{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Nao Tomori<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3,078 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nao Tomori<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T03:31:08+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I think 3x1\/1 as definitely ok and 2x1\/1 as a \"well it's an intense part so it's more continuously mapped but not too straining\" solution is fine. I making the rule 3x1\/1 and generally allowing 2x1\/1 in intense parts.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Jerry<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,159 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2010<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Jerry<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T06:02:44+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n The allowance of having consecutive 1\/1 breaks in place of 3\/2 has already been quite common among several ranked maps so having it included in the guidelines themselves should be a good step forward. Also big agree with everything Nao mentioned above.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Tyistiana<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 541 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2012<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Tyistiana<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T06:06:26+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n In short: I agree with some ideas of the proposal, but not fully agree with the proposal.It is true that the wording \"Using rest moments less frequently is acceptable\" is pretty vague to the point that whoever that reading this for the first time will not be able to figure that the consecutive 1\/1 pattern is one of the acceptable alternatives. Some clarification would be nice indeed.However, as stated by various people here already, I believe that 2x1\/1 would be sufficient to always acted as a proper substitute rest moment. Imagine that we have 5 minutes map, Muzukashii difficulty without 3\/2 rest moment anywhere but only 2x1\/1. That would make that Muzukashii difficulty become heavily closed to Oni difficulty which the guidelines suggested the mapper to apply 1x1\/1 rest moment, while being a lot far from Muzukashii which apply 1x2\/1 rest moment.My suggestion is to keep the current guideline as it is, but add one more paragraph for it. Like this:Ranking Criteria - Muzukashii difficulty wrote:<\/h4>At least 1 rest moment that is 3\/2 or longer should be inserted after 16\/1 to 20\/1 of continuous mapping.<\/strong> 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.Or alternatively,At least 1 rest moment that is 3 consecutive rest moments that are 1\/1 or longer should be inserted after 16\/1 to 20\/1 of continuous mapping.<\/strong> This can not be applied for longer than 64\/1 continuity of 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.<\/blockquote>This wording expected to let the mapping become like this:(*The number 64\/1 could be discussed later if we want to proceed with my proposal. In maximum, this could goes to 128\/1 in my opinion.)Q: What is the difference between Hivie's proposal and my proposal?A: 2x1\/1 changed to 3x1\/1, and set the limitation of the maximum continuity of mapping that 3x1\/1 can be applied.Q: God, why this limitation?A: To balance the difficulty strain between Futsuu - Muzukashii - Oni. Since the strain from 3x1\/1 or 2x1\/1 is approximately closer to Oni difficulty (1x1\/1) and while being too far from Futsuu (1x2\/1). A mix of use between consecutive 1\/1 rest moment and 3\/2 rest moment should be made. And in the end, neither 2x1\/1 or 3x1\/1 can reduce the strain of mapping like 3\/2 or longer.Q: Why the limitation has been set to 64\/1 continuity of mapping?A: I found that in most of the music, kiai or chorus would run for 64\/1. I believe that it's possible for the mapper to find 3\/2 gap or longer before\/after the kiai\/chorus. 64\/1 is usually a measure for \"one whole section of the music\" as well. The complete absence of 3\/2 rest moment or longer would potentially affected the strain of the difficulty, especially for the longer beatmap (>3 mins map).Q: With your proposal, can't I use 1x2\/1 as a substitute rest moment anymore?A: No, you can still use it for the \"intense part of the music\" - and it would be up to BN and NAT discretion to judge that if it's fair or not - like usual.-----In the end, this sounds complex. But, I personally believe that if we want to stated the usage of consecutive 1\/1 rest moment into the Ranking Criteria, this may be the best option in my opinion.I may sounds absurd here. But, what do your guys think about this?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Nifty<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 898 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed September 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nifty<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T06:47:29+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I think people may be taking this too literally. It's a guideline, not a rule, so altering it is merely altering what is suggested. Allowing something lenience doesn't mean everyone will start mapping entire songs with no breaks over 1\/1 whatsoever, it just is clarifying what we should (and have been) doing in maps for a while; that is, we use breaks to indicate sections of music, and that you don't need to fit in exact 3\/2 breaks all the time. It should go without saying that BNs are still responsible for deciding what goes and what doesn't, and most likely will not be letting into ranked anything that abuses the guideline change. I don't think Tyistiana's modification as far as the 64\/1 part goes is necessary as anybody who is capable of ranking maps should have shown enough understanding of music to know that, and it also reinforcing the beat counting that is integral to the initial issue being raised (forcing breaks where they do not fit). Again, it's a guideline, so creating another limit to how many beats something can go for seems unnecessary. The existing 16\/1 to 20\/1 part of the guidelines is already constantly ignored or misapplied, but that another proposal in itself. Also, do you seriously expect people to count to 64\/1? (I know it's 16 measures but when you write it like that it seems a bit sadistic)People are seeming to act like people are not modding maps by quoting the 3\/2 break and 20\/1 guidelines, but a BN referenced this specific guideline when modding my map today. I have come across dozens, if not hundreds of mod points over the years that have caused a muzukashii to include terrible, forced, exact 3\/2 breaks. The statement of \"this isn't something that happens,\" is thus, ignorance.I agree (well, maybe not) with the 3 1\/1 change, but honestly, I don't see why it would be necessary. The difference between 2 1\/1 and 3 1\/1 really doesn't seem like that much, or at least doesn't provide anything more than the 2 1\/1 does. I also think making it 3 1\/1 may just leave people to forcing that instead, but honestly, if someone is using 2 1\/1, they can probably fit 3 1\/1 as well, so that's why (I think) I it.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Nifty<\/a> 2021-05-17T07:00:43+00:00<\/time>, edited 4 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Tyistiana<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 541 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2012<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Tyistiana<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T07:14:42+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Guidelines should be treated almost as same as the rules. Only the **exceptional** cases that could violate the guideline. Guidelines should be a thing that mapper must keep in mind seriously as well. Sadly, with the presence of this guideline and possibly how outdated it is, people tend to almost forgot that we have to take guidelines seriously as well.I believe that BN won't let it even this 64\/1 thing hasn't been stated on the Ranking Criteria. However, a gap in wording could allow the mapper to abuse it. The current Hivie's proposal wording allowed the mapper to map Muzukashii without 3\/2 rest moment or longer at all for the entire difficulty. As said, with current wording, the mapper can tell BN like \"Hey now since three consecutive 1\/1 is allowed in the same fashion of 3\/2 so I don't have to use 3\/2 anymore for my 4 minutes Muzukashii\" - and that's valid from the current wording. And thus, BN and NAT would not be able to argue with that.Yes, \"who is capable of ranking maps should have shown enough understanding of music to know that\". But not for \"a newbie mapper who just read RC for the first time\". The Ranking Criteria should be written in a way that newbie could understand that concept as well. It would be better to describe it in a deep detail, or leave it vague like the current guideline (which is thing that we don't want here).It's true that in the end, it's BNs and NATs that hold their decision that which is acceptable or not, but it would be better to describe how BNs and NATs judge it.We don't have to go with my proposal, but I just want to point out that the current proposal have some flaws that could be potentially abused.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n DakeDekaane<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3,500 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2012<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n DakeDekaane<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T07:34:26+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Tyistiana wrote:<\/h4>However, as stated by various people here already, I believe that 2x1\/1 would be sufficient to always acted as a proper substitute rest moment. Imagine that we have 5 minutes map, Muzukashii difficulty without 3\/2 rest moment anywhere but only 2x1\/1. That would make that Muzukashii difficulty become heavily closed to Oni difficulty which the guidelines suggested the mapper to apply 1x1\/1 rest moment, while being a lot far from Muzukashii which apply 1x2\/1 rest moment.<\/blockquote>I'm a bit confused, would the 2 x 1\/1 be sufficient or not? The second part of the paragraph makes me thing you don't believe it is.If that's the case, maybe I'm putting much of my trust in BNs capabilities, but they should be able to discern when to use 3\/2, 1\/1 twice, thrice or whatever rest moment is appropriate for the map if there's a concerning case of continuous mapping, they should be capable of more than just quoting the RC guideline and call it a day. The same can be said for cases where Muzukashii is closer to Oni, the guideline modification won't make Muzukashii harder in any way.However I agree with the part about adding a rest moment every 64\/1, not 3\/2 but 2\/1 or larger. I believe this is more than enough to cover songs with consecutive\/continuoys rhythms like breakcore and many more electronic subgenres. Being honest I wouldn't like to add this, but I cannot think of another compromise to avoid continuous mapping with the proposed modification.So I'd propose two new guidelines regarding this: one modifying the current one from 3\/2 to 2 consecutive 1\/1 each 20\/1 and another for the 2\/1 or larger each 64\/1. One for each case to avoid cramping all of these in one, making it easier to understand.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Please mod\/nom: Aoi - c.s.q.n.<\/a> | Fuki - Zekkai no Juliet<\/a>. I have cookies! ;w;<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Hivie<\/a>\n\n \n osu!taiko Paragon\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n\n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,051 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Topic Starter\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Hivie<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T09:21:38+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \ua4b0\u2022 \u032b \u2022\ua4b1<\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Raiden<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 2,419 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Raiden<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T09:46:12+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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 explanatorymaking 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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Raiden<\/a> 2021-05-17T09:52:45+00:00<\/time>, edited 2 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/center>Taiko Ranking Criteria<\/a> || Taiko BNG\/QAT list<\/a><\/center><\/div><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n 165x6v