Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help

Sign In To Proceed 2z1z44

I've forgotten my details

Don't have an ? 5p1p6t

osu! to create your own !
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Proposal] Spread requirements based on song length 2d1y1n

posted
Total Posts
360
show more
Voli
813 posts
ed April 2013
When looking at proposals like this, it's important to look at both sides.

From a mapper's perspective this change might be welcome in the short term, but from a player's perspective, restricting songs to solely higher diffs because mappers don't want to bother making full sets is not that good of a thing.

As an example, most songs from genres such as rock/metal are 3:something minutes in length. That range spreads way further than songs that are over 5 minutes (the current marathon length). Now obviously, most mappers that would map these songs wouldn't bother making the lower diffs anymore, essentially restricting the song choice completely for newer players. That's the main problem I have with this.

Obviously, as a mapper myself, I would enjoy not having to deal with the struggle of mapping lower difficulties everytime I want to push my set for rank. However, I don't think it's fair for the playerbase that isn't capable yet of playing higher difficulties to restrict the amount of songs they can play so drastically. Perhaps the direction to go isn't necessarily cutting off all the lower difficulties, but rather making the dfificulty spread these maps need to have less dense (so for example, 2sr > 4sr > 6sr is acceptable or what not.
Last edited by Voli , edited 2 times in total.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani
Also if you really want to go hard with this, you could always just consider implementing the idea that you have to map the full spread of all songs, but then don't have to map the full length for all of the difficulties.

Because that's the reason spread rules were put in the first place, because people were super worried about newer players not having a lot of content to play because everyone would just sort of end up doing stuff like this: https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/b/48775 (There's better examples but this is the only one I can off the top of my head), where newer players would only get like 1 verse and kiai while the other diffs would get more.

However, I feel (and have generally always felt, from what I can recall) that it's not really problematic for easy players to have shorter experiences on these longer songs, since they are developing the endurance necessary and might not be able to play 4 minutes of map. Plus it gives incentive for replayability since you have to keep on working to be able to hear the full song.

and if you wanna go SUPER far back you could always just go back to pre-spread rules where all you had to do to get approval was just say you were going for approval like: https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/b/48775 ;)
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
ed April 2013
Topic Starter
current numbers excluding certain genres more than others is a fair point, but like i said the numbers can be fine-tuned as needed

still dont rly think we'd needneed a normal for most 3mins but if a bunch of people think otherwise i can adjust

and addressing voli's edit:
personally think EHX or NIU sets would be weird for newer players, it's more intuitive to say "expect these longer maps to be harder", but if more people are in favour of that than current proposal i won't object, still achieves the main goal in the end
Last edited by UndeadCapulet , edited 1 time in total.
Nikakis
770 posts
ed May 2014
''and help reduce a lot of the mp3 extension workaround stuff that nobody rly likes to see.''

tbh this is subjective, don't take the r3 hating thing as a whole agreement for the osu community because they would surely exist some r3 fans out there. With your logic then, any 5 min song remixes can be unrankable because they are extending the original length of the song. So stop getting triggered by the r3 extension thing, osu isn't a music police. Some variety is fun for the game.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
ed April 2013
Topic Starter
@nikakis this wouldn't be making r3 edits unrankable, but p much only reason people are doing them rn is to avoid spread, not bc they rly like how it sounds. if they want to keep doing it bc they like r3 they are welcome to continue
Chanyah
1,853 posts
ed November 2014
I would rank every buto-otome song if they do this 100% agree

I would still love to make spreads for certain songs but some songs is so discouraging to map (referring to songs capable of making 6* - 7* maps/high bpm) simply because you have to worry about making 5+ diffs afterwards which is very time consuming even with gds (and that isn't even including mods)

While I would love if it happen like the proposal as a mapper but as a player I think 4-5 mins needs a Hard difficulty seems to be a better idea than an a Insane since I myself enjoy playing 4min maps and can't play many insane difficulties at that length
Last edited by Chanyah , edited 1 time in total.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,008 posts
ed May 2012
Insane and up are the minority of players in this game

dropping that amount of content for people to get into the game on based on recent maps doesnt make any sense, there's a reason why the ranked section is sorted by newest first, it assumes that new maps and recent songs will get people into the game lol
_handholding
3,109 posts
ed April 2014
@Voli whilst I see your concerns I also think it's worth pointing out the correlation of interest between length of the song and difficulty of the map. Many other rhythm games see 2 mins as the length of time that is most engaging, for easy diffs especially. Not many new players actually go for something that approaches 5 mins with how un-engaging it gets towards the end. I do think the numbers would need tweaking if this actually went through though, it seems a bit more on the low side of things. Also your suggestion seems quite nice as well
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
ed April 2013
Topic Starter
redrafted the numbers so 3:30 sets need a hard, that number can go up further if needed.

also oko the content is getting lowered anyway bc of marathon extensions and people just mapping 4min songs less, this only increases the content for the game by making all sets closer to the same amount of work
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,718 posts
ed April 2012
I think if anything CDFA's idea is far better. That way you're not totally shutting newer players out of enjoying songs they like, but you're not forcing a mapper to make four 4 minute difficulties either.

I mean, heck, the rule that all difficulties need to be around the same length was actually removed months ago. So take advantage of that instead.

this rule is gone wrote: 6k705r

Your difficulties should all end at the same spot. Having a fully-mapped Normal/Hard and a half-mapped Easy just looks sloppy/lazy. A full Easy may look boring to you, but not to a player that can't handle the harder difficulties.

I mean this one btw, but a lot of people still point it out because it appears in modding assistant because modding assistant hasn't been updated.
Last edited by Noffy , edited 1 time in total.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,817 posts
ed August 2013
my thoughts on this have basically been said by other people here already

as a mapper, it's nice to have more equal work to rank longer maps compared to shorter ones. low diffs are boring to make anyway

if i were running osu and had i an interest in expanding its audience, i'd think this kind of change isnt very good. out of ranked maps selection, there would be a smaller fraction of content available for lowest level of players, alienating the potential future of hte game or something along those lines. the idea that new players are already alienated with 5+min songs, so being lenient with other lengths should be fine sounds more like a reason to remove approval from game dev perspective (which i'm not interested in doing).

so there's benefit for mapper quality of life, but maybe not for osu in general imo

@noffy im pretty sure the "you must map up to 80% of your map's mp3" rule counteracts that
Asaiga
850 posts
ed July 2013

pishifat wrote: 641v53

so there's benefit for mapper quality of life, but maybe not for osu in general imo
Natsu
8,088 posts
ed September 2012
Reducing content for new and casual players is never good for a game.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

pishifat wrote: 641v53

@noffy im pretty sure the "you must map up to 80% of your map's mp3" rule counteracts that
well looks like were gonna have to change that then
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,718 posts
ed April 2012

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

pishifat wrote: 641v53

@noffy im pretty sure the "you must map up to 80% of your map's mp3" rule counteracts that
well looks like were gonna have to change that then
it doesn't specify it has to be mapped on every difficulty just that it must be mapped in general (I literally re-read that rule before posting to be sure). If it's mapped only in insane, it's still mapped.
seems like there's a loophole here if the intent is to in part disallow 1m 2m 3m 4m ENHI draintime spreads.
Linada
995 posts
ed November 2014

Natsu wrote: 1f6re

Reducing content for new and casual players is never good for a game.
yea but ppl gonna extand 4:xx songs with R3 music boxes so it's even worse imo
i like thoses R3 music boxes but it's so lame... i'd rather have the song having its chorus extanded or smth

and having HIX spreads isn't that bad imo
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
ed April 2013
Topic Starter
chatlog i had w/ pishi, highly encourage anyone worried about new players to read through it:
UndeadCapulet - Today at 4:40 PM
i feel like people arent reading my posts at all
4min diffs are already not appealing for most new players
making it so they arent required isnt lowering content for new players
its just raising content for higher level players who actually like to play longer maps(edited)
your point about “fraction of content” is the closest to fair
but like
4:30 normal is draining and also kinda boring for newer players
theyd prefer to just play shorter maps
even in like game design perspective
you dont give new players big longer levels
they get eased into it
as they get more comfortable w/ mechanics
then you can start lengthening the levels and challenges
pishi - Today at 4:47 PM
that makes sense
it also makes me think time would be better spent making 2 minute maps instead of ones that have less general appeal
so im not sure id change stance
UndeadCapulet - Today at 4:50 PM
wait but
if what i said makes sense
then giving more incentives to make longer maps so more skilled players can challenge themselves
should also make sense .-.
pishi - Today at 4:53 PM
more experienced players playing longer maps than new players makes sense
catering content towards smaller audience not so much
from mr game running guy perspective that is
as a mapper i'd want more than anything to just get 1 diff things ranked without any bs extra content
UndeadCapulet - Today at 5:00 PM
idk i dont think its catering to smaller audience
if anything the current cut/extend meta is ostracizing experienced players
with less engaging content
progression spreadbalance just makes it so every skill level has more good stuff for them(edited)
new players will have all the tvsizes they could ask for like always
(and w/ current numbers theyll have 3min maps too)
they dont need 4mins tho, so those can be geared toward hard/insane players(edited)
pishi - Today at 5:04 PM
that doesnt for people who would be ranking a full tv size thing, but instead opt to do a h/i set for a longer song
with the proposal, some amount of people will shift their attention away from making low diffs
so less new player stuff overall
UndeadCapulet - Today at 5:05 PM
at most the req difference would be
NAHIX for tvsize
vs HIX for 3:30-4:30(edited)
vs IX for 4:30
some people will stop being tvsize only mappers but
theyll still be making a lot of H icons
and we’re never gonna run out of tvsizes
drop in tvsizes will be small if any, increase in fullvers will be way bigger(edited)
bc fullver mappers wont have to spend so much time with each set
thats where the main increase will come from
not tvsize mappers switching over

i feel like natsu/oko/etc. just aren't reading my posts at all atm, bc if they did they wouldn't be saying this is lowering content for new players. 4min diffs are not appropriate for new players. it's not content for them. if anything those types of diffs will be a turnoff bc of how draining it can be to play them. this proposal doesn't hinder newer players in any way, it will only be adding content for hard+ players.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009
I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).

If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,008 posts
ed May 2012

UndeadCapulet wrote: 1t2uc

chatlog i had w/ pishi, highly encourage anyone worried about new players to read through it:
i feel like natsu/oko/etc. just aren't reading my posts at all atm, bc if they did they wouldn't be saying this is lowering content for new players. 4min diffs are not appropriate for new players. it's not content for them. if anything those types of diffs will be a turnoff bc of how draining it can be to play them. this proposal doesn't hinder newer players in any way, it will only be adding content for hard+ players.
i read that part but i idisagree with the logic you use to arrive at that fact that longer songs are not content for new players
if you start the game up and listen to music before finding this game you will notice that most edm and general songs are around 3:30 ~ 4:30 length (hint: the FA section contains mostly longer songs) because it's a common length of music.

Would be a shame if you start out the game and search for your favourite music just to find that "it's too long to require a diff for you"
Caput Mortuum
1,854 posts
ed March 2016
This feels like forcing new players to play exclusively anime openings/game songs tbh
New players care more about the song itself rather than the content

i can also see some mappers in the future saying 3:30 is too long
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009
So about the argument that it's less content for newer players. The current state of things is less content for ALL players, as people are less inclined to map these maps that are 4:30min long if they have to spend that much more effort compared to extending the song to 5min, or just mapping some other song.

Doing something like this would give more incentive to map these longer maps for mappers who would maybe otherwise not map these songs at all, or greatly increase the amount of songs they map in this length range.

As for the details, it's obviously something to discuss in of what would be appropriate cut-offs, limits, appropriate spreads (would EHX be acceptable for example) etc., but I don't think it's a bad idea overall to suggest something like this.

As for the "too long to require a diff for you" thing, that already happens with approval maps, and as more people go with extending songs, or cutting them down, you're still not getting the required diff for low level players in the length range that is being discussed.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,008 posts
ed May 2012
i know im saying i'd prefer that over the possibility that there's even more stuff that is inaccessible to new players trying to get into the game or the average player
MaridiuS
879 posts
ed June 2014
Hey those were my actual thoughts today when i opnened sotarks freedom dive, I fully this.
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016
i don't know.. it's kind of refreshing and rewarding when i map a full length set of songs i like, because it's a rare thing to see in osu! currently, and i tend to really like mappers who map things that way too.

i'm a pretty big fan of mapping lower difficulties because no one seems to care about them anymore in of quality, all that matters is it is a reasonable spread for the higher diffs to be workable for the set. i think this is just going further down the hole of "why bother making quality lower diffs if my extra diff gets all the attention" and whatnot

i know i'm in the minority for this, this would probably be a happy change for most mappers, but i just think at some point lower diffs will just like, be absent from most sets lol
Pachiru
Global
2,957 posts
ed June 2013
I disagree with it. Cause of the less content for begginer argument. Shiguma said "if you think about it, what new player wants to play a 4-5 minute long song" which is somewhat true.

However, most of player who likes an anime song will be interested in playing the TV size version cause it's short and they can still play the song they like. But if they like a Rock, Metal, Pop or whatever that doesn't have any TV size ver song, they will not be able to play it cause there is this rule?
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009

Okoratu wrote: ct57

i know im saying i'd prefer that over the possibility that there's even more stuff that is inaccessible to new players trying to get into the game or the average player
Ah fair enough. I read that wrong then.

I personally always found the 5 min limit for marathon kind of low, and would really prefer it to be 6 min, with 2 diff requirements for 5 min and 3 diff requirement for 4 min or something, with proper spread rules along those lines, but I doubt that's ever possible anymore nowadays after the requirement was lowered.
Shiguma
476 posts
ed May 2014
Okay, after reading this thread, I've changed my stance.


First, can we get some actual numbers? I want to see how many people
  1. Play <2 minute normal and hard diffs
  2. Play 4 minute+ normal and hard diffs

    And also see how many:
  3. Ranked 1:30-3:00 minute songs there are annually
  4. Ranked 3 minute + sets there are annually


Even without the numbers, I have to agree with CDFA, where a good compromise would be diff specific drain times. Either something like "if your song's length is above 3:30, your Hard diff must be mapped up to at least 3:30 of drain time, while your Normal diff must be mapped up to 2:30 of drain time."

I'm not sure what to make the specific wording to prevent abuse while also preventing people from being able to map songs with a lot of unmappable sections where you'd put a break, but the idea is that lower diffs would have to be mapped to a lesser percentage of the mp3 than higher diffs.

This makes sense to me, as now there would be content for the newer players, because they will have a map to play in their skill range, the mappers would be much happier mapping a shorter map for low diffs they probably don't care for much in the first place (hopefully with lower drain requirements they'd put quality > quantity but that's wishful thinking), while also opening up the ranked section to more 4 minute songs.

(Also I agree with CXu, five minute songs should have a minimum 2 diff requirement if your diff is above an Insane)
Last edited by Shiguma , edited 2 times in total.
Kroytz
703 posts
ed February 2013
Completely 100% in agreement with UndeadCapulet on this one.

Instead of writing some paragraphs about why I think it’s a good idea with pros/cons listed for both sides, I’ll just sum it up and say that I’d rather see there be content for some players (HIX or IX spreads in this case) than no content for everyone.
sdafsf
309 posts
ed October 2013
since the majority of the player base plays diffs below insane i dont think ie spreads should ever be a thing. therefore i really like icekalts proposal
Antalf
Beatmap Nominator
265 posts
ed August 2016
I think in a way this benefits more the mapper, modder and the BN than the player in a way that it makes it easier for everyone just to have a smaller spread and less things to check. The true thing that i believe its affecting this is what Capulet said, i don't think someone wants to check a 4:30 min, 4 diff spread map, unless you're really dedicated to it or you know that person (you'll be modding around 18 mins of drain if you mod each difficulty).

Even though i do believe if any of this would be applied to modern day mapping and modding, osu! will experience a crash in what would be intake of new players, and i'm not only talking about standard or mania, every game mode will feel that and hard; yes maybe its true that mapping low difficulties can be tedious and boring but it opens a wide range in what would be player intake, plus why wouldn't you want to give the same chance to someone "new" rather than an already decent player?

Low difficulties around each game mode provides that "chance" I'm talking about, maybe to play their favorite song while not choosing something they cant play, improving, trying out new skins and none the less, having fun.

TL;DR

I do think this will benefit everyone involved in the creation and ranking process of a map but will damage any low player for sure, maybe something else can be implemented to make this beneficial for the modder and mapper as well for the player.
J1NX1337
248 posts
ed February 2014

pishifat wrote: 641v53

if i were running osu and had i an interest in expanding its audience, i'd think this kind of change isnt very good. out of ranked maps selection, there would be a smaller fraction of content available for lowest level of players, alienating the potential future of hte game or something along those lines. the idea that new players are already alienated with 5+min songs, so being lenient with other lengths should be fine sounds more like a reason to remove approval from game dev perspective (which i'm not interested in doing).


But back in the days maps even shorter than 5min were approved (like The Big Black). Didn't really hurt the game's future now did it? More like the opposite considering how popular and iconic it became. Imagine having to map a full spread for that song. lol

Anyway, I do think that doing something about this is a good idea, rather than leaving it as it is with .mp3 extensions becoming ever more popular.

What might indeed seem as a problem is that as a new player, I would hate it if I couldn't play, say, my favourite pop or metal song because it's like 3:30 in length and has no easy/normal diffs available for it.

However, as was said before, most new players don't like playing very long maps right off the bat. If you think about it, the most popular genres in this community are things like anime and electronic music, not pop and metal really, they're more niche.

If there is a pop or metal song they'd really like to play but can't quite reach because the lowest diff is a hard, it should motivate them to improve their skills in the game enough to play it. If the only genres of music they listen to are niche in this game, and they're completely unable to tolerate playing easier maps of genres they don't really listen to, I don't think they'd last as a community member for very long to begin with.

With that in mind, and as much as it feels weird to let go of these spread rules I've gotten used to over the years, something needs to be done, and as long as nobody comes up with a better alternative, I'm ing this one.
AncuL
1,114 posts
ed March 2013
  1. if the drain time is <4:00 your set's lowest diff must be normal or lower
  2. if the drain time is 4:00-5:00 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower
  3. >5:00 can be anything

I'm thinking more like this. since H is way more accessible than N. IX only is just too small imo. Since we are having problems with 4:30 maps, we don't need to do anything with anything below 4:00
Last edited by AncuL , edited 1 time in total.
Arutsuki
630 posts
ed December 2015
agree with ancul, insane as the lowest diff sounds to me like too much for something non marathon, but otherwise it's a neat idea
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016

AncuL wrote: 93i4m

  1. if the drain time is <4:00 your set's lowest diff must be normal or lower
  2. if the drain time is 4:00-5:00 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower
  3. >5:00 can be anything
I'm thinking more like this. since H is way more accessible than N. IX only is just too small imo. Since we are having problems with 4:30 maps, we don't need to do anything with anything below 4:00
yeah this seems the most reasonable at least from the suggestions
J1NX1337
248 posts
ed February 2014

AncuL wrote: 93i4m

  1. if the drain time is <4:00 your set's lowest diff must be normal or lower
  2. if the drain time is 4:00-5:00 your set's lowest diff must be hard or lower
  3. >5:00 can be anything

I'm thinking more like this. since H is way more accessible than N. IX only is just too small imo. Since we are having problems with 4:30 maps, we don't need to do anything with anything below 4:00


Hmm, I think a change like this would at least motivate people to map longer songs more. It probably won't make .mp3 extensions that much less popular of a choice when it comes to stuff like 4:50 length songs, though. But even with an IX spread requirement, why wouldn't you just extend the .mp3 instead if you've already done that before? A spread requirement change like this is less impactful on both the newbie playerbase and mapper perspectives, but also generally safer.
Halfslashed
Global
438 posts
ed July 2014
I definitely agree with the idea of scaling spread requirements based on song length. Right now I think it is pretty silly how a few seconds determine whether or not you need to map 5 difficulties or just one.

Personally I think that this will increase the amount of content we have due to the lack of longer songs as of now, despite decreasing the amount of content for newbies available in the long run.

However, I think if we went with this, a compromise with people that think this would reduce content too much would be having an insane difficulty required for drain time over 5 minutes, and reserving single difficulty mapsets for songs above 10 minutes, as has been previously proposed.

Overall, reducing the effort gap between approval length and spreads is a good idea, hopefully we can solidify the details in this thread.
sdafsf
309 posts
ed October 2013
the argument that spreads shouldnt start at insane is kinda odd the more i think about it because marathon maps dont need a spread at all. also the appeal for longer maps rises with player skill (at least thats how it was when i learned the game). also what you guys have to think about is that right now 2 diff spreads are already a thing if the hardest diff is hard or normal. if with ucs proposal a 7* for example was made you would still need 3-4 diffs for a reasonable spread with insane as the lowest diff, so the hardest <5min 2 diffs spreads would be like a high 5* and an insane diff witch does sound that unreasonable to me.

i would still love to see some number about number of plays on beatmaps for each diff and song length so the "majority of players" argument can properly be
talked about
kwk
576 posts
ed May 2010
im bad at excel but draw your own conclusions


taken from t/631455
pkhg
2,507 posts
ed May 2010
i dont agree with getting rid of low diffs at any lenght but if i had to choose id go with what AncuL proposed
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,078 posts
ed December 2014
i agree with the scaling length thing. this eliminates the issue of normals not being mapped at all, while also lowering the amount of necessary effort spent on diffs that will be 1/4 as popular as the higher ones. this effort is a huge factor in why people don't map long songs.

i've noticed that almost all the people against this are the minority who are completely fine with churning out massive sets by themselves or finding gds if needed; i think that you guys don't realize how hard that is for most "normal" mappers who do not have 3-4 years of mapping experience and integration into the community necessary to find bns and gds for such long things. that breed of "normal" mapper makes up the vast majority of the mapping community too, so i really believe it's safe to say that the increase in 3:30+ songs will be quite large if the barriers to making the spreads for them are lowered. this will counteract the fact that quite literally 75%+ of ranked maps are under 1:30 nowadays.
pkhg
2,507 posts
ed May 2010
im not exactly against this i just want this to be less lenient than what uc proposed
i barely map so i dont think this rule will affect me but im still taking in consideration casual players who like the song but arent skilled enough to play harder stuff. i experienced taht when i was new :(
Saturnalize
1,490 posts
ed March 2011
It's only a minimum requirements for a map to get rank. If you really that carz about making a fullspread for 4+mins then there's no ine stopping you. The minimum requirements need to be reworked and the reason are already well stated by many up there. However, I'm jot against fullspread either, it's harder to find modder for it than to map it after all.

Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,008 posts
ed May 2012

Saturnalize wrote: v4b1m

It's only a minimum requirements for a map to get rank. If you really that carz about making a fullspread for 4+mins then there's no ine stopping you. The minimum requirements need to be reworked and the reason are already well stated by many up there. However, I'm jot against fullspread either, it's harder to find modder for it than to map it after all.

Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
i tried to do that it didnt get received well :D
Stefan
Global
10,424 posts
ed January 2011

CXu wrote: 344051

I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).

If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.

I second this option so much. It's by far more flexible and better than making thing easier by default.



Okoratu wrote: ct57

Saturnalize wrote: v4b1m

Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous


i tried to do that it didnt get received well :D

still sad people prefer to put less time on their creations than making it available for a fairly larger audience :/
LwL
370 posts
ed November 2013
Just like probably everyone else I've thought about this for forever, and it definitely seems necessary to have less of a hard cutoff at 5 minutes where the workload goes from potentially huge to low.

Though I share the concerns about making longer songs too inaccessible for newer players, so my personal idea of this has always been "Maps >4:00 and <5:00 need to have at least two difficulties, one of which must be a Hard or below". If we want to expand this to 3 minute maps, same thing with three diffs and maybe additionally set the requirement of a somewhat even spread but allowing it to be with only 3 diffs (to avoid N-H-7*), though there doesn't seem to be that much of a shortage of maps in that range so I'm not sure it necessarily needs changing.

A rule like this would also make banning mp3 extensions much more reasonable fwiw, since adding 50 seconds of R3 music box will no longer mean you need to map/get GDs for 20 minutes of drain time less. I've always been in favor of that under the condition of a more gradual spread requirement based on length.
Last edited by LwL , edited 1 time in total.
Kyuunex
99 posts
ed November 2016
just my thoughts, i like this idea.

there has been many times when I simply decided to not map a song because it was 4 minutes and 55 seconds long and i dislike the idea of editing the song.

as for new players, i think they would get really bored of playing a 4 minute beatmap, i know i would. so i see no problems here. tv size beatmapsets are regularly made so i doubt they will ran out of beatmaps to play.
Asaiga
850 posts
ed July 2013

Okoratu wrote: ct57

Saturnalize wrote: v4b1m

Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous
i tried to do that it didnt get received well :D
I would like to know the final conclusion about this. So you know, I can avoid attempting an Artist / R3 Music Box-map : )
At the same time any map comes after the mp3 extension ban won't be qualified.
Saturnalize
1,490 posts
ed March 2011
To make my post relevant to the thread:
I myself also CXu's idea regarding spread requirements that are dependant by mp3 length (duration) and speed (bpm). It is strongly advised for the set to be 1 level apart and not a duplicating level tier, though (for example, if an mp3 reached 3 diffs minimum, it should not be ENI, ENX, EHI, EHX, NHX, and NIX. EXX, EEX, and any kind of stupid thing like that is also not advised) to ensure the curve of the map doesn't go wild (also EXX is stupid and probably one of those X diff is GD)

Also:

Stefan wrote: 72304b

Okoratu wrote: ct57

Saturnalize wrote: v4b1m

Still on topic, ban mp3 manipulation to loophole duration requirements because it's literally ridiculous


i tried to do that it didnt get received well :D

still sad people prefer to put less time on their creations than making it available for a fairly larger audience :/


Doesn't matter if the mapper is good therefore the map is good because I'm the bootlicker and want to make my god feel proud and accepted uwu
AncuL
1,114 posts
ed March 2013

CXu wrote: 344051

I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).

If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.

i don't correctly whether there's a rule regarding difficulty count, but i'm sure that the only length appropriate for a one-diff map is 5 minutes and above. 5 minutes of length and below still needs to make at least 2 diffs. therefore it isn't valid and the mapper still needs to map another diff (whether it's normal, another hard, or insane) for the map to be able to be rankable
Last edited by AncuL , edited 1 time in total.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009

AncuL wrote: 93i4m

CXu wrote: 344051

I'd say add a minimum amount of diffs required for the spread as well in some way, so say minimum 3 diffs for maps <4:00, and minimum 2 diffs for maps <5:00. (Not sure how this would affect those Easy+Normal sets only though).

If you're mapping a 4min ballad you can get away with only a hard since Insane/Extra might not fit well with the song, and Easy/Normal aren't required.
This should make it so that easier difficulties for newer players are still created whenever slower songs that would fit lower diffs better are mapped as well.
i don't correctly whether there's a rule regarding difficulty count, but i'm sure that the only length appropriate for a one-diff map is 5 minutes and above. 5 minutes of length and below still needs to make at least 2 diffs. therefore it isn't valid and the mapper still needs to map another diff (whether it's normal, another hard, or insane) for the map to be able to be rankable
I know. I'm not talking about the current state of things, I'm saying that it would be good if the difficulty requirement for those lengths were lowered. Currently, if you have a 4:50min song and you have a really difficult map at like 7* or something, you would be required to map at least NHIX, most likely another X and possibly an E too, because people see the spread as not good. What I'd like is basically that something like, say, HX, IX, NX or something along those lines would be okay instead.

I guess it's not exactly the minimum amount of difficulties according to length that's the main proposal I'm trying to propose now that I think about it, but rather than the spread requirement gets progressively laxer until it hits 5min of length (or 6 in my opinion but yeah xd), where no spread is required anymore.

As for what laxer spread requirements are, it could a more relaxed easiest-diff requirement (such as it being a hard), but still with appropriate spread required (so ENH, HIX are okay, IXX, EHX are not), or it could be dependent on amount of difficulties and consistent spread, but not necessarily that the gaps are small/appropriate (so EHX, NIX are okay, but HIX or IIX are not), or something else entirely (or both).
AncuL
1,114 posts
ed March 2013
I kinda disagree about huge diff gaps like NX or HX being okay. If you can map both N and X for a song, there's almost no way you cannot map anything in-between.
But i think you are saying that you want a spread based on star rating instead of difficulty name? Mind you that SR gap issue is already very subjective (with a certain value being the exact limitation), so I wouldn't agree to make it laxer with length as it isn't that necessary, this proposal is already enough to make mapping 4-minute maps rankable easier, and a good spread that isn't skipping a difficulty is good for certain audience who think 3.9* hard is too easy but 5.3* extra is too hard
Last edited by AncuL , edited 2 times in total.
Natsu
8,088 posts
ed September 2012
Then again for mappers this change is cool, but players is not, you want to introduce people to the game and having less content for them here https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/p/beatmaplist , since new players usually search for maps at the first page (atleast that's what I did, back in the days).
kwk
576 posts
ed May 2010
Didn't the old approval thing work for years and was only changed cause it was redundant cause of pp leaderboards?

I dont see what the issue is with the 'new player experience' when it worked before
LwL
370 posts
ed November 2013

kwk wrote: 3r3b6j

Didn't the old approval thing work for years and was only changed cause it was redundant cause of pp leaderboards?


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it eventually changed to just be what we have now? (just that now it's both the same category because pp). It was "super hard/unusual or long maps" for a while and then just "long maps", though I'm not familiar with the exact reasoning behind the change.

That being said I don't see much of an issue with even an HX spread, if you have a 3.5* and a 6* diff then there should be something for most people (you can nomod/hr/dt the 3.5* and once that is too easy you should be able to play the 6*), only exception being very new players, and I doubt there'd be much of a shortage of maps for them to play anyway, Full TV size sets still don't require more work than a 4 minute 2 diff spread, and something like N/I would probably also happen as far as 4 minute maps go.

New players only stay at the "Normal" stage for a short while I'm pretty sure, once you get the basics of the game down you can at least somewhat play most hards and frankly they're way more fun (at least they were for me) since they aren't undermapped to shit. So I agree it's not much of an issue if we have a few less normals if the tradeoff is having more ranked maps just under 5 minutes.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009

AncuL wrote: 93i4m

I kinda disagree about huge diff gaps like NX or HX being okay. If you can map both N and X for a song, there's almost no way you cannot map anything in-between.
But i think you are saying that you want a spread based on star rating instead of difficulty name? Mind you that SR gap issue is already very subjective (with a certain value being the exact limitation), so I wouldn't agree to make it laxer with length as it isn't that necessary, this proposal is already enough to make mapping 4-minute maps rankable easier, and a good spread that isn't skipping a difficulty is good for certain audience who think 3.9* hard is too easy but 5.3* extra is too hard
No, I just said that I want the requirements of a spread to be laxer, regardless of if that's based on the gap between diffs, or what the lowest diff required is (which is the proposal in OP). The first "alienates" players inbetween (so H/I players, if the spread is NX), while the other "alienates" new players (if IX), but we already do this at a hard cap at 5min. It's not so much about if someone can or can not map a proper spread, but if enough people are willing to do so that it's worth keeping the current system over changing it to make more people willing to map songs of these lengths. Most 5min+ songs can have a full spread, if people are willing to put the time into it, but as we saw before the approval limit was lowered as well as the trend now, they're not really willing to spend that much time, and we're seeing a similar thing happening for maps around 4:30-4:59min.

But just lowering the approval limit itself isn't going to fix the problem, as you'll still get a huge difference in amount of work needed between a 1 second difference between, say, 4:29 and 4:30, if we just lowered approval cut-off.

What I want is that instead of having a cut-off for marathon length, we have a more gradual laxing of the spread requirements. The marathon length cut-off today is essentially just a "okay if your song is longer than this you don't require a spread".

As for why I mention the gap thing; if the minimum diff required is I or lower, as OP suggested, then if someone has an IXX map for example, and wanted to add an easy diff, they would also be required to add an N and H, which would detract from people adding Easy diffs if we follow regular spread requirements.
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016
from the stats we have, we can see that Hard and Insane are easily the most played we have in spreads.
so to me, if we were to ever create a system where we can allow less maps via duration, i'd say as long as the mapset contains a Hard or Insane (or both), then the spread above or below that should not matter.

this way people won;t alienate the majority of players, and also not have to put as much effort into the sets to do a full spread especially for SRs above 6*

for example, a 3.14* Hard, a 4.8* Insane, and a 7.5* star Expert for a song in the 4 minute range would be valid
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013
As requested from kwk, here are some (barebones) graphs. The delay was because my old scraping script broke between last year and now, since M a r v o l l o had a map with a tab character in the tags and SOTARKS had a map with a newline in the tags (I kid you not). Of course in my .tsv file the delimiters are tabs and newlines.



My interpretation is that the majority of Easy, Normal, and Hard plays are not on long (4+ minute) marathon (5+ minute) maps. Feel free to draw your own conclusions or request other graphs.

Source code

Edit: Show up to 6 min bins and add color.
Last edited by qwr , edited 1 time in total.
Xinnoh
Elite Mapper
1,964 posts
ed April 2014
Seems reasonable to conclude that Normals shouldn't be required for maps that are 4:00 or longer.

Should hards also be required at 4:00, or have that requirement to 4:30
Sieg
3,981 posts
ed February 2012

x86 wrote: 6s526t

My interpretation is that the majority of Easy, Normal, and Hard plays are not on long (4+ minute) marathon (5+ minute) maps. Feel free to draw your own conclusions or request other graphs.
Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?
sdafsf
309 posts
ed October 2013

Sinnoh wrote: 6x1m68

Seems reasonable to conclude that Normals shouldn't be required for maps that are 4:00 or longer.

Should hards also be required at 4:00, or have that requirement to 4:30

i mean judging from that data hards also get barely played beyond 4 minutes
Last edited by sdafsf , edited 1 time in total.
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016
@x86 it also seems insane is not played as much either. we need to compare it to the playtime of all harden and insane’s because our samplset for 4 min+ is very small comparatively. i think what i suggested holds water at least, considering the amount of plays we see on Expert+ on the graphs
sdafsf
309 posts
ed October 2013

Mentai wrote: 4j5n2g

@x86 it also seems insane is not played as much either. we need to compare it to the playtime of all harden and insane’s because our samplset for 4 min+ is very small comparatively. i think what i suggested holds water at least, considering the amount of plays we see on Expert+ on the graphs

the fact that insane play counts bump up at 300seconds implies that players at that level do in fact have interest in longer maps id say.

im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016

sdafsf wrote: 2r1f4z

Mentai wrote: 4j5n2g

@x86 it also seems insane is not played as much either. we need to compare it to the playtime of all harden and insane’s because our samplset for 4 min+ is very small comparatively. i think what i suggested holds water at least, considering the amount of plays we see on Expert+ on the graphs
the fact that insane play counts bump up at 300seconds implies that players at that level do in fact have interest in longer maps id say.

im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
this could maybe the idea of having insanes on these sets even more then. i think having a hard as well would be a good idea still
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013

Sieg wrote: 6nb42

Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?
I'm not a fan of juxtaposed bars so I've used stacked bars here.



sdafsf wrote: 2r1f4z

im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
To clarify, I am subsetting every ranked/loved standard map on every combination of hitlength (30 s) interval and difficulty, and then summing the playcount for all those maps.
squishyguppy
1,256 posts
ed March 2014

x86 wrote: 6s526t

.

I mean this proportion should be expected seeing the more active players tend to get better at the game just from playing, but its no real argument against the current 5 minute rule. the best argument against those kinds of rules is when the playcount by worse players against the number of maps that exist for that length of song is equivalent to zero. why? because people who are bad at the game tend to not care about length of beatmap for the most part, they just end up playing their favorite music.

I believe if you guys move forward with this there should be an incentive or safety net for these lower difficulty players otherwise there exists a possibility that lower difficulties will become arbitrarily extinct and the player base for this game will no longer grow.

Having some sort of gradual and player interactive tutorial to get players to be able to play at least hards/insanes should exist.


Also I when i tried to get better at the game, at some point I would player the longer easier maps to try and create a sort of stamina or real consistency lol, and without longer songs having lower diffs to them that kind of approach would no longer be possible.
Similarly saying I'm not saying that lower diffs wouldn't exist anymore, but think about how newer players get into this game, they don't spend 15 minutes looking for the perfect map for them to play. They look at the recently ranked section and just some song they might recognize, or they search for the songs they like to see if there is something with their SR to it. So having lower difficulties end up being much more sparse just makes it to where they can't just find that one recently ranked map that has a diff they can play (given the possibility stated prior).


A lower workload for mappers will be appreciated for certain, but a game without some hand holding introduction like the one that exists with the 5 min rule now would lead to a decrease in number of players who start to play this game, which could lead to less people who play this game overall since many players can get bored and just move on to other games. At that point, who will play your insane/expert diffs?
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013

bor wrote: 5s722g

because people who are bad at the game tend to not care about length of beatmap for the most part, they just end up playing their favorite music.

How do you know? 4 min maps require a lot of stamina just to play once.

bor wrote: 5s722g

I believe if you guys move forward with this there should be an incentive or safety net for these lower difficulty players otherwise there exists a possibility that lower difficulties will become arbitrarily extinct and the player base for this game will no longer grow.

There is no need to be so fatalistic. The vast majority of easy/normal plays are already on short maps.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,078 posts
ed December 2014
That is because the majority of plays period are on short maps lol. Graphs with proportion of plays per diff would be more useful imo.

Still agree with proposal tho,
squishyguppy
1,256 posts
ed March 2014

x86 wrote: 6s526t

bor wrote: 5s722g

because people who are bad at the game tend to not care about length of beatmap for the most part, they just end up playing their favorite music.
How do you know? 4 min maps require a lot of stamina just to play once.
>

bor wrote: 5s722g

Also I when i tried to get better at the game, at some point I would player the longer easier maps to try and create a sort of stamina or real consistency lol, and without longer songs having lower diffs to them that kind of approach would no longer be possible.
Similarly saying I'm not saying that lower diffs wouldn't exist anymore, but think about how newer players get into this game, they don't spend 15 minutes looking for the perfect map for them to play. They look at the recently ranked section and just some song they might recognize, or they search for the songs they like to see if there is something with their SR to it. So having lower difficulties end up being much more sparse just makes it to where they can't just find that one recently ranked map that has a diff they can play (given the possibility stated prior).

bor wrote: 5s722g

I believe if you guys move forward with this there should be an incentive or safety net for these lower difficulty players otherwise there exists a possibility that lower difficulties will become arbitrarily extinct and the player base for this game will no longer grow.
There is no need to be so fatalistic. The vast majority of easy/normal plays are already on short maps.
>being fatalistic? that's no argument against what I've said. you shouldn't restrict a playerbase you are trying to appeal to
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
ed April 2013
Topic Starter
thank you x86 and kwk for all your numbers, y'all are awesome <3

@bor pls dont just repeat the same disputed things others have already said unless you have something further to contribute

i agree with others that ratios would be nicer but those numbers already tell a lot, hards seem valuable for 4min length and normals are almost not played at all for that duration

and expert players are very clearly interested in longer maps compared to every other skill level

which are pretty much the claims that have been made in the proposal

going to try to reach out to eph or someone for some more data, gonna try to filter out retry spam and the like
Sieg
3,981 posts
ed February 2012

UndeadCapulet wrote: 1t2uc

i agree with others that ratios would be nicer but those numbers already tell a lot, hards seem valuable for 4min length and normals are almost not played at all for that duration
From the graph I can see that pc on normals for 4:00 - 4:30 min is a bit more than pc on hards for 4:30 - 5:00 and even on insanes for 5:30, how is that - almost not played?
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009

x86 wrote: 6s526t

Sieg wrote: 6nb42

Can you make graphs with 150- excluded and play count values unified for better visual presentation?
I'm not a fan of juxtaposed bars so I've used stacked bars here.



sdafsf wrote: 2r1f4z

im wondering wether this data is graphed against the number of maps there are for each lengths or if its total numbers. because that would change how to view this data significantly
To clarify, I am subsetting every ranked/loved standard map on every combination of hitlength (30 s) interval and difficulty, and then summing the playcount for all those maps.
It's like really late so this might make no sense at all, but could you scale these in of amount of maps in each subset?
It doesn't really help to know that there're more plays on easy diffs on shorter maps than longer maps, since that's probably going to be the case anyway because there're way more shorter maps overall. More interesting would be to see if the proportion of easy diff plays goes down or not as we reach 3-4min long songs.
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013

CXu wrote: 344051

It's like really late so this might make no sense at all, but could you scale these in of amount of maps in each subset?
It doesn't really help to know that there're more plays on easy diffs on shorter maps than longer maps, since that's probably going to be the case anyway because there're way more shorter maps overall. More interesting would be to see if the proportion of easy diff plays goes down or not as we reach 3-4min long songs.
Which subset - the song length categories, or the diff spread categories, or both?

And what do you mean scale by amount of maps in each subset? Do you mean something like average (or median) plays / map?
I think it's difficult to extrapolate if more maps of a certain length and difficulty existed, they would get more played or less played. I'm assuming that significantly fewer mappers will map 4 min full spreads, but the proportion who will stop is also up in the air.* I'm tempted to make an informal survey of s, something along these lines:

1. What's your rank?
1a. What difficulty of map do you play most often?
2-4. Do you think there are enough Easy/Normal/Hard 4 minute maps?
5-7. Would you mind fewer Easy/Normal/Hard 4 minute maps? (*the thing is, we don't know how much fewer)

I frequent /r/osugame and surveys there get a lot of responses. I assume they're mostly representative.
Miquella
462 posts
ed September 2015
looking at the bigger picture I think the current state with approval isn't well either at bringing longer songs available to newer players.

i'd say if this something like this was set in place there would be more incentive to create lower difficulties for players for those longer songs, instead of just not being mapped at all or extended to 5 minutes, by the nature of lower difficulties there will be always some mappers doing them because they are so easy and faster to make and to judge for BN's. the safety net is the modders/mapper's laziness lol, considering that this proposal is kind of meant for those who don't want to map a whole spread for longer songs ranging around 4:00 < 5:00 minutes.

That being said I think the pros and cons overweight of what we currently have, would be nice if we can atleast move on so those songs ranging around that length also get some love, we can always improve things further from there.
CXu
osu! Alumni
3,560 posts
ed March 2009

x86 wrote: 6s526t

CXu wrote: 344051

It's like really late so this might make no sense at all, but could you scale these in of amount of maps in each subset?
It doesn't really help to know that there're more plays on easy diffs on shorter maps than longer maps, since that's probably going to be the case anyway because there're way more shorter maps overall. More interesting would be to see if the proportion of easy diff plays goes down or not as we reach 3-4min long songs.
Which subset - the song length categories, or the diff spread categories, or both?

And what do you mean scale by amount of maps in each subset? Do you mean something like average (or median) plays / map?
I think it's difficult to extrapolate if more maps of a certain length and difficulty existed, they would get more played or less played. I'm assuming that significantly fewer mappers will map 4 min full spreads, but the proportion who will stop is also up in the air.* I'm tempted to make an informal survey of s, something along these lines:

1. What's your rank?
1a. What difficulty of map do you play most often?
2-4. Do you think there are enough Easy/Normal/Hard 4 minute maps?
5-7. Would you mind fewer Easy/Normal/Hard 4 minute maps? (*the thing is, we don't know how much fewer)

I frequent /r/osugame and surveys there get a lot of responses. I assume they're mostly representative.
I mean like, since there're more maps in general around 1:30min in length, then there's bound to also be more plays on those maps (assuming that most people don't go retrying the same maps a billion times on longer songs), so the fact that there're more plays on easy diffs in the 1:30min length compared to those at 4:30min length is to be expected regardless of if new players tend to play longer maps or not. What I want to know is how the trend of new players' amount of plays change as the length of the song changes, in comparison to other diffs. If the amount of plays on Hard diffs decreases at a similar rate to Easy diffs (so 10000 plays on hard 1:30 -> 1000 plays on hard 4:30 would be the same a 1000 plays on easy 1:30 -> 100 plays on easy 4:30), then it might just be a general trend with length in general, and not that new players in particular dislike longer songs.

Maybe it doesn't work like that; I don't statistics.
defiance
503 posts
ed July 2015
yes
MBomb
MBomb
whilst i don't particularly like this idea, i'd like a change to how the times are done if this was ever done

i think lowering the effort needed in these situations isn't actually great because in almost all rhythm games, the optimal length of a song is around 2 minutes (give or take about 30s), yet these rules (and even current ones) actively encourage mapping longer songs because you do a lot less drain.

i would generally say

below 4 minutes - requires a normal
below 6 minutes - requires a hard
below 8 minutes - requires an insane

these numbers could be adjusted a bit, but it's done with the mindset of at least giving a "marathon" map more total drain than a full spread tv size

i have previously been told my thoughts on marathon maps are overly harsh though so eh
Hollow Delta
793 posts
ed March 2015
CDFA's idea looked good. tbh I never agreed with the change of having to map the whole mp3 for every difficulty as most songs past 3 minutes are usually repeated or at least repeated with slight variation in lyrics, instruments, etc. The only difference between Section A and Section B of a song is the time at which it takes place. (Plus I think progression in drain-time is interesting, just look at https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/s/20237 xp)

Overall I like how we have graphs showing us exactly what level of players play what length of maps, I think this proposal has a better chance at going through because of that.

Looks amazing, can't wait to see where this goes xp
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013
I looked at kwk's data and decided to use only values from maps ranked/loved 2015 or later. So the graphs will look a little different. Most noticeably, marathon maps are getting a higher proportion of plays for recent maps.



Per CXu's suggestion, I've graphed the average plays/map for each hitlength/difficulty category.

In my opinion, total playcount is a better measure of how much each category is getting played, but you can argue long Easy/Normal/Hard maps are getting pretty high playcounts still.
Last edited by qwr , edited 1 time in total.
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016
again goes with my theory that every map (that isn't the new 1 diff length) that should just require a hard of some sort since it seems that's where the majority of plays are, thus technically, the least amount of alienation.

for example, if you need 3 diffs, you can do Hard Insane Extra or Normal Hard Extra
if you need 2, you can do Hard Extra or whatever

i hope people don't keep ignoring this xd
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

Mentai wrote: 4j5n2g

again goes with my theory that every map (that isn't the new 1 diff length) that should just require a hard of some sort since it seems that's where the majority of plays are, thus technically, the least amount of alienation.

for example, if you need 3 diffs, you can do Hard Insane Extra or Normal Hard Extra
if you need 2, you can do Hard Extra or whatever

i hope people don't keep ignoring this xd
"Let's reduce alienation by just not having a decent spread of difficulties."

The plan that you're proposing sort of makes it into "let's only have difficulties that fit who we think are playing the most", which is problematic because that in itself alienates a LOT of people, which seems counter-intuitive to what you're planning.

Which is why I sort of have my idea up (I've been busy as fuck so I haven't really been able to keep up with this thread) that there are STILL spread requirements, but that you're not required to make sort of these super long and not intuitive 4 minute Easies, but rather you have something that is more appropriate for the demographic that is playing these diffs (which is a shorter difficulty that plays a reasonable amount of the song).
abraker
Global
8,355 posts
ed July 2014
I once proposed an idea somewhere where you would have slots for how many extreme, insane, hard, normal, and easy diffs you can rank. The slots you have for higher diffs would depend on how many lower diffs you ranked and their length.

This can solve the alienation problem CDFA is mentioning.

For example, if you rank 1 easy diff 5 min long, then that would open a slot for one of the hard, insane, extreme diffs.
If you rank 1 easy diff that is 1 min 30 sec long, then that would open a slot for hard and insane diff, and it would require another diff on same or different map to open a slot for extreme diff

I am not sure what the best combinations for slot unlocking be, so it would take some discussion to find what is best.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

abraker wrote: 5u2f3m

I once proposed an idea somewhere where you would have slots for how many extreme, insane, hard, normal, and easy diffs you can rank. The slots you have for higher diffs would depend on how many lower diffs you ranked and their length.

This can solve the alienation problem CDFA is mentioning.

For example, if you rank 1 easy diff 5 min long, then that would open a slot for one of the hard, insane, extreme diffs.
If you rank 1 easy diff that is 1 min 30 sec long, then that would open a slot for hard and insane diff, and it would require another diff on same or different map to open a slot for extreme diff

I am not sure what the best combinations for slot unlocking be, so it would take some discussion to find what is best.
no lmao.

That's way too complex and unnecessary for something that can be solved in a MUCH easier way by saying "Map a full spread but the shorter diffs can be shorter than the harder diffs"
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

Mentai wrote: 4j5n2g

again goes with my theory that every map (that isn't the new 1 diff length) that should just require a hard of some sort since it seems that's where the majority of plays are, thus technically, the least amount of alienation.

for example, if you need 3 diffs, you can do Hard Insane Extra or Normal Hard Extra
if you need 2, you can do Hard Extra or whatever

i hope people don't keep ignoring this xd
"Let's reduce alienation by just not having a decent spread of difficulties."

The plan that you're proposing sort of makes it into "let's only have difficulties that fit who we think are playing the most", which is problematic because that in itself alienates a LOT of people, which seems counter-intuitive to what you're planning.

Which is why I sort of have my idea up (I've been busy as fuck so I haven't really been able to keep up with this thread) that there are STILL spread requirements, but that you're not required to make sort of these super long and not intuitive 4 minute Easies, but rather you have something that is more appropriate for the demographic that is playing these diffs (which is a shorter difficulty that plays a reasonable amount of the song).
what? lol

this is in the universe of actually removing difficulty requirements. i'm, actually 100% against this proposition, i would rather map full spreads because it's a rewarding experience, personally.

the worst part of doing these things i literally because of spread, like you'll have to make a huge spread still if you want your 6* extra diff, and that's not really reducing workload in the way the people seemingly want it to be done. so having at least the base line where every mapset requires the most played diff out of all song lengths and not have to map 3 extras to fit a spread seems way more reasonable to me than anything else thus far
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani
That's really great that you enjoy mapping full spreads. I do too. But that doesn't mean that the ranking criteria has to fit your personal beliefs of what is the most satisfying things to do. Otherwise you know my ass would be all over the RC adding shit that I believe in mapping :P. Ranking Criteria is just the baseline set of rules that people have to follow, and people are free to do whatever gives them satisfaction after that.

I don't really think that the goal of this is to really reduce workload in the way that you're looking at it. This proposition, at least the way I'm viewing it, is in the vain of making lower difficulties more applicable to newer players who want to play a song that might be too long for them to handle, or for mappers that aren't able to dish out 4 minutes of content when working with simplified rhythms. Something where you're trying to just get rid of spread requirements is pretty silly, because that's alienating people that still play easies and normals and such (as well as people that may play insanes if you map something like an HX spread, for instance).

Like spread is still important for making the songs applicable to the largest group of people, so I disagree with you wanting to get rid of spread requirements, but I feel that we need to be able to provide content that is more appropriate to the skill and developmental level of people playing these difficulties.
abraker
Global
8,355 posts
ed July 2014

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

That's way too complex and unnecessary for something that can be solved in a MUCH easier way by saying "Map a full spread but the shorter diffs can be shorter than the harder diffs"
From the mapper's perspective that's great!

From the player's perspective that's like giving a newbie a 31 key toy piano while giving the better player an actual piano and putting them in one room to compare. You can learn to play things on the toy piano, but it's mockery and no more than a joke.

I am not in favor of cutting a difficulty shorter than another, and would put it as the last option.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

abraker wrote: 5u2f3m

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

That's way too complex and unnecessary for something that can be solved in a MUCH easier way by saying "Map a full spread but the shorter diffs can be shorter than the harder diffs"
From the mapper's perspective that's great!

From the player's perspective that's like giving a newbie a 31 key toy piano while giving the better player better the actual piano and putting them in one room to compare. You can learn to play things on the toy piano, but it's mockery and no more than a joke.

I am not in favor of cutting a difficulty shorter than another, and would put it as the last option.
Well it's obviously not infantilizing the player.

Instead of using that comparison, instead say that you buy a person learning piano a 61 key electric keyboard, and then upgrade them to the full 88 key piano as they get more skilled and outgrow the instrument.

There is no real need for the piano student to have access to all of this extra range, all of the pedals, weighted keys, etc. At this stage of the game, they're leaning how to read music, how to identify notes, how to play with multiple hands, etc. They're building a foundation and it's in the best interest of the teacher to give them the appropriate tools that they need to become successful, instead of just throwing a professional instrument at them. If they HAVE a professional instrument starting out, that's fantastic, but certain instruments are appropriate for skill development.

That's why student horns exist. I played on a Jean Baptiste small shank trombone when I was first learning trombone, and it was easy enough to play for my 5th grade self to play. It didn't have a trigger, didn't have a large shank mouthpiece, and was relatively a very basic horn, but it served the purpose of teaching me the fundamentals of how to play the instrument, before I then decided to my Yamaha Xeno (rip in peace though, sold it to buy my Miraphone 1291BBb Tuba.)

With beatmapping, it's the same way. You're not producing less quality CONTENT, but rather you're putting the content in a sort of framework and level that the players can more tangibly handle, and that they player would most benefit from. Having a 4 minute easy really develops nothing (Except maybe endurance, but endurance is moreso built through consistent clicking over time rather than just pure drain time), so it seems pointless to have it drone on for that long when there are better avenues for development.
Mentai
472 posts
ed June 2016

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

That's really great that you enjoy mapping full spreads. I do too. But that doesn't mean that the ranking criteria has to fit your personal beliefs of what is the most satisfying things to do. Otherwise you know my ass would be all over the RC adding shit that I believe in mapping :P. Ranking Criteria is just the baseline set of rules that people have to follow, and people are free to do whatever gives them satisfaction after that.

I don't really think that the goal of this is to really reduce workload in the way that you're looking at it. This proposition, at least the way I'm viewing it, is in the vain of making lower difficulties more applicable to newer players who want to play a song that might be too long for them to handle, or for mappers that aren't able to dish out 4 minutes of content when working with simplified rhythms. Something where you're trying to just get rid of spread requirements is pretty silly, because that's alienating people that still play easies and normals and such (as well as people that may play insanes if you map something like an HX spread, for instance).

Like spread is still important for making the songs applicable to the largest group of people, so I disagree with you wanting to get rid of spread requirements, but I feel that we need to be able to provide content that is more appropriate to the skill and developmental level of people playing these difficulties.
i'm reading the original post, not what has been thrown around in the comments here, it is essentially all about workload, and in general, spreads tend to be the reason why this huge workload even exists. so, it is probably the most relevant topic about this discussion actually
abraker
Global
8,355 posts
ed July 2014

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

...
You do have a point that a new person doesn't need all the extra bells and whistles, but my main concern is putting the training instrument and the professional instrument side-by-side in one room. Without much know as to why one should play on the training instrument first, they see the professional instrument cooler and will opt to do that instead.

Incoming players mostly play songs they like. Why would such player want to play their favorite song tv size when there is a full version in another diff? I see new players boasting about how they 5* diffs with a bunch of misses, and then make threads in G&R complaining that they are not getting any better. I speculate this will give them even a bigger incentive not to play easier diffs which have the map cut short.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

abraker wrote: 5u2f3m

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

...
You do have a point that a new person doesn't need all the extra bells and whistles, but my main concern is putting the training instrument and the professional instrument side-by-side in one room. Without much know as to why one should play on the training instrument first, they see the professional instrument cooler and will opt to do that instead.

Incoming players mostly play songs they like. Why would such player want to play their favorite song tv size when there is a full version in another diff? I see new players boasting about how they 5* diffs with a bunch of misses, and then make threads in G&R complaining that they are not getting any better. I speculate this will give them even a bigger incentive not to play easier diffs that have the map cut short.
Well that's on them lmao idk what to say lmao.

Probably a better comparison in that vain would be looking at repetoire in the music world. So like you do a quick google search or go on youtube and you're like "Holy shit it's the fucking Blue Bells of Scotland", so every trombone player goes, buys it, and just kinda fucks around on it and has a lot of pride that they can kinda play all of the fast parts, when in actuality they haven't really learned any of the skills or probably even played it super well, they just diddled around and made some sort of sound that is in the vain of the Blue Bells of Scotland.

As an instructor, I of course tell my students that that's NOT how they get better, and that they have to sort of spend their time working on scales and etude books and easier rep, but that is never going to stop them from going out and dicking around on stuff that isn't at their level.

The most I can do is to just sort of make sure that I'm creating enough content and giving content to people that is more appropriate so that at least THEY can get better at what they do, and when people who dick around on 5* maps ask "why am I not getting better", they can have appropriate material to then work with.
abraker
Global
8,355 posts
ed July 2014

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

As an instructor, I of course tell my students that that's NOT how they get better, and that they have to sort of spend their time working on scales and etude books and easier rep, but that is never going to stop them from going out and dicking around on stuff that isn't at their level.

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

The most I can do is to just sort of make sure that I'm creating enough content and giving content to people that is more appropriate so that at least THEY can get better at what they do, and when people who dick around on 5* maps ask "why am I not getting better", they can have appropriate material to then work with.
Yes, truth be told that's how people who don't know better behave. I do urge to be aware of this and not to make matters worse by encouraging such behavior. You believe it's on them, but I ask to be thoughtful by deg things in such way that helps them.
stq
94 posts
ed May 2016
great idea
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

As an instructor, I of course tell my students
Man you've been in osu so long you're teaching students now
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

x86 wrote: 6s526t

CDFA wrote: 6d6j4w

As an instructor, I of course tell my students
Man you've been in osu so long you're teaching students now
thanks for your comment.
_handholding
3,109 posts
ed April 2014

x86 wrote: 6s526t


In my opinion, total playcount is a better measure of how much each category is getting played, but you can argue long Easy/Normal/Hard maps are getting pretty high playcounts still.
I wonder how many people of those easy diffs are actually beginners and not just 3k pp full mod players

Also I wonder how many people actually find these sets as redundant
https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/s/363118
Asai Rumi
419 posts
ed October 2013
Honestly, it really doesn't affect me in any way and my brain might not be big enough for this discussion but I decided to post here anyway. In my opinion, just remove the 'reasonable spread' rule from 4:30+ songs but increase marathon SONG length to 6mins (with drain being let's say, 80% of the mp3's length, which effectively lowers the current required drain time for 1 difficulty sets, round it to 4:50). 5min songs won't be extended as much if the alternative is just making an easy/normal difficulty without all the fillers nobody wants to make anyway. Let's be honest, it doesn't take nearly as long as the higher difficulties. It could also allow mappers to insert a goddamn break without worrying about drain time in their maps, leaving some breathing room for the players. That, or just don't allow mp3 manipulation in ranked maps, there are loved/graveyard sections in this game too.
Xenok
159 posts
ed September 2013
I think this idea is really cool, can only agree tbh. Nice proposal UC :D
Left
2,163 posts
ed October 2014
:0 i didnt like it but 7 page discussion is huh bye GL
timemon
Beatmap Nominator
1,309 posts
ed November 2012
Reminder that you can still make a full spread marathon. It is just a choice.
But if you want to map anything 4:59 or lower, it is a rule.

I'm all for more choices for mappers who want to undertake on longer songs. And if you enjoy mapping full spread, you can continue to do that

From my experience my N/H makes up half of the playcounts. So I will continue to make them regardless of this proposal.
negusver
280 posts
ed August 2017
I think people are missing a lot of new incentives a system like the proposed could bring. Not only would the reduced workload enable experienced mappers make 4-4:59 songs avaible to a broader playerbase (since instead of one topdiff+R3 or the map not being ranked at all, the spread would actually be directed towards a 4 and 5* playerbase). 4 min hard or normal only spreads would be a great opportunity for new mappers to get their first map ranked more easily. That's great, since new mappers are most often mapping to share their own taste in music - thus broadening the ground of genres/artists being playable in the game.
So not only would 4-4:59 songs finally be mappable/playable for experienced mappers/players - also the mapping community could potentially grow more easily in of numbers in mappers and artists being ranked.
One downside I could see would be that a lot of fresh music/artists new players search for wouldn't be immediately playable for them - but apart from that being some motivation to become better, I think you could nudge new players into playing appropriately difficult maps by well placed highlighted sets or some algorithm to suggest maps based on their previous plays.

TL;DR: Total number of maps would increase, as well as the growth rate of the mapping community, since it'd be easier accessible for new mappers. New artists/genres would be mapped by new people trying to get their music into the game - often with hard or normal diffs (since easier rankable). New players will more likely find ranked songs they're looking for.
qwr
111 posts
ed August 2013
Agreed.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply 3p1g1j

0
8 / 360