Unlike Ranking Team's Criteria, the Nomination Quality Team has no objective measures or metrics of determining a map's rankability. Listed below are subjective qualities that should be met, but exceptions can always exist. These exceptions must be accompanied with justification.
- The intensity of patterns, whether it be through note density, angles, movement, or spacing should always be supported by the rest of the map and the song.
- A map should not have more intense patterns for a less intense part of the song.
- In the same section of a song, the intensity of sounds should remain consistent.
- A window or stack should not be mapped to a less intense sound than one represented by a single note.
- Wide jumps should not be mapped to a series of sounds that are less intense than a series of sounds represented by a low-spaced pattern.
- The rhythm in a section of a map should remain consistent unless there is a change supported by the song.
- A change in rhythm must be supported by the music.
- An example of poor rhythm choice is one where the representation of note to sounds being mapped changes despite the song remaining exactly the same.
- Playability is the most important factor when considering pattern choice.
- Is the pattern readable?
- Does the pattern make sense when comparing it to the rest of the map and the song?
- Difficulty spikes are only allowed if reasonable compared to the rest of the map and are supported by the music.
- A repeating section of the same map without an intensity increase in the song should not have a difficulty spike simply because it appears later in the map.
- A map should avoid having difficulty over emphasis. At the same time, a difficult map does not equate to low quality.
- A map should refrain from using poor playing patterns (badcut doubles, shrado angles, etc.) without reason.
Feedback must remain only about the map. It is the map that is getting reviewed, not the mapper or the song. Always state why a change should be made, unless very obvious. If a suggestion is being made, explain why the suggestion would improve the map.
- "For beats 320-324, instead of keeping the spacing between jumps the same, I recommend gradually increasing the spacing due to the build-up."
- "Beat 399.5, missed vocal. Would recommend moving the note from 396.5 to here since there is almost no sound there."
- "Beat 85-88, instead of the single row of bombs on 88, it may be more interesting to either map them to the piano or string sound starting at 87."
This feedback provides a specific section in the map, along with reasoning and a suggested improvement. While the mapper doesn't need to follow the suggested improvement and the feedback can still be useful without, it is a helpful addition.
Helpful feedback doesn't need to be specific though, and can often still be useful as a comment without a specific section or timestamp.
- "Map would require a lot of reworking to meet quality standards. The emphasis is inconsistent and the angles feel random and out of place. Think about which sections of the song are more intense and if the pattern makes sense in the less intense sections."
- "This map shows a lot of potential, but many sections of the map are off-time. I noticed that the map is not aligned to the grid and that the BPM may be incorrect."
Leaving general feedback should usually happen when the map needs a significant amount of work or if there is a section that can't be addressed with a specific comment.
- "Your map sucks, can't you do anything right???"
- Feedback should not be targeted at the mapper.
- "This song is amazing"
- Great, but feedback should pertain to the map.
- "0-end remap"
- This is not specific in addressing what the issues of the map are.
- "Some parts of this map play poorly, but overall nice job"
- Which parts play poorly? Pointing out specifics will help the map improve greatly before it is ranked. The goal is to have all noticed issues pointed out and resolved or justified.