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

[Guideline Proposal - catch] Antiflow HDashes in platters

posted
Total Posts
25
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,252 posts
Joined July 2013
Topic Starter
Ascendance
Update May 5, 2018: CLICK HERE!


Hello!

The current ranking criteria has this Difficulty-Specific rule in Platter difficulties:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Basic hyperdashes (1/1, 1/2) may begin to appear, but must not be used in conjunction with each other. Platters should serve as an introduction to hyperdashing, meaning strong hypers (e.g. with a distance snap of 1.5x above the trigger distance) and hypers combined with antiflow patterns must not be used.
I'd like to propose that we move the bolded/highlighted section of the above to a guideline rather than a rule.

The overarching reason behind this suggestion is our inability to come up with a concrete definition for "antiflow". While I believe that we could have dealt with this on a case-by-case basis, I think it's better overall to move the rule to a guideline so that there will no longer be a need to argue over what's antiflow and what's not when there's clear edge cases.

The real reason I decided to ACTUALLY make the proposal was because I'm thinking more about the bigger picture. As of recently, maps have become increasingly harder and obviously more top-heavy. This started with overdoses and is slowly creeping it's way down towards rains, as we can see with a few recently ranked rains using more advanced techniques. Barring antiflow completely from platters creates an unnecessarily large gap between the Platter and Rain difficulties, as there is no limitation to antiflow at ANY snap in rains. For example, you could be seeing 1/4 antiflow hypers in a rain without any problem, but any antiflow hypers at ANY SNAP in a Platter is disallowed. Platters are meant to be introductions to hyperdashes in general, I don't believe that we should be withholding certain types of hyperdashes because of that. Platters should still be used to introduce antiflow hyperdashes to prepare a player for higher difficulties, but only in circumstances where the song truly calls for it, hence changing it to a guideline.

Just a reminder of the official definition for a guideline

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Guidelines may be violated under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be warranted by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been violated and why not violating it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation.
Because of this, I believe that changing this rule to a guideline would not only offer more diversity in lower difficulty mapping, but also bridge an ever-increasing gap between platter and rain as of late. I'd like to hear some opinions on this, and hopefully we can agree on a change that will overall improve the quality of spreads.

--- Stuff to discuss if the change is made ---

MBomb wrote:

Pretty important thing to mention here is HDash strength. Whilst there is currently a limit of 1.5x on HDash strength in platters, this would still be far too powerful of a velocity change for someone learning HDashes, and so it's probably best to restrict these antiflow HDashes to a maximum of maybe 1.2x HDash strength?
This is important since it puts some restrictions on how powerful it can be. It also goes with -Sh1n1-'s point right above his post where he says that Platters are still introductions to hyperdashes, and therefore the antiflow movement should still be comfortable and simple for the player
Last edited by Ascendance , edited 3 times in total.
Spectator
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
1,843 posts
Joined February 2011
Spectator
I agree with this change
wonjae
768 posts
Joined October 2014
wonjae
what is antiflow xd
_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding

Spectator wrote:

I agree with this change
Secre
osu!catch Champion / Nomination Assessment Team
402 posts
Joined January 2013
Secre
agree
BoberOfDarkness
1,061 posts
Joined October 2013
BoberOfDarkness

Paranoid Grapes wrote:

what is antiflow xd
-Sh1n1-
3,404 posts
Joined September 2012
-Sh1n1-

Ascendance wrote:

We can see with a few recently ranked rains using more advanced techniques. Barring antiflow completely from platters creates an unnecessarily large gap between the Platter and Rain difficulties, as there is no limitation to antiflow at ANY snap in rains.
if it is for a reasonable spread I'm agree on changing it to a guideline but in the other hand I feel that we will lose the purpose of "introduction of hyper dashes", we should keep in mind that we call introduction because players will experiment a new movement, so it should be a confortable movement, furthermore I feel that you can avoid the large gap between the Platter and Rain" adding a new diff between such difficulties or in other case, you should map thinking on the other difficulties.

Just my two cents, apart of that, as Ascendance said:

Ascendance wrote:

The overarching reason behind this suggestion is our inability to come up with a concrete definition for "antiflow". While I believe that we could have dealt with this on a case-by-case basis, I think it's better overall to move the rule to a guideline so that there will no longer be a need to argue over what's antiflow and what's not when there's clear edge cases.
MBomb
MBomb
Pretty important thing to mention here is HDash strength. Whilst there is currently a limit of 1.5x on HDash strength in platters, this would still be far too powerful of a velocity change for someone learning HDashes, and so it's probably best to restrict these antiflow HDashes to a maximum of maybe 1.2x HDash strength?
JierYagtama
716 posts
Joined November 2015
JierYagtama
Since I want my platters to have more creative patterns I'd say we give this a go
Hareimu
624 posts
Joined March 2014
Hareimu
1/2 antiflow hdashes should be allowed on higher bpms if exhaustive reasoning is given as to why it should be there and why not having it there would downgrade the quality/playability/emphasis usage of the map in any way.

that aside, turning this into a guideline would both give us bns the opportunity to check these kinds of patterns' usages on platters on a case-by-case basis instead of banning its usage outright, and would give mappers the opportunity to fix spread issues mostly found between platters and rains (it would also give them more freedom to map these diffs without having to hit their heads against a wall to figure if using antiflow patterns in their specific cases is okay or not).

tl;dr: make this a guideline please c:
Last edited by Hareimu , edited 5 times in total.
-Sh1n1-
3,404 posts
Joined September 2012
-Sh1n1-

MBomb wrote:

Pretty important thing to mention here is HDash strength. Whilst there is currently a limit of 1.5x on HDash strength in platters, this would still be far too powerful of a velocity change for someone learning HDashes, and so it's probably best to restrict these antiflow HDashes to a maximum of maybe 1.2x HDash strength?
+1
Jemzuu
601 posts
Joined February 2016
Jemzuu
most of the time, i don't even notice antiflows in some platters when it fits well and this will also help the player improve their skill in some way so have my two cents
Last edited by Jemzuu , edited 1 time in total.
Yumeno Himiko
Elite Storyboarder
1,168 posts
Joined August 2012
Yumeno Himiko
what is an antiflow?

....o
...................o
.............o
....o
people may say this as an antiflow because there's a fruit jumping from right to left
but imo it's not an antiflow because the red fruit above touches the edge and we need a jump here, so why can't we jump it to left? I don't think players will have problem catching it.
....o
...................o
.............o
...................o
comparing to the above one, this is an antiflow ofc

however if we scale this smaller

....o
.........o
....o

or even like this
.o
....o
.....o
....o
.o
well, you won't think this is an antiflow right? you may say the flow is acceptable. So the current 'antiflow' definition is pretty ambiguous and in most situations decided subjectively.

So here's my opinion, we can keep antiflow hdashes in rules, but we need a pretty valid and strong definition of antiflow here. Otherwise, I think moving it to guidelines will be a better choice.
Summerleopard
196 posts
Joined May 2016
Summerleopard
I think allowance for 1/2 Hyperdash with antiflow is totally necessary I supposed. Due certain limitations, mapper find themselves struggles on find better patterning in order to make good emphasis in their Platter. With adding h-dash with antiflow with 1.2 ds it does seems reasonable too. I just think it would be wise to applied those too as guideline.

Besides, Sh1n1's opinion also true,as long the Hyperdashes applied is mild intensity and using strong spacing when the song called for it.(still, my opinion may wrong)
As he(Sh1n1) had said, Platter diff is introduction to Hyperdashes before going Rain diff.

That's all from me. . .
Sanyi
236 posts
Joined November 2015
Sanyi

Ascendance wrote:

The real reason I decided to ACTUALLY make the proposal was because I'm thinking more about the bigger picture. As of recently, maps have become increasingly harder and obviously more top-heavy. This started with overdoses and is slowly creeping it's way down towards rains, as we can see with a few recently ranked rains using more advanced techniques.
With that thought in mind I think just changing up the rules for one diff may not be the best solution.

-Sh1n1- wrote:

furthermore I feel that you can avoid the large gap between the Platter and Rain" adding a new diff between such difficulties or in other case, you should map thinking on the other difficulties.
I had a similar idea.

Instead of just adjusting the rules of the already existing difficulties to the changing mapping meta (which makes the diffs harder and harder), it could be better to establish a 6th difficulty. That would provide the option to get the diffs closer again regarding their difficulty. Meaning: Restricting hypers in platters pretty harshly so that they fit their purpose of an "introduction to hypers", but also restricting hypers in a rain more so that the gap between platter and rain doesn't get too big. Following this we would need to somehow limit the overdoses as well to have no spread issues from rain to overdose, which makes a 6th diff necessary that would be pretty much limitless.

In my maps I've got a bigger problem with the salad - platter gap than the platter - rain gap simply because I am not one of the mappers that maps super hard rains (mapping super hard rains is pretty popular these days, didn't saw them that much 1 year ago). That's another reason why I think restricting rains more for the sake of the spread is better than making platters potentially harder (which would lead again to the need of a 6th diff)

tl:dr Changing up rules for individual diffs can lead to spread issues between other diffs, adding a 6th diff to the rc to make the spread more tight in general might be a good idea
F D Flourite
811 posts
Joined March 2013
F D Flourite
just my 2 cents of both-side opinions of changing the rule to guideline


  • positive:
  1. It is worth a try if the progress doesn't step up too fast. Allowing 1~2 antiflow HDash(es) in a whole diff shouldn't be too draining and doesn't destroy Salad->Platter spread as a whole because it's still a guideline and should be followed in most general cases.
  2. It allows mappers to have multiple choices of mapping super strong emphasis without much damage to the spread, which may bring new innovation. Who knows?

  • middle~negative:
  1. The intention of fixing the spread of Platter->Rain looks nice, but doesn't really work imo.
    1. First of all, I'd admit that Rains today are becoming harder, but not always in the way of anti-flowing. In fact I found that many hard Rains today consisted of complex/frequent 1/4 jumps. Having a couple of HDashes in Platter don't really help players to get idea of dealing with those 1/4 jumps. Of course there are some hard Rains that consist of hard 1/2 jumps, but most of them are still regular jumps, otherwise it should be an Overdose instead of a Rain.
      tl;dr: I don't see increasing difficulty of Rains would count on antiflow HDashes.
    2. Secondly, platters can be hard as well without any antiflow HDashes. Even though most HDashes in platters are easy (as they should be), a platter can still be hard with more frequent 1/2 jumps. There is a trend in CTB mapping community that mostly mapping HDashes for jumps. As a result, such kind of maps are considered as too easy compared to Rains today. However, mappers CAN create hard platters with more frequent normal jumps even they don't do now (imo such ignorance is laziness because mappers don't want to design fun jump maps). Allowing antiflow HDashes in platter may even be catalyzer of pushing such trend even forward, which may be a great damage to the whole CTB mapping community.
      tl;dr: Allowing antiflow HDashes in Platter may prevent mappers from creating fun hard platters when they have an easier way to achieve target difficulty
  2. The judgement of antiflow HDashes in Platter is already pretty loose imo. I don't want to support strict/heavy antiflow HDashes in any Platter at all as such patterns are also hard ones in Rains. As a result, changing it from a rule toward a guideline probably has little effect to my judgement of nominating any beatmaps. It could be a chance for the whole modding community to review their judgement but I think the effect is probably lower than expected.
In conclusion, I don't want to push this proposal forward but willing to accept it if majority agree on. I'd like to see how it would affect the whole community, but I believe it has little impact on how I judge platters.
Kurokami
osu! Alumni
4,024 posts
Joined February 2010
Kurokami
I understand that you are thinking about the bigger picture and that is good and everything but meanwhile, you forget that the lower difficulties are never meant to satisfy the top10 players. They are supposed to be aimed towards the newer players who are just trying to learn how the game mode actually plays. These difficulties are not as forgiving as the Easy/Normal/Hard converts were back in the days. They are made for them to learn how to control the catcher's movement and a lot of them are even struggles with Salads because they are often overshooting their jumps or not even recognize that it is a jump.

While moving that to guidelines would not change too much in theory, I feel like because the definition is way too vague and varies from person to person, it should stay as a rule. If the gap between the Rain and Overdose is too big, make the Rains easier so it won't be. Although I do not think that gap really exists or if it does it is really that bad. Sure, there are harder maps but in my opinion where the song justifies it, it's fine to have harder patterns but that shouldn't be achieved by Hypers but with Dashes instead.

tr;dr I'm against this change and do not think it is necessary at all.
ZiRoX
Elite Mapper
1,052 posts
Joined November 2009
ZiRoX
I had slightly tackled the antiflow HDashes in my old draft for RC changes (see section 4 in t/661510), though I decided to hold it back in the proposals I brought this week due to it lacking a better definition for antiflow. But seeing that this discussion is taking place without any change in the definition for antiflow - which will need to be addressed at some point anyway -, I think that bringing up what I had in mind would be a good middle ground for those agreeing with the rule change, those that are against it and those that have their doubts.

My idea revolves around a concept introduced in my latest proposal (t/725210), but here are the needed definitions:

  1. Basic dash/hyperdash: Any dash or hyperdash whose time between fruits is at least twice the time required to allow dashes or hyperdashes, respectively. As an example, a hyperdash between objects separated by 250 ms in a Platter classifies as a basic hyperdash.*
  2. Higher snapped dash/hyperdash: Any dash or hyperdash that doesn’t meet the requirement to be a basic one, i.e. the time between the objects is less than the threshold to be classified as basic.
*: This is equivalent to a 1/2 snap at 120 BPM, where 1/4 HDashes start being permitted.

With that said, my idea is the following:

Salad
Basic dashes might be followed by antiflow sliders. Higher snapped dashes must not be followed by antiflow sliders.
Platter
Basic hyperdashes might be followed by antiflow sliders. Higher snapped hyperdashes must not be followed by antiflow sliders.
It has a few differences with what's being proposed by Ascendance right now. While Ascendance's proposal allows for any snap to have antiflow - as long as the snap is actually permitted to have a HDash - in a more limited manner (it's still a guideline), my idea gives freedom of usage for basic HDashes, while disallowing higher snapped ones.
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,252 posts
Joined July 2013
Topic Starter
Ascendance
Hello!

After discussing a bit with ZiRoX and gathering input from other members of the mapping community (including this thread), we've come up with a new proposal. Discussion is welcome, and of course, encouraged.

First, these definitions should be added/amended into the Gameplay Glossary for the specific RC

ZiRoX wrote:

  1. Basic dash/hyperdash: Any dash or hyperdash whose time between fruits is at least twice the time required to allow dashes or hyperdashes, respectively. As an example, a hyperdash between objects separated by 250 ms in a Platter classifies as a basic hyperdash.*
  2. Higher snapped dash/hyperdash: Any dash or hyperdash that doesn’t meet the requirement to be a basic one, i.e. the time between the objects is less than the threshold to be classified as basic.
*: This is equivalent to a 1/2 snap at 120 BPM, where 1/4 HDashes start being permitted.
The amendment to the Ranking Criteria is proposed as follows:

Salad

Guidelines

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Higher snapped dashes should not be followed by antiflow patterns.

Platter

Rules

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Basic Hyperdashes may be used in conjunction with antiflow patterns if the distance does not exceed a distance snap of 1.3x the trigger distance.
Guidelines

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Higher Snapped Hyperdashes should not be used in conjunction with antiflow patterns. If used, the hyperdash must not exceed a distance of 1.2x the trigger distance.

Of course, this means that the bolded part of the following rule would be removed:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Basic hyperdashes (1/1, 1/2) may begin to appear, but must not be used in conjunction with each other. Platters should serve as an introduction to hyperdashing, meaning strong hypers (e.g. with a distance snap of 1.5x above the trigger distance) and hypers combined with antiflow patterns must not be used.
F D Flourite
811 posts
Joined March 2013
F D Flourite
Additional opinion: I don't really think 1.3x Trigger distance 1/1 HDashes can be achieved in most Platters. Most of 1/1 HDashes (in 120~240BPM, being basic ones, as examples) are cross-screen and cannot be even larger because of boundary guideline. However, they are still really difficult to play if the following movement is sharp. (horizontal long sliders with relatively high SV or something)

TL;DR: I don't understand 1.3x trigger distance basic HDashes part.
Last edited by F D Flourite , edited 1 time in total.
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,252 posts
Joined July 2013
Topic Starter
Ascendance

F D Flourite wrote:

Additional opinion: I don't really think 1.3x Trigger distance 1/1 HDashes can be achieved in most Platters. Most of 1/1 HDashes (in 160~180BPM, being basic ones) are cross-screen and cannot be even larger because of boundary guideline. However, they are still really difficult to play if the following movement is sharp. (horizontal long sliders with relatively high SV or something)

TL;DR: I don't understand 1.3x trigger distance basic HDashes part.
Numbers are really up for debate (we'd welcome some propositions). ZiRoX and I couldn't really figure out what the best number would be either, so we decided on these two as a good starting point. Suggestions would be great!
F D Flourite
811 posts
Joined March 2013
F D Flourite
Alright then I'll talk something that is completely from personal perspective.

1. I don't think HDashes should be in conjunction with antiflow dashes. i.e. antiflow patterns in conjunction with HDashes must be walkable.

EDIT: Higher snapped HDashes are already restricted. But I have to make sure that no antiflow jumps are with basic HDashes either.

2. Personally, I think in current situation, basic HDashes are actually harder than higher snapped HDashes in platters. Basic HDashes require players to hold the dash button longer. That is also suggested in Rain-level 1/4 HDash chains (being the relatively easier pattern to hit than long-distance 1/2 HDashes) So I'd say just merge basic HDash criteria into higher snapped one because making them seperate doesn't gain a better situation for me
ZiRoX
Elite Mapper
1,052 posts
Joined November 2009
ZiRoX
I wouldn't say that higher snapped HDashes are easier than basic ones. Requiring a shorter button press, it actually requires a better control so you don't overshoot it. If you couple that with having to change direction, which is what we're discussing here, higher snapped HDashes are actually harder than basic ones, so separate rules/guidelines do make sense IMO.

F D Flourite wrote:

Additional opinion: I don't really think 1.3x Trigger distance 1/1 HDashes can be achieved in most Platters. Most of 1/1 HDashes (in 160~180BPM, being basic ones) are cross-screen and cannot be even larger because of boundary guideline.
Yeah. To get to the 1.3x trigger distance, you need stuff on x:32 and x:464 for a 1/1 at 220 BPM, so it's near side-to-side. So yeah, the limit can't be achieved in most Platters. However, I don't see how this would change anything. If the HDash on a basic HDash already triggers on a near side-to-side basis, whether we set the limit as x1.3, x1.2 or x1.1 wouldn't make a difference for most maps. But I think we could lower the values to x1.2 and x1.1 for basic and higher snapped HDashes, respectively, to have some leniency for those maps that are closer to the BPM where a change in the classification of snaps into basic or a higher one occurs, such as the example I mentioned above.

Regarding the condition to have a walkable pattern following an antiflow HDash, I agree with that. And I also think the same thing should be said about antiflow patterns after higher snapped dashes in Salads.
ZiRoX
Elite Mapper
1,052 posts
Joined November 2009
ZiRoX
Double posting but I prefer doing that so the thread gets bumped. Discussed FDF's input a while ago with Ascendance, as this is what we've agreed:

Salad

Guidelines

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Higher snapped dashes should not be followed by antiflow patterns. If used, the movement after the dash must be walkable.

Platter

Rules

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Basic hyperdashes may be used in conjunction with antiflow patterns. If used, the spacing must not exceed a distance snap of 1.2x the trigger distance and the movement after the hyperdash must be walkable.
Guidelines

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Higher snapped dashes should not be followed by antiflow patterns. If used, the spacing must not exceed a distance snap of 1.1x the trigger distance and the movement after the dash must be walkable.

I'd like to give this one the same deadline than the other proposals. So please try to discuss before Saturday the 2nd of June at 23:59 UTC+0.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,812 posts
Joined August 2013
pishifat
merged
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 25