILER

from a straight slider which means that the player has to grasp the concept of Burai sliders by external means upon seeing one for the first time with the following two options that are both not self-explanatory under a gameplay-aspect:
1. Using the editor to see how the slider-anchors are placed to determine how it flows.
2. Reading the ranking criteria to reassure yourself that there can't be any trollsliders that use the path more than 2 times. Without reading ranking criteria burai sliders can't be fully understood/confidently read by the player and reading ranking criteria should not be a requirement for playing the game.
The green slider isn't supposed to be rankable exactly because it's indistinguishable from a straight one though.

Another thing that puts Burai sliders apart from sliderarts like

SPOILER

is that these actually have a direction and a concept of flow that is intuitive to a player. You don't have to play osu! to know what a loop is and in which direction you have to follow through at the spot where the pathes cross. That ensures intuitivity and doesn't hinder gameplay while Burai sliders following your concept aren't self-explanatory like that(see above).
It might just be my assumptions being wrong, but if you take a strip of paper, make a fold on it, and fold it into itself, you pretty much get the same concept as a burai slider. On sliders, you can see the fold because it's a rounded edge of the slider (although with the new slider behaviour, this might no longer be possible anyway). Maybe seeing sliders as similar to paperstrips is something I do and most people don't though.


Another weakness in your argumentation is the following slider you take as an example to prove that the rule for covered slider borders is useless and we never followed it in the first place: - This had nothing to do with allowing burai slilders. Regardless of if burai sliders are allowed or not, this part of the rule is still outdated and should be fixed.

this one

One sliderborder is hidden but by concept you can determine a slider's path with only one sliderborder being completely visible as the size of the sliderball doesn't change(so you could figure out where the overlapped border has to be) and you can clear every slider just by following along the one border that is visible.

example

by following the visible border

by assuming parallel sliderborders on the overlapped part and breaking the sliderpath in 2 lines - changing the line at the crossing point

So just from seeing one sliderborder completely the player can figure out a 100% working way to clear that slider.
Which is why the rulechange

Additionally, the slider borders must never be covered up from the slider being packed in too tightly.

should rather adress one border being completely visible.(no idea for good wording currently) - A loop does not show 1 sliderborder path, and would be unrankable in that case.

Last but not least you should ask what Burai sliders are good for? - Well, one thing is that it might make more aesthetically pleasing patterns (to some). I don't really like how the slider below looks for example. Other than that, you may want to create a "repeatslider" that starts on a white tick, repeats on a white tick, but ends on a red one, but it doesn't make sense to not be 1 long hold-note. What you can do is to use the slidertick as a kind of repeat hitsound and then use the slider as a repeatslider. Sliderart can also benefit from being allowed to completely overlap in some cases. As for other uses? We'd know if people were allowed to use them I'm sure.
Which kind of sound or song characteristic could it represent like no other slider?
What speaks against making a slider like

this one

instead of a burai slider?
If you ask me, absolutely nothing.
It achieves almost the same kind of flow-turn, is pretty much identic in shape but it's much more readable(it follows the same concept as the hook-sliders, having one sliderborder you can follow along trustfully).
And hook-sliders are nothing else but a concept to make this buraislider readable:

SPOILER

But yeah, as sliderheads now explode into a million pieces, it might cause some confusion as it will look identical to an eventual "fold" for a burai slider.

Are burai sliders more or less confusing since ppy changed the way sliderheads behave

Okoratu wrote:

Are burai sliders more or less confusing since ppy changed the way sliderheads behave

Personally believe the hidden change of sliders make it harder for burai imo

Oh well, when I encountered a Burai slider for the first time, I just didn't know what to do and broke.

Most of all you didn't answer my most important point:
If sliders can follow their path two times there is NO guarantee for the player that sliders can't follow their path also three times or more. This only becomes a guarantee from reading the ranking criteria and this can't be a requirement to play ranked maps. Sure, you would probably notice over time but it would be by far the most unintuitive gameplay element.
Taking your paper-example there is no reason to fold it only one time, you could also fold it multiple times which is why you can hardly apply it to your rule.
And it would be obviously readable if you use snakingsliders right?
Which is why I completely agree with Sonnyc that Buraisliders with multiple separate pathsections being used twice are ambiguous. In any case I feel like you'd have to dedicate an entire new rule for Buraisliders over changing the current one.

Regarding your repeatslider I can't see a reason why the slider has to go through its start to represent that kind of sound.
While I see how it could be more aesthetic in a small amount of cases the readibility(especially in context with what Sieg mentioned already) is much more relevant to how well a map plays. And peppy showed that he wants people to not use sliderends when he temporarily removed sliderends on Hidden completely.

/edit: nvm the stuff that was here, missed the last edit of your post

If a burai slider isn't very long and has no sliderticks, you can just move your cursor to the slider end (if there is one--if there isn't, then too bad), and you will not break.
For something like this
It's not that hard to hit the slider tick as long as you go over it (maybe).
Just a little of my experience, I totally support burai sliders.

Endaris wrote:

Oh well, when I encountered a Burai slider for the first time, I just didn't know what to do and broke.

Most of all you didn't answer my most important point:
If sliders can follow their path two times there is NO guarantee for the player that sliders can't follow their path also three times or more. This only becomes a guarantee from reading the ranking criteria and this can't be a requirement to play ranked maps. Sure, you would probably notice over time but it would be by far the most unintuitive gameplay element.
Taking your paper-example there is no reason to fold it only one time, you could also fold it multiple times which is why you can hardly apply it to your rule.
And it would be obviously readable if you use snakingsliders right?
Which is why I completely agree with Sonnyc that Buraisliders with multiple separate pathsections being used twice are ambiguous. In any case I feel like you'd have to dedicate an entire new rule for Buraisliders over changing the current one.

Regarding your repeatslider I can't see a reason why the slider has to go through its start to represent that kind of sound.
While I see how it could be more aesthetic in a small amount of cases the readibility(especially in context with what Sieg mentioned already) is much more relevant to how well a map plays. And peppy showed that he wants people to not use sliderends when he temporarily removed sliderends on Hidden completely.

/edit: nvm the stuff that was here, missed the last edit of your post

The same thing can be said about short repeatsliders though. You have no guarantee to know if it is a short repeat slider lasting several bounces or only one, and you dont know when it ends either (but you learn to read them from experience)

If sliders never overlap more than once, you learn that it never happens as well.

Buraisliders require active moment though and on repeatsliders it's not questionable where you you have to move in comparison, just how long they last and the next circles usually give a clue about that.
But you're right, repeatsliders are just as unreadable which is why most people end up not even trying to move along with them and hold it down in the middle instead to snap to the next note at the last possible moment. I remember finding repeatsliders repeat more than once being the most stupid gameplay-element in osu! before I found out that I could just hold down.
There's no such shortcut for buraisliders though.

+if you never encounter a buraislider that uses the same path more than 2 times you don't learn that as well

With the change of how the Ranking Criteria Subforum works from now on, topics like these are obsolete.