Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Rule change] Quantifying mapper contribution in collabs

posted
Total Posts
24
Nardoxyribonucleic
osu! Alumni
3,008 posts
Joined May 2011
Topic Starter
Nardoxyribonucleic

Ranking Criteria wrote:

No guest mapper should have more difficulties in the mapset than the creator, all modes together. For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties. The person who should upload the map is the one who contributed most to it. Maps with an ambiguous set of difficulties such as collabs will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the submitting mapper is properly accounted for.
The current rule about collaborations is somehow vague and subjective regarding the wording "contributed most to it". How do we measure mapper contribution using an objective parameter? Drain time, number of objects or overall density? In order to prevent future conflict and confusion, I would like to propose that the drain time of individual mapper could be used to determine mapper contribution of a collab, as this parameter seems to be the most objective as rest moments also matter concerning beatmapping.

Therefore, the rule may be changed to:

No guest mapper should have more difficulties in the mapset than the creator, all modes together. For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties. The person who should upload the map is the one who contributed most to it, in terms of drain time. Maps with an ambiguous set of difficulties such as collabs with other map elements (e.g. storyboarding) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the submitting mapper is properly accounted for.
riffy
osu! Alumni
8,060 posts
Joined December 2010
riffy
I'll just assume that SB stuff will be judged based on the complexity of its elements.

Seems good with me.
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Raiden
Agreed, rule seems a bit too ambiguous currently.
ZiRoX
Elite Mapper
1,019 posts
Joined November 2009
ZiRoX
I would agree with this if it was complete proposal. You're fixing one flaw while adding a new one. How do you plan to compare drain time against storyboarding to decide who contributed the most?
Nardoxyribonucleic
osu! Alumni
3,008 posts
Joined May 2011
Topic Starter
Nardoxyribonucleic
I guess things will go like this:

Let's say there is a single-difficulty map for approval with 5:00 total drain.

Case 1: Creator's part has 2:29 while guest's part has 2:31 drain time -> DQ

Case 2: Creator's part has 2:29 while guest's part has 2:31 drain time, with storyboard being created by creator -> possibly tolerable

Case 3: Creator's part has 2:29 while guest's part has 2:31 drain time, with half of the storyboard length being created by creator and half by guest -> DQ

etc.
Last edited by Nardoxyribonucleic , edited 1 time in total.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu
being honest drain time is the better way to measure it, I think just mapping should be taking in account, if not we gonna be in the subjective side of beatmapping again, which is not good
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet

Ranking Criteria wrote:

For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties.
Woah, what is this line doing here? Lots of guest diffs that get ranked are collab diffs where the uploader isn't involved; this part of the rule isn't enforced at all.
Mint
1,607 posts
Joined February 2013
Mint

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties.
Woah, what is this line doing here? Lots of guest diffs that get ranked are collab diffs where the uploader isn't involved; this part of the rule isn't enforced at all.
lol wat is that

----

I guess you're referring to situations like these https://osu.ppy.sh/s/139045 (pg 16)? If so, it seems stuff like this has already done before, so I don't see anything wrong with making this 'official'.
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris

ZiRoX wrote:

I would agree with this if it was complete proposal. You're fixing one flaw while adding a new one. How do you plan to compare drain time against storyboarding to decide who contributed the most?
I agree with this, it's nigh impossible to narrow it down to something that is both clear and logically satisfying...
Flower
1,723 posts
Joined August 2011
Flower
I'd say item count makes more sense. Some songs contain a long quiet interlude between intense vocals.
Storyboard should not count. As storyboard maker is not tagged in most cases, while storyboard mod doesn't get kudosu, it shouldn't count as map element.
neonat
Beatmap Nominator
3,528 posts
Joined April 2012
neonat

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties.
Woah, what is this line doing here? Lots of guest diffs that get ranked are collab diffs where the uploader isn't involved; this part of the rule isn't enforced at all.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/285577

I'm not in the mania collabs, does this mean this is unrankable then
Myxo
osu! Alumni
3,103 posts
Joined December 2012
Myxo
Leaving this to the criteria council and discussing it when a proposal is out, would be the best solution.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu

Desperate-kun wrote:

Leaving this to the criteria council and discussing it when a proposal is out, would be the best solution.
but there is not council anymore or will be renamed, I think Ephermal say something about it in:



http://blog.ppy.sh/
Myxo
osu! Alumni
3,103 posts
Joined December 2012
Myxo
It will definitely exist further. Also it hasn't been renamed yet afaik.
Battle
2,862 posts
Joined February 2014
Battle
Drain time doesn't seem like the best option to measure the amount of contribution of the mappers. So like, yeah you could have one person map like 2:31 while the other (supposedly the set owner) maps 2:29, while the numbers say that the other person, not the set owner, did more work technically, it does not take in account for the music. What I mean by this is like, if the set owner mapped an extremely dense part for most of the map while the other person mapped mostly something like 1/1 sliders with 1 beat breaks in the middle of it, wouldn't they have not done as much work as the set owner. It seems like it would be better to judge things case by case instead of just strictly drain time.
Nardoxyribonucleic
osu! Alumni
3,008 posts
Joined May 2011
Topic Starter
Nardoxyribonucleic
Density does not matter that much. Placing breaks for calmer parts of music is also an important mapping skill, and those parts are equally meaningful to that piece of music. That's why drain time is more objective than the number of objects involved in a specific session.
Irreversible
osu! Alumni
4,315 posts
Joined December 2011
Irreversible
Why should it be judged by draintime? Imo this is really a stupid idea, I think that it should be evaluated by the amount of guest difficulties.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu

Irreversible wrote:

Why should it be judged by draintime? Imo this is really a stupid idea, I think that it should be evaluated by the amount of guest difficulties.
oh we was discussing drain time, but for collab diffs, for individual diffs I guess is fine to count by number of diffs, specially between game modes.
Irreversible
osu! Alumni
4,315 posts
Joined December 2011
Irreversible
I see, while we are at it, the whole rule needs rewording because apart from collaborations I think it's pretty unclear for the rest too.

Collabs = Draintime, this is an interesting idea
Individual diffs = just count the diffs, that's enough

That's how I would put it.
riffy
osu! Alumni
8,060 posts
Joined December 2010
riffy
Irre's idea makes perfect sense, I like it a lot.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 24