It's really simple... these aren't the standards people want to see enforced... This should be obvious xD.Nao Tomori wrote:
nvm
i dont get why you guys are suddenly complaining about standards being enforced when you were also the ones complaining the most vocally that standards ARENT being enforced...
forum
Alfakyun. x Camellia - calling
posted
Total Posts
256
MaridiuS wrote:
Keep in mind that QAT promotes BNs which promote maps, they're the highest on the hierarchy when it comes to map judging and they have the full right to enforce a few concerns if they don't find the arguments good enough. They have just as many rights to voice their concerns, but just because they're QAT doesn't mean they're not human. What I mean is, they could collectively screw a map over they don't like because of bias. There could be a mistake. (Maybe one or some of the members didn't completely look at the map.) The other situation I can think of is the QAT members themselves aren't qualified to look at the map. They have the tag, but that doesn't mean they don't have limits or styles they're more comfortable with. I don't get why you're judging their actions or competence for this, just try to argue against them or try to reach a compromise than complaining as that will not do anything. They didn't get there by doing nothing.
Ranked section is not for every single mapper's cutesy little ideas otherwise anything can pass?
^ A chat-log or a history is something I feel we need to see. Like I said before to MaridiuS, for all we know the QAT could have collectively agreed to screw over the map or not even have a discussion about the map in the first place. Not just for this map alone, it's important we actually see the process.Irreversible wrote:
Keeping in mind that everything is "so transparent", I demand that the chat-log to this discussion is publically available. Then we at least truly have a base to discuss on, because I still think that what currently hold the veto is not right. What happened to: BN1 bubbles, BN2 veto, BN1 got blocked, BN3 can "get rid off the veto" if he explains as to why. Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?Maridius wrote:
Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.
irre, isn't bubblun third BN by that logic, as compromise couldn't be made so was a QAT called or something of the like.
Topic Starter
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.Irreversible wrote:
While I'd like to skip the spacing statement, I do agree on the overmap on the 3/4. You might be well off to reconsider that, ProBox and see what happens after - because they do have a point here.
It's not like this is my first time having overmapped triplets or singular circles (the 3/4 sliders may be cutting it, fine I get that, but it was said that the map has abundant overmapping) so I have no clue as a normal mapper, who holds no bn or qat authority, of where the line goes : - ). With a list we can move on with this map since the mediation is absolute isn't it.
Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?Yeah, this is literally the system, lol. I don't really like this veto system but it's what is official now.
https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/People/Bea ... atmap_Veto
What instances do we have to call that something finally happens here?
I'm waiting as wellPB wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE.
Objection your honor yet I would like to say that ARs in Aia's Grave and toybot's Largo are absolutely too low for such densely packed constructions that happen to display lots of notes at the same time. I would like to request higher values (around AR4.0-5.0 for Aia's difficulty and AR6 for toybot's) in order to let the players follow objects on the screen in an easier manner.
BTW I am not sure if the thing in the hardest difficulty has been mentioned as there is way too much tl;dr in the thread for me to read (especially when I am not a BN that would have to do that in order to keep the ranking procedures unbroken etc.), however, 02:10:245 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - this is really bad to catch in terms of rhythmicality. As long as I understand that the slider here is a little bit longer so people can rest from the continuous clicking the very stream should probably start from here 02:10:407 - as the very streamable sound starts from here and not from the very sliderend here 02:10:488 - Now it is really hard for me to start streaming as I get lost in clicking, especially when the pace of the song is rather quick and it would be wiser to end the slider 1/4 earlier than now.
Also, maybe it is just me but for me it is really hard to hear/notice the very streamable sounds before 02:36:191 (3) - this note. The very one I have just linked starts with the very noise that is unavoidably loud and audible (the girl going "ayyy-YH" or however this could be described) and the next ones are very easy to catch for the player, at least for me. Nevertheless, the previous ones (02:36:028 (1,2) - ) are not thaaaaaaat intuitive and I wonder if it is possible to somehow avoid mapping it as a part of the stream.
03:31:649 (4) - And is there any possibility to CTRL+G it in order to make a nice flow with the very slider before?
Sorry for disturbing, I couldn't help myself writing my opinion on the mappus. owo
P.S.: 02:52:731 (1) - Nice D pattern you've mapped there you naughty naughty boy! o3o
BTW I am not sure if the thing in the hardest difficulty has been mentioned as there is way too much tl;dr in the thread for me to read (especially when I am not a BN that would have to do that in order to keep the ranking procedures unbroken etc.), however, 02:10:245 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - this is really bad to catch in terms of rhythmicality. As long as I understand that the slider here is a little bit longer so people can rest from the continuous clicking the very stream should probably start from here 02:10:407 - as the very streamable sound starts from here and not from the very sliderend here 02:10:488 - Now it is really hard for me to start streaming as I get lost in clicking, especially when the pace of the song is rather quick and it would be wiser to end the slider 1/4 earlier than now.
Also, maybe it is just me but for me it is really hard to hear/notice the very streamable sounds before 02:36:191 (3) - this note. The very one I have just linked starts with the very noise that is unavoidably loud and audible (the girl going "ayyy-YH" or however this could be described) and the next ones are very easy to catch for the player, at least for me. Nevertheless, the previous ones (02:36:028 (1,2) - ) are not thaaaaaaat intuitive and I wonder if it is possible to somehow avoid mapping it as a part of the stream.
03:31:649 (4) - And is there any possibility to CTRL+G it in order to make a nice flow with the very slider before?
Sorry for disturbing, I couldn't help myself writing my opinion on the mappus. owo
P.S.: 02:52:731 (1) - Nice D pattern you've mapped there you naughty naughty boy! o3o
Bored
About overmapped stuff like 01:34:569 - , I don't think it's overmapped, there's a sound here indeed, but rather wrong supported sound. Anyone would feel more confortable to click on a louder beat like 00:56:137 - than smth on the background really far, at least when that sound isn't supported before since it follow vocal and drum for 00:55:812 (1) - .
Feel free to ignore this if that bother you, I was just looking around~
last diff :
- 00:27:758 (4) - What are you supposed to follow ignoring 00:27:920 - this beat ? Skipping vocal and drum seems not right whatsoever.
- 00:57:272 (2) - I don't think a circle works for a long sound like this. Would rather use a 1/1 slider like for 00:57:758 (6) - it would make more sense.
- 01:19:001 (1) - Vocal seems to stop at 01:19:650 - , would also fits more the 1/4 rhythm present here. If you do that, obviously add a circle on 01:19:731 - .
- 01:33:272 - Feels wrong to ignore vocal when you go totally for them after for stuff like 01:34:569 - .
About overmapped stuff like 01:34:569 - , I don't think it's overmapped, there's a sound here indeed, but rather wrong supported sound. Anyone would feel more confortable to click on a louder beat like 00:56:137 - than smth on the background really far, at least when that sound isn't supported before since it follow vocal and drum for 00:55:812 (1) - .
Feel free to ignore this if that bother you, I was just looking around~
Who would have thought that not everyone agrees on which maps are fine and which shouldn't be ranked? If that'd be the case, vetos and disqualifications for subjective issues wouldn't even need to exist.
The point of mediation isn't that we get into another lengthy discussion about wether the veto is justified or not. The discussions already happened before the mediation, but the mapper and vetoing BN couldn't find an agreement, which is why we even reached this point. People requested more quality assurance from the QAT again and clearer actions taken towards controversial maps, and this is what happens now. Literally the same people who requested that are now complaining about an ultimatum being set to this map, just because the issues we see in this map don't match their understanding of low quality.
Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are discussing the map and the issues of it (even though it's likely not going to impact the mediation, as it was an unanimous decision coming from 6 QAT members and the point is that it should get fixed) but complaining about the system itself here is dumb, please stop it.
Regarding what was requested:
Providing chatlogs would be pretty useless as there wasn't much discussion at all. We judged the veto seperately first and voted, and the vote was unanimous, so there was no need for lots of discussion. Basically we all agreed on the vetoing post and what else was posted here, nobody had any objections from what I recall.
Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.
The point of mediation isn't that we get into another lengthy discussion about wether the veto is justified or not. The discussions already happened before the mediation, but the mapper and vetoing BN couldn't find an agreement, which is why we even reached this point. People requested more quality assurance from the QAT again and clearer actions taken towards controversial maps, and this is what happens now. Literally the same people who requested that are now complaining about an ultimatum being set to this map, just because the issues we see in this map don't match their understanding of low quality.
Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are discussing the map and the issues of it (even though it's likely not going to impact the mediation, as it was an unanimous decision coming from 6 QAT members and the point is that it should get fixed) but complaining about the system itself here is dumb, please stop it.
Regarding what was requested:
Providing chatlogs would be pretty useless as there wasn't much discussion at all. We judged the veto seperately first and voted, and the vote was unanimous, so there was no need for lots of discussion. Basically we all agreed on the vetoing post and what else was posted here, nobody had any objections from what I recall.
ProfessionalBox wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.
Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.
The only thing that is dumb is your post. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to do the job of quality assurance, then do it right and finally list up the issues that should be adressed - because the only thing I do see at this state is y'all avoiding this one question.Myx wrote:
Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.
it's kinda weird that you people want them to fix issues yet no one gives exact precise parts which should be changed. i mean i kinda agree with that random 3/4 rhythm being overmapped but if they fixed that would it really make it rankable? where are other overmapped parts? like i don't know how are you people are expecting them to "fix" their map if you can't even tell which parts. don't just say its fundamentally wrong too, because i'm pretty sure we both know that isn't the case.
Alright, fair enough. This means the things pointed out on Mo's post are the things to fix. Therefore, we should just fix those timestamps pointed out and any that seem to be "literal repeats". Anything else I'll take it is not, and should not be covered under the veto mediation, unless the QAT gives a further list of apparently unrankable cases.Myxomatosis wrote:
Who would have thought that not everyone agrees on which maps are fine and which shouldn't be ranked? If that'd be the case, vetos and disqualifications for subjective issues wouldn't even need to exist.
The point of mediation isn't that we get into another lengthy discussion about wether the veto is justified or not. The discussions already happened before the mediation, but the mapper and vetoing BN couldn't find an agreement, which is why we even reached this point. People requested more quality assurance from the QAT again and clearer actions taken towards controversial maps, and this is what happens now. Literally the same people who requested that are now complaining about an ultimatum being set to this map, just because the issues we see in this map don't match their understanding of low quality.
Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are discussing the map and the issues of it (even though it's likely not going to impact the mediation, as it was an unanimous decision coming from 6 QAT members and the point is that it should get fixed) but complaining about the system itself here is dumb, please stop it.
Regarding what was requested:
Providing chatlogs would be pretty useless as there wasn't much discussion at all. We judged the veto seperately first and voted, and the vote was unanimous, so there was no need for lots of discussion. Basically we all agreed on the vetoing post and what else was posted here, nobody had any objections from what I recall.Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.ProfessionalBox wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.
@ProBox it seems like the only changes you need to fix are the ones listed above. Everything else can be treated as a different case unless you feel they are explicitly the same case. Otherwise as per Desp's wording, you can proceed with getting recheck.-Mo- wrote:
- Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
- An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.
Monstrata understood it now, what's so hard for you others to understand? Fix the specific examples that were mentioned in the post, then ask for a check if it's fine. Nowhere was it mentioned that the overmaps apply to whole sections or something like that.
What is so hard for you to understand that Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens. is one of the most bs reasons I've ever heard in my life?
But we'll leave it at that. It's ProBox' turn now.
But we'll leave it at that. It's ProBox' turn now.
i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?
QAT veto because of over mapping. ProB thought it was kinda bs, a lot of people thought it was kinda bs. no one really knew or understood what the veto was about. It is now cleared up (i think) and all that's left is for ProB to implement some changes i guess. Drama seems to stem from creative differences between mappers involved and the QAT. That's how i understand it at least.Hula wrote:
i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?
Topic Starter
Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing
Ok this one I don't get. Am I supposed to make a huge spinner mapping the vocals then? The way its arranged even emphasises the loudest sound at 00:31:488 (3) -
00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen
I fixed this by swapping the order of slider and circle, now emphasis is where it should be
01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
I take it the issue here is the half-screen spacing as that is how this reads out. I nerfed the spacing by atleast 30%
An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.I fixed everything here
I take it the map is good to go now given how nothing else was posted
al dente
it's a bit better overall now
00:31:164 (1,2) - why not just use a slider here then? I think lower tapping density would also nicely contrast it with 00:32:785 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - when melody gets more intense
01:25:326 (5) - is still kinda weird (pretty sure it was mentioned before but got lost in the dicsussion), since the whole kiai is so vocal+drumheavy, and this suddenly completely ignores vocal on 01:25:488 -
01:51:839 (2,6) - think you forgot to hs some notes in this stream, feels pretty weird to play like that since some notes give only minimal feedback
02:36:677 (1,2,3,4) - volume change is a bit too extreme feedback wise, feels like I'm not even hitting the last few, could do sth like -10% each nc starting from 70% at 02:36:028 - or something similar
02:53:785 - should have drum finish or something cause right now you hitsound 1/2 rhythm but map 1/4 which feels rly off here
while I still disagree with most parts of the map I guess you can go on with it after replying to these points since the biggest issues got fixed (at least partially)
00:31:164 (1,2) - why not just use a slider here then? I think lower tapping density would also nicely contrast it with 00:32:785 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - when melody gets more intense
01:25:326 (5) - is still kinda weird (pretty sure it was mentioned before but got lost in the dicsussion), since the whole kiai is so vocal+drumheavy, and this suddenly completely ignores vocal on 01:25:488 -
01:51:839 (2,6) - think you forgot to hs some notes in this stream, feels pretty weird to play like that since some notes give only minimal feedback
02:36:677 (1,2,3,4) - volume change is a bit too extreme feedback wise, feels like I'm not even hitting the last few, could do sth like -10% each nc starting from 70% at 02:36:028 - or something similar
02:53:785 - should have drum finish or something cause right now you hitsound 1/2 rhythm but map 1/4 which feels rly off here
while I still disagree with most parts of the map I guess you can go on with it after replying to these points since the biggest issues got fixed (at least partially)
Topic Starter
changed everything that was mentioned.
Good to go.
Before someone is gonna qualify this map, you might want to save the "Joey's Moderato" difficulty in the editor since the star rating is bugged in CtB (showing up as 9.06* while it actually is 4.77*), this is a bug caused by incorrect formatting in the .osu file (probably because of hitsound copying).
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/519154/d ... ll#/276615 happened in this map as well for reference
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/519154/d ... ll#/276615 happened in this map as well for reference
Topic Starter
just remove ctb gamemode and we good to go
In the case of the / in between ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。and かめりあ for that section, it's to separate the different fields of the vocals and composer, as already seen here.
In this case artist is ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。and Romanised will just be Alfakyun.
Another option is ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。x かめりあ from the video
Romanised will be Alfakyun. x Camellia
SPOILER
You can see the similarities of this in another instance like Alstroemeria Records
Their most recent tracklist made things super clear http://alst.net/2018/04/24/arcd0064/
however you see from past albums http://alst.net/2017/08/05/arcd0059-pop-culture-6/
vocalist was before composer, if vocals was involved in that song
the difference you see for example between ayame – ARROW RAIN / Masayoshi Minoshima and Seashore on the moon / ななひら / Camellia
Their most recent tracklist made things super clear http://alst.net/2018/04/24/arcd0064/
however you see from past albums http://alst.net/2017/08/05/arcd0059-pop-culture-6/
vocalist was before composer, if vocals was involved in that song
the difference you see for example between ayame – ARROW RAIN / Masayoshi Minoshima and Seashore on the moon / ななひら / Camellia
In this case artist is ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。and Romanised will just be Alfakyun.
Another option is ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。x かめりあ from the video
Romanised will be Alfakyun. x Camellia
Topic Starter
Ok got approval from metadata master so I'll do what was suggested by neonat and pick the one from the video. Also this fixes the CTB issue so there's that!
quick hs check on top diff only before renomination
plz rank calling
- missing kicks (normal-hitnormal): 00:30:515 - 02:13:974 - 03:07:487 - 03:30:190 - 03:37:325 -
- missing drum-finishes: 02:50:190 - (maybe u could add it at 02:50:460 - idk it kinda gives u some feedback when hitting that)
- hs copier killed ur muted sliderends so u should like reapply them manually (examples 01:56:623 (1,1,2,3) - 03:17:704 (1,1,1,1) - 03:39:758 (1,2,1,2) -)
- 02:36:110 - i think the piano starts playing at 02:36:191 -, so maybe remove the whistle at 02:36:110 -to follow that more accurately? (and also i'd say move the sampleset changing green line to 02:36:028 - or 02:36:191 - cause having sampeset change randomly on a blue tick sounds rly off)
- 02:26:947 - are u sure about kick+snare hs here? moving the kick to 02:26:623 - seems much better cause of kick snare kick snare pattern
- 03:01:649 - 03:01:812 - why are these missing kick/snare hitsounds when u put them on 03:01:001 - 03:01:163 - 03:01:325 - with the exact same sounds?
plz rank calling
k working on the mod
placeholder
placeholder
Topic Starter
If my world were to cave in tomorrow, I would look back on all the pleasures, excitements and worthwhilenesses I have been lucky enough to have had. Not the sadness, not my miscarriages or my father leaving home, but the joy of everything else. It will have been enough.
Here's hoping that one day the placeholder will become more than just a placeholder... This is so sad can we hit 100 kudosu
Here's hoping that one day the placeholder will become more than just a placeholder... This is so sad can we hit 100 kudosu
anything involving missing hs, more than likely applies to other difficulites when mention at the top
Check hs mod from bite you death with all difficulties (some things I agree with like at 03:01:649 - 03:01:812)
I have check other difficulties but i'll look back over them when u call me back for a recheck
Prestissimo
- 00:40:083 (1,2,1,2) - I would imagine that 00:40:731 (1,2) - is building up around here so it would make a bit more sense for this to more higher spacing than 00:40:083 (1,2) - and that be lower spaced
- 01:34:001 - misssing drum- clap
- 01:06:839 - missing normal hit-normal
- 02:26:623 - missing normal-hitnormal and soft-whistle
wkyik's Allegrissimo
- 03:02:298 (1) - why not do something like other difficulties (like fuccho's presto diff for an example 03:02:136 (2,1,2,3) - ) ?
- 03:13:326 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - hmm I feel this stream is a bit overdone in terms of spacing. the intensity of this is not much different from the previous stream at 01:29:866 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . really feel that the spacing should be reduce some
- 03:20:947 (4,5) - this is 1/6 and I don't quite hear anything on the blue tick - other difficulties either ignore this or mapped a repeat here
Flasxix's Vicace
- 00:18:272 - can you remove the hitsounds from the sliderends and possibly silence them instead? it just doesn't sound right here and very unfiting with the music since there isn't nothing actually there and ya didn't do it at other times 01:34:569 (1,1,1,1) -
- 01:20:461 - why is the hitsounding so mess up here? in the last chorus you hitsounded normally 03:03:920 - so I can assume this is unintentional - there is so many things wrong here like this clap spam 01:20:461 (1,2,3) - that the only thing I can say is make it like the other difficulties
General
- 01:47:056 - add a normal- hitnormal or some hs that has this map
01:51:839 (2) - missing drum - hitnormal for some difficulties- 02:12:920 (6,7) - sounds more like 1/6 but some difficulities map this as 1/4
- 03:20:947 - same thing as above ^ (may have miss some)
Check hs mod from bite you death with all difficulties (some things I agree with like at 03:01:649 - 03:01:812)
I have check other difficulties but i'll look back over them when u call me back for a recheck
Topic Starter
Ok applied everything suggested to top diff from both mods.
Topic Starter
Alright everything has been applied except for "03:02:298 (1) - why not do something like other difficulties (like fuccho's presto diff for an example 03:02:136 (2,1,2,3) - ) ?" and "03:20:947 (4,5) - this is 1/6 and I don't quite hear anything on the blue tick - other difficulties either ignore this or mapped a repeat here" mentioned in the mods. Reasoning for the spinner is that it makes sense and I don't want to improvise something on the gd makers' behalf and the second point was discussed already in discord.
k pointing out just a few more things
Larghissimo
AR 2.5 feels pretty low ~ it would help if you bring up the ar to at least 3 for better readability for new players
02:02:137 - maybe mapped this ? after the second note it feels rather expected to have it clickable and for it not to be is rather weird. there is enough gap here that having at least a note here
03:03:595 (1) - make this more like the 2nd chorus at 01:20:461 (1) - ? it would be more ideal to have this more clickable 03:03:920 - since quite a strong beat and it doesn't sound right to downright ignore it when the song basically does a pause here 03:03:595 - and not even on the strong vocals at 03:03:433 - so it shouldn't be clickable. basically fix the rhythm
FleyBox's Adaigo - 03:27:839 - 03:30:433 - 03:33:677 - remove the extra clap +whistle here
02:50:622 - remove this extra 5% line here
Haruto's Adagietto - missing drum-clap
Joey's Moderato - remove the extra clap here 03:35:622 - and used drum-finish instead like other difficulties
that be all ~ fix and change all above and we are good to go
Larghissimo
AR 2.5 feels pretty low ~ it would help if you bring up the ar to at least 3 for better readability for new players
02:02:137 - maybe mapped this ? after the second note it feels rather expected to have it clickable and for it not to be is rather weird. there is enough gap here that having at least a note here
03:03:595 (1) - make this more like the 2nd chorus at 01:20:461 (1) - ? it would be more ideal to have this more clickable 03:03:920 - since quite a strong beat and it doesn't sound right to downright ignore it when the song basically does a pause here 03:03:595 - and not even on the strong vocals at 03:03:433 - so it shouldn't be clickable. basically fix the rhythm
FleyBox's Adaigo - 03:27:839 - 03:30:433 - 03:33:677 - remove the extra clap +whistle here
02:50:622 - remove this extra 5% line here
Haruto's Adagietto - missing drum-clap
Joey's Moderato - remove the extra clap here 03:35:622 - and used drum-finish instead like other difficulties
that be all ~ fix and change all above and we are good to go
Topic Starter
Fixed everything except for "03:03:595 (1) - make this more like the 2nd chorus at 01:20:461 (1) - ? it would be more ideal to have this more clickable 03:03:920 - since quite a strong beat and it doesn't sound right to downright ignore it when the song basically does a pause here 03:03:595 - and not even on the strong vocals at 03:03:433 - so it shouldn't be clickable. basically fix the rhythm" If I were to change this it would be the only 1/2 rhythm in the entire diff which is 1/1 rhythm.
k
Topic Starter
:nut:
on request
Topic Starter
For whaatever reason I noticed that 02:35:056 (4) - was not NC'd and moved to a place where it never should have been moved to so I must have somehow accidentally moved it and removed NC from it (how does that even happen).
xp
k