Mezame (Hyphen Bootleg-Intro-)

Sources of the original song:

• https://www.lantis.jp/release-item/LACA-5337.html
• https://fictionjunction.com/discography/

okay, i'll check back later, ill keep this issue open until then, just commenting to note that i've seen this and plan to do it

it is now released as track 18 of disc 2, feel free to add it in tags

added both tags

Thank you for your work ExGon.

Everything in the "missing additional hitsounds" section was fixed/added.

Similar parts with different hitsounds:

• 00:57:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - , 03:52:119 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -, In the first instance, the pattern happens without background drums in the music, but they are present in the second instance, so I feel like adding hitsounds to the pattern to match that intensity is reasonable enough.
• Everything else was fixed/added.

Everything in the "unecessary additional hitsounds" section was fixed/added. I really liked the idea to remove the drum-hitwhistle on 03:22:619 (1) -.

i genuinely agree with rocma. just because it can be ranked doesn't mean it should be ranked (no offense to you kyptoric, you did a good job on mapping something that requires lots of skill to be played), however i find this map very overmapped and not following the song at all

agree with rocma

Have to agree.

I just wanted to try out this map (hence I started from the preview point) and noticed at the first glance stuff that bother me
01:50:619 (1) - random switch to sliders instead of normal notes, which is visually different without justification.

It usually takes me more time to analyze the map, so I guess won't to get into details. Trusting on rocma that he mentioned most of the jarring points.

I apologize in advance for the horrible formatting.

!!! TLDR !!!
Due to the colossal length of this reply, I've opted to provide this small TLDR in hopes that not as many people will be turned away from reading it. Here are the main points found within:

• Replying directly to each timestamp Rocma has pointed out (of course).
• Due to how this map undeniably breaks away from modern ranked conventions, a defensive case is made for its design using the following points.
• Demonstrating that the currently enforced objective mapping premise (sound representation) should not be considered as the only valid design philosophy to go off of, and presenting alternative ideas which still allow maps to be fun and unique while preserving structural integrity and following a clear theme.
• Demonstrating that guidelines and processes derived from objective mapping are also not inherently tied to a map's quality, playability or readability, but that they are merely a singular way you can go about achieving those things.
• While not mentioned explicitly, it is also trying to get the point across that "objective" mapping is still, in fact, very much subjective. The primary players who take issue with this map are generally also mappers with deep roots in objective mapping; several top players without such a background may have issues with some individual parts, as with any other map, but do not find that anything is horribly "wrong" on a more general level, even when compared to other ranked maps.

====

Hello! First off, I want to dedicate a big thank you to Rocma for his service as a BN, his contributions are greatly appreciated. I respect that he wishes nothing but the best for the game, and it would be nothing short of discourteous if I didn’t take the time to reply properly.

Given the circumstances surrounding this map, this reply will be formulated in such a way that it is addressed and accessible to anyone else who is strongly opposed to this map being ranked. I fully understand why there is such an outrage over it, but I still wish to try and make a case for myself and for the map. I ask for nothing more than an open mind.

The instant veto comes as no surprise since Mezame undeniably goes against almost every good design principle that has been developed throughout the years, and I understand that. The point of me pushing this map regardless is that I fully believe it deserves to be ranked. At the same time, I am also advocating for change in a mapping era which I think has grown far too stale, repetitive, and especially cowardly. The main point of disagreement behind this veto clearly has to do with a difference in fundamental mapping philosophy and process, which of course many seem to share.

I'd like to take this chance to go through the points that have been brought up, explain my thought process along the way, compare them to current guidelines and rules and hopefully demonstrate why I think the latter are greatly limiting the possibilities for mappers aiming for ranked and why I think we should be open to other ideas.

To make sure I set the tone properly and don’t come off in a way I don’t intend, I want to mention that like any other map, ranked or not, I don't believe Mezame to be perfect. I also don't believe I am flawless as a mapper and seriously consider every bit of feedback I get. I have nothing but respect for everyone that takes the time to sit down and voice their criticism of my maps and only wish to discuss things to hopefully reach mutual understanding if there is ever a disagreement. That being said, I wholeheartedly believe maps should be seen as suitable for ranked even if they follow different design principles than the currently enforced ones.

This reply will include two primary sections with a smaller third section. It can be read in any order. The primary sections will start by contextualizing the problem and mentioning necessary background information before ending with me addressing veto mods directly with all of it in mind.

=====

Objective Mapping/Emphasizing Individual Sounds

=====

A significant portion of Rocma's points revolve around this idea, so here seems like the best place to start. Common wisdom dictates that you should always, and as much as possible, design your maps around the primary individual sounds present in a song. I, however, find that many problems arise when overusing this premise. I will first explain why in a general sense (PART 1 & 2) and then relate everything to parts referenced in Mezame by Rocma (PART 3).

PART 1
Objective sound representation is by far and away prioritized over anything else in a ranked map. Most of the time, if a modder says that a particular sound could be represented better, it is highly advised, if not expected, that a mapper should sacrifice any cool patterns or other unique representations they have made if necessary for the sake of making the map fit the song at the sound level. I have seen many interesting patterns be gutted out of existence this way because, again, sound representation is prioritized above all.

This is a limiting tradeoff to go off of for design, as how good of a map you can make is too harshly restricted by what individual sounds are present in the song you choose. By adjusting the tradeoff to give more leeway in terms of patterning and other means of representation, much more interesting, individualistic, and creative maps will be allowed to find themselves in the ranked spotlight.

Mezame makes a great case for this. If you listen to the song itself, it is virtually 5 minutes of the exact same beat with very little in the way of variation. I'm sure you can imagine what the map would look like if mapped "properly", i.e., if I focused on representing individual sounds in a very consistent manner. So long as you follow these rules, it is hard to imagine it being anything more than 5 minutes of the exact same repeating patterns. This would remain true even if you added some gimmicks or tricks to your patterning; the individual sounds would restrict your freedom, making it much harder to surprise and consequently keep the player engaged.

PART 2
Music is much more than the sum of its parts; there are many things to represent besides how loud a particular sound is. You have momentum, mood, flow, intensity, amongst many other abstract concepts to choose from. Countless maps which follow conventional mapping techniques for individual sounds feel extremely underwhelming to me and many others precisely because they don't represent the MUSIC, but rather its sounds, merely scratching the surface of what should be possible.

To add onto this, many converts are fully playable even though the sound representation for osu!catch gameplay often leaves to be desired at the input and visual levels. Almost all unique and great patterns for the gamemode have even been inspired from them in one way or another. Furthermore, and most interestingly for us, converts can be much more than just great casual fun, they can remain extremely consistent in how playable they are, be readable, and feel good for the player. This helps demonstrate that modern guidelines are a far cry from being able to extensively define how a map's playability and gameplay-wise "common sense" can be accurately assessed, as converts very typically break all of them.

By acknowledging this, it becomes easy to see how there would be much value to be found in polishing other mapping philosophies that aren't currently being explored as much as they should be. More importantly, it further shows that objective mapping should not be seen as the be all end all when it comes to quality, and that the mapping scene as a whole has much to gain and learn by moving on from that mindset.

PART 3
The way all of this relates to Mezame is that Rocma's points are based on rules created for the sole purpose of improving a map's ability to emphasize individual sounds. From that point of view, what he says is undeniably correct. The issue is that this is almost never what I am prioritizing and/or what Mezame is trying to be. All throughout the map, I make tradeoffs on individual sounds either for the sake of patterning or for the sake of representing more subtle elements of the music, this is a conscious design decision which I believe positively adds onto the map.

As stated in its description, the map's design choices helps it feel much closer to a jumpy convert than your typical osu!catch difficulty with the exclusion of pixels and edge-dashes. This undeniably makes Mezame an experience you cannot get anywhere else in osu!catch's ranked section at the moment, and it's been shown to be an experience enjoyed by many top players.

Here is a list of points and timestamps mentioned by Rocma that fall into the category of not prioritizing individual sound representation above all (prefixed with '!'), alongside some additional comments I thought were helpful (prefixed with '//'):
! "questionable hyperchains. the mapper is trying to force his comprehension of the song to the players which cannot be admitted in common sense 00:35:710 (1,2,3) - 00:39:346 (1,2) - 00:40:074 (1,2,3,4) - 00:46:255 (1,2,3,4) - 01:02:619 (1,2,3,4,5) - 01:06:436 (2,3,4,5) - 01:20:074 (1,2,3,4) - 01:36:074 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 02:43:619 (2,3,4)"
// While all of these are patterning tradeoffs and/or part of the pseudo-randomness gimmick (more on this later), I think some of the referenced patterns actually also have justifiable representation at the sound level, while others are justified in more abstract means. I will comment on those I think are most relevant.
// 00:40:074 (1,2,3,4) - , specifically 00:40:074 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - is a little tricky. The idea is that it is meant as a send-off to the musical phrase starting at 00:37:892 (1,2,3,4) - , so anything in-between these two patterns I consider as one micro-section (see 2. Structure And Consistency) which needs to stand out due to how the sounds at 00:37:892 affect the mood of the music. I realize this might be tied to my own personal subjective interpretation of the song, but I believe that given a reasonable enough explanation, this type of thing should be allowed for ranked.
// 00:46:255 (1,2,3,4) - I feel it's quite clear what this part is meant to represent. I don't know what you call these sorts of sounds but considering what they achieve in terms of musical feel, it feels quite fitting to have it be a small hyperchain. It also serves as a good explosive transition into the next phrase of the song, which is more fun than representing it by slowing down the pace of the map.
// 01:36:074 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - It's a little curious to me that this is pointed out as a flaw but 01:13:164 (3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - isn't, as they do the same the same thing. The drums are going quite crazy in these sections and I feel it's worthwhile emphasizing them through harder patterns.

! "02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - causes difficulty spike without any supporting sounds/moods on the song 03:55:892 (2,3,4) - 03:56:619 (2,3,4) - 03:59:346 (1,2,3,4) - 04:08:437 (3,4,5,6) - 04:09:528 (1,2,3,4) - 04:10:983 (1,2,3,4)"
// 02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - These slider parts emphasize what is to me the most powerful moment in the vocals. It repeats 3 times as this intensity in the vocals also repeats 3 times.
// 03:55:892 (2,3,4) - 03:56:619 (2,3,4) - These are the way they are for partly the sake of patterning, but I think they also have reasonable supporting individual sounds. In the first instance of the pattern, you can hear a sharp high-pitched noise, and in the second instance, the drums stand out a little more in the background.
// 03:59:346 (1,2,3,4) - This pattern is clearly emphasized by louder than normal sounds in the background. It also remains consistent with this 04:00:801 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - pattern where the spacing is increased for similar sounds. The same thing also happens here 04:10:983 (1,2,3,4) -.
// 04:08:437 (3,4,5,6) - 04:09:528 (1,2,3,4) - These are justified by the fact that they are in a harder micro-section (see 2. Structure And Consistency) of the map starting at 04:04:437 (1) - and ending at 04:10:255 (1) -. The song is clearly more intense during this section and while the volume of individual sounds don't explicitly call for this type of patterning, the intensity of the song as a whole at that moment does.

=====

Consistency And Structure

=====

Another idea from common wisdom states that you should remain consistent as much as possible with your map and make sure it is structurally sound. In this section, I want to make a case against using consistency and explore an alternate definition for "structure" (PART 1). Like the previous part, I will also relate all of this to Rocma's veto and address everything directly in the end (PART 2).

PART 1
To many mappers, if a sound repeats multiple times, then it should be represented in the same way every time. The same pattern with the same kind of spacing must be used. If you deviate from this, you will hear about it from modders.

I don't have much to say about this other than: why? Correct me if I am wrong, but the only reason why I can think that it's considered bad practice is that it may betray player expectations and throw them off. But if that's the case, then thinking one step further, we should be asking: "why is this what the player expects?".

I believe the answer to be conditioning. On one hand, players are conditioned to expect similar patterns for similar sounds in specifics because that is the norm and that is what mappers usually do, so if someone does something else then it might throw the player off.

On the other hand, when looking at converts, patterns are far less consistent, and yet remain fully playable by players who regularly play and are used to them. This tells me that expectations can come under many different forms, and extrapolating on this, I believe in-map conditioning is very much viable, so there is no need to abide by existing conventions. For example, if you vary up your patterns all throughout a map and make them a little chaotic, like what Mezame does with its pseudo-randomness, then that variation becomes, in a sense, consistent. Players expect the map to change up like crazy and do things they don't expect, so paradoxically, they start expecting it to do just that, allowing it to keep structural integrity.

This idea is why I believe that the common definition for "structure" is incomplete, as it doesn't fully encompass everything that can be used to establish a structure. A structure should be anything that lets the player understand how to play and what to expect from a map. This can be done in many ways, but Mezame in particular achieves it through sectioning and conditioning.

Mezame as a map can clearly be divided into sections; think of it as "levels" or "stages" within the same map. Within these sections, whenever the song calls for it, there might be micro-sections, which can be thought of as small unique areas or "rooms" within a game's level.

I won't spend any more time on this as it is only my own personal way of structuring a map, the important part I want to convey is that there are many ways to achieve structure effectively, countless more than what common guidelines would lead you to believe. I think conveying similar sounds in many different ways is much more interesting, engaging, and gives maps a sense of identity especially when compared to modern ranked maps who all do the opposite. This can be done without compromising structural integrity.

PART 2
Just like before, I will now address Rocma's points, but these ones fall into the category of structure and consistency as discussed previously.

! "misplacement of hyperdashes. it is VERY important to show downbeat/strong beat with hdash in visual to guide beats for players. it's very related to playability so if this is broken, the map loses the reason for being 00:37:164 (1) - 00:43:346 (1) - 01:21:892 (3) - 02:37:528 (3) - 01:05:164 (3,4,5,1) - because of distance usages, it's very hard to find the strong beat"
// To me, this is a little bit of an arbitrary guideline which is extremely useful if you plan to create structure in your map through this sort of consistency, but as explained before, isn't strictly necessary if you use other types of structure.

! "very noticeable inconsistent strength/pattern usage 00:45:164 (1,2) - 00:53:892 (1) - there's high-pitch buzz sound like around 00:42:255 (1) - so it cannot be expressed by only vertical sliders 01:31:710 (1,2) - 02:56:255 (2) - 04:19:164 (4,5,6,1,2) - 03:04:256 (2,3) - hdash should be between 4,1 because there's nothing different between 2,3"
// I think all of these are justified through the idea that consistent representation isn't the only viable option. I played all of these and the inputs/movement felt like it emphasized the sounds differently yet properly enough.

! "the parts that cannot give any sense with the song in beat usage side (they must be fully remapped) 01:44:074 ~ 02:31:346 - the hyperdash/flows are very randomly used except for some hyperchains that makes more intense on high pitch vocals. like 01:58:801 (3,4,5,6,7) - this kinds of things are just out of the proper expression. it even ignores important downbeats 03:23:710 ~ 03:46:982 - the part is mostly requiring wide left-rights without saving any variety to make better music expression. also 03:29:437 (4,1) - very bad hdash usage between 1/8-1/4snaps with the current flow"
// 01:44:074 ~ 02:31:346 - Kiais in this map are intense sections of the song that are represented by equally hard patterns, following the same pseudo-randomness as other sections for the sake of structural integrity. I am also trying to represent the music as a whole rather than just the strength of individual sounds, with some tradeoffs even in this department for the sake of fun patterning.
// 01:58:801 (3,4,5,6,7) - This pattern shows up every time this part of the song repeats itself, and is meant to emphasize the held vocals. Having this type of wiggle in a small area of the playfield creates a sense of tension, which I believe is quite fitting for these vocals.
// 03:23:710 ~ 03:46:982 - These wide left-rights are to remain consistent with the second half of the previous kiai that also had wide left-rights to match the intensity of the song once the piano kicks in. With how much patterning variety is already otherwise present in other parts of the song I would argue consistency is not at all a bad thing here.
// 03:29:437 (4,1) - I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "bad hdash usage between 1/8-1/4snaps with the current flow", playing it myself it feels like you only have to stop yourself from continuing to wiggle after (1) but the input timing or flow otherwise comes naturally; you don't have to be wary of it or do anything special. Feel free to elaborate on this in another thread if I missed something.

=====

Things I Have Actually Modified And Improved

=====

To wrap things off in a more positive note, here are all the changes I agreed with, either partially or in their entirety, and applied to Mezame, alongside comments wherever helpful.

! "wide jumps usage without any solid reason can be found in the song 00:31:892 (5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - the song has been very calmer for the next build-up part"
// Okay! That's fine, I modified it a little so let me know if it's enough.

! "potential to nerf distance in visual to build better structure 00:54:801 (2,3,4) - 00:55:528 (2,3,4) - 00:59:255 (3,4,5,6) - 01:03:983 (5,1) - 01:10:619 (1,2,3) - 01:13:983 (5,6,1) - 01:25:437 (3,4) - 01:24:710 (2,3,4) - 01:32:619 (2,3,4) - 01:34:619 (1,2,3) - 01:37:437 (7,1) - 01:44:437 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 02:07:710 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 02:37:528 (3,4) - 03:23:346 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 03:54:983 (1,2) - 04:03:983 (4,1) - 04:07:255 (6,1) -"
// Some of these I adjusted, but others I left for the sake of pseudo-randomness, because they were part of a section/pattern, or because it would look/play worse if the spacing was reduced. Here are all the modified ones: 00:54:801 (2,3,4) - 00:55:528 (2,3,4) - 01:03:983 (5,1) - 01:25:437 (3,4) - 01:32:619 (2,3,4) - 01:34:619 (1,2,3) - 02:37:528 (3,4) -
// I also want to mention that, in some of these, individually they might look large, but they don't feel wrong when playing the pattern as a whole.

! "potential spinner trap 04:33:710 (1,1) -"
// Yeah fair enough, can't argue with that, I see how it could happen. Changed that part to avoid that possibility.

i hope i don't disturb the veto discussion here, but isn't an immediate kick + probation of both the nominating BNs over a veto that the mapper fundamentally disagrees with quite extreme? i have no idea about ctb mapping, but i think it speaks volumes if a BN who's also a top 10 player, and a near top 100 player as BN want to push limits and deem this map is good / enjoyable enough in that regard, and then the map and both of these BNs get shot down for it. i dunno, i think that's a too drastic measure

unfortunately most of the other bn/nat members disagreed on this map including me, one more top10 bn of the tiny gamemode

It wasn’t just the playability aspect. There was quite a bit wrong with meta data to an extreme degree which was the primary reason for my removal.

However, this map is extremely controversial putting me in a position where I felt forced to nominate it simply get eyes on the map so by no means to I regret this nomination.

I hope this map can be properly understood as it uses exaggerated emphasis as well as extremely unique patterning which does provide something extremely unique for high level play.

Yeah most other bns/nats don’t enjoy the map but I was here fighting for the people that do.

I do not regret this nomination

@greenshell i'm pretty sure they got demoted for other reasons, like allowing double bpm for the sake of manipulating slider tickrate #3673108

@rocma even if people up the ladder disagreed, i think it's only courteous to give a proper response to my reply on the veto, it should be you guys' responsibility as the people in power to do so; i thought we were all wanting what's best for the game here, so why am i being gatekept from any form of discussion? i even contacted NAT directly as a means of addressing my concerns only to get ghosted after a little while

@phob what phob is saying is true, but i do feel like getting demoted for small oversights like metadata and a misunderstood rc rule without any warning is a little extreme as greenshell said, especially given everything else these two bns have achieved in a short amount of time while in their positions; it's hard to believe their demotion is unrelated to people's other disagreements with mezame in any way

not to mention a proper case could be made to advocate in favour of the aforementioned rc rule being removed (it was even almost attempted before)

I'm not sure if I agree with some of your reasons for turning down Rocma his suggestions.

For example, 00:40:074 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - here you put this kind of pattern to have a more intense entry to the next section. However, this would work if the song actually represents this in the music. When comparing with more intense parts such as 00:42:255 (1,2,3,4) - you do simple sliders, making it look very random structure-wise and overdone music-wise. Besides this, you decided to overmap on 00:40:482 (2) - and not cover sounds such as 00:40:664 - (and also the faint sound at 00:40:755 - if you would even map that)

Another example would be 00:42:074 (4,5,1) - where you simply map 1/4 sliders and circles while the song is much more intense, presenting much more sounds. I think your way of emphasizing could work, as long as it was used logically, following the music, and not throwing hyperdashes to create patterns that do build-ups inconsistently, resulting in an experience where you just do left-right spam and strong hyperdashes which are done fairly randomly.

For the main chorus of the song you decided to do this on a next level, providing strong hyperdashes until around 01:58:619 - where you suddenly change your mind and structure the reset much differently. I think having a better structure here would help you a lot to get the map in a more acceptable state from mappers. As the way of emphasizing with strong hypers could work, as long as they provide strong ones when strong sounds are provided or when a build-up in the song is provided. When looking at a single example in this part e.g. 01:47:346 (1,2,3,4) - you can already see some flaws in the structure. Here you make strong hyperdashes 01:47:346 (1,2) - for the ongoing vocal I think? While that can be done, the synth at 01:47:528 (3) - is so strong that giving a similar strenght hyperdash removes the whole importance of this sound.

Another place such as 02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - you randomly start throwing hypersliders combined with cross-screen hyperdashes. While doing so for the most intense of the intense parts would be fine. Doing it here when the previous part at 01:51:710 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - which is pretty much the same thing in the song is doing way less emphasis (while also being overdone).

When looking at an example where you do a good build-up, we have for example 02:30:801 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) -. While at the end of the main chorus, it does show a slow increment in intensity. When comparing to the pattern before this 02:29:892 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - you simply left right hold with unneeded big distancing when the song is not at its build-up stage yet. Having things like this tuned down would definatly be much better in my eyes.

All in all, I think this map could work, as long as you would work on the following:

1. Focus more on what the song provides and reflect this in your pattern structure. Meaning less usage of overemphasis to avoid providing way too far hyperdashes when no strong sounds are given.
2. Improve the consistency, not providing completely different patterning when the song doesn't provide a completely different sound. This would improve it the most to reduce the amount of patterns that feel out of place.

Hello! Thanks for the feedback Greaper, I will go through all the referenced points in the order they were brought up.

!!! TLDR !!!
Resolved instances:
00:40:074 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) -
02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) -

Undecided instances (need more feedback/help):
01:47:346 (1,2,3,4) -
02:29:892 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) -

Refuted instances:
00:42:074 (4,5,1) - // Though this one can be considered to be positively resolved through a previous related change.
01:58:619 -

====

00:40:074 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - While I personally think it's okay to add more emphasis to certain parts even if they aren't entirely reflected in the song, this is something I'm willing to compromise on. I understand that others may not feel the same about it and that this instance in particular does stand out much relative to other patterns. I changed it a bit to match the spacing and intensity of other patterns in this section and remain consistent with the emphasis choice for 00:42:255 (1,2,3,4) -.

00:42:074 (4,5,1) - Considering the previous change, I feel like it makes the most sense for this part to remain as it is now. While there are high pitch sounds in the background, it's clear from the rest of this section that the drums and general beat are prioritized over them, which is even more true now that the only exception has been removed.

01:58:619 - I don’t think the spacing reduction here is a bad thing; spacing can be used to emphasize a plethora of things other than intensity. I “change my mind” because the vocals at that point are held for a while, creating a musical tension that wasn’t there before. If I had kept the spacing the same and kept doing the same types of patterns, this change in the song would not be properly reflected by the map, and it would also contribute to making the map more one-dimensional (uninteresting).

01:47:346 (1,2,3,4) - About what you said of this pattern, I don’t actually hear any important stand-out sounds at 01:47:528 (3) - like you mentioned. Maybe someone can help me out on this, but I really just don’t hear anything special, so even if you told me to emphasize it I wouldn’t know what to do, really.

02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - I see what you mean, but first want to clarify that I’m not “randomly throwing out hypersliders”, but rather am using them to emphasize the strongest vocal part in each repeating kiai. It also serves a function as a “signature” pattern for the map. Still, I addressed the spacing issue by adjusting the size of the jumps to be more similar to those in the first instance of the pattern; just slightly bigger because the second half of the kiai comes off as more intense to me and to look distinct from the hyper sliders so the pattern doesn’t look like one big blob. They should be much more reasonable now.

02:29:892 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I think the way to look at this pattern is that it is actually gradually reducing spacing in preparation for the buildup that happens at 02:30:801 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) -, but I understand that it might still look a little wide. However, I’ve experimented with reducing the spacing to try and fix this and found that it actually is much harder to play with reduced spacing; it feels more “loose” and uncomfortable. I assume this is because reducing spacing too abruptly here when compared to the rest of the kiai catches the player off guard in that they have to modify the timing on their inputs. I’m fully open to reducing spacing here, but only if a way can be found to achieve it without compromising comfortable play to this extent.

I think the two points you ended the feedback with can be more or less summed up as “if you want this map to be seen as acceptable, then you should abide by current guidelines much more closely”. A Mezame that follows those guidelines too closely would be a Mezame that makes everyone okay with it, but also a Mezame that no one truly enjoys. I understand that some individual patterns can be blatantly overtuned, like for example 02:14:983 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - which I’ve happily addressed, or others pointed out in Rocma’s veto, that I have also fixed. However, forcing the map into consistent patterning at a global level and making it prioritize individual sounds as the only way of establishing structure would, sadly, defeat its entire purpose and forgo the philosophy behind it, as detailed further in my initial reply to the veto.

added all, thanks for your service!

Original song was used in anime, source:
https://www.sunrise-inc.co.jp/my-hime/web/products/cd01.html
I'd say intro version is shorter therefore it should be used in title audio from artist is valid source so adding it all|

Artist: 梶浦由記
Romanised Artist: Yuki Kajiura
TItle: 目覚め (Hyphen Bootleg-Intro-)
Romanised TItle: Mezame (Hyphen Bootleg-Intro-)
Source: 舞-HiME

done, changed it to metadata provided by peter

since its from an anime you can add tags like "anime original soundtrack ost"

"bootleg" can be removed from tags, as it's part of the title already

done

done, thanks for your service

could also add "guitar, dnb" for the 02:39:346 - loud screeching electric guitar solo and I believe that you could technically classify this under the dnb category

currently the tag is psuedo instead pseudo, a little mistake in the write.

fixed the typo and added the guitar tag, but are we sure ''dnb'' fits here as a tag for this song?

dnb doesn't have to be applied here. just a very very minor tag that could possibly be applied but it's more of an edm then dnb

higher hp is pretty unforgiving because this is a "miss 1 note = miss 50 notes" type of map, maybe hp2 would be fine but id need to have it be tested; ill look into it