{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n roxorotto<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 70 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed June 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n roxorotto<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-12T23:00:02+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n ikin5050 wrote:<\/h4>suggestion: At least 1 rest moment that is 3\/2 or longer should be inserted after 16\/1 to 20\/1 of continuous mapping.<\/strong> 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<\/strong> instead as a substitute.<\/blockquote>'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.<\/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 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 1,050 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 2022-02-12T23:04:57+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Hivie<\/a> 2022-02-12T23:05:18+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\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 Cynplytholowazy<\/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 364 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Cynplytholowazy<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-12T23:14:52+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/strong> the primary 3\/2 break is not intuitive in the mapas for what is intuitive and what's not, BNs should be able to figure that out themselvesonly 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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Cynplytholowazy<\/a> 2022-02-12T23:16:55+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 hac<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 152 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed July 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n hac<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-12T23:46:57+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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;<\/strong>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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by hac<\/a> 2022-02-12T23:48:11+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n Hi<\/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 Eyenine<\/a>\n\n \n Beatmap Nominator\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 906 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Eyenine<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-13T01:51:10+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Eyenine<\/a> 2022-02-13T01:52:04+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n What do I even write here?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n tadahitotsu<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 678 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2018<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n tadahitotsu<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-13T03:32:36+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n agree with genjuro post - 3\/2 is fine for me, everyone just needed to learn that and after years realise, that its not good :3i'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<\/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 <\/div>\n \n ikin5050<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 587 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n ikin5050<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-13T04:29:36+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n op45667<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 118 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2021<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n op45667<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-13T04:33:50+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n As a mapper, I\u2019d 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\u2019t 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n nice<\/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 9_9<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 43 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2016<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n 9_9<\/a>\n\n \n 2022-02-13T06:04:13+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/em> too long.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by 9_9<\/a> 2022-02-13T06:09:40+00:00<\/time>, edited 3 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3r4n1n