Kamah (Scythe)

It is not in line with the current flow of the discussion, but I certainly mentioned in my previous post that I would like to respond to some of the comments. I'm posting my final(maybe) response before this discussion begins in earnest accordingly.

There are three posts that I have to do.
== First, reply to the full opinion of the representative account(-mint-).
== Second, reply to Komirin's opinion.
== Third, post 'Final Response'.

First of all, the communication and reply with Komirin has already been completed through discord. The content itself is just a compression and delivery of what was previously posted on discussion, so I won't post it over here. If you want to see my reply to Komirin, please let me know.

Next, there will be a respond to the -mint-'s account, and then I'll post the final response as well

---[Response for '-mint- account' 1. The ending of the map is a difficulty spike despite the current justification.]
:: I think the previous discussion will help us understand this map. You could easily find "ideal playability" mainly in my and Bringo posts. I won't explain much about this cuz It's because we've already had enough conversation.

---[Response for '-mint- account' 2. The snaps and LN snap releases used throughout the map are ambiguous and create an unnatural clutter that does not befit music of this nature, and is antithetical to many of the more simplistic rhythms that may be brought out.]
:: Perhaps as in 1. I think it is easy to see what I have in mind from the previous discussion, but I will summarize it again for the sake of this discussion. However, since it is 'summary' to the extent, I would appreciate it if you could check the previous discussion for more detailed information
:: The "concept" or just simply -> "mapping method" used in my map is more about gaining diversity through intuition than interpreting it as a song itself. It is hard to say that this method is particularly wrong because multilateral analysis of rhythm or sound can create more diverse categories of ideal for sure
:: First of all, this map is made by taking a mapping method that deviates somewhat from expressing the song as it is, so it is only natural that there are some parts where the concept does not fit the song
:: It's not because my map chose a special mapping method. You know, this is a mapping, so most mappers start putting their subjective and often put patterns that they find more interesting or original, even if they don't fit the song // I'm not saying I'm going to force a stupid pattern that doesn't fit the song, but this form of mapping is natural and respectable.
:: I think "ambiguous", "unnatural" and so on are literally appropriate to "start discussions". That's because subjective evaluations change depending on the perspective, and I already think most of the LN snaps used in this map are natural and reasonable in flow.

---[Response for '-mint- account' 3. The 'mapper notes' that are used to defend the map and its snaps are equally as ambiguous and push playability into the lowest consideration, effectively used as an elaborate "no change".]
:: the 'mapper notes' are only used to briefly indicate the mapper's intentions. I'm a mapper, so I think it's natural to express one's intentions as much as possible. Besides, isn't it rather convenient? Rather, it is easy to discuss and find middle ground because it is expressed as it is without concealing or wrapping its intentions.

<If you think the diff level of the map changes frequently in a short period of time, please read this>
:: The difficulty curve of this map is slightly more "vibration" than the average map.
:: The "average" prolly vary depending on individual experience. It is a vocabulary used for easy understanding.
:: The difficulty curve of all maps is bound to vibrate(The map with relatively low vibration is similar to the 220bpm stream only map... n etc). My map is usually made to vibrate a bit more than average because I use a mix of various concepts. Therefore, when talking about diff spikes or uncomfortable patterns in this map, these problems are highly likely to be evaluated as "reasonable vibrations" by the standards that my maps have in common
:: The reasonable standard of vibration is usually "ideal playability". In addition, mint's account and Komirin's mentioned problems(long note release, snap, hand balance) are primarily reasonable vibrations

This concludes the first and second responses. I gonna post the third one soon

+++ final response +++

I think it's fair to go through the ranking process again without going through any correction points, except for one correction point(as expected, it's 8-note anchor).

also I believe this request is reasonable for several reasons:

---[1. In the case of ranking procedures in this map, there are often very uncooperative in ranking, mainly against the mapper]
:: I'm not complaining that I disagree with modders(and I can't & don't complain, at least to the modders n mappers who have been involved in this map). Actually they've been asking me "questions" or demanding "compromise". I was always ready to exchange views and discuss. Ironically, however, when this map was disqualified they seemed to have lost much interest in the discussion. I've asked some people(who don't seem to be interested in the discussion and didn't discuss) to read my last post via DM, and I've even asked them to help me discuss further, but nothing has gone on. I have no idea whether my answer to some questions was satisfactory or if you were willing to compromise. Therefore, I think it is efficient and reasonable to go through the ranking process again without much change.
:: ** This is a personal complaint. ** It wasn't until this map entered the QF state that the 'representative account' was used to start discussions. did we use to do this before?(I mean, I hope there won't be any unintentional stress on mapper in the future). Obviously, most of the people who participated in this debate were already aware of the existence of this map, and it was even easier to aware because it repeated bubble pop. This means, at least not to repeat the same mistake please

---[2. Clearly stated the concept and mapper's intentions.]
:: I happened to write my aesthetic point of view or insight into genre understanding and mapping. It means that this map set is sensitive and has a lot of detailed information at the same time. Since all the parts that need to be explained are explained, at least there should be minimal questions asked about the basics of this map.

---[3. In discussion, you suggested a "direction". And there is no conclusive reason to follow the suggestions in its entirety for that direction.
:: That is, at least on this map, following the direction is not a necessary factor for the ranking
:: The problem with my map, which has been mainly argued against in discussions so far, is almost just a "difference in perspective(=direction)", and it is questionable whether there is a "contradiction" that the map experiences(except 8-notes anchor).
:: 8-notes anchor was the only "potential contradiction" in this map but changed. The reason it could be argued to be "contradiction" is that there are few other ideal patterns on this map that support the 8-notes anchor pattern, so It is not known whether this pattern will be "new ideal", or "lower-level ideal".
:: In conclusion, you have suggested a direction to mitigate the diff spike of my map and as I will explain details in 4. Right now, I have accepted some of that suggestion by removing 8-notes anchor. However, most of the suggestions are difficult to think of as a similar contradiction to the 8-notes anchor, and are accepted as suggesting the direction of the map. Therefore, I think not accepting the rest of the suggestion does not mean that there will be a problem with the ranking process(ofc, I'm not saying I won't compromise, but at least the mapper shouldn't be forced on the direction).

---[4. Changed the 8 stack pattern. So, now this map doesn't seem to be a huge problem.]
:: The 8-notes anchor pattern is just not perfect, but it's closest to ideal imo. But to argue this big in the ranking process, I think it's like an attempt to break the "frame" itself(even if it is dangerous). ofc I don't like changing the pattern very much because I think there should be such an attempt, but I changed it because it is impossible to argue for the ideal perfectly and strongly under the current circumstances.
:: From my point of view, there is no violation of ideal playability in this map at the moment
:: In addition, I think that the posts I have answered in the first discussion have almost been answered to other points. Also, I think we've solved some of the potential problems bring up sections.

---[5. This map has additional improvements for sure. But it's not "essential" and making "ideal" improvements in my mapping method is a lot of resources-consuming as a mapper.]
:: All maps have potential improvements, which can be seen better or less depending on the capability of the mapper
:: I know that ranking a map means "no more modifications," so I need to be more careful in terms of "quality."
:: Nevertheless, the reason I'm trying to be satisfied(or, I think it's okay to be satisfied) is that there's no single perfect map, so there are only a limited number of players who are satisfied with it no matter how good the map is from a mapper's point of view. Rather, it is very common around us that players hate it even more even though the mapper's final score has risen. In summary, the actual satisfaction level is prolly not expected to increase significantly compared to the resources consumed by the mapper to modify the map.
:: ofc maps can ultimately deliver a higher sense of satisfaction to the player through the actual improvement of the mapper and the modification of the map, but they are not essential. Therefore, if the mapper maps the quality of the map to "somewhat" satisfaction with the 'key concepts/own reference values', I believe that improvement cannot be forced and should act as a means of conciliatory action.
:: As a mapper based on ideal playability, I believe that the extent to which improvements can be enforced on this map can only be included if it hinders the ideal playability. In other words, if the quality is already good for ideal playability, improving the map is just an additional

edit: grammar n made the context easier to understand

being concise has its perks too u know... :sob:

regardless I think I can put some thoughts (generally speaking)

• the changes are (should be?) fine. i personally have no stake in it I just thought the spike was kinda silly
• i'm not sure where you are getting this antagonist streak from; while getting smth DQ'd is a minor inconvenience it's still relatively minor -- and though the primary source of ur frustration is probably ur lack of time I still don't think it means that u r being intentionally and maliciously targeted for having a different map.
• and neither can I even tell that u r being targeted tbh; it just looks like people came together bcoz the same people had (about the same) issues with the map (i.e. they being here is not because they hate u). i don't think turrim's comment on this map helps though!!!!

otherwise I think the rest is just fluff? nothing stopping rank now unless authority says otherwise

EDIT: I gave u the benefit of the doubt above, but given ur response to turrim's comment I will rescind it for now out of caution. instead please enjoy this duck video https://twitter.com/shouldhaveaduck/status/1385939633695952899

:nerd: I admit I was a bit sensitive in the previous posting

actually I didn't understand why this was taking so long <- this mainly cause
(and now I think it's not because of 'targeting' by people, it's just mainly because of the system instead)

also I have nothing to do with Turrim's comments(don't even know why such a comment was posted lol) n I just typed "it's like an interesting issue" in korean lmao it's used like a baka meme

I'm just gonna watch ur duck video

yea that's fine i was just being cautious cause well turrim isn't being very constructive u know

but I believe this should be pretty much ready to go ahead depending on how dubstek/unpredictable judges the changes/explanation (since they're the primary bns in charge after all)

EDIT: I have paged steven/dubstek already shouldn't take too long

Alright, having played the new version I'll drop the new insight I have regarding the new update! I'll make sure to be as brief as possible unlike last time and go point by point to address.

1. Difficulty Spike: This issue seems to have tremendously be addressed. I'm not sure of all the notes that have been changed (or if perhaps I just got better between last time I played it and now), but the jump in difficulty has been adjusted more homogenously, which is good! However the second point will address sort of a major/minor issue, depending on the player's hand bias.

2.1 Very right-handed bias between 03:41:250 - 03:48:886: There's one right handed trill that repeats itself several times. 5 in a row plus another one later one. While I can see how justifiable it is due to how it's later represented on the left hand twice under a similar, yet different sound sequence, it might prove a problem for those who are left handed. I can't say for sure how much of an issue this would prove and if it would justify having to use mirror. Ideally mirror shouldn't be used, as the whole map would then be affected by it. I'm not sure if you'd be down to sacrifice a layer of representation to try to adhere to a more "global" approach to this kind of patterning. But this is highly subjective at this point as it conflicts with the mapper's concept. Objectively speaking though, there's a hand bias.

2.2 Overall bias: Glancing over the map quickly and getting an idea on how was each column layered, overall the map does have a tendency to focus more difficult patterns/releases on the right side. I'm not sure if this was a wanted result due to the fact that you did comment on how you'd want patterns to be aesthetically pleasing, not pitch relevant. Because of this I do have to ask you if you believe that keeping this bias does improve the map's concepts or if it hinders them. I'm not sure if this bias was intentional or a biproduct of a lack of overall cohesion between segments that coincidentally ended up heavily layering the right columns more than their leftmost counterpart. Obviously as explained before, this could be fixed with mirror at the end of the day, but if it's something that is avoidable, not justified, or overall doesn't contribute to the main ideas of the map, it's not a mod that should ideally have to be used to reverse the bias.

Besides these two major points I felt that had to be commented (Which could easily be one big point as everything is related), I myself would have no further subjective issues on the matter basing off all the concepts that you want to fully commit on.

As you said, there's stuff that still can be improved. if you were to ask me, I would go the extra mile and improve it! Yes indeed it's not essential, but using a fairly similar analogy, the Mona Lisa wasn't painted in a span of a year. Some sources claim it took a decade for Leonardo to improve his work of art. He didn't want to have any regrets once he claimed it as finished. Now, I know you're short on time. You're right, the "Essential" was taken care of. My biggest fear and hope right now is that this gets Ranked (Which would be very good for you! It's honestly a privilege that everyone who has experienced it should be thankful for), but at the same time that you'd regret not having polished your sculpture before exposing it to the public.

It's truly a dilemma for me to know what to encourage you. Personally, yes I would want to see this ranked; yes I believe some more QA could be done to polish up all not-previously commented minor suggestions; yes I do want you to move on with life knowing you've got this ranked! At the same time, I'll always encourage people to make the most out of their creations.

All I can say for now and finish with is that this last review has taken into account everything you do not wish to be changed, so to not make you repeat yourself I won't further bug you with those points. What I'm going to say though is to be a tad more cooperative with the points brought up. I can't and won't force you to do anything, no one will in fact. This map has left me a good impression, but it has so much potential. You'll have to be the one to choose how much do you want to help transform that potential into a better experience. What I know for a fact is that you should be proud of this! I won't be satisfied knowing the mapper itself wasn't satisfied with his own creation to begin with. As long as you are, then everything else is an addon to that feeling.

Have a good one.

P.D: "I'll make sure to be as brief as possible" Yeah never trust me when I say this. I don't trust myself either.

Really a lot has happened on this map lol
Thank you for your time, so that your efforts will not be in vain, I will answer sincerely until the end 😊

+++ Overall answer to bias of hand balance(generally) +++

I admit that the entire map is slightly biased to the right. surely It's actually true
(The overall balance I think is about left:right = 45:55, and the actual pattern often deflects to 40:60 & 60:40 at the moment.)

This is not the result I wanted, but I don't think it's the wrong result at the same time

• 1. The figure is not significant. (=There is little or no chance of harming the ideal 'group' itself.)
• 2. Based on the concept of this map, the hand balance changes "late". In other words, it repeats the bias on the left and right sides respectively, so unless the overall hand balance is significantly crushed, I think it can be explained with a 'concept'.
• 3. Through 1. and 2. it is also felt that the map's hand balance breaking is rather more consistent throughout the map and prolly be close to the ideal it pursues
• 4. Since the bias of the hand balance changes frequently and the distortion of the overall bias is small, so most will be buried in the concept and it is not considered to be a big consideration.

About pitch relevant and aesthetic patterning: Since pitch relevants are usually associated with aesthetic perspectives(because, as you know, protecting the pitch relevant mapping has a huge tactile impact, so it's almost an essential part to think about), most patterns have cared enough this -> "The way pitch relevant is expressed is not the same, but it should be classified into the same group"

To sum up, I didn't mean the bias itself. However, the concepts and patterns that affect the bias have their own meanings. To be honest, I don't think anyone can tell if maintaining the current momentary biases is close to the right answer, but if we argue about it's good for the current map or not, I think it's close to the good side. (Of course, the overall balance is slightly off, so it's close to the bad side, but as I said, I think the numbers are insignificant. Also, I think it's unclear whether the map will change for the better during the process of modifying the overall balance.)

+++ About improvements +++

One thing I have to say is that this map had already done a few major revisions before coming to the qualified. I may look very defensive in moding discussion, but there are a lot of modings that I've done personally(with mappers, bns. including self-mod also). As a result, some sections had their patterns revised and about 3 sections were remapped altogether. Maybe I'm trying to stick to the current pattern even more because I think it's already been revised enough.

In addition, to be honest, because I don't remember the concept of the map perfectly at this time, the weight and atmosphere of the map itself have changed in the remapped section, and some people will be able to identify it. Also whenever I fix the map, I keep thinking that it might hinder the original intention of the map
(I don't remember the concept completely, because at least I tend to reinterpret what I can't remember in the process of remembering the concept of the time for old creations.)

So it's okay if it's ranked a little less refined by 'the standards of the present me'. Rather, I think that's the way to respect myself when I was mapping this map. I also want to evaluate myself at that time, so I have no regrets.

As you can see from my maps, the mapping style often changes a lot in a month or two. This is partly due to the wide song selection range, but my mapping is experimental, so I focus on my mapping skills right now rather than the reputation of some maps. And I think my mapping has a fast-changing nature, and the mapping method I personally have(I won't explain it) is hard to specify 'the present'. Therefore, even if this map's ratings continue to decline, it's a contradiction to myself if I regret it.

Of the dozens of maps I uploaded, there are only about one or two that I can say I'm satisfied. And they're gonna be very hard to ranked. In that scene, among the maps that are likely to be ranked - I'm not fully satisfied with the map itself, but I just chose Kamah as a map that can have a meaning in the ranking process.

In conclusion, It's usually good to try to get a higher score for a creation. Your suggestion is very reasonable and can go a long way towards increasing the 'completeness' of the map and the 'name value' of the mapper. But that seems to be quite different from what I want to get out of the process of ranking this map(and also different from what this map means for itself). In addition, I think it's good because through many modding, it's already far beyond what I think of myself as the lower limit of subjective scores for rankings.

It's start was definitely a summary discussion, but the postings are bound to be long because of this topic lmao
Thank you for your continued participation again!

edit: grammar n made the context easier to understand
some wording were corrected (oneself -> myself, ...)

<This is to the new people who will participate in the further discussion>

I have used the word "ideal playability" mainly in this discussion. However, I did not clarify its definition.

• Of course, it's explained in the overall discussion, so you'll know what "ideal playability" is when you read it in its entirety *

Fortunately, those who participated in the current discussion seem to understand very well - thanks, u guys are geniuses. But this doesn't mean that everyone else can easily understand. Therefore, if you don't understand ideal playability, you may ask me for an additional explanation.
Therefore, I will not explain ideal playability if further clarification is not required. It's because I've been writing so much that I'm very tired of this. Moreover, you know, writing solid logic perfectly is not an easy task to put in. Actually I have already written it down in Korean to some extent, but making it more perfect and redefining it in English involves great pain

Anyway, even if it's annoying, before you participate in this map's discussion please read the whole postings including this -> #2284266
Thanks in advance~

Seems like the debate is finally over, solved.

Regarding the difficulty of my gd:

based on this https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/en/Ranking_Criteria/osu%21mania#-insane there isn't really anything prohibiting "liberal usage of LN snap releases". The closest thing listed is to "Avoid using 1/6 or higher snap long note streams" and I think it's safe to say that that guideline is unbroken, especially considering the fact that LN density and complexity generally go down as the song's bpm increases.

Considering how rarely I involve myself with ranking stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some unspoken set of rules which draw the line between what is and isn't ok for an insane (when it comes to LNs) which I don't know about. In any case, I'm gonna need something more specific than "liberal LN usage" to even be able to address the problem.

It's 3am for me, so I'll be back later to maybe discuss other stuff and provide a more detailed answer, but hopefully this'll do for now

i do not have stake in this map but i think saying that some lns r "too short to be played accurately" isn't that much a problem and I do not like this precedent of avoiding lns that r "too short" esp. on maps that will never really be fully SS'd (unless u love to play with rng) like this one -- its an "I need to acc everything Very Well or else I will die" v.s. mapper freedom/creativity thing

edit : guden delete mod sob i will keep for ref but ignore this comment

VOUCH

this is mostly for top diff only

re: diff spike

• while i did understand the reply to my comment on the 8 note stack I have to ask why u (ticle) decided to prioritize retaining the concept (which i believe you can very easily keep without compromising anything AND not having the stack, like ignoring column consistency becoz the vocals are already emphasized with LNs) over difficulty balance/not having diff spikes, which I might note is one of the hardest parts in the map in terms of strain (long jack on left hand index finger which is most ppls non-dominant hand [unless u mirror mod the map I guess])
• idt anyone pointed this out yet but the diff spike does not exactly relate to the intensity of the song (and the overall difficulty curve) especially since the ending climax 04:23:795 doesn't rlly feature anything quite like that 8 note thing
• so u need to explain concept > balance AND intensity of section v.s. song progression in ur eyes

re: ln releases

• ok well I understand this is very much ur style and whether or not I like it is a different matter entirely -- not that I do not think different styles should be a thing tho (they should)

• but I have to ask whether or not u have 'overused' them -- like 00:19:562 (19562|2,19621|3) - for e.g., these don't exactly go to any synth even tho all the surrounding LNs 00:18:859 (18859|3,18976|1,19055|2,19133|0,19211|1,19328|0,19680|0,19738|2,19797|1,19914|3,20031|1) - do
  --- to me it would've been way more obvious that u're wobbling the synth sounds in this section if you've just placed lns on the synths, but now u have lns that go with bursts that I cant hear anything "synth"-like to and I'm just left confused
  --- 00:25:305 (25305|2,25363|3,25461|2,25539|3,25539|1) - see above + why are the synths here NOT lns too

• clutter should refer to stuff like 00:33:625 (33625|3,33703|2,33742|3,33801|2,33859|3) - which is functionally a trill https://i.imgur.com/5FS3Vml.png but isn't too obvious becoz of the ln lengths

• "clutter" should refer more generally to patterning/layering that arent exactly what the mapper intends but puts down anyway because u cant exactly see where the hitnotes land and everything if everything else looks like a hitnote (ln lengths + ends get in the way)

• and while this sort of mapping isn't exactly wrong, I have to wonder if you think this song actually fits this sort of motif v.s. something else more erratic/hard like neurofunk/deathstep

After giving a quick look, I'll try to go over mint's points one by one on each difficulty (Or in specific difficulties):

Regarding the difficulty spikes: It's kind of a hard case here. The song's tempo does go up at the end, however the difficulty spike is way too glaring in Ticle's difficulty. Because of how relatively short the tempo-up segment is relative to the whole song, having such a notable jump in difficulty is rather unpleasant to both play and have. The general overall difficulty should be averaged. A way to try and better suit the increase in tempo would be to have lighter patterns whose difficulty would be justified by the increased speed. There shouldn't be a need to make it denser.

Patterns like 03:38:704 - 03:39:341 are very poorly optimized for example. Having an anchor here in Column 2 at 165 BPM without any justification to warrant a hand bias makes the segment very, very unpleasant to play. It's basically adding difficulty artificially as chords can be adjusted to their respective BPMs to make them more or less playable. Said anchor makes it rather annoying and unjustifies its spike as the chords could be placed literally elsewhere.

This is just but one example of what 03:38:704 - 04:26:777 could benefit from; Adjusting the patterns to their respective increased BPM to not overdo the emphasis on the song being faster. Yes, the song does go faster, but as Abraxos said: "the diff spike does not exactly relate to the intensity of the song". The contrast between parts is abysmal. The choruses have a slight intensity increase, but the patterning changes make it seem like if they were from different leagues.

With all this said, I've tried considering the difficulty changes in an objective way while taking into consideration how satisfying those patterns would be to play in a subjective way. Keep in mind however that example of the anchored chords that I pointed out before is an actual suggestion that could be applied as that anchor itself seems to be unjustifiable enough.

Regarding the same last segment for Bringo's difficulty: I believe for the most part, it's justifiable. However there are some things that should be kept in mind. First things first, being 165 BPM, having these many 1/4 Minijacks alongside the 1/8 streams is very tricky. Certain patterns will be more comfortable to play than others, and this is an issue if we take into account that the segment they are all located wouldn't warrant to add tension to those patterns by using more complicated Column and finger movements. What I said before about "Adjusting the patterns to their respective increased BPM to not overdo the emphasis on the song being faster" should also be applied here, specially taking into consideration the myriad of different LN releases (Specially the shorter ones as the timings for the press/release might be very, very tricky to be considered an insane if we take into consideration their anchored arrangements alongside other sliders, notes, etc...).

Just to try an answer Bancho's concerns in his "Considering how rarely I involve myself with ranking stuff [...]" paragraph: There's no real set rule nor guideline about releases and what would constitute as an Insane. However, the song's tempo spike at the end and the patterning used do not get along very well. Some sacrifices would have to be done to the patterning density in order to better represent the short but faster tempo section without sticking out from the rest of the map!

TlDr; Quoting myself from a discussion I had "The last part doesn't sacrifice density to adapt to the BPM". My argument to defend that the last part sticks out too much would simply be that people wouldn't have noticed that much if that were not the case. But as seen by this discussion, both last parts need to adjust their patterns to include a more homogeneous playability and experience across their respective difficulties while maintaining the slight intensity increases that each part of the song incrementally adds without overdoing it.

please understand me if my grammar is very wrong
and this apply for abraxos(I'll respond about mint's general opinion soon)

[what makes concept on my map(or on my overall mappingview)?]

• 1. degree of stubbornness on specific map <- In this map, 'stubbornness' is a bold note layering that primarily allows aesthetic patterns to perform better emotional roles
• 2. which sound has been emphasized relatively more <- If it's part of the concept, it doesn't have a big relation with the total amount of sound(volume)
• 3. what and how much things used to express 'heightening emotion' <- (mappers sometime use techniques rather than increasing note density to heighten player's emotions)

also on this map, I decided to provide a memorable present through "use of bold patterns" & "change of priority of playability things such as hand balance(=playability breaking)"

this is a concept that has continued since the beginning of the map, and why there are so many momentary breakdowns of handbalance
of course, i aware of '8 stacked ptrn' is the biggest difficulty when considering the entire map, but there're many patterns have stubbornness similar to 8 stacked ptrn

e.g.

1. 01:05:148 -
2. 01:46:384 - (acturally people will more struggle with 01:59:626 - )
3. 03:38:704 - (and more)
4. 04:15:068 - 04:17:613 -

I am NOT saying that these patterns "these would have the same intensity as each other"

clearly, these patterns are very aggressive when considering the "flow of songs/patterns previously used", and these patterns can give the player more mindblocking(=playability breaking) "than" 8 stacked ptrn, depending on the skill players owns

but even if there are such cases on maps, i know that 'intensity' cannot be ignored
still, the reason i claim this is because of the "existence of a player base close to the ideal of 'ideal playability' in which more than n% of a particular map can be played feeling Mapper's intentions"
of course, since it was not a successful adjustment of density, I am positive that mindblocking can occur in many of them(ideal playability), but I think that arbitration between them will only improve the average, not the way to get closer to ideal

therefore player who has a strong mindblocking on 8 stacks(more or less), cares more about real song expression than heightened emotions, and wants notes that suit for their taste only is not the player I and my map want

[intensity of section v.s. song progression]

I hear that 3rd kiai (after 03:22:426 - ) is not only a place where the atmosphere is very high, but also where the composition of the sound, drum, and repetition are going different compare to previous parts
ofc it's not that the rest of the kiai doesn't have much of a sound/flow variance
just, when represented by maps, this part for me is, and based on the concepts I've built up, "a section that needs to make a big difference", and while at the same time "easy to make a big difference"
I admit that the degree was strong, but I am adamant because I believe that the person who has the ability to close to the ideal play skill does not feel serious mindblocking

[why is the same sound often expressed differently]

• If I used two(or above) variation of pattern although each pattern's motif sounds are same:
• {a sound(but with same group - like "synth sounds") + same variance} -(can be)> {different expression, but with same variance}
• so I know it can ruin consistency a bit(exactly, most about 'natural song expression', not the entire placement rules) but I can get more diversity is the obvious result and i don't think this is wrong with the mapping
• because i put notes based on variance of sounds, i mean the frequency of use of "different expression" varies depending on how the concept of the map is determined

[ln releases (and about short lns during burst/trill patterns)]

• First of all, there is a brief mention of the short long note, so I'm going to take a moment
  the short lns in the beginning section usually do a visual role in expressing the connection between the lns
  you know, I purposely split the synth sounds, and I used it as a structure but sometimes I didn't split the synth, only used it as an LN(I have written the details for this below, [00:25:304 - why are the synths here not lns?])

so back to the subject, mixing of short lns during bursts or trills began with the idea of reducing the sense of separation between each patterns

e.g.
00:32:336 (32336|1,32570|1) -
00:39:250 (39250|3,39484|3) -
Examples may not be "regular/solid rules" but I don't think it's a big problem in terms of consistency because they're in the same group

[00:25:304 - why are the synths here not lns?]

• to explain this question, I have to point out the start timing of the entire map -> 00:15:431 (15431|1,15461|3,15461|2,15519|0,15539|1,15607|3,15666|0,15695|2,15754|3,15812|1,15851|2) -
  from the beginning, I used the expression splitting the synth, and since the synth actually wobbles, I used a pattern similar to the first classification without putting a long note at 00:15:929 - or using a triple and I used this layout as a structure
  although I could express it differently I decided that using this pattern as a structure would be more useful in the future, and I actually used it (idt it's the best way, but i want to say is, it makes sense)

• 00:16:633 - for the same reason, some explanation is likely to be needed for this part. definitely synth of 00:16:750 is wobbling, since I pursue diversity mainly through {a sound(but with same group - like "synth sounds") + same variance} -(can be)> {different expression, but with same variance}, there are many groups with the same sound/different structure on the map. this timing(00:16:633) is one of them

• as an exception, In the same case as 00:20:617 - , burst was considered, but a simple ln was used for the smooth emphasis of 00:20:617 (20617|0,20734|0,20969|0) & 00:21:086 (21086|2,21086|3,21203|3) (Honestly, I'm not glad to talk about these things deeply because I think they're just mapper's liberty)

[and for the last question, "and while this sort of mapp..."]

tbh i don't understand the genre side very well(mainly because of english i think lol), i guess you mean

• does the overall pattern match the "the flow of the current song + sounds"? then I'll reply like "well, im not very satisfied with mine"
• (I know you didn't ask me like this, this is just what im thinking now) does the pattern now contradict the 'mapping'? no.

Gonna be much brever than the comments you've all been discussing with but I'm sadly a bit busy to be able to completely ellaborate:

· Overall, I think Bringo's diff is fine; releases are indeed on the really tricky side but I can see the intention for expressiveness being justifiable there.
· On the other hand, I really think there are some problematic points on Ticle's diff. The expression intents don't really justify the overusage of outer column (mainly 34343) trilly motions in the main verses (see 00:15:461-00:44:992), specially when apart from becoming too straining in the long-run they're a bit stiff + a bit unreasonable to acc in some cases due to the interwined LNs.
· Overall trickyness of the releases is probably fine, but it should be better to avoid being excessively obscure on the releases where it becomes detrimental when playing the pattern compared to the expressiveness you get out of it
· Some of the 1/8 minijacks look pretty problematic (mainly stuff like 01:11:301 (71301|0,71359|0,71359|3,71418|3) or the one handed pattern at 01:05:265 (65265|2,65383|3,65500|2,65558|2) ) so I'd strongly recommend looking for alternatives here as I feel it jeopardises a bit the general impression the section and the song gives.
· The very last kiai is probably a bit too spiky, not super excessive but it would probably help some rearranging to make the patterns very slightly lighter or more accesible

Cheers! ♥

A disclaimer for the answer to Ticle's response:
· Both Abraxos and I have checked the response. I'm not writing directly on his behalf, however some of the issues that will be answered share some of his points of views regarding the matter. I won't specify exactly "who said what" as I wouldn't want my wording to be used as if I was putting words on his mouth, but the main concerns are shared.

I'll start with the biggest issues to discuss, proceed with the lesser ones, then finish with a solution to them! It's not only about pointing out a problem, but working a way with the mapper to reach a middle ground that would be beneficial for everyone.
-------
Let's begin with the arguments that "is not the player I and my map want" and "I am adamant because I believe that the person who has the ability to close to the ideal play skill does not feel serious mindblocking":

I believe those arguments are not the best way to justify the glaring difficulty spikes found across this level, and I'll explain why. Again I'm going to use the 8-Note anchor as an example, as it's the most clear one out of them. That section goes from 03:38:704 to 03:39:341, for a total of 0.637 ms of Drain time. The total Drain time of the level is 4:21 minutes, or 261000 ms. I personally believe, just by the statistic I'm about to provide, that having such a difficulty spike that occupies 0.00024% of the total drain time is just unjustifiable. I get that your concept tries to emphasize how a player feels while playing, and to be honest that's a very good idea! However that idea shouldn't hinder the player's experience, and passing it off as not being made for a certain type of player (According to what you've said, correct me if I'm wrong) it's not the best of arguments, mainly because we can improve this concept by basically making it more playable.

Now, don't get me wrong: Not all maps are made for everyone, however I believe there's a misconception here. You've purposely made and acknowledge some potential chokepoints that some players might struggle with. I'm not going to get the Drain time percentage that they occupy as I already should have made my point across before, but there's a difference between maps not made for certain players and having these miniscule choke points with huge difficulty spikes that can be fixed by rearranging the columns used or slightly simplifying them. A middle ground can be reached between playability and conceptuality!
--------
I'll continue trying to clarify and point out something in the 3 Main Concepts your map is trying to base of after:

1. Be very careful when arguing the usage of "Aesthetic patterning". The idea itself is not inherently bad, it's creative nonetheless! However, I'm going to quote Komirin on another similar issue she found in another map: "in practice here [In the controversial parts mentioned] the playability gets really deteriorated because of it". Concepts should be clear while sacrificing playability only when needed. As explained, some patterns could be improved to push playability over conceptuality without losing the main idea of focusing on the Aesthetics.

2. Second concept of not relating sound/volume to density is completely fine by itself. However, that means that density should at least relate with the sound or sounds you want to emphasize on, as going overboard might hinder playability.

3. To be honest, it's the first time I've heard the idea of trying to convey emotions via mapping, and honestly on paper it sounds amazing to be able to convey such feeling! From what I read, you want to make the last part the one that makes the biggest difference, the one that would put players at the edge of their seats. But honestly, maybe the emotions represented were a tad too high for this difficulty at least. The main issue here is not the contrast between Kiai's, as that representation is subjective. However something a bit more objective is the fact that pushing this concept to that extent hinders the playability by spiking the level's average difficulty. The curve seems way too overboard. As I said before, the main takeaway of what could be the cause of the problem is that "the last part doesn't sacrifice density to adapt to the BPM". You could make the third kiai equally intense and equally representative of the emotion you want to convey without spiking difficulty if you were to adapt the patterning to the tempo's increase so they would go hand in hand.
   ---------
   Now I'll try to rephrase what Abraxos said on his last point regarding the motifs not being very well representative of the song genre used:

He's questioning some of the erratic patterning usage, which is most commonly seen on more chaotic and technical genres such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofunk or https://electronicmusic.fandom.com/wiki/Deathstep (Those were his examples, this just explains them a bit).
--------
Finally, I just wanted to clarify that the issue does not seem to be the concepts themselves. They are original, they are creative, and they're what make this map unique in it's way, which is amazing! However, the problem comes when these concepts are "Too well represented". I'm not discrediting that you didn't follow this ideas at any point, however I'm going to point out that by focusing too much on them, the map has suffered playability issues. A map can be both aesthetically pleasing and playable by most players without having to worry about potential chokepoints that occupy less than 0.001% of the map's drain time.

Hopefully this cleared up any misconceptions that have been done with other posts. It's very important to notice that what we're trying to bring up is the layering choices that have hindered the playability of the map, both from a mapper's modder's, and player's perspective alike!

I'll be more than happy to help with these playability issues. But the only way to do so is by reaching a middle ground where both the mapper and the players can agree upon. Some issues are going to be easier to fix than others (Looking at you, 8-Note anchor).

As a final disclaimer; Please note that everyone here is trying to make their best to try to improve the map itself! If it has reached Qualified, it means it's almost ready for Ranked. We just have to ensure its Quality because once it's ranked there's no going back, and we wouldn't want to have any regrets later on.

As this is completely besides the point, I want to address by praising the uniqueness and most of the patterning used. It was a fun map to play, and I myself, as a very subjective opinion, enjoy chaotic maps such as these!

Have a great day over there!

This is the answer to RandomeLoL, and I also wrote down the opinion about this discussion
If you're interested in my map at least, read [overall answer for RandomeLoL] or [addtional posting] and please post a discussion. it would be great entire of this post, but i recommend just read that two points coz it's too long lol

=== I'm sure the contents of this answer below are what you already know(since you used the certain sentence, <Now, don't get me wrong:>), however, I will write again by organizing for other discussion participants.

• All maps are mapped for specific types of players. It's the difference between perspective and degree.
• Suppose a mapper maps to a "full spread + flat playability + friendly pattern." In this case, there are so many players of a particular type that it's a major, but it's not something that you didn't make it for a particular type of player. I think it's about the difference between targeting major & minor.
• think again about hindering with the player's experience(mainly about average playability). Can you say that you haven't seen a player enthusiastic about the challenge of rhythm games or extreme difficulty? and I think that players certainly exist because those players are influenced by emotions, they have new fun through playability breaking. And I've seen a lot of players who feel like that way.
  I don't want to say that I'm a mapper who can't focus on the song and just only emphasizes challenging.
  I'm just arguing that everyone involved in this discussion should be a little more careful in arguing playability
  ===

so back to the point, let me talk for a moment about potential chokepoints that I acknowledge and aware of.
It's not that I don't know what you're arguing about. I think you argued on flattening the maximum ideal of this map a little bit so that 'more' ideal-like players can have a better experience. And this is a rank, so I know that you respect my map as it is, but you want to lower the various hurdles on the map(I hope I understand well)
I expect that whole happiness will eventually increase same as you, so I don't say it's wrong, but I just want to say it's a matter of choice. I've made some decisions about this. You can read the [overall answer for RandomeLoL] or [addtional posting] as mentioned at the top of the content

[respond of 1.] <Be very careful when arguing the usage of "Aesthetic patterning">

• I think you can take the aesthetic value as meaning to coordinate it with the player's beauty more delicately. ofc I agree that there are better improvements to this map than now(because this map doesn't score high for me), but crucially I don't deny playability myself coz i rather considering ideal playability rly carefully. Rather, I am in a tightrope walking position in playability, so I often approach it more delicately. The point is, the difference between the degree and the perspective
• ofc it doesn't mean that this map is a masterpiece that has undergone such a delicate process. rather I don't like this map. But since it's a relatively recent map, I talked about it assuming that there wouldn't be much difference in the basic approach of mapping way.
• In conclusion, I agree that there are improvements, but I question whether they are essential. And I don't think im going to be very careful in future discussion because I think im approaching it well enough from an aesthetic pov
  ** Don't get me wrong. As I self-assess that my current aesthetic pov is much more valuable and delicate than when I mapped this map, this rather will help you achieve your(our) purpose **

[respond of 2.]

• The convey of the sound I've tried to emphasize is not clear(mainly because my mapping is usually abstract), so the argument itself may have sounded unfair. It's not a concept that's usually visualized in this map, rather it's a concept that other mappers use more than I do, and I mentioned it because I think it's one of the legitimate mapping concepts for my mappingview
• The section where I used this concept on this map, well, is usually concentrated on the bridge proly. And it's hard to specify the points because it's used as a whole(like, I used them on entire map). If you ask me a question, I can find an example, but as you know, it doesn't mean much

[respond of 3.]

• The reason why the problem you mentioned occurred is not because of the curve is too much, but rather because of the 3rd kiai's momentary diff spike(8 notes). I think I will explain it when more opinions are gathered later, but in short I don't make the difficulty of the map 'flat'. I don't make specific target players, but for ease of explanation, the target players should have the ability to play smoothly at the end of the map(overall last kiai). Therefore, if there is a playability issue on this map, it will be mainly caused by "3rd kiai's 8note-anchor"(which affects curve rise), rather than "the degree of difficulty increasing"
• What I consider is ideal playability, not average. From that pov, I do not judge that there is a gap between sections that can interfere or hinder with ideal playability, therefore I think the only issue we can discuss in this response is about 8notes anchor. this is because the spike is the only problem that the person at my counterpoint can take issue with it, n from his pov, that spike is the only part of my argument that can be said to be far-fetched
• nevertheless I still think this is acceptable enough in the rank scene, but I don't think there's any meaningful voice for me rn, so I think I will decide on a stance by referring to the discussion that will continue on this map

[the genre things]

• eh... Anyway, thank you for explaining the genre again. ofc this mapping style would be better for that genre, but when I mapping that genre, I'll change the concepts, experimentally use other mapping techniques... in other words, I'll try to differentiate myself from the expression I used on this map
• so even if I remap this song, it won't change much from the way it is. well, when I map more crazy songs or genres, the mapping style just becomes more chaotic or enriched. At least I'm expecting it to be the case.
• and... I think it's a good idea to move on because it's a strong connection to mapper's own style

[overall answer for RandomeLoL]

• This is a rank process, so I understand that you are trying to take into account the average playability. btw I don't know who made it 'to be considered' lol
  now the tools I usually use for mapping seem to hinder the rank scene but i mean it's not that you're bad at all. well...I'm just complaining that I'm not good about this situation
• I'm not saying I won't compromise. But I think I'll make a very careful decision. Therefore, I will receive additional opinions of our think
• I think we have time to get additional opinions because we are still in the middle state of QF. welp, I don't know how many more people will show their opinions, but there's nothing bad about listening more. I will post additional posting regarding this

edit: grammar

[additional posting]
discussion is a defense for defense and advice for advice, but as mentioned in mint's account, my notes seem to tend to defend snaps maybe?
It's fun to say that just simply explaining the rules and intentions of snaps gives someone a feeling of defending lol
maybe I'm just mindblocking them like the playability breaking I used on this map zz

anyways I explained and defended my intention as much as I could, someone might feel aggressive because I expressed my personal thoughts very openly
coz I think Mapper's intention to explain is important, so I won't withdraw immediately, whether my argument is right or wrong
so please refute my opinion or others' opinion enough

• meaning of "not withdrawing mapper's opinion": if the mapper's argument continues to falter in the process of the discussion, it's painful to read or answer. It can be far-fetched for someone, but im being considerate for everyone's conditions *

Anyway, since it is a place where various opinions are received, there may be overlapping opinions, and opinions that many people agree with should be considered in depth. my main pov is pretty clear than I thought, and I don't think it will be very helpful for a fluid discussion so I'll answer a variety of discussions at once. If there's a good suggestion for me, I'll fix it after DQ before this map get Ranked

my head is going to meltdown coz writing thousands of letters in english
anyways, dear mania mappers. please leave a lot of feedbacks 🥰

Just for the sake of transparency; I read the answer and I'm going to await for more opinions in the matter. If nothing else seems to appear by the end of its qualified status or no consensus has been reached yet, I'll give a final insight using the whole discussion at my disposal to be as precise and accurate as possible. But yes, it's a good idea to let the discussion flourish with more opinions.

This map is now DQ, and it is not an excuse, but I must go to the army according to Korean law soon. I gonna be inactivated in early May and It's the middle of April, so I really don't have much time
Therefore, I will receive opinions over the next few days(about 3 days / 72 hours) and then make my own decision, and I plan to qualify again. I don't have much time to lose

I aware of Just 3 days are could be too short, so after I make a decision we'd better have some time to talk about my decision(about 2 days / 48 hours would be great imo). Those who missed the timing of their remarks before will have an opportunity to make additional remarks too

I don't think it's far-fetched, If you're thinking about the length of the QF period
But I'm not asking you to understand just the time itself. I'd appreciate it if you could understand my situation

prolly I will go with this time schedule,
first period: until 16 April, 15:00 with UTC-0
second period: until 18 April, 15:00 with UTC-0

I think the total period of 5 days is sufficient because you can write your opinion at any time of this period

And I will send a pm to mint, they have to bring in the "countless number of people" they mentioned (I'm not being sarcastic, but just saying that's really what written on the post)
or even if their opinions are all in mint's post, my opinions are not just one so they should be talking about which parts they agree and which parts they disagree with

Lastly, I have few relationship with the community so if you(everyone who read this) don't mind please let the people related to this map know this posting

edit: grammar and sentences for smooth understanding

Excuse me
is anyone there?

ughhh fine I guess I'll post something

ok so I think the current problem that needs more discussing is whether or not diff spikes can even be good, because rn it almost feels like the people opposed to the map are just starting off with the assumption that all diff spike are always bad.

For now, there are two main points I want to make:

1 - Personally, I'm fine with (and might even prefer it) when certain sections of a map feel like "diff spikes". To illustrate why, I'll try to make a comparison to art:
oftentimes, in literature, an author might be expected to portray how a character is feeling. But instead of just saying "they were angry" or some shit, they might exaggerate to make the character's emotions more "vividly clear". If you wanna get fancy you could call it "emotional clarity" or something.
Similarly, as mappers we're expected to "express the music". And so instead of trying to make the map's difficulty mimic the song's intensity at every point in time (which would kinda be like the mapping equivalent of "they were angry"), the mapper might allow themselves to go overboard and exaggerate the intensity of the music to make it vividly clear which parts of the song are to be seen as the most intense. (as a small note, I think this also supports Ticle's argument of mapping with "the ideal player" in mind since they should be able to handle the spikes, and thus benefit the most from them. It also supports the idea of "emotional mapping").
ALSO, this logic can be applied to calmer sections of the music and "exaggerating" the easiness of the map (which could lead to more rigorous justifications of why it's ok to omit mapping sounds in a map) but that's besides the point.

2 - I brought up in the previous point that it should be ok to exaggerate the intensity of the music, BUT because of subjectivity and how different people might perceive the same thing differently, it can be very difficult/impossible to pin down the "true" intensity of the music in a given moment. For example, in something like edm, you have the whole buildup and drop dynamic: the buildup creates a bunch of suspense and tension, which makes the release (ie the drop) that much more satisfying. Because of that tension, it might be possible for a mapper to interpret the buildup as more intense than the drop itself (versus the usual perception that the drop is always the most intense part). Because of this difference in perception, it's possible for one mapper to see something as totally fine while another mapper sees the same thing as a diff spike (cough cough 8-note jack cough cough).

This means that on top of the difference in perception of the music between mappers, different mappers might have different ideas of what level of difficulty is appropriate. Putting both of these together, you potentially get a mapper who perceives a section of music as being more intense than other people and who also prefers to exaggerate difficulty: thus, you get something which other mappers might consider as completely over-emphasized (despite that not necessarily being the case).

Admittedly though, I'm not sure these points are enough to justify everything in Kamah. For one, they mostly cover "section wide difficulty spikes" (like the entirety of the last drop, 03:40:159 ~ 04:26:704) versus difficulty spikes in one small moment of the music (like the 8 note jack). Some wacky philosophical and mathematical reasoning might make it possible to justify though, like some "proof by induction on moments of music" type shit on moments of music (ie what if we think of the buildup as being part of the drop? does that help excuse the difficulty spike?).

Another issue which I still have to address is that the first main point I made relies on the "mapping as art" perspective, even though thinking about mapping in terms of video game design is also a very common perspective and could potentially be used to refute what I said. (I don't actually believe it refutes what I said but I still need a bit of time to organize my thoughts before I give a full explanation)

But yeah hopefully all of this is enough to create some more discussion.

~ And now this is the part where I try to address a couple arguments that were made ~

Regarding randomelol's arguements against the last drop in my diff, I'm well aware that the patterns are tricky, but I've already discussed it with dubstek as part of his bn check. I personally think it's ok for three reasons:

1 - I've found that a somewhat reliable way to determine how difficult a pattern is to look at how someone might try to manip it. In this case, the section at 03:41:068 might instead feel like this https://gyazo.com/48aa2a319a2afd2453ad8a0425764711 which is a pretty standard jump pattern and one which I think should be ok.
2 - despite the trickiness of the patterns, I've done my best to keep things as balanced as possible so that it's still reasonably comfortable. If you count how many notes there are in each column from 03:40:523 to 03:41:932 you get: 8, 6, 8, 6. This might seem bad but don't forget that the patterns are copy-pasted and ctrl+h so it all evens out.
3 - despite what you may think, visuals can in fact affect difficulty (at least in my experience). If something is easy to read, you can react faster to it -> if you can easily react to something, your hands don't tense up as much while playing it -> if your hands don't tense up as much, the pattern is easier. The pattern at 03:41:068 is not only very visually clear (and easy to read), but also pretty important for the structure of the section (as the visuals help make the transition at 03:48:523 much clearer as well), which makes it even harder to justify changing the pattern.

As for 03:52:159 to 03:57:613, the third point doesn't apply much (the 1/8 streams become more visually broken and harder to read). But to compensate, points 1 and 2 apply even more: the pattern becomes even more jump-trilly, and instead of 8,6,8,6 the notes per column are 7, 7, 7, 7 with pure copy-paste (ie no ctrl+h), albeit with a bit of variance (because the music varies more).

Also, the point you make about how "the patterns should be adjusted according to the bpm to keep difficulty in check" completely goes against the "exageration for emotional clarity" argument I used in the above post.

As for ticle's diff, I think that your argument that "the difficulty spike is only 0.00024% of the map" argument is somewhat misleading since it ignores the context of the rest of the map. It would've worked if the surrounding sections were like 1* or something, but before the difficulty spike there's about 3 seconds of tricky jack patterns with trilly bursts followed by 1.5 seconds of dense 1/3 chordjack (this whole thing starting at
03:28:523). And then, on top of that, there's the drop which comes right after the difficulty spike. While it might not be as hard as the spike, it's still somewhat close, AND it's right-hand biased to offset the fact that the spike is left-hand biased.

ok that's enough for now I think I will go to bed

as an aside bcoz everyone forgot about this apparently I might suggest two things so this can continue

• transfer map ownership (preferably to bringo) so this chart can proceed (i.e. bringo edits both diffs if needed)
• transfer ownership but you communicate with ticle (either through some secondary party or whomever) and make do with text/screenshots/replies

al;so where are the bns for this map lmao @unpredictable @dubstek

No, it is harder to communicate normally in the Korean army than you think(cellphone usage time is hard limited, and using PC is close to a dream), so this map will proceed to rank again as soon as possible without any major changes. In short, I have decided to change the 8-note anchor pattern, and patterns that are not "must be changed" will not be changed. and I do not see any reason why they(except 8note ptrn) should not be ranked

I'm just waiting to give others the least time to answer Bringo's comments. my final response will be posted in a few hours or a day

edit: 'and which is not a "must be corrected" issue for anything other than that' -> 'and patterns that are not "must be changed" will not be changed'

i made no comment abt the changes tbh I was just saying that this doesn't have to die don't need to be 2 defensive :upside_down:

the reason i talked about the changes are to explain that ownership of this map does not need to be transferred
i'm sorry if i looked defensive i didn't mean to
but it's also true that i feel very stuffy about this whole of discussion so that's why i might have explained more to you than i needed to rn

ok I was gonna write a "part 2" to the main points I wrote earlier, where instead of using art as a comparison to mapping I use video game design. But since I'm lazy and ticle decided to change the 8-note jack anyways I think I'll just save it for until it's actually necessary (like if people decide that there are other things which must also be changed)

this discussion has become too long, so I'll close this discussion n open a new suggestion
also 8-note anchor has been changed -> https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16508839/ee75

nu descution reenk (If you want to start a new discussion, please start here)
#2312203

eh, thanks

applied

y I'll delete redline soon

resolved

잉앗쌀라말라이꿍

이번 기회에 배우시길 바랍니다.

Steven trolling

전기밥솥

ㅏㅏㅏㅏㅏㅏㅏ

야호

Resolved
the svs were slightly wrong(like x0.85 points were set to x1.00 lol), but thank you for greatly reducing my work!

:D

Updated Bringo's Insane diff
New rule has applied on 02:37:226

Nerfed HP on Bringo's Insane
Added Bringo's username on tags
HS volume has been tuned in details

It's fair enough I think so gonna change it
I'll mark it as resolved after update the entire map

resolved

just gonna reopen this for a bit since its regarding a somewhat similar issue, I think you should definitely change the HP on bringo's diff to something like 8 instead. 8.5 is considered to be pretty high for an Insane diff, considering the difficulty of the map and all, I think 8 would be a lot more fitting honestly.

Nerfed HP on Bringo's Insane

naisu

done

also i just realized bringo is not in tags LOL, make sure is username is in tags pls

his*

omfg

now Bringo has joined to the kamah

diffname changed
Bringo's liberty -> Bringo's Insane

updated bringo's diff (with minor changes)
01:40:715 - added a note on 4 col n deleted a ln on 01:40:773, 4col

also slightly changed 01:40:656

?

idk

I agree, I don't really see any sort of clear progression from "Bringo's Liberty" -> "Set them free." So I don't think its justified to use that reasoning either.

camellia liberation movement oppressed mpaping

Emm I disagree. As like this beatmap https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/1011337#mania/2116795 , I think it is acceptable if the difficulty name of high difficulty has a higher unit or something like that than the difficulty name of low difficulty.

I also agree with dubstek's opinion. Since the two difficulty levels each borrowed a slightly different concept, I think it is okay to use a different custom name.

I'm confused on what you're trying to say here? I think there is atleast some indication of difficulty progression on that set you mentioned. (I assume the meaning being synergic meaning collaborative difficulty, ascent meaning ascending to some point (that being equatorial)). I don't think using this example is valid anyways as it was ranked nearly a year ago. "Liberty" and "Set them free" have too similar meaning IMO, so I think Shima Rin's point still stands valid.

I'd also like to mention that "Set them free" implies more of a state before Liberation where as "Liberty" implies a constant state. In this context, "Set them free" -> "Liberty" would make sense for proper indication of difficulty name progression.

I personally feel that the example Dubstek mentioned has custom diffnames because the mapper treats both difficulties as Insane or Extra, and that will be totally fine because they are of similar difficulties. However, the difficulties here have relatively big gaps and the top difficulty can not be classified as an Insane, which is why I think difficulty name progression is needed.

Ok, now I think guden and Shuma Rin's opinions are more reasonable and right. I'll contact the mapper to solve this. Thank you :)

In case of diffname i gonna discuss it with Buringo and fix it
at the same time i will solve all additional suggestions and upload them at once(if exist)
most of all I don't think the discussion that goes on without asking for mappers' opinion is significant n I really don't care of how the diffname set as so i apply resolved mark

lmao what the fuck is all this
"Bringo's liberty" was just a result of me deciding that "Set Bringo free" sounded too memey

you can go ahead and change it Bringo's insane, it's not that big a deal

Naisu

Resolved. Thanks a lot!

yuh
japanese rapping
yuh

song name please

boo!

이번 기회에 배우시길 바랍니다.

전기밥솥

잉앗쌀라말라이꿍

머래는거여