THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAZYNESS WHY IS LAZYNESS A COUNTERARGUMENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY IN OF THE BEATMAP RANKING PROCESS LOWER DIFFS ARE NOT GOING TO DISSAPEAR FROM EXISTENCE
why else do u think that nobody is making 2-3 minute 8-9* spreads anymore? because mappers cannot be bothered to make them and host them in the first placeBastian wrote: 6b2g6b
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAZYNESS WHY IS LAZYNESS A COUNTERARGUMENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY IN OF THE BEATMAP RANKING PROCESS LOWER DIFFS ARE NOT GOING TO DISSAPEAR FROM EXISTENCE
Yes… but playing those difficulties as a rain level player isn’t enjoyable. Because the play will end up in the garbage. Less experienced players will make more mistakes, gets compounded over longer drain times. Miss ONCE, your play is cookedHareimu wrote: 226h9
might i kindly point you towards the absolute entirety of 5 minute long rains available today?tatatat wrote: 3i245q
edit: As a player I would love to play rain marathons, if the gamemode actually ed it.
iscariot no sakebi, paranoid lost, go 4 it, i could go on
complain about that to the people handling the pp system then, not to us lmfaotatatat wrote: 3i245q
Yes… but playing those difficulties as a rain level player isn’t enjoyable. Because the play will end up in the garbage. Less experienced players will make more mistakes, gets compounded over longer drain times. Miss ONCE, your play is cooked
You brought it up 🤷♂️ I believe thats the reason why engagement is low for those types of maps.Hareimu wrote: 226h9
why are people catastrophizing and playing ignorance to the current state so badly
complain about that to the people handling the pp system then, not to us lmfaotatatat wrote: 3i245q
Yes… but playing those difficulties as a rain level player isn’t enjoyable. Because the play will end up in the garbage. Less experienced players will make more mistakes, gets compounded over longer drain times. Miss ONCE, your play is cooked
what does that have to do with the proposal
But this has nothing to do with this proposal then? Are you saying we shouldn't rank any low difficulty marathons because no one at that level can consistently play that difficulty for too long anyways? Doesn't this proposal only help this argument because "now those maps aren't made"?tatatat wrote: 3i245q
Yes… but playing those difficulties as a rain level player isn’t enjoyable. Because the play will end up in the garbage. Less experienced players will make more mistakes, gets compounded over longer drain times. Miss ONCE, your play is cookedHareimu wrote: 226h9
might i kindly point you towards the absolute entirety of 5 minute long rains available today?tatatat wrote: 3i245q
edit: As a player I would love to play rain marathons, if the gamemode actually ed it.
iscariot no sakebi, paranoid lost, go 4 it, i could go on
and that equates to the gamemode not ing longer rains how...?tatatat wrote: 3i245q
You brought it up 🤷♂️ I believe thats the reason why engagement is low for those types of maps.
I don't think converts between one gamemode and another fully come to be relevant to this because then a similar argument can be made for standard converts into osu!mania, and trust me newer mania players dont get started on the game by playing convertsGiGas wrote: 3hcq
Unlike osu!standard, osu!catch can get lower difficulties from converts, so if players want to learn the game, “not having lower diffs” will not be a problem. There are already plenty of lower diffs in this game that accumulated since 2013, and most ctb players will agree that in order to learn basic dash control and platter control, converts do a better job than most cups and salads.
When you put it this way, yes there is not much short content for high level players. If the intention of this proposal is specifically to cater towards those players, then it is a success. I just don't think that is a healthy direction to take for the community. Grow, not retain. But I've said my point, I'll make my peace.Trent wrote: 3mz4m
To those saying there will be less star-rated difficulties; let's do some calculations!
I have 99%-100% of ranked catch maps, so I will be using "~" since I'm not claiming it to be 100% accurate due to osu being weird with it's database showing maps. However, it's probably 99.9% accurate nonetheless.
Now that I have that out of the way, here are the numbers.
Below 1 Star: 32~
1 Star: 1,603~
2 Stars: 1,989~
3 Stars: 1,608~
4 Stars: 1,503~
5 Stars: 1,079~
6 Stars: 473~
7 Stars: 166~
8 Stars: 63~
9 Stars: 24~
10 Stars: 6~
11 Stars: 1~
Total ranked maps: 8,547~
Now, there are 7,814~ ranked maps that are 5.99 stars or LESS, ing for 91.4%~ of all ranked maps.
This means that generally speaking, you can play all the way up to beginner overdose maps being 5 stars and you have 91% of the content of the ranked map section.
Want to play 6 stars and above? Now you can only play 8.6% of the total ranked section.
6 star maps generally give you 400 - 699~ pp, depending on drain time and if it's closer to 7 stars.
Want to be a top 100 player? You basically play 7 stars or above; more often than not, more like 7.5 and above. For simplicity sake though, let's just go with 7 stars.
That totals to 262~ ranked beatmaps in total; equating to a THREE PERCENT.
3%.~
Let's now do some more calculations. Let us now include the parameter "length<=210" meaning, all songs now shown are going to be 3 minutes and 30 seconds or less.
We will also show the percentage difference from the total number.
Below 1 Star: 31~; -3%~
1 Star: 1,542~; -4%~
2 Stars: 1,854~; -7%~
3 Stars: 1,349~; -16%~
4 Stars: 1,173~; -22%~
5 Stars: 756~; -30%~
6 Stars: 256~; -46%~
7 Stars: 68~; -61%~
8 Stars: 13~; -80%~
9 Stars: 9~; -62%~
10 Stars: 2~; -66%~
11 Stars: 0~; -100%~
So what does this tell us? the numbers show the second we get to 7 stars and above, on average, you lose about 73.8% of maps, and if we take out the one 11 star map, you lose about 67.25% of maps on average.
What is 67% of 262? 175 beatmaps lost, bringing that grand total of maps of 7 stars and above that are less than 3 minutes and 30 seconds long to 87 beatmaps!
Wow. 87 beatmaps, (well 87 - the one 11 star so 86). There are literally less than 100 beatmaps that are shorter than 3 and half minutes. Sounds like a lot of fun to farm in the endgame ranked section!
All this to say, this is why there needs to be a change. There is a a MASSIVE disparity between the amount of ranked maps of higher star rating beatmaps and 5 star and lower.
+1.
edit: 7 stars and above that are equal or less than 3:30 have 92 in total.
this + other rarely ranked "tourney skillset" maps really if for some reason these is what holds those maps from getting ranked in first place, had some people that said to me on multi "why is these on tourneys theres barely any map with this skillset on ranked"amni dt wrote: 246z55
also as a player i don't care how it is achieved, but i'd love to see more maps in that range as the 2min or 5min nm gacha is getting annoying
Even if it does end up reducing the easy difficulties in new maps, we could solve it outside the ranking criteria: like automatically adding "star<4" in the beatmap listings until the player has ed a 4*.Secre wrote: 15w2f
Cons:
- Less lower SR maps. This is probably the biggest, and really only con that I could think of. Except I believe that the impact will be alot more negligible than people think. This was also the same con that people thought of with the previous RC change. How did that turn out? In a large majority of cases, instead of opting to "not make spreads" anymore, I believe we ended up with a net positive of maps, aswell as overall higher quality lower difficulties especially in the platter-rain area. We ended up filling a pretty large gap of 2-4 minute platter/rains, by the fact that they too were also allowed to be ranked as their own difficulties.
You don't know what is a good direction for the community. Your take is so bad and clueless but, you say it with such confidence that it's concerning.tatatat wrote: 3i245q
When you put it this way, yes there is not much short content for high level players. If the intention of this proposal is specifically to cater towards those players, then it is a success. I just don't think that is a healthy direction to take for the community. Grow, not retain. But I've said my point, I'll make my peace.
u came back like yesterday please consider reading about catch to jog ur memory again before u act like the dictatorHareimu wrote: 226h9
if you have anything more helpful to contribute beyond malding at secre's general direction bc you dont like him then we'll be here, until then i invite you to refrain from being an ass for the sake of it, tyBIG H ZONDA KIT wrote: 3y6b3y
u guys are hopeless
this guy really thinks i completely quit the game and dont keep in touch with the people involved with the things that happen in my absenceBIG H ZONDA KIT wrote: 3y6b3y
u came back like yesterday please consider reading about catch to jog ur memory again before u act like the dictator
quit the chatgpt responses and get real
Note that the proposal requires the current spread requirements OR the new addition. Those kind of songs you mention would still follow the traditional requirement.Ambrew wrote: 6w81g
contain a proper spread, yes. at least x amount of difficulties, no. that puts too much constraint on songs that simply do not that amount of SR variety such as low BPM songs or short-length (~30 second) songs. so imo as long as it's a spread that is deemed reasonable by the community/BNs/NATs then that's all.
Ah I see, perhaps I misunderstood. Then I think it's fine.ZiRoX wrote: 1g5x4h
Note that the proposal requires the current spread requirements OR the new addition. Those kind of songs you mention would still follow the traditional requirement.Ambrew wrote: 6w81g
contain a proper spread, yes. at least x amount of difficulties, no. that puts too much constraint on songs that simply do not that amount of SR variety such as low BPM songs or short-length (~30 second) songs. so imo as long as it's a spread that is deemed reasonable by the community/BNs/NATs then that's all.