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

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

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.

This was attempted on Bancho in the past and was so unsuccessful they got rid of it. They tried making entire BN tests to see if people knew the rules, and it was a big shit show, I do not think this makes sense for us.

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

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.

This is a valid concern, if a majority of maps after 2015 can break due to SV's we may have to limit taiko to 2015 as well.

Digitalfear117 wrote:

This was attempted on Bancho in the past and was so unsuccessful they got rid of it. They tried making entire BN tests to see if people knew the rules, and it was a big shit show, I do not think this makes sense for us.

My issue is that kudosu can still feel biased in practice, it depends a lot on visibility and whether people remember to award it, not purely on skill or understanding. That can unintentionally favor certain users over others, even if their modding ability is the same.

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

My issue is that kudosu can still feel biased in practice, it depends a lot on visibility and whether people remember to award it, not purely on skill or understanding. That can unintentionally favor certain users over others, even if their modding ability is the same.

BATm, and BAT members go through threads and tries to backaward kudosu that is missed by mappers, this has been the case for the past two years. I think this will be less of an issue than you may expect.

Digitalfear117 wrote:

This is a valid concern, if a majority of maps after 2015 can break due to SV's we may have to limit taiko to 2015 as well.

However, not every post-2015 map introduces SV or timing changes that break older Taiko clients. Even post-2018 maps can still be fully compatible if SV usage is simple or minimal. It would just really require BATs to look at maps with multiple clients before adding them to Titanic.

Going based off what was said earlier in the forum regarding another topic, most people login with the 2013 clients, which work perfectly fine with any modern map (unless it's a gimmick), so would this be an issue going forward? I have reported Taiko maps not working on clients that add early Taiko support, would it be better to go based on active Taiko player login counts or go based off the entire servers thought?

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

However, not every post-2015 map introduces SV or timing changes that break older Taiko clients. Even post-2018 maps can still be fully compatible if SV usage is simple or minimal. It would just really require BATs to look at maps with multiple clients before adding them to Titanic.

Going based off what was said earlier in the forum regarding another topic, most people login with the 2013 clients, which work perfectly fine with any modern map (unless it's a gimmick), so would this be an issue going forward? I have reported Taiko maps not working on clients that add early Taiko support, would it be better to go based on active Taiko player login counts or go based off the entire servers thought?

Ideally we would need some sort of automated way to do this, because our Taiko BAT team is already stretched too thin to be checking all 2016-2018 maps manually.

the kudosu thing is fair cuz u can just mod maps then later nominate them once u have BAT power
having a good experience doesn't necessarily guarantee u will be effective or even useful, and during the modding process someone may actually find out they hate titanic and then leave without a fuss rather than having to stay along / get booted for inactivity later

I think it’s a really terrible idea to have a date cutoff for map requests. There are plenty of mappers that still create maps in an older style. You would have say, “Sure, if this map were submitted by a Titanic member and made on our client, we’d accept it. But alas, it wasn’t, and was made in 2016.” How does that make any sense? 

It seems like this rule is just added in to try and add all 2015 maps without getting overwhelmed with low quality map requests. If that’s the case, and no one is brave enough to just say “We dont want this type of map here,” it would be better if you didn’t add 2015 maps at all. 

It’s *good* that we don’t have many low quality farm style maps here. Is it really that difficult to weed them out of the 2015 maps and keep the rest? Current policy we have now is better than these two proposals. Im sorry, but what are you even doing?

Koishi wrote:

It seems like this rule is just added in to try and add all 2015 maps without getting overwhelmed with low quality map requests. If that’s the case, and no one is brave enough to just say “We dont want this type of map here,” it would be better if you didn’t add 2015 maps at all.

I completely disagree with the take of no one being brave enough to do it, this completely minimizes the work we have done to rank hundreds of these sets. We manually check them for compatibility issues, fix those issues, and for a community that clearly doesn't appreciate the effort that it takes. Over these past few years we have been working on developing tools to help with this, but even then the people who actually rank these kinds of maps are not only exhausted but overwhelmed at the amount of requests we get. The goal with the cutoff has nothing to with trying to kill map requests, we are attempting to create an actual server that has a real concept of being a server that ended in 2015. If we are adding maps that are made after the era we are trying to emulate then whats the point? Why not just rank everything? We aren't trying to be Bancho, and if you really want that content there are other places to get it from. The most engaging kind of content from map requests is not ranked Bancho maps, it's unranked maps that people didn't experience before because they weren't ranked.

Lastly the point of adding 2015 sets it to have the maps actually align with the era of Titanic we have shifted to. in 2024 we were a 2014 based server, so adding all the 2014 clients and maps happened, and this honestly came with issues, one that we have been silently fixing as have been spotted and reported since that import, it was a mess to say the least. 2025 came and then we added 2015 clients, but we haven't gotten to 2015 maps yet, mostly because there are even more compatibility issues we have to deal with, SB's breaking maps, .osu v14 changes, hell even the clients themselves causing issues right. Now we have more tools to bring these maps in and make them compatible. Community members have been working hard in the background to create the tools we need to make it happen, and now seems like the right time. I also want to say that no one here plans on making Titanic a 2016 server, we won't be adding 2016 clients, and we don't plan on ever mass adding 2016 maps. This is because by the time we get to 2016 we have basically just become Stable.

Hopefully we can foster a community that invites people who appreciate older versions of the game, and older styles and have that content be here. If mappers are making that kind of old content we hope that they will be attracted to our server and want to participate here to make it even better.

I think the Titanic community is some of the most passionate osu! players I have encountered, and I think it's important to remember that nothing here is ever just an attempt to laze through work, if that were the case we would do nothing at all, we have always tried to keep things high effort, in every aspect.

But its obvious no one is brave enough to do it, Digital. Thats the only way such an awful compromise could have been thought up, because it makes no sense to have a ranking criteria based off of which client something was mapped on. It’s clear that many team members don’t want “those types of maps.” As pedantic as players can be about it, it is not that hard to identify when a map was made only to abuse the PP system and draft a rule regarding it. I’m not discounting the hard work everyone has done at all. But being a leader sometimes requires making these judgment calls rather than taking the easy way out. 

Koishi wrote:

But its obvious no one is brave enough to do it, Digital. Thats the only way such an awful compromise could have been thought up, because it makes no sense to have a ranking criteria based off of which client something was mapped on. It’s clear that many team members don’t want “those types of maps.” As pedantic as players can be about it, it is not that hard to identify when a map was made only to abuse the PP system and draft a rule regarding it. I’m not discounting the hard work everyone has done at all. But being a leader sometimes requires making these judgment calls rather than taking the easy way out.

You are gonna have to explain to me what you think we should be doing because I clearly don't get whatever is you are thinking of. Instead of attacking us for not doing what you want, I would prefer you come up with what you want and how it should be done. If we agree we can do it. I am not attempting to draft a rule to remove pp maps, this is quite the opposite. Before users wanted maps that were deemed farm, or kind of shit from this era not to be ranked, the goal here is to have all of 2015 ranked, the good and the bad here. I seriously don't understand where you are getting the idea that I don't want a 2015 map ranked because it's farm. I could not care less if a map awards pp or not, thats a moving goalpost on a server the continuously updates it's pp algorithm to match bancho.

I think what they're trying to say is it would be better is allow modern mapping but only allow maps that have a style that is considered "old".

I'll let them explain further since this isn't my conversation.

Digitalfear117 wrote:

You are gonna have to explain to me what you think we should be doing because I clearly don't get whatever is you are thinking of. Instead of attacking us for not doing what you want, I would prefer you come up with what you want and how it should be done. If we agree we can do it. I am not attempting to draft a rule to remove pp maps, this is quite the opposite. Before users wanted maps that were deemed farm, or kind of shit from this era not to be ranked, the goal here is to have all of 2015 ranked, the good and the bad here. I seriously don't understand where you are getting the idea that I don't want a 2015 map ranked because it's farm. I could not care less if a map awards pp or not, thats a moving goalpost on a server the continuously updates it's pp algorithm to match bancho.

Think there's a bit of miscommunication here. Not necessarily about PP. From my understanding, Titanic's mapping acceptance is largely based on vibes. Introducing 2015 maps that aren't just blatant farm maps would at least in my mind not infringe on these vibes.

BlakeBelladonna wrote:

I think what they're trying to say is it would be better is allow modern mapping but only allow maps that have a style that is considered "old".

I'll let them explain further since this isn't my conversation.

Well, basically, yeah. I would rather get a few maps occasionally that “don’t fit” than have thousands of maps disqualified because they were mapped on the wrong client.

Regarding “pp maps”, Ive made the assumption team members dont want certain types of maps based off of denials I’ve seen in the map requests subforum. So to me the proposal reads like people are just giving up on what previously was a strongly held view, rather than clarify that view. And to me, this compromise position is a worse outcome than leaving things how they are. 

skrillex wrote:

Think there's a bit of miscommunication here. Not necessarily about PP. From my understanding, Titanic's mapping acceptance is largely based on vibes. Introducing 2015 maps that aren't just blatant farm maps would at least in my mind not infringe on these vibes.

This is most likely the case, I probably am misunderstanding what they are saying, thats why I'm hoping to get an explanation that clicks in my head better. Because the goal here is not to jeopardize the integrity or fun of the server, and refuse to pick whats maps we want and don't want.