based on this thread and other opinions I got in PMs, it seems that 3x1/1 is the option that can satisfy all parties here, so maybe we can settle with tyis' suggestion?

His solution might seem convoluted at first glance but it's a necessary addition to prevent abuse, and it's actually not that hard to understand imo. Most likely mappers could probably fit a 3/2 break before reaching that 64/1 limit in the first place so it doesn't seem that you need to think about it that much.

Also to address some other concerns in this thread, yes this addition might seem unnecessary, but just like Axer said, it's not entirely useless, you as experienced mappers can probably manage your muzu break usage without even needing to keep this guideline in mind, but this can really come in favor for newer mappers.
A common sentiment shared between them is that muzus suck to map because 3/2 breaks feel unnatural and can be hard to manage without ruining the map. This guideline aims to solve this issue by making things more flexible and giving them the opportunity to use more natural and easier to manage breaks in their maps.

agree with the "this is unnecessary" sentiment, just as i thought it was unnecessary to add the "less frequent rest moments are acceptable if song calls for it" as it's totally redundant and self explanatory

making such clarifications explicitly written into an RC that many mappers already consider a list of checkmarks instead of a base to build their levels upon while having clear limits will only lead to low diffs becoming almost entirely like they were mapped by an AI that uses a checkmark list (if they aren't already...)

edit: re:the last paragraph, the RC is already this flexible, the issue is entirely self-made by the mapper in their own head either of their own volition or by an unexperienced modder who considers the RC a holy literal bible instead of trying to read between the lines

Don't think this is necessary. I didn't feel a raise in complaints or problems occuring for this topic, so I can't really follow the reasoning. In the end it would just be the same with different words. A 3/2 would still be viable and currently substitute sections (like calm parts with low density) are also valid

I don't consider 2x1/1 to be a substitute for a proper 3/2 rest moment.

I don't like the idea of having very long stretches without any break longer than 1/1 (since as Genjuro mentioned, 1/1 is one of the main snappings in muzu so it doesn't really feel like rest).

The way I personally handle it: If a section doesn't a 3/2 rest, two consecutive 1/1 could be used to stretch it longer (maybe 32/1 or so) without a rest moment. But after that point, the mapper needs a true rest moment of 3/2 or longer. And if 3/2 still doesn't fit, there's nothing wrong with using 2/1.


Regarding whether a change is necessary:
It's not necessary, but it might be helpful. Raiden brings up a good point about having some room for interpretation in the RC. But I think a slightly more detailed guideline could be helpful for new mappers to give some idea of what "using rest moments less frequently is acceptable" actually means.

Yooo this guideline keeps sparking discussions holy shit

"You are poking holes in the map to fulfill RC"

Is that not the exact reason why its a guideline? If you have a song that really just doesnt want 3/2 and 2/1 is also out of the question, it is completely fine to not put them if it means deteriorating the map quality.

Disagree with the Proposal though. As with all guidelines in the RC, its up to context and loosening it up would unleash hell imo.
Assuming 180 BPM and that you cant force in any 3/2 or 2/1:

https://i.imgur.com/zgx77kb.png
This sort of Muzu would be A-OK with the new guideline, and could go on indefinitely in this manner. Its breaking the current guideline, aswell.

https://i.imgur.com/VGRzWri.png
This sort of Muzu would also be A-OK with the new guideline, and breaks the current one.

Please note that both guidelines judge these two examples the same, even though that its quite obvious at a glance that the top one is maybe, just maybe not OK with the current density if it were to go on for indefinite amounts of time like this, while the bottom one is IMHO not an issue at all with the current guideline as the context of each map matters.

Though i do advocate for making it much clearer that the context matters somewhere in the RC since this is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this dumb guideline has sparked discussion.

i agree with this!! im mapping the song occhocorestless which doesnt exaclt 3/2

My opinion is that it could go either way. putting it in a box because it probably won't matter much to the discussion in the end. Also take it with a grain of salt because I'm probably wrong on a bunch of things as well

As a bunch of people have stated, the current guideline already does allow for stretching, and making the main line itself more lenient wouldn't really be the best. Instead, I would suggest just a minor amendment just to the subtext:

Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.


Using consecutive shorter rest moments or less frequent rest moments are acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.


Not particularly happy with the wording, but the general intention is just to add a bit more clarification to this vague part. Someone else can probably come up with something better, but I just wanted to get my opinion in that the main guideline itself is fine, it's just really unclear what's acceptable or not. "Less frequent rest moments" doesn't really translate to "multiple consecutive smaller gaps".

Alchyr wrote: 1ls6b

I would suggest just a minor amendment just to the subtext:

Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.

I'd like to say that adding that would make the guideline even more ambiguous as a player could theoretically not include any breaks at all if the song is fast paced

i am a fan of this proposal

se aplicar eu vo fazer muzu agr :Stonks:

I don't make any beatmaps, and if I do, I'm no good, but I'm going to voice my opinion on muzukashii's since thats what I mostly play and what this topic is going on about.

Me personally, I think muzukashii's are amazing how they are, depending on who made the muzukashii map that is. There are some pretty shitty maps out there for muzukashii's, but it depends on what you're playing with. Patterns on muzukashii's are fantastic. But, I'd love to see changes if any at all.

wake up its our time to revive this proposal and push it

Honestly this proposal could even be extended to cover more lower diffs as well. I'm aware that current guideline allow for flexibility to an extent but the wording causes a lot of confusion and could be really improved in order to make the RC more friendly and approachable.

Will figure out sth later today

Edit: talked to multiple ppl, it's really hard to go forward with this proposal unless there's a good amount of interest

regarding extension to lower diffs:

There's a guideline in futsuu that requires a 3/1 break every ~20 beats, would splitting that into two 2/1 breaks be reasonable? it's proportional to the proposed muzukashii change but I can't really say if two 2/1 provides the same break as a 3/1

talked to hivie, decided this proposal can be archived now as what we currently have suffices.

topic resurfaced again in the taiko server and it seems there's interest for having 3 consecutive 1/1 breaks, as 2 didn't seem sufficient enough, so I'm updating the proposal with that, and poked an NAT to revive it.

yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo

yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo

3 consecutive 1/1 is fine, 2 consecutive 1/1 in my opinion isn't sufficient.

1/1 and 2/1 are the primary snapping of the muzukashii difficulty, 2 1/1 consecutively would not be out of place when regularly mapping. That is not to say rests should feel out of place, but when the definition of a break fits so seamlessly into the existing way of mapping without rest moments does it really serve its purpose of reducing density and giving players rest.

I can see 3 1/1 working, 2 is definitely not enough in most cases imo

as most songs won't 3/2 breaks structurely i think the breaks should be able to be replaced with 2 or 3 1/1 breaks per measure

Another thing is, the 1/1 breaks are already useable as the RC has breaks as a guideline but this should be explicitly stated so people can use it freely

about the lenght of the break; I think 2 times 1/1 breaks per measure (to make that 'measure' clear, same as 16/1 or 20/1). some people stated they think 2 1/1 per measure won't be enough above so I think it should be able to work for everyone like this:

2x 1/1 per 16/1 or 3x 1/1 20/1

although my personal opinion is 2x 1/1 will be enough anyways

I would like to barter 3 consecutive 1/1 to having at least 3 1/1 in one measure. this would allow more freedom and having 3 1/1 in one measure equates to the same exact density you would have with 3 consecutive 1/1, allowing for more freedom of mapping

this is a guideline after all, and I guarantee someone is gonna map a rhythm like |x---|x---|xxx-|x---|x (x = note, | = downbeat where note after is on 1/1, - = 1/4 space) and theres gonna be a big argument about whether this is a rankable break or if it needs to be changed to |x---|x---|x---|xxx-|x which is the same damn thing density-wise.

or, like, |x---|x-x-|--x-|x---|x, which is a really really common rhythm for dnb and while it has 3 1/1 in one measure, is not ed by the consecutive guideline

Consecutive makes more sense though, the point is to provide a period of concentrated low density for players to recover if they lost track of reading or hand position. Having an average density rhythm count misses the point of the rule.

I wish this just abolish the 3/2 forced break regardless of how long the consecutives 1/1 are, that's all it only matter imo.
As others said above, it just straight misrepresent the song most of the times when the song doesn't fit and that others think this "1/1 consecutive breaks" are not enough just for the sake of being in rc. Guidelines aren't supposed to be broken that easily in the first place.

I could live with this change, but I fear people unnaturally throwing in 3 1/1 breaks everywhere, since this is also kind of an awkward number in many situations.

Is it preferable to unnatural 3/2 breaks? Maybe. But it would also be sad to see people lazily default to spamming 1/1 strings when it would be possible to find a good spot for a 3/2 with a little thought. (or even just a 2/1 break would be preferable in some cases)

I guess overall it's probably a positive change to give more flexibility like this. I just hope we don't see a new flavor of unnatural muzus come out of it.

I think it'd already help if some lines were added to the current RC? The 3/2 should probably not be removed and still maintain the go-to, if possible, but there should be clearer ways to work around it if a 3/2 break does not go along with a section in a proper way.

Edit: This is basically the og post but I felt like the 3/2 was forgotten so I wanted to mention it again

yes 3 1/1 consecutive breaks would be nice rather than trynna fit in an uncomfy 3/2 imo

i still think 3/2 should be prioritized over 3x1/1 when mapping, and for the latter to be more of a substitute in case a 3/2 ruins the pace of the map
thoughts on this reword?

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

i still think 3/2 should be prioritized over 3x1/1 when mapping

I personally think they should have the same priority, as 3x1/1 is double the size of 3/2 with 1 more object added in between so its like almost exactly the same.

wait, I think we can easily remove the "Using rest moments less frequently" part as it seems redundant because using 3x1/1 is already a form of using 3/2 breaks less frequently. removing it makes the wording less convoluted and more clear imo.

thoughts on this final reword?

Yes and 2x1/1 is 66% of the length of 3x1/1 with 1 less object so they are the same too!


suggestion:

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. An exception can be made if the song's structure would lead to counter intuitive 3/2 rest moments. In this case you can use 3 consecutive 1/1 length rest moments instead as a substitute.

I think hivie's wording is better here because what I understand from ikin's wording is you can only use one method (3x1/1 or 3/2) depending on the song's structure, both methods should be useable at the same time

I actually like ikin's wording and don't get the same vibe off of it as Burak does. That might be different to some people but to me it just covers everything from both worlds

The main point I am trying to convey in my wording is that 3x1/1 should be an exception instead of an alternatively accepted standard. I think the fact i call it a substitute kind of implies interchangeability.

i like ikin's wording too

I think too that's Hivie's wording is better although it might better to precise what "consecutive break" with a sentence in the Ranking criteria's glossary.

"consecutive breaks" seem pretty self-explanatory to me, plus it's gonna be difficult to fully explain it without using pictures, which the RC can't have.

I think I got your idea. It's fine for me if it will still count as a viable solution for the structure problems as you say.

Still think it looks too strict counting it as an "exception" to be honest, if it's "fine/acceptable" it should be fine to call it as an alternative method instead of calling it an exception for a condition. Calling it an alternative is already putting the new method under the 3/2 breaks.

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

"consecutive breaks" seem pretty self-explanatory to me, plus it's gonna be difficult to fully explain it without using pictures, which the RC can't have.

Although it probably sounds self explanatory for most of people, some might understand it differently than others which would make this whole guideline way less useful.


An example of different understandings that might happen is that some understand consecutive break as break that are contained on the equivalent of 4/1 while others might understand as break that have less of 2 notes between them

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

suggestion:

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. An exception can be made if the song's structure would lead to counter intuitive 3/2 rest moments. In this case you can use 3 consecutive 1/1 length rest moments instead as a substitute.

'exception' implies it should be used rarely under special circumstances, which for newer mappers will not only be misleading but also against what this post is attempting to forward, no? I think something more like 'an alternative break usage could be used' if the song's... rest moments would be more open wording. might also be nitpicking.

I still think that 3/2 breaks are the primary ones you should try going for, and 3x1/1 just serves as a substitute for when 3/2 doesn't fit at all.
this proposal isn't aiming to remove 3/2 out of the picture, and I think that making 3/2 and 3x1/1 "equal" in priority (by making the 3x1/1 as an alternative instead of an exception) would be a step towards that direction which isn't the goal at all (and frankly shouldn't be).

making it an exception seems like the best way forward with this.

Think if the guideline are to be updated to allow 3 consecutive 1/1 as alternative break that guideline should have a stress on the consecutive 1/1s only if the primary 3/2 break is not intuitive in the map

as for what is intuitive and what's not, BNs should be able to figure that out themselves

only concern is new mappers who look at this guideline and don't understand what is "counter-intuitive" and simply just use 1/1 breaks so you might have to elaborate more on that as well

Here's what I came up with in of wording for a new guideline, this is primarily based on what others have said. Firstly, the way this is worded is with the idea that the best of either two ideas should be used when necessary, as to not state that one should be preferred over the other in general. The idea of 3 1/1 breaks is technically an exception to the normal way maps are made as a whole is true, which is why it should be explicitly stated that this is simply another option. Also when it comes to ranking, the interpretation of the first part will end up being more important than the actual specific guidelines themselves. Basically meaning that the idea of 1 3/2 breaks every 16/1-20/1 and 3 1/1 breaks every 16/1-20/1 are not even the most important part of what I'm suggesting. But the part above those two, which explains how why/how breaks should be added is more benefitting to the RC.



Here's the wording I came up with;
Guideline: Breaks must be managed in a way that is benefitting of the map. This means that rest moments should not be counter-intuitive and should be forgiving to the player. Given the wide variety of ways breaks can be managed, one or both of these guidelines must be followed, depending which is more benefitting of the map in that given situation.

a) At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.

b) At least 3 rest moments that are 1/1 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping.

I prefer Nifty's suggestion most in this discussion so far as it allows for the most freedom possible in keeping map structure and feel in gameplay as consistent as possible while reducing density to about the same in all cases. There are songs where both 3 x 1/1 and 3/2 does not fit at all.

Also this is outside the current proposal, but I really think the 16/1 - 20/1 length should be reevaluated and that an extension to 64/1 should be considered. I still think the current prescribed length makes no sense, most songs in 4/4 time signature have sections that are 8 measures long. Breaks usually really makes the most sense only when inserted between these sections. In my opinion the most problematic part of the guideline is not the 3/2 part but the 16/1 - 20/1 part because of this.

Honestly, just remove the guideline lol I still find it funny that taiko is the only game mode that has such and oddly specific way of dealing with density.

agree with genjuro post - 3/2 is fine for me, everyone just needed to learn that and after years realise, that its not good :3

i'd add 3 consecutive 1/1 rest moments, as i play only muzukashii - it can be really hard and exhausting sometimes. Still, I would prioritize 3/2 over that and use 3 1/1 only in exceptional cases

I dont think extending to 64/1 is good at all. Lenience allows 30/1 (which would be the 8 bars in 4/4 that you refer to) already during high intensity times.


I think that making 3x1/1 an alternative is misleading and will lead to people (especially newer mappers and hivie) mapping muzukashiis as oni, just without the color changes.

Personally not a fan of nifty's suggestion of average density because that goes against the idea of a rest moment (to give a space of low intensity) and averaging isn't an appropriate way to assess that.

As a mapper, I’d enjoy having 3 consecutive 1/1 as a possible option due to the difficulty of finding a 3/2 break without causing a weird emptiness within the rhythm.

As a player, I don’t mind much about it but if a mapper uses 3 consecutive 1/1 breaks just to get around the 16/1 rule multiple times, it can get pretty tiring without an extended break (like a 3/2).

I agree with modifying the guidelines to include 3 consecutive 1/1 but only in the case that 3/2 would not be possible or would derail the rhythmic flow of the map. Maybe another guideline can be introduced to limit how many times the 3 consecutive 1/1 can be used before a 3/2 break occurs to prevent a long, fatiguing section.

I think cychloryn's proposal of allowing 2x 1/1 to further delay the necessity of a 3/2 break is pretty reasonable.

I feel that it more or less has the potential to provide a more specific definition of when continuous mapping qualifies as "more forgiving to the player," which could be a good thing, because "more forgiving to the player" is so vague that individuals' understanding of it can vary wildly, whether it be mappers arguing that their muzu isnt hard, or modders arguing that the above quote in the guideline is completely useless.

This lack of consensus due to bad wording is something that has probably wasted the time of countless people..

Such a change would probably be liberal enough to ease the frustration of mappers who already have a place to put a 3/2 or 2/1 break, but are prevented from doing so because the continuous mapping is just a bit too long.

op45667 wrote: 676g19

Maybe another guideline can be introduced to limit how many times the 3 consecutive 1/1 can be used before a 3/2 break occurs to prevent a long, fatiguing section.

That won't work as the goal for this proposal is to make rests more intuitive. By limiting the usage of the alternative you start to force the break to be unintuitive again after some time.

As I said in the taiko server: back then we measured rest moments by the actual used main snapping. Since for Muzu it was 1/1+1/2, we went for a minimum of 3/2 break as 2/1 would have disturbed the flow of a map. So continues mapping was seen as a factor to determine how hard beatmaps were.

So if you guys think 1/4 and 1/2 is used more freuently and are also justified as lower diffs cover the rest already well enough, we can go for 2/1 or 3/1.

Whether I would 2/1 over 3/1 or not however, I'm not sure. But I think going for 3/1 isn't really problematic as you have to used it only after 16 to 20 measures and still have the possibility to use 2/1 under exceptional circumstances.

I would just keep 2 consecutive 1/1 moments, for me is enough to keep the map playable. I agree that 3/2 feels too forced and I had a lot of struggle in finding a good balance every time I had to put the break.

2 consecutive 1/1 is really not enough drop in density to fulfill the purpose of the guideline, which is to make a break period for players who are lost to recover. 1/1 gap into 1/1 gap is a completely average density rhythm which occurs repeatedly throughout a muzu diff and isnt calm enough to allow a player to get back into the map.

Capu wrote: 5y1w4a

op45667 wrote: 676g19

Maybe another guideline can be introduced to limit how many times the 3 consecutive 1/1 can be used before a 3/2 break occurs to prevent a long, fatiguing section.

That won't work as the goal for this proposal is to make rests more intuitive. By limiting the usage of the alternative you start to force the break to be unintuitive again after some time.

I see. Do note that I'm relatively new to mapping atm.

In that case, I would agree that 2 (more difficult muzus) or 3 (easier muzus) consecutive 1/1 should be used only where 3/2 cannot, but using a 3x1/1 where a 3/2 could've been used just for the sake of making a long pattern is against the principle of having a break in the first place, even if a 3x1/1 provides enough break time.

I agree with Hivie and ikin on that 3x1/1 should be more of an exception than an equal alternate. If a 3/2 can be placed, then it should be, even if it takes a little longer to find that one sound that can be afforded to be nixed in order to provide that break. If 3x1/1 is made equal with 3/2, I'm pretty sure some people won't even bother trying to find a 3/2 even when there are opportunities to do so.

If it was for me I would have gone for 1/1 on light muzukashii (most 1/2 patterns) and 3/2-2/1 for high bpm or heavy 1/4 triplets based. I mean, it's not like we could do differently. 3/2 pauses are weird to use but 1/1 are the classic pauses you use most of the time in a muzukashii so it's not like you have any other choices to put a break on the map. I think even the 3x1/1 could be as weird as 3/2 since it's like having a 3/1 break with 1/1 notes in it. Plus high bpm songs can have a lot of 1/1 single notes so it doesn't make too much of a difference. A lot of times break guidelines were broken to preserve patterning and rhythmic structure of the map. A mapper would choose to go overboard suring the 20/1 limit and put a pause when the rhythm allows it instead of forcing a 3/2 pause in a weird place. Sometimes 3/2 breaks makes muzukashii harder because of the poor predictability of the patterns that are changed to allow the weird pause. In that case if we want to point out the difficulty of a muzukashii, it's better having an increased range of continuous mapping instead of putting 3x1/1 continuous breaks or forcing 3/2 breaks that could make the map way harder and unpredictable. Making rests more intuitive in a muzukashi could have the opposite effect of making things more difficult to players and to mappers. I repeat, for me 2x1/1 on light muzukashii and 3/2-2/1 for high bpm and heavy 1/4 triplets muzu are a good option (you can balance the low bpm or the lack of density with the continuous mapping ensured by the 1/1 in a light muzukashii and increase the number of pauses if the bpm is higher or have dense structure). however for me the main change is to be more lenient with continuous mapping limit on muzukashii by increasing it a bit (maybe 30/1 since a lot of people uses 30/1 on kiai and low density parts).

I'm going to be honest, break guidelines in Muzukashii should be more relaxed, it's in this weird spot where neither 2/1 (Futsuu) or 1/1 (Oni) would be a good number and 3/2 (current) doesn't fit for every song and I'm sure some people would prefer no break rather than a forced 3/2 break.

As for the current ideas being discussed, I think both 3/2 and 2-3 consecutive 1/1 should be equivalent. Songs are structured different so we cannot just prefer or force one over the other.

Also I agree with Nifty's point about the density, it's not a matter that "2 isn't enough time to recover", instead of just looking at the "consecutive breaks" rather look at the pattern as a whole before deciding whether it is or not enough time to recover, instead a "break" probably a "recovery section" would be something to have in Muzukashii. However, this "recovery sections" concept would be second to breaks as, from my experience, it'd happen in very few cases.

Another option would be to just change the 3/2 break every 16/1-20/1 for a 2/1 break every ~32/1 and 2 consecutive 1/1 every 16/1-20/1, I think this could be more universal. And I wouldn't worry about the "but muh muzu will become harder", it's up to nominators whether the map is above the top or not.

i'm kinda confused as to why this is gaining traction again. break times were a rather stringent subject themselves during my first bn tenure and again the 2nd time as well, but the guideline's wording was changed to say "Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player." this is wording that myself and Gezo came up with a long time ago, and we phrased it this way by acknowledging that break times of any kind (discluding 1/1 breaks) can be counter-intuitive/awkward for the map and that these matters should be settled by the bn's best judgement, which they should be more than capable of given that they take an exam and are proficient enough in modding to understand when a difficulty's lack of breaks is an issue.

the break guideline is exactly that, a guideline-this is not the old days when we, including myself, would file DQ requests based strictly on whether it is followed or not. 3/2 is an awkward break to have formalized, that's agreeable, however i've seen multiple cases where a BNs judgement was good enough to warrant subverting the guideline. adding specifics and all this other crap is largely unnecessary, if it is now commonly sought after to use 2 1/1 breaks as an alternative then the only people that really need to actively "push" this alternative are the bns ranking maps. there's really nothing to change here.

i disagree

The virgin several paragraph detailed position paper post vs the chad "I disagree"

@Boaz can you elaborate

I dont really believe this proposal is changing anything and that the aim should be simply to change the wording and clarify that there are alternatives to 3/2 breaks to make it easier for newer mappers to make good muzukashii difficulties.

Using consecutive 1/1 breaks is already allowed because the break guideline is exactly that, a guideline. This isn't an argument about restructuring allowed breaks for muzukashii. Hivie's proposal is literally only changing the wording to be more specific. Arguing about whether high-bpm maps using 1/1 are going to break this guideline isn't an issue because it will still be up to BNs to assess the viability of that mapping choice.

Probably a good idea to focus on how to reword this proposal because the original post didn't want to completely rework.

In that vein, I'm still more in favor of my wording:

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. An exception can be made if the song's structure would lead to counter intuitive 3/2 rest moments. In this case you can use 3 consecutive 1/1 length rest moments instead as a substitute.

Over Hivie's wording

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer, or at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.

Personally the wording highlighting that it is a substitute conveys that you have a choice and should use your judgement about what is best, as well as the subjectivity of this guideline and it being open to interpretation.

@ikin refer to this as my latest wording revision

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is acceptable if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.

also just saying, I also agree with your wording too, key difference is that mine isn't as assertive, but I'm not completely sure if that's the way forward, so opinions on this matter.

@hivie referred to your latest revision

suggestion

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is ->an acceptable substitute<- if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.

also just saying, I also agree with your wording too, key difference is that mine isn't as assertive, but I'm not completely sure if that's the way forward, so opinions on this matter.

i put little arrows around the thing i changed so u can identify it easily i don't actually want little arrows in the rc.



I don't nessacarily think being slightly assertive in the RC is bad as it is meant to literally tell people what to do, but up to interpretation at this point as both wordings convey the same idea.

ok that's perfect

make sure to include the double quote

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is ->an acceptable substitute<- if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player.

so 2 1/1 rests are not acceptable?

nope, they are not deemed as enough substitute by the majority as they don't lower the density much

The wording looks good to me. I wish 2 1/1 would be allowed but the majority says its not enough so I think people can still stick with it

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

nope, they are not deemed as enough substitute by the majority as they don't lower the density much

i disagree then.

they are acceptable in the current RC if the overall is more forgiving, especially in lower bpm and i agree with that. changing to at least 3 1/1 rests just make the guideline more strict.

igorsprite wrote: 114f6o

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

nope, they are not deemed as enough substitute by the majority as they don't lower the density much

i disagree then.

they are acceptable in the current RC if the overall is more forgiving, especially in lower bpm and i agree with that. changing to at least 3 1/1 rests just make the guideline more strict.

? it's not gonna replace 3/2 breaks, it's going to be an alternative and both will be acceptable. that's not making it more strict

Idealism wrote: 3y2163

? it's not gonna replace 3/2 breaks, it's going to be an alternative and both will be acceptable. that's not making it more strict

but 3 1/1 rests and 2 1/1 rests is already a valid alternative, the proposal of "at least 3 1/1 rests..." just make the usage of 2 1/1 rests more strict.

edit: i can't post again, but just to clarify what i'm saying.


this proposal is unnecessary and misleading because the current RC already accepts these different breaks, despite recommending the usage of 3/2 breaks, and i agree with that because isn't every case that 3 1/1 breaks is valid.

what i see are people creating a problem to propose a solution. you guys are bns and can easily identify if a different break from 3/2 is acceptable for the situation. i guess, at least xd

stating that "Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is an acceptable substitute..." is misleading for mappers because this is a guideline so exceptions can be made depending of the situation and you don't need a guideline for the guideline(you create that by saying that B is a substitute for A imo).

is much better to state that A can be substituted by B, C or D(the current RC) than state that B is a substitute for A, and omit that C or D is a substitute for B(that is substitute for A).

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

3/2 is often an unnatural break due to how more common songs are structured, it can easily break the map's structure and affect music representation negatively when you're basically forced to add a break because of the guideline, and sometimes it can feel like you're just poking holes in your map to satisfy the guideline.

be creative with these breaks and that will not negatively affect your map. btw, newer mappers have more important concerns to deal with than just "where do i put this 3/2 break?" and veteran mappers already know where to put it or how to find an alternative for it.

I have no troubles with current wording either but the thing is, current wording seems to make some people believe only 3/2 breaks are valid. There's been cases already that you either receive a "no 3/2 break, make this (although it will make the map awkward but it doesn't break guideline xd)" or you see an awkward 3/2 break, suggest to use something else and receive a "muh guideline break no thx" as a response.

It's either that, the definition of guideline not good enough for people to understand (I doubt it after all these years), or the guidelines have been enforced that much that people are afraid/unwilling to break them even when it's reasonable, but that's something out of this topic.

Current proposal dismisses the less frequent use of rest moments, which is a common reason to break the guideline. What about just adding an option for the consecutive 1/1 (with whatever you guys agree with the 2 or 3 thing)?


Avoided the "1/1 rest moments" as I think using that term for Muzukashii is a bit weird considering is a common rhythm amongst them.

Since the general consensus seems to agree on 3 1/1 breaks to sub for 3/2, a change like the example ikin & Hivie gave in their posts, can be considered to replace the current Guideline.

"At least 1 rest moment that is 3/2 or longer should be inserted after 16/1 to 20/1 of continuous mapping. Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is ->an acceptable substitute<- if either the pace of the music makes rest moments counter-intuitive or if the continuously mapped part is overall more forgiving to the player."

This will result in a more clear guideline for everyone to follow. Even if the only outcome is a better understanding for newer mappers, that's already something that makes it worth. Trying to get this through soon

If nothing new comes up until tomorrow, the changes mentioned above will be made

igorsprite wrote: 114f6o

this proposal is unnecessary and misleading because the current RC already accepts these different breaks, despite recommending the usage of 3/2 breaks, and i agree with that because isn't every case that 3 1/1 breaks is valid.

Yes but the whole idea of the proposal is clarification, not changing the rules.

igorsprite wrote: 114f6o

what i see are people creating a problem to propose a solution. you guys are bns and can easily identify if a different break from 3/2 is acceptable for the situation. i guess, at least xd

Yes BNs are able to identify suitable replacements, but the point of this proposal is clarification for mappers not for BNs.

igorsprite wrote: 114f6o

stating that "Using at least 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1/1 is an acceptable substitute..." is misleading for mappers because this is a guideline so exceptions can be made depending of the situation and you don't need a guideline for the guideline(you create that by saying that B is a substitute for A imo).

Highlighting that substitutes can be made is a clarification of a commonly used alternative interpretation of the guideline.

igorsprite wrote: 114f6o

be creative with these breaks and that will not negatively affect your map. btw, newer mappers have more important concerns to deal with than just "where do i put this 3/2 break?" and veteran mappers already know where to put it or how to find an alternative for it.

Sure, every problem can be fixed by saying "just map better" but that's not how this works.

The clarification of 3 consecutive 1/1 rest moments is appropriate imo seeing as the RC is for 180bpm maps, of course you can use 2x1/1 if the bpm is lower (although at that point a 1/1 break is probably near enough in length to a 180 3/2 so idk you figure it out).

Merged!