| 28 posts | Jump | 1 2 |
|
|
If You Didn't Care If It Gets Ranked Then Why Did You Stop It From Being Ranked
you can have this conversation in a more productive manner elsewhere it/its only
|
|
|
Discussion is currently being made in the BAT channel, however this map will not be ranked until we decide what we are doing going forward. |
|
|
how about include everyone else who gives a fuck about maps on here since clearly not every active Titanic user who cares about this shit is a BAT
it/its only
|
|
|
BATs / BNs are expected to be the ones to uphold the quality standards of what a ranked map is on their servers. Just as it as on Bancho, we do not allow the general player base to dictate what a ranked map should be. I also believe it's the job of the staff of the server to decide it's future. We are not Bancho, players can choose to leave if they do not like the direction we choose.
This system has been tried before for allowing generally players to pick maps for leaderboards (such as maps with 500 favorites being loved in 2016 on Bancho), but most of these systems created issues where maps of low quality were pushed into the ranking system. In the past we held a vote asking if players wanted 2015 maps on Titanic, and the majority of players voted yes. I am hoping that the BAT team will become aligned with players on this. However players also want 2016 clients, defeating much of the purpose of a nostalgia, classic styled server. So we should not blindly follow players for what they want. Again we are trying to be a specific styled server, not Bancho. |
|
|
even for ranking criteria or direction changes are publicly discussed on the forums for osu, there are no private circlejerk discussions deciding massive changes without EVERYONE involved in the system being informed
it/its only
|
|
|
you can decide whatever the fuck you want, I just want to be involved in that discussion because it matters to me. this is ALSO how it works on Bancho, they include everyone in the discussion for massive system changes but decide it usually internally
it/its only
|
|
|
I understand your concerns about our proposed changes being completely hidden to all players. Please allow us to first write the points addressed in the vote we are proposing, before asking us to make everything public. This will not be resolved in a day, and we will present our intended changes before holding any vote. The vote will still be among BATs, and possibly other staff members. We will write the draft, present the draft, allow discussions, then vote on the draft. Similar to recent proposal change votes on bancho, such as here https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/1894663?n=1 |
|
Combo Commander
463 posts
|
seeing what bns are ranking (not only this map) feeling like it's personal preference in nomination. we have maps like: kimi no kioku (freestyle consistency map from 2016) look at me tenderly (another stream consistency map from 2014 but with a bit modern patterning as i feel from playing it) rainbow dash (remap of approved rainbow dash that uses a bit modern patterning because it's… uhh… 2022 map? :thinking:) happy end of the world oh yeah look at this pretty 2016 map that was mapped after 2015! honestly, i would spend as many time as i can to search all questionable maps. but i will spend it on any hobby i like :) but yeah, think about it |
|
|
look at me tenderly was remapped in 2025 as a modern map
it/its only
|
|
|
This is missing the point, BATs specifically wanted a system where they could pick and choose maps from later eras, but exclude farm maps. I vetoed because this map went against the system they voted for. As a BAT Manager it's part of my job to make sure that nominations meet our system agreements we vote for. |
|
Completionist
61 posts
|
Apologies for pitching in a little late. I think this is a good map and there would be no problem with it being on Titanic, and I don’t particularly feel we have any “farm map problem” currently. I was actually surprised just the other day that this map wasn’t ranked, because it would fit right in and felt so obvious to me, knowing nothing of this thread.
But I do think in light of the discussion here that it may eventually be necessary to have a ranking criteria when it comes to “pp maps” that is as objective as possible. If you did end up ranking all 2015 maps for instance, but then denied similar maps because “farm”, there wouldn’t be any consistency in which maps are accepted here. I think that could lead to problems later on. My temperament definitely naturally leans towards “listen to the players.” However, what I’ve observed from Bancho is that players are going to push for whatever change gives them PP, even when it harms the game in the long term. You have plenty of time to come to a decision on where Titanic goes into the future and how you will deal with these issues, but it’s very difficult to walk a decision back. I wouldn’t be in any rush. That being said, I’m not sure how I feel about holding up a “hype moment”, a milestone on an obviously high quality map that just happens to give PP, because of disagreements like this. There is no reason to veto this map, and the veto could lead to a rushed decision when the team should be taking their time. When I think of “farm maps ruining Titanic”, this type of map is definitely not what comes to mind. I doubt it did for any of the team either, when they voted on the policy. Refine the policy, but not like this.
Last edited by Koishi
2 days ago, edited 5 times in total.
|
|
|
kind of hard to objectively quantify something like "pp maps" when comfiness of a map is subjective and basically just vibes
ideal would be for that to have no factor in the ranking process so that we can just, yknow, focus on pushing old styled maps ⊹₊ ˚‧︵‿₊୨ RAVE!!!!! ୧₊‿︵‧ ˚ ₊⊹
|
|
|
pp is also constantly changing so defining what is acceptable and what is not based on a system getting an extremely massive rework next month or so leads to shaky arguments at best
it/its only
|
| 28 posts | Jump | 1 2 |
