Index » Beatmaps » Mapping Discussion » Ranking Criteria Rule Change Proposal

Me and the other BATm have been working on rule change proposals for Titanic going forward when it comes to ranking maps on our server.
Our goal is not only to streamline the process of ranking maps, but also to flesh out and explain our rules. This should reduce confusion for both BATs and users alike. Lastly, it's our goal to remove certain aspects of subjectivity from ranking maps, as well as adding maps that players want to the server, within the constraints of being a server based around the end of 2015.

We have a total of 8 proposals that go over what maps will be offered on Titanic automatically, what maps can be requested going forward, and rules around applying for BAT applications!

Linked below is a Google Doc which goes over our proposals. The goal of this thread is to share them publicly, get feedback on how they can be improved, and discuss the pros and cons of them over the next twoish weeks (until May 3rd, 2026 at 0 UTC).

After that, BATs and Titanic Admins will have 1 week to vote on all the proposals, with either a yes or no vote. Any BAT who does not vote will be kicked for inactivity, as this is the largest rule change proposal in Titanic's history, if you are missing this what are you even doing. Unlike in the past voting will be anonymous, and after the 1 week voting period, the results will be shared in this thread.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N3vOILgl_mL9vOTLUHVt55liAN9Y8uj1o9JNTuYSwew/edit?usp=sharing

Hopefully the result of these votes will allow more content on Titanic not only in number, but also in variety while maintaining being a snapshot of osu!'s history, and having the room to make our own history as we move forward!

After reading whole document when it comes to proposed changes I wanted to say something with chill and loose thoughts when it comes to it:










I think that's all

i was under the impression that #7 was already the case since it is on bancho lolz

laurafied wrote:

i was under the impression that #7 was already the case since it is on bancho lolz

This is fair, but that way we worded it implied otherwise, so I figured just make it a proposal haha

I have a question about proposal 5, it says "Block 1K, 2K, 3K, and 9K maps from being ranked in BSS"
It doesnt mention 10K+ would those still be rankable?

10k would be unrankable too, let me add that to the list my bad

you've now written "Block 1K, 2K, 3K, 9K, and 10K maps from being ranked in BSS" but still not adressed keycounts like 12k 14k 16k and 18k, though those are currently mentioned in the current ranking criteria, i think its bessed to just sum it up as: anything above 8K and below 4K should be unrankable :p
its best to be quite specific imo, even though hearing "9k and 10k are unrankable" should theoretically mean anything above 10 as well would be unrankable, having it actually be written is better than just having it be indirect

xXxGAM3RPROxXx wrote:

you've now written "Block 1K, 2K, 3K, 9K, and 10K maps from being ranked in BSS" but still not adressed keycounts like 12k 14k 16k and 18k, though those are currently mentioned in the current ranking criteria, i think its bessed to just sum it up as: anything above 8K and below 4K should be unrankable :p
its best to be quite specific imo, even though hearing "9k and 10k are unrankable" should theoretically mean anything above 10 as well would be unrankable, having it actually be written is better than just having it be indirect

I thought that was self explanatory since those key mods were not rankable in 2015, but you are right, I'll make it more specific

I will try my best to review these proposals.

Proposal 1: I feel like this is something Titanic has needed for awhile now since there are still a few maps that aren't ranked on Titanic yet within that time period, this would be good.

Proposal 2: No.

Proposal 3: As an osu!taiko player, adding in modern maps would cause issues within older clients and would require maps with SV to be looked into heavily before ranking. osu!taiko mapping shortly after 2016 was much more… odd, in a way? Would this allow loved maps as well? This seems like an extremely great idea in short, but feels like it could cause more issues than fix issues.

Proposal 4: Yes.

Proposal 5: No comment, not a Mania player.

Proposal 6: This feels like it's wrong. Someone who's really good at what they do shouldn't be relied on kudosu as some users forget to give others kudosu. An actual BAT from Bancho joins Titanic, we tell them that they need Kudosu, this would feel wrong. Even with only having 10, it seems like such a small pain to deal with rather than adding them for their prior experience.

Proposal 7: No comment.

Proposal 8: People did that?

In short, I feel both Proposal 3 and 4 would be great to add, but would for sure need to be worked on before adding it to Titanic.

cacaomallows wrote:

If i got it right, you are going to remove leaderboard but save ranked score and pp earned from these maps. If it's right, i gonna disagree. You are going to remove leaderboards from maps with scores sent on these maps. You need to keep leaderboard for maps with submitted scores, but if there are no scores on map that under proposal change, you can unrank map.

These maps would be grandfathered in, meaning they will not be unranked. To grandfather something in, means the rules may have changed, but anything added before the rule changes will be kept as is.

cacaomallows wrote:

Questionable proposal, as we have many std maps that cannot be played on old clients because there are inherited points with uncommon values than older clients can handle (0.5x, 1x and 2x versus 1.3x, 0.8x, etc.). Gonna disagree with this, at least because we don't have many maps with more than 8k or less than 4k button count.

This is missing the point, most clients that cannot handle SV changes are almost entirely unused. if we base this off of what clients are most used, 99% of logins come from clients that have SV support, which is why we allow them. The most used clients logged in on titanic include b20130606.1 at #2, meaning the #2 most used client on titanic cannot support these maps. Thats the justification behind this. Out of the top 15 most logged in clients, 7 of them can't play these maps… Out of the top 15 clients logged in, all 15 support SV.

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

Proposal 6: This feels like it's wrong. Someone who's really good at what they do shouldn't be relied on kudosu as some users forget to give others kudosu. An actual BAT from Bancho joins Titanic, we tell them that they need Kudosu, this would feel wrong. Even with only having 10, it seems like such a small pain to deal with rather than adding them for their prior experience.

We have had instances of people joining titanic with heavy modding experience, but because they do not know our rules, unknowlingly nominate maps that do not fit ranking criteria. There needs to be some way of making sure they interact with our rules. If they are a BN, making a few mod posts should be no issue, most people have hundreds of kudosu on bancho before they ever apply.

Change the BAT application to ask questions that are based off of Titanic's ranking criteria rather than go based off Kudosu, sort of like a small quiz. It would make more sense to do that rather than doing Kudosu in my opinion.