Current rule:

Every slider must have a clear and visible path of movement to follow from start to end. Sliders that overlap themselves without straightforward slider borders and sliders whose individual sections are unreadable cannot be used. A slider's end position must be clear under the assumption that a player has a skin which makes slider end circles fully transparent.

I think that the wording of this rule, combined with the fact that it is a rule and not a guideline, is a slightly outdated way of governing what we can do with sliders. It has remained the same for a long while despite increasing innovation of sliders and increased player skill. The gist of it seems effective enough, but it can often lead to interpretations which prevent innovation in maps whose design completely s the sliders used. I personally don't think that policing sliders in this way is a practice which benefits anyone since sliders that are actually fine usually end up getting through after some pointless arguing, which leaves the BN who opposed them somewhat disillusioned since the RC seemingly would not allow them, whilst leaving others feeling like they wasted their time since the sliders are clearly fine in the context of the map. Some examples: 4.
(Note that in the last example the vetoer even agrees that the sliders are perfectly playable and is hence relying on the overly restrictive phrasal of the RC in this area which helps no-one)

I do completely understand how the current wording of this rule can give rise to situations where BNs think certain sliders should not be able to get through, however, with the increasing usage of tools like sliderator (or even manual creation) which mappers like Mazzerin have proven to be able to use in a sensible way, combined with the fact that people playing maps with sliders like these should be presumed to have enough skill to not be harmed by their existence, I think that we should do one of the following:

i) Change the rule to a guideline instead. This could then be followed by an addendum such as

Sliders that are not detrimental to gameplay and are fair/intuitive to play in the context of their map are permissible.

This provides BNs an opportunity to use their discretion to veto actually unreasonable sliders if such a situation arises, whilst also providing official for more reasonable ones, which I think is a net positive for innovation. I do recognise that the wording of this addendum is a bit ambiguious and would require an unprecedented amount of discretion compared to other guidelines, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps some more elaboration could help too.

ii) Change the wording of the rule itself to more explicitly imply that certain sliders would be allowed (open to suggestions on how to word this)

Would like some thoughts on this.

(TL;DR - relax slider rules to aid innovation and prevent useless semantic discussions about what constitutes an "individually readable section")

how do i +1

yes please mate

Yea

+1

first option sounds the best for me, since still having it as a rule makes it more discouraging maybe?
not much to add here otherwise

+1

yea i definitely feel like this rule has becoming more and more arbitrary nowadays

judging hitobjects based on their intention/context and fairness to play instead of on a certain rigid "this is what you can and can't do" limitation seems to be much more preferable for me — this is also the kind of approach that has been taken by many successful rhythm games out there such as Arcaea or Cytus II when it comes to their charts for years, iirc

+1

+1 good change

We already went to the point where rules like this would be unnecessarily restrictive to edge cases like these already.

+1

Bump

Don't know why this isn't a thing already

SKYSTAR CHRONO DIVER RANKED LETS FUCKIONG GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP

gogoggogoo +1

yes

+1

+1

100% agree

The rule currently hinders a lot of potential regarding slider creation because it’s simply too outdated to be uncompromising

+1

yeah

agree

yea

yei +1

agreed

ye

.

+1

+1

+1

+2

"This provides BNs an opportunity to use their discretion to veto actually unreasonable sliders if such a situation arises"

In a perfect world, yes, but we all know this won't happen if QAH stays the way it is now. In fact, without RC ing it, there's even less incentive for BNs to veto harmful uses. We've seen in the past that vetos on subjective issues always causes problems for the person placing the veto.

On the point of the RC change, I think allowing these kinds of sliders creates an unhealthy relationship when playing the game. This is already partially present due to SV, but making it even more difficult to trust sliders because every single one could have some unexpected effect is not a good development in my opinion.

Edit: Also unsure how this change can affect converts, anybody know if there could be issues?

In fact, without RC ing it, there's even less incentive for BNs to veto harmful uses. We've seen in the past that vetos on subjective issues always causes problems for the person placing the veto.

The vetos I linked are already subjective I would argue, the only objective factor is the stringent RC wording which hasn't changed in years regarding the topic despite major developments. The contentious issue on whether these sliders are *fine* or not (as opposed to unrankable) is definitely subjective. The fact that you even have to veto these in the first place instead of flat-out DQing them with no room for argument demonstrates that not everyone agrees on what constitutes an unrankable slider, and hence regardless the RC wording needs some cleanup.

In a perfect world, yes, but we all know this won't happen if QAH stays the way it is now.

? BNs still have to use their discretion when nominating, I doubt any two decent BNs would nominate a slider that is so egregiously unreasonable and unfair as a result of this change that it would harm anything, and if they did then you can still veto the map as you have been doing now. The fact that not many people QAH doesn't really affect this at all considering you are the only one who does slider vetoes even now, and you will still be free to do that for any case you think is particularly egregious. All that would be happening ideally is that some official for some cases that are *clearly* fine and hence useless to disallow would be provided. It's not like the legislation on the matter would be completely abolished, so there would definitely be grounds to veto harmful uses still. The fact that QAH is inactive doesn't really affect this to me: someone could stick literally anything in a map and it could get through if no-one bothered to it or point it out in a week.

On the point of the RC change, I think allowing these kinds of sliders creates an unhealthy relationship when playing the game. This is already partially present due to SV, but making it even more difficult to trust sliders because every single one could have some unexpected effect is not a good development in my opinion.

Something I was actually looking to weave into my argument is that equally "unexpectable" patterns are more than possible to create and rank via increased SV usage or even only using circles/overlaps/etc. I see no reason why sliders should not be allowed to be used in the same way as long as the map design/skill requirement of the map s it.

Also I don't think converts should be a specific priority here considering they are not intended for them anyways and many converts are already terrible, but to entertain the point I checked the sliders in question on Dialtone and this map on every other gamemode and nothing particularly weird or unplayable happened.

hard agree, also can +1 on the convert thing, every mode it just plays normally

Sylvarus wrote: 4b3k2

converts

std -> mania conversion is negligible (lol)

std -> taiko conversion is also negligible on paper because (a) taiko only s for the slider's velocity without any regards towards the slider's shape or placement and (b) people have been using super extreme svs since like forever by now (esp. with the ever increasing number of maps that contains elements that are made using mapping tools/tumor generator/sliderator/etc) and literally no one has ever complained about it

std -> catch conversion idk, but i can't really envision any game-breaking situation(s) that could possibly occur from these sliders tbh (and by "game-breaking" i mean sth like Regou's Solvicious map where the catch leaderboard had to be disabled at one point because there's a slider that incidentally inflated the catch sr on the top diff into like 14* or so)

---

also yeah what ajt said about std maps aren't made with a specific intention to be played in other modes

Yes please +1

about time this thing got changed

+1

Sylvarus wrote: 4b3k2

Edit: Also unsure how this change can affect converts, anybody know if there could be issues?

converts should never be considered

they don't follow ranking standards to begin with

sound good +1

Yea i think changing this rule to a guideline and rewording it is good and fine, theres cases like beatmaps/2940257 01:05:702 - which mirash and i are wanting to push for ranked that technically also break "a clear and visible path of movement to follow from start to end" but noone that can play this map is going to break or get 100s on these sliders

also even more egregious of a case than apollo's dialtone map is scub's glacierfall map since those sliders weren't even hold sliders and u literally cannot tell where the slider actually ends to get a 300 on those but we are allowing that kind of shit anyway already so, apollo's dialtone sliders are like a complete nonissue relatively speaking personally (even the glacierfall issue is because of the leniency bug more than anything and personally not really something that shuold be barred because mans just arent fixing it)

The topic of players being unfairly punished / fucked over on purpose because of a beatmap's (faulty) design are kind of unrelated to this I think, there's a shitton of cases where this doesn't even happen and are blocked by this rule

as well as the fact that the majority of mappers dont give a fuck/think it doesnt matter anyway so i don't really see a reason to not change the rule

Mapping dies Today (+1)

+1 lets go

"I doubt any two decent BNs would nominate a slider that is so egregiously unreasonable and unfair as a result of this change that it would harm anything, and if they did then you can still veto the map as you have been doing now"

I disagree with the 1st part LOL but the problem is I only saw these two maps because they were specifically requested to me or posted in the BN server. I think it's actually really problematic when people ignore the RC and rank stuff anyway because they know there's an extremely low chance it'll be looked at properly during QF, instead of going the proper route of doing a proposal like this FIRST. Especially for BNs. But I guess this is beside the point of the thread.

I've had multiple people tell me that they agree w/ my reasoning in the Mazzerin case afterwards so I'm curious if anyone who thinks so as well will post here.

I agree, +1
I would prefer the word "intuitive" over "fair" however. I feel the word conveys the message better

Finally.

Nyanaro wrote: 33414c

I agree, +1
I would prefer the word "intuitive" over "fair" however. I feel the word conveys the message better

True, amended

u can tell which BNs actually play osu and which BNs dont these replies are a read

Sylvarus wrote: 4b3k2

because they know there's an extremely low chance it'll be looked at properly during QF, instead of going the proper route of doing a proposal like this FIRST.

you're acting like there's malicious intent in creating a slider in a circle game that can be hit by holding your cursor in the same area. this proposal is completely valid and there's really no reason for it not to be changed.

+1

i believe everyone already takes this rule as "don't make unreadable sliders that are unreadable because you can't play them" rather than "don't make unreadable sliders no matter what," should definitely make this change already

however, i still think it should be heavily enforced. burais are almost always "unfair gameplay elements" and i wouldn't want to see people getting away with random burais in their otherwise normal maps cuz it's "just a guideline"

this seems fixable with just an allowance at the end:

1. Every slider must have a clear and visible path of movement to follow from start to end. Sliders that overlap themselves without straightforward slider borders and sliders whose individual sections are unreadable cannot be used. A slider's end position must be clear under the assumption that a player has a skin which makes slider end circles fully transparent. Unreadable sliders that do not require movement are allowed.

that + making it a guideline for anyone out there who wants to make some crazy gimmick map centered around burais or something (or in sliderator cases where the sliders are obviously playable) — bns should be able to judge this on a case-by-case basis. otherwise, burais should still be disallowed

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

however, i still think it should be heavily enforced. burais are almost always "unfair gameplay elements" and i wouldn't want to see people getting away with random burais in their otherwise normal maps cuz it's "just a guideline"

the way I see it, you can already put a random unfair gameplay element in your map that isn't a burai and it's the BN's job to mod it out or veto it (high powered Lol). it being moved to a guideline shouldn't really encourage people to include bad mapping designs on purpose, considering it's not like it will drastically change the taste of BNs or players I would hope.

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

this seems fixable with just an allowance at the end:

1. Every slider must have a clear and visible path of movement to follow from start to end. Sliders that overlap themselves without straightforward slider borders and sliders whose individual sections are unreadable cannot be used. A slider's end position must be clear under the assumption that a player has a skin which makes slider end circles fully transparent. Unreadable sliders that do not require movement are allowed.

that + making it a guideline for anyone out there who wants to make some crazy gimmick map centered around burais or something (or in sliderator cases where the sliders are obviously playable) — bns should be able to judge this on a case-by-case basis. otherwise, burais should still be disallowed

seems good to me, but I think this is a bit weird because there are sliders that are readable with intuition despite requiring movement, or perhaps ones that are so slow that the path being unintelligible at glance is rendered unproblematic because of how slow the movement is, etc. so probably adding the line from my OP about intuitiveness/map design would help to clarify a bit more

+1

Agree with proposal + uberfazz/vinxis suggestion to make this into Guideline instead of Rule

The more room to make unique & interesting playable maps, the better

AJT wrote: 4h5q2r

seems good to me, but I think this is a bit weird because there are sliders that are readable with good intuition despite requiring movement, so probably adding the line from my OP about intuitiveness/map design would help to clarify a bit more

true, that's where the guideline aspect comes in since this shouldn't be too common of an occurrence. im fine with the clarification tho, just don't rly think its necessary

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

AJT wrote: 4h5q2r

seems good to me, but I think this is a bit weird because there are sliders that are readable with good intuition despite requiring movement, so probably adding the line from my OP about intuitiveness/map design would help to clarify a bit more

true, that's where the guideline aspect comes in since this shouldn't be too common of an occurrence. im fine with the clarification tho, just don't rly think its necessary

oh also it should probabyl say "Unreadable sliders/sections of sliders that do not require movement are allowed."

I don't know about allowing that for individual slider sections, that seems much more problematic than if it's the entire slider that doesn't require movement.

that's implied in "unreadable sliders"; if a section is unreadable, the slider is in turn unreadable as well

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

that's implied in "unreadable sliders"; if a section is unreadable, the slider is in turn unreadable as well

I made that clarification because the host rule does too, also I don't see anything wrong with being as clear as possible: the reason sliders are so contentious right now in the first place is because there are different plausible ways for people to interpret the rule. This was also my mindset in regards to your other reply:

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

true, that's where the guideline aspect comes in since this shouldn't be too common of an occurrence. im fine with the clarification tho, just don't rly think its necessary

---

Sylvarus wrote: 4b3k2

I don't know about allowing that for individual slider sections, that seems much more problematic than if it's the entire slider that doesn't require movement.

I think of it as an extension to UberFazz's point. The slider I had in my mind when I wrote that was something similar in spirit to 01:54:525 (1) - (let's assume that it goes backwards, or even stops moving completely, for the purpose of my point instead of technically going diagonally upwards which is completely fine). Although that would probably be allowed implicitly as a result of these other changes anyways (if not already "allowed" due to common sense) I suppose these "effectively manipulating SV during slider" slider cases are more similar to the Mazzerin ones than Dialtone.

There also still remains the opportunity to contest awful usages of such features, just like there are for any circle pattern or slider pattern that doesn't involve burai movement

AJT wrote: 4h5q2r

I made that clarification because the host rule does too, also I don't see anything wrong with being as clear as possible: the reason sliders are so contentious right now in the first place is because there are different plausible ways for people to interpret the rule.

seems fine to me, tho i still believe it's implied and adding more words to the allowance makes it unnecessarily complex

+1

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

AJT wrote: 4h5q2r

I made that clarification because the host rule does too, also I don't see anything wrong with being as clear as possible: the reason sliders are so contentious right now in the first place is because there are different plausible ways for people to interpret the rule.

seems fine to me, tho i still believe it's implied and adding more words to the allowance makes it unnecessarily complex

well I suppose if it is also moved to a guideline then extra words would not be necessary too because the BN's discretion would be able to prevail (although I mean there was a case in this very thread of someone misinterpreting the fact that it would be implied without the extra words so idk)

but yea this is secondary to the main point anyways - glad we are on the same page!

JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE BREAKER

+1

+1

+1

I must be seriously mising things cause I thought we changed this years ago?
Regardless +1

+1

This allows more creative sliders in ranked

+1

was considering a different approach before making the github pr: putting the current rule under "Rules" section of per-difficulty rules for e/n/h and the updated rule under "Guidelines" for i/x

vs the other approach of just directly modifying the current rule

since this is only really an issue for top diffs, i believe the per-difficulty approach is the best one but want more opinions first

Good point on low diffs, those should certainly be categorically excluded

UberFazz wrote: 4i3o4t

was considering a different approach before making the github pr: putting the current rule under "Rules" section of per-difficulty rules for e/n/h and the updated rule under "Guidelines" for i/x

vs the other approach of just directly modifying the current rule

since this is only really an issue for top diffs, i believe the per-difficulty approach is the best one but want more opinions first

just writing here that I Agree cus we already concluded this together in dms last night

+2. Also yes making this a difficulty-based guideline makes sense to me.