osu-web
osu-web copied to clipboard
ppy
Dedicated beatmap category/flag for tournament maps
One big issue about custom mapping in tournaments is the fact that once created, custom tournament maps end up in the graveyard 99% of the time after they are uploaded.
This essentially removes them from the game as far as a lot of people are concerned, and can be extremely discouraging to the mappers creating them, as each map can sometimes take hundreds of hours or more to create collaboratively. Additionally, said maps are often not viable for Ranked status due to spread rules or other requirements, and making them suitable for Ranked may also involve potentially dozens more hours of work, often viewed as tedious and unnecessary for an otherwise complete top-end gameplay experience.
What I am proposing is the addition of a separate beatmap category similar to how Loved works which allows maps to be flagged as 'Tournament'. This, much like Loved, grants the map a scoreboard and a category. It allows players to compete on these maps and helps validate the time and effort spent by mappers on their creation. That is all it does. It is essentially a reskin of Loved but in with a special tournament marker. For ease of implementation, it could even just be Loved with a special flag set on applicable beatmaps.
The specific rules and criteria for entering this category can be hashed out at a later point in time, but will always include the map having actively been verified as used and played in either a World Cup or an officially supported (ie: badged) tournament.
said maps are often not viable for Ranked status
this is wrong, at least from my experience with dealing with custom mapping and mappooling tournament maps should always abide by ranking criteria excluding spread rules. so if a graveyard map is pooled it is simply because the mapper decided not to go for rank, or to map an entire spread, there should be no difference in quality.
similar to how Loved works
how would this fair with mappers who wish to rank their maps instead? would pp be awarded, since unlike loved tournament maps are always on the safe side (no storyboard gimmicks, messing with .osu file code to break regular mapping etc.)?
officially supported (ie: badged) tournament
there are often maps for smaller community tournaments which tend to be unused by other mappoolers due to the maps simply being lower quality, and due to the general oversaturation of officially supported tournaments (at least in the std scene), this could extremely bloat the category.
i'd propose only accepting maps from World Cups and extreme quality community tours (a simple criteria would be if a tournament was accepted for top 3 badging), or only adding a tag like the Featured Artist tag on maps and leaving the ranked possibility always open for the mapper to decide.
at least from my experience with dealing with custom mapping and mappooling tournament maps should always abide by ranking criteria excluding spread rules
In today's community meeting chat some people were saying that this is true for osu! (the ruleset), but not for the other rulesets (catch examples were given). I'm not very well versed in this topic in general so I'm kind of performing hearsay at this point, but I figure I'd just bring it up for the sake of the conversation.
this is true for osu! (the ruleset), but not for the other rulesets (catch examples were given)
yea unfortunately i'm not well versed with mappooling in non std so i'm not entirely sure about that, it's something i haven't had the time to delve into. i have a feeling however that this is simply due to std being the most developed gamemode (biggest example i can currently think of being OWC having qualifiers an iteration before any other WC) and that over time anything that is viable in tournaments in other gamemodes that is currently not rankable will become acceptable
One big issue about custom mapping in tournaments is the fact that once created, custom tournament maps end up in the graveyard 99% of the time after they are uploaded.
I actually don't see this as much of an issue: to me it feels about as much of a shame as mappers who upload maps and then don't want to rank them because they don't want to get a spread or apply mods - simply being mapped for OWC or similar doesn't amplify this feeling to me.
and can be extremely discouraging to the mappers creating them
I doubt this is true (for standard anyway) considering if they wanted to rank them they could easily get a spread - it really isn't very hard for 99% of maps, maybe for NM6s etc. it's harder
as each map often takes hundreds of hours or more to create
I have never seen this be the case for one map.
My issue with this proposal is that I feel that these maps would almost always be enhanced as a whole with a full ranking spread, and hence the tag may encourage less of these mappers to create one which would deprive certain demographics of content on the same song. I feel like if the maps actually do end up sitting in grave for a while and the mappers have no desire to take them further, then it can just be fast-tracked through Loved status - I feel like this would be better.
I think the marker itself should be applied to all OWC (and other big tourney) custom maps, even ones that get ranked, or ones that stay in grave
I also think that if this marker would result in a leaderboard (which I disagree with) then the standards for it should be a lot higher than any badged tourney considering some customs in badged tourneys are pretty awful. Some custom mappers also end up unsatisfied with their own creations due to having to shoehorn in certain elements or nerf patterns that they didn't want to, compromising their vision for the map, and might not want it to have a leaderboard, and making it automatically have one would seem to overlook this. Maybe it would be exclusive to Perennial/Corsace/OWC/DrenchedProgram/other high status tourneys, which often come with an adequate QA team.
However, in the ideal world where the marker is just used as a recognition stamp for custom maps, I think it would be fine to give it to all badged tourney customs - this could even help the ecosystem of reusing customs in the future as mappoolers would be able to search by that marker (ideally) and hence maps wouldn't get made, played for one week and then never used in a tournament again.
and played
I also disagree with this because less popular slots (e.g. NM6, HD3) may be banned in every match that week or not picked, and yet I'd still consider them to be just as worthy as whatever the others get, considering they went through the same mapping and QA process. Not to mention custom tiebreakers.
said maps are often not viable for Ranked status
this is wrong, at least from my experience with dealing with custom mapping and mappooling tournament maps should always abide by ranking criteria excluding spread rules. so if a graveyard map is pooled it is simply because the mapper decided not to go for rank, or to map an entire spread, there should be no difference in quality.
I'd hesitate to say that all osu!std tournament maps are generally rankable. Using the badged tournament Old Map Fantasy as an example, the whole tournament gimmick is "old" maps, and this often suggests a difference in beatmap "quality" compared to contemporary standards. And while of course quality is a subjective issue, I'd imagine that many people would be against ranking old-style maps, so it at least warrants a discussion about whether or not ALL badged tournament maps are of rankable quality. While I haven't seen any custom OMF maps yet, who's to say that there won't be any in the future, with mappers intentionally designing maps that fit the older style.
Another example is the inclusion of "gimmick" maps in regular tournament pools. The ones I've seen in Corsace/OWC/Perennial all seem to be "rankable" by modern standards, but their mapper application forms have explicitly referenced this 2B map, which is strictly unrankable according to the ranking criteria.
And so I don't think it's safe to say that all badged osu!standard tourney maps will be rankable.
Using the badged tournament Old Map Fantasy as an example
OMF does not use customs other than AR edits, strictly maps from before 2012 if i remember correctly so there will not be any fully custom maps
I'd imagine that many people would be against ranking old-style maps
not at all
their mapper application forms have explicitly referenced this 2B map
standard tournament pools never include 2B maps. i'm not sure if Corsace is planning to experiment with it or something but personally i'm STRICTLY against 2B in tournament pools
And so I don't think it's safe to say that all badged osu!standard tourney maps will be rankable.
depends on what you include under badged std tourneys, since as i mentioned earlier there is a heavy oversaturation currently in std tournaments getting badged
I'd imagine that many people would be against ranking old-style maps
not at all
Regarding this, I can't seem to find any sources where people actually discuss this topic, so I'm going purely off anecdotal memory. However, a very common feature of old-style maps happens to be mis-represented rhythms. I believe that at least there will be people who disagree with this being a rankable feature. (Of course, this isn't to say that ALL old maps are unrankable)
their mapper application forms have explicitly referenced this 2B map
standard tournament pools never include 2B maps. i'm not sure if Corsace is planning to experiment with it or something but personally i'm STRICTLY against 2B in tournament pools
You're right about this. I haven't seen any either, but having them referenced in the mapper applications tells me that at least some very reputable tournament hosts do see a future where they might experiment with 2B.
Like you said though, I do agree that there is an oversaturation of custom tournament maps at the moment. And as you suggested, if a special "custom tournament map" category is introduced, it should only be available to tournaments that are held to a higher standard than the criteria for being badged. I do wonder if DrenchedProgram/Corsace/Perennial is the standard that we should be reaching for, however. These tournaments obtained their high reputation partially due to the monetary budget of the tournaments, among many other factors like reputable staff members and generally higher care put into mappools. I think that this unintentionally paywalls the tournament map category.
There are many high-quality tournament maps made for much smaller tournaments that I think would be deserving of tournament-map-category recognition. And so, I think there should be a better way of determining which custom maps are high quality enough to be deserving of the flag.
I don't really have a proposed solution to all of this, but I just wanted to offer as much insight as I could.
no-one misrepresents rhythms on purpose in a detrimental way in old-style custom maps lol
no-one misrepresents rhythms on purpose in a detrimental way in old-style custom maps lol
exactly this, the "old style" in customs basically means take a 2010 map and fix the rhythm. look at yaspo's Adieu, to this Lively Graveyard, perfect example of an old style custom (which are also not as common in general)
oversaturation of custom tournament maps
from looking for maps to pool i do agree, but my point was for tournaments themselves. there are way too many tournaments accepted for badging but that's a whole separate issue, however i believe it is an issue that has to be overcome if there should be anything decided based on the badging status of a tournament
high reputation partially due to the monetary budget
that's why i proposed a different criteria earlier, namely a tournament being supported for top 3 badging. while currently it may seem that this reduces the tournaments allowed by a lot (only allowing WC, Corsace and EGTS currently, possibly my current tournament as well) it is a very clear method of determining that the people behind the entire badging ordeal have clearly deemed the tournament as an exemplary one, and it also helps with the future as more and more tourneys become eligible for such awards (though there has to be a limit for them, again a whole different topic of discussion however). also more feasible for the people who do not have thousands to dump into the tournament scene like Drenched for example but can still manage great quality tournaments.
The proposal here is for a flair tag, not leaderboards or otherwise. Think of it similar to the "featured artist" tag.
The proposal here is for a flair tag, not leaderboards or otherwise. Think of it similar to the "featured artist" tag.
It went to leaderboards because of the "dedicated beatmap category" in title, which implies leaderboards of sorts. Also there is this in Ephemeral's description
What I am proposing is the addition of a separate beatmap category similar to how Loved works which allows maps to be flagged as 'Tournament'. This, much like Loved, grants the map a scoreboard and a category.
The proposal here is for a flair tag, not leaderboards or otherwise. Think of it similar to the "featured artist" tag.
Leaderboards are a part of the intent with this tag (in order to continue to have people competing on them once their use in a tournament has passed), but could also be replicated by just adding the maps to Loved with said tag at a basic level, I suppose.
A few people have mentioned that the category/tag could also potentially force ScoreV2 in order to replicate the most intended experience for them, though this could limit its use on maps that are already Ranked.
Leaderboards are out of question for a new category. Wait for playlists or otherwise for that. Or rewrite the loved criteria for whatever.
I don't know about other modes, but I can confirm that in Mania a "tournament" flair flag wouldn't be of much use because:
- Tournament charts aren't inherently different from other type of charting
- Whether a chart is suitable for tournaments is subjective and it's something that evolves over time
- Most stuff that is used in tournaments can get ranked without issue. Only exemption is red line SVs, and that's already being dealt with.
In Mania the effort has had the direction of "let's try to improve the ranked RC reqs so good tournaments charts can have a more comfortable path to achieve ranked" (RC changes for spread criteria, hitsounds) instead of forcing any type of arbitrary category flair onto them.
While I haven't seen any custom OMF maps yet, who's to say that there won't be any in the future, with mappers intentionally designing maps that fit the older style.
Me, I can say it OMF is based on date, not "style", the only thing we do are custom edits to fix some stuff like unsnapped note / no hitsounds / timing issue
I suppose a tag in the same manner as how Featured Artist works will suffice, and we can just co-opt Loved for the same use with policy.
What I am proposing is the addition of a separate beatmap category similar to how Loved works which allows maps to be flagged as 'Tournament'.
The map which flagged as 'Tournament' should be on the same state as it used during tournament so other player can experience the same thing as tournament player play. If the mapper want to create rank beatmapset, it can be separate into different beatmap page or same beatmap page but the tournament diff stay the same and the "revision" of it can be together.
should be on the same state as it used during tournament
if drastic changes are made (like a full remap) then that's understandable, however most of the time mappers will not do any changes that alter the main purpose of the map in the tournament and maps always remain viable in tournament setting. maps should almost always hold the tournament flair, as long as drastic changes aren't made when going for ranked for example. reviews can be done case by case and usually members of the NAT are involved with ranking such maps due to interest and quality of such (biggest names that come to mind are UberFazz, Uberzolik and AJT, the latter of which even has a preference for tournament maps for BN matters) so there should be no issue with upholding this task.
Leaderboards are out of question for a new category. Wait for playlists or otherwise for that. Or rewrite the loved criteria for whatever.
To clarify, you are in support of adding a Tournaments tag & search similar to how Featured Artist tags work presently, and letting us handle the rest via Loved policy and the like?
pls don't mix in Loved with this, it's difficult as-is to present Loved in an understandable way with the site's current features because of similar misuse in the past. at a technical level I also have to make exceptions in the tools because quite a few maps are completely unrelated to Loved but were pushed onto it out of convenience, e.g. previously-ranked TAG & aspire winners. pointing out the obvious, a map being created for a tournament does not imply that it's "loved"
say you want to use Loved for ease of implementation, but address the above concerns. you'd have to distinguish the tournament maps from the rest of Loved wherever it's relevant: beatmap cards, search results, the in-game banner message, API results... now you've re-invented most features of categories except more confusing.
assuming a new category won't happen, I also don't follow why this is proposed as a tack-on to Loved instead of Ranked when that's clearly the closer category in purpose. the only legit counterargument I see to making all these maps Ranked here is that they usually break RC; if a map is acceptable for tournament play and held to higher standards anyway, doesn't it just mean that RC doesn't properly reflect what people find important in promoting & leaderboarding maps?
assuming a new category won't happen, I also don't follow why this is proposed as a tack-on to Loved instead of Ranked when that's clearly the closer category in purpose. the only legit counterargument I see to making all these maps Ranked here is that they usually break RC; if a map is acceptable for tournament play and held to higher standards anyway, doesn't it just mean that RC doesn't properly reflect what people find important in promoting & leaderboarding maps?
well, the full spread is reasonable for ranked section when it's not really needed for tournament purposes, and it's the biggest thing here (at least for osu! gamemode)
I'm unsure how receptive things will be to relaxing the spread rules in Ranked for one specific category of maps. I suppose we could petition and see. Loved is certainly the easier of the two to move forward with, though.
EDIT: Some discussion has raised an interesting point - is there anything stopping us using Approved for this? It is not currently being utilized any other way and to my knowledge, should provide a scoreboard at the minimum with no further osu-stable changes needed. In some ways, it sounds ideal.
For Mania I can ensure there's not a 1:1 correlation between tournament maps and rankability nor with loveability, based on the current standards.
Imo simply a tag would suffice for us regarding labelling of tournaments maps, though as I said previously, what is considered and whats isn't a tournament-viable chart changes rapidly on the mode. Not too confident that giving leaderboards based on the fact that a chart is tournament-viable is a good idea for Mania in particular. I can bet this may happen to other modes, so perhaps it could be on a per-mode basis?
Just as a description of the current "fate" of popular tournament charts: since the Mania RC changes, most of them can achieve ranked with no or very little changes/spreading diffs, and those which simply cant yet (maps that use red line SVs) are generally very popular niche charts that end up into loved due to sheer popularity.
is there anything stopping us using Approved for this?
that it's unrelated to Approved, confusing to label the maps as such, makes a search like "status=approved ranked<2021" or w/e the only way to find actually-Approved maps, re-creates the same issues Loved category has now
fwiw I'm not saying using Ranked in the same way is a good idea either, just didn't see why Loved was jumped on as a first option. this proposal would be best handled as a new category imo but that's apparently "out of question"
Put it this way: I'd sooner add leaderboards to every pending beatmap than make new "leaderboard" categories. Nowhere in this original discussion was leaderboards mentioned (during the meeting when this was proposed and agreed on).
Half of the problem of the sets dying after upload in the first place is no public space for people to openly compete on them after their time in the tournament has passed. A tag without some provisions for leaderboards would still be useful, but I think a big allure of this suggestion from the custom mapping perspective is the ability for them to have their maps receive both recognition and competition in the first place.
Should I take this as a signal to pivot towards discussing provisions for spread rule exemptions in Ranked? That comes with its own issues which will need considerable thought.
is there anything stopping us using Approved for this?
that it's unrelated to Approved, confusing to label the maps as such, makes a search like "status=approved ranked<2021" or w/e the only way to find actually-Approved maps, re-creates the same issues Loved category has now
fwiw I'm not saying using Ranked in the same way is a good idea either, just didn't see why Loved was jumped on as a first option. this proposal would be best handled as a new category imo but that's apparently "out of question"
but "approved" seems like a perfect descriptor for such maps, and isn't wildly different to what the section was previously for? It seems better than ranked/loved personally because I still kind of disagree that badged tourney custom maps should be able to be in the same section as other ranked maps (that might be better than them) whilst getting to ignore spread requirements.
Put it this way: I'd sooner add leaderboards to every pending beatmap than make new "leaderboard" categories. Nowhere in this original discussion was leaderboards mentioned (during the meeting when this was proposed and agreed on).
Could I ask why this is your stance?
We're not adding new leaderboard categories because systems are changing and I don't want to make the existing stagnant ranking format any more complex/convoluted than it already is.
Is there a reason the new playlists system doesn't cover such use cases? There are already users making tournament pools on it.
The presently limited scope of players accessing playlists makes them a "lesser" option compared to any of the three solutions spitballed so far, to put it shortly. At least as far as I can discern.
We could also do the playlist stuff concurrently, but there is a definite appetite from the custom mapper side of things at least to have those maps made immediately competitively playable in a way that at least accommodates for how the overwhelming majority of users play the game currently - aka, via stable and the website.
As mentioned previously, if Approved is capable of being used for this without breaking anything, it's probably the best fit there is currently, otherwise we'll have to pursue some kind of exception to spread rules to make this happen.
Can we drop this term "custom mapper"? There's nothing "custom" about this right? It'd just a commissioned beatmap?
Approved is not to be used. We don't use it any more. It will likely eventually be migrated into another category.