{"content":"\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 Capu<\/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 351 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Capu<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-17T12:37:29+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Cychloryn<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 151 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed August 2015<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Cychloryn<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-05-18T06:57:16+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/strong> 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Cychloryn<\/a> 2021-05-18T07:05:47+00:00<\/time>, edited 6 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n Deleted_6637817\n <\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Deleted_6637817<\/span>\n\n \n 2021-05-21T04:45:08+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/a> 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<\/a>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.<\/strong>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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Deleted_6637817<\/span> 2021-05-21T04:48:59+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n scrawrlet<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 339 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed July 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n scrawrlet<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-06-15T22:35:16+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n i agree with this!! im mapping the song occhocorestless<\/strong> which doesnt exaclt 3\/2<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n sincerely sorry for the brain damage caused by what you might've read if it was posted before 2025<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n SilentWuffer<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 293 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2017<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n SilentWuffer<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-06-18T20:12:29+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/span>opinion<\/a>Why I'm for this: as others have stated before, in taiko it's quite difficult to integrate a 3\/2 break into the map as taiko mapping (especially muzukashii) is generally centered around 1\/1 and 1\/2 rhythms. having a sudden 3\/2 break could make the player and less experienced modders believe its a misrepresentation of the song. Allowing an alternative as 2 consecutive 1\/1 rhythms is much more flexible and allows mappers to more closely represent the music.Why I'm against this: Similarly, as others have said, this could be exploited to use only the consecutive 1\/1 breaks, therefore making the map harder than intended. Players at a muzukashii level would benefit and recover more from a 3\/2 break than 2 consecitive 1\/1 breaks.[\\box]<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I have incredible amounts of skill issue<\/strong><\/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 Alchyr<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 507 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed October 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Alchyr<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-06-21T09:39:30+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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\".<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n e<\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n SilentWuffer<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 293 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2017<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n SilentWuffer<\/a>\n\n \n 2021-06-21T16:05:51+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Alchyr wrote:<\/h4>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.<\/blockquote>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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I have incredible amounts of skill issue<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n 0gg<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n 5f613s