Seiga Itten (full ver.)

I hear you spent a lot of time on this map, I'm sorry it didn't have a happy ending. good luck with what you do in the future

Never give up, don't give them what they want!

Hey, you're all good man. You've done your best. Get some rest, take a break.

같은 음악 내에서 다른 모양으로 표현될 수 있으나 이 케이스는 일반적으로 봤을때 sr시스템 악용으로 여겨지기 쉽기 때문에 충분한 설명이 필요합니다. 다른 모양을 쓰지 말고 한 패턴만 써라가 메인이 아니에요

제3자의 입장으로 바라볼 때 이 맵이 시스템을 악용했다고 생각하는 이상 후반 파트에 대한 충분한 매퍼의 설명이 없으면 당위성이 떨어지기 때문에 충분히 의문을 가질 수 있고 논란이 점화될 수 있는 형태였습니다. 그거에 대한 설명을 명확하게 해야하는데 답변을 '그럼 패턴 다 1절이랑 똑같이 짜야하는건가? 다른 7키 매퍼들은 다 이 맵 플레이하기 좋고 퀄리티 높다고 평가해주는데, 내가 모딩씬에 들어온 지 얼마 안되서 무시하는건가?' 하고 매듭짓는건 좀 아쉽네요

'모딩판 = 7키 매핑, 플레이도 잘 못하는 사람들인데 일관성이니 하면서 장문으로 지적만 하고 맵 퀄리티를 떨어뜨리는 악당'으로 대결 구도 프레임 씌우고 피해자 행세하며 떠나면 마음은 편하겠지만 글쎄요, 여기서 모딩하는 사람들이 곧 매퍼고 플레이어입니다. 국적이나 랭크 관계없이 맵에 문제가 있다고 생각하면 누구나 글을 쓸 수 있고 또 그걸 위한 퀄파 시스템입니다. 이 맵 제작 및 노미에 관련된 사람들을 헐뜯고 공격하려고 하는 게 아닌데 싸잡아서 적이라 생각하고 글을 쓰는 건 올바른 방식이 아닙니다

but more than 80% of map is mapped while we were on discord call, watching each other's stream, keep discussing about pattern. so both of us has responsiblity to the pattern.

General Metadata check on the bottom of General (All difficulties)

Agree with this.

based tsukiya

I don't feel comfortable with the prospect of this chart being ranked in its current state at all either. While I'm not a BN, I did help Mono with making this post, so I don't think Mono's experience can be called into question here.

It is also worth mentioning that there were so many serious technical errors on qualification (unsnapped notes, missing metadata, etc.) that it's hard to believe this was not somehow rushed to qualification.

I generally find it very discouraging to post on here due to talking with other BNs who for whatever reason fully support this chart as it stands, but this is simply too much to otherwise ignore. The responses to taba's mods are something I can only see as too dismissive.

In addition to the severe quality-related issues, I don't think waiting for an LN pp fix at an unknown date in the future is a strong enough justification to continue with this as is either. This is something that people have been saying for months now, but said fix has only barely been seen on the horizon.

For reference, other charts around this star rating can be estimated as follows:
Duplicity Shade: Azimuth+ or Zenith (people have argued for both, but the point still stands)
Central Nucleus: Zenith
Fallen Symphony: Zenith+
Beyond the Aexis: Azimuth
King Atlantis: Azimuth+

I would (as quite a few other players have mentioned) estimate this at no more than ~8th Dan or so.

From a player's perspective, I also never liked the positive feedback loop charts like this have received from the public. You could argue that such a precedent for this was set a while back, but this has snowballed into something that certainly crosses the line into absurdity for me.

My recent strides in gaining accuracy and consistency also enabled me to achieve scores on this that were significantly better than people ranked higher than me, which is a perversion of the other high SR charts that I'm not really good at playing due to the lack of physicality I have in comparison.

The public will undoubtedly encourage a continuation of ranking charts like this as this chart is setting a dangerous precedent. While I appreciate the content these provide, I have mixed feelings leaning mostly negative to see charts like this have the most influence on a person's rank.

I was initially kind of discouraged to speak more directly about the inflation of this chart as it outwardly seemed like few people shared my concerns, but since a veto has been placed, I guess now is a better time than any to say more about it. I'm going to focus specifically on inflation rather than actual chart-based issues pointed out above, and I think I'm going to be a little harsh.

This is a Trend

I'm pretty sure everybody has noticed the trend of hyperfarm maps starting to get ranked since like roughly a year ago. Every month a new one came out that blew the others out of the water. Players are setting higher and higher pp scores that more or less double what they would be capable with the "farm meta" one year ago, and even as a new BN, I notice that a lot of the BNG itself is sort of egging on this trend.

Mappers have cracked the code. Staggering short LNs with very irregular snaps squeezes as much strain out of each note as the calculator allows. It's now a great taboo to even mention when this is done in beatmap discussions (even if the map is clearly inconsistent, judging by how this map got qualified in its current state in the first place) because we all know why it's being done.

Justifying

The common argument to hand-wave away all pp concerns is something along the lines of:

SR shouldn't be considered while mapping because we know it's broken. Don't let it restrain you from mapping a good chart.

This argument is a get-out-of-jail-free card for anybody who might want to plaster their name over the new hottest farm map, as you can use virtually anything to justify a "style switch" for short LNs. What I don't believe such people are acknowledging most of the time is, dare I say, that short LNs are being used specifically with SR in mind, specifically to inflate.

The Bigger Picture

I want to clarify that my two cents here aren't aimed specifically at this map. This has been a growing problem in the ranked section, and it seems this map is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I think the BNG should have some level of obligation to filter the kinds of map requests they get based on if they clearly abuse the SR system, because even though SR is far from perfect, its an integral component of this game's infrastructure, and PP is an integral component of this game's ecosystem and communities.

I can speak for many when I say PP milestones don't feel as earned as they used to. 1000PP is half the achievement that it used to be, only reserved for the BEST players. All the "old-age," popular "meta" maps suddenly feel extremely devalued, and I for one am quite disillusioned nowadays with pushing myself in the ranked section, haven't having played 7K for quite a while now save for one-off scores now and then.

I hope this veto can help to set a new precedent, to hold BNs accountable to one of the very expectations that are laid out to us when we apply:

Do not exploit or abuse existing systems.

Neglecting the ramifications of what ranking a chart this egregiously overinflated might cause for the overall health of the ranked section heavily discourages my reasoning of the actions of the nominators. The fact that this was rushed in mapping, modding, metadata collection and ultimately nominating to this degree is something I have only seen one other time before (see the nanahira incident).

I cannot help but question the nominators of this chart for severely overlooking said glaring issues discussed above and why they pushed for rank so brazenly. I don't like seeing nominators get punished, but this example is telling of why we shouldn't select nominators wanting to push star rating over difficulty and fairness of rank.

+1

I am glad that someone has finally brought this up.

discussed with other 7k top players who had issues with the map as well and they seemed to echo similar sentiments. nothing to add on my front.

it feels weird being able to even somewhat remotely judge a 12* 7K map, but i guess that just shows how inflated it is

Hi I am finally here with a response. This response includes the mappers' opinions, and I am posting them in their place to avoid any potential issues from language barriers. I will try to word this response as professionally as possible but I apologize in advance if anything ends up sounding a bit too personal.

SR is probably what most people are interested in this thread so I will be writing about this at the bottom of this post.

------------------------------

Let's talk about the LN use in general first. From what I see there is a fundamental lack of understanding of how LNs are used in 7K LN charts in the original post. The impression that "LNs do not do anything and just seem to be there for the sake of it" is something not many players will have from actually plaything the map. None of the LNs in the examples are rocket science and can be explained with a few words:

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1,206381|0,206451|4) - These are just melody LNs.
03:28:554 (208554|0,208624|4,208834|6) - These specific LNs have little to do with each other. The LN ends in this section form clearly identifiable lines.
03:27:853 (207853|6) - Another smoothed LN release. It could be longer I guess so it looks straighter but it absolutely shouldn't be rice.
03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182899|3) - These are melody LNs, again.
02:36:965 (156965|0,156965|1) 02:38:086 (158086|5,158086|6) - These are clearly placed to kicks, and having them LNs accentuates the wobbliness of the synth.
03:02:619 (182619|3,182689|6,182759|2,182829|5,182899|3,182969|1,183040|4,207853|6) - see above
03:08:367 (188367|1,188367|0,188507|2,188507|4,188647|3,188647|1,188647|6,188787|2,188787|4,188927|0,188927|6,188927|3,189068|1,189068|4,189208|6,189208|2,189208|0,189348|1,189348|4,189488|2,189488|3,189488|6) - These LNs are very trivial in difficulty, and it is very common practice to have LNs like these to drums.
03:17:198 (197198|0,197222|1,197245|2,197268|3,197292|4,197315|5,197339|6) - This adds a noticeable emphasis on the rising synths.
02:59:395 - Not only is it not common to have LNs like these, they actually do significantly add difficulty to the map. Having this rice will result in a very different map.
03:21:544 - ^

And as a result any sort of distinction, emphasis, or contrast with your patterns is completely thrown away.
This is a very bold claim. These LNs are absolutely noticeable and I doubt many players will think otherwise. I really don't have much to say if you still think otherwise after playing the map.

What are we even playing to?
See above explanation on each timestamp.

Why is half of this LN when it's not even the melody?
Why should LNs be only placed to melody? There is no objective basis to this and LNs absolutely should be, and have been, placed to any arbitrary sound the mapper wants. Whether a certain pattern is "befitting" of a sound is highly dependent on the context of the map, and the background of the player.

------------------------------

Moving on to consistency. I should preface this section with that consistency in details like these are seldomly the most important aspects of 7K mapping. Most forms of emphasis and expression in maps at this level and above rely on other far more important concepts, such as anchoring and finger independence.

02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) - There is a clearly audible synth grace here that is not present in 02:29:815. The faster synth at 02:35:563 is a lot more pronounced and slower than the others, and is in a different section.
02:21:825 (141825|6,141825|3,141825|0,141895|4,141895|1,141965|2,141965|5,142035|0,142035|3) - Adding a burst here will mean it'll be harder to transition into the quad anchors right after. I do think that this can be tackled by shifting some notes around without changing density but the lack of 1/8 drum representation is a very small sacrifice for visible synth emphasis at 02:22:105.
02:36:404 (156404|1,156544|0) - obviously the drums.
02:42:432 (162432|5,162450|0) - fair
03:10:294 (190294|1) - guitar legato? Same reason why there is a LN at 03:09:804.
03:19:301 - Ignoring synths allows for a stronger kick emphasis
03:27:993 (207993|0,207993|2,207993|1) 03:26:871 (206871|2,206871|0,206871|3) - ok fair. This error happened after applying taba2's mod and will be fixed.

A lot of these "inconsistencies" are extremely minor as well, and it's very unlikely that any player will notice changes resulting from these - testplayer responses on whether they keep track of every individual LN release has been very mixed.

------------------------------

The difference in intensity perceived at the two kiais is extremely subjective and there is no way to objectively quantify which section is more "intense" than the other. I could argue that the second kiai starts off sharper, and the pitch of melodies are dissimilar enough to warrant a variation. The rate at which difficulty increases isn't even that drastic anyway. Progression in difficulty, while steep, is well within what would be acceptable for the target audience.

I do have my qualms about the difficulty curve though. More on that later.

------------------------------

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1) 02:29:815 (149815|1,149815|4,149815|0) - Why should they not. Both are released at 1/8 and having to release right before 02:30:096 this puts a light emphasis on the next synth sequence.
02:40:610 (160610|1,160785|1) - this is an extremely insignificant reverse shield. If you have trouble playing this you're not going to be able to play much else in the map.
03:01:077 - snaps here are not as clearly audible as you claim it to be. The kicks are fast enough to be impossible to hear each individual kick at full speed while playing, and considering that the map is very dumpy in nature anyway, it hardly matters whether the 1/12 snap is correct or not. Even if it were 1/8 it would still make sense to overmap it to adequately emphasize the kicks here.

Now on to the unsnaps:
Every unsnap is 1/24, except for two LN ends which are 1/14. The 1/14s are supposed to be 1/24 as well but the difference between the two snaps are literally 1ms and it made no sense to keep resnapping them every update.

Additionally, the snaps used in dumps are definitely quite freeform, but there is little need for them to be 100% consistent as they are mostly placed to the "wobbliness" of the synth, which is inherently impossible to map with complete accuracy. However, they are very intuitively placed, and should be understandable for most players that will be playing this. If you believe that any section underrepresents the wobbliness, please do point it out.

------------------------------

I genuinely need to point out that it looks like this chart wasn't carefully looked through as BNs, if at all
It is also worth mentioning that there were so many serious technical errors on qualification (unsnapped notes, missing metadata, etc.) that it's hard to believe this was not somehow rushed to qualification.

You should know that I have been following the map's progress for at least 2 months. I would appreciate it if people did not make baseless accusations such as this. I will not say much more on this as it will be irrelevant to the discussion and will only be a point of potential conflict.

------------------------------

About responses to taba2:
I believe both NoName and Mono are looking far too deep into this, and it is unfair to accuse mango of being dismissive when he tried his best to respond despite his inadequate English proficiency. It's also worth noting that taba2's tone was far more casual in Korean elsewhere regarding the map. If you have any issues with the explanations on taba2's posts you are more than welcome to reopen them.

------------------------------

Now moving on to what most people seem to be interested in: SR.
Discussions on this topic have definitely been discouraged so far as they tend to be extremely unproductive and irrelevant to the spirit of modding. I hope discussion on this matter can be conducted in a civil manner, and I will try my best to do so myself.

I would (as quite a few other players have mentioned) estimate this at no more than ~8th Dan or so.

I should also clarify that everyone involved in the set are fully aware that the map is very overrated in terms of SR. While I would argue that the map isn't quite as easy as dan 8, we are in agreement that the map's SR is far higher than most other maps of similar difficulty.

However, it's hard to agree that SR should be considered when determining the rankability of a map. I will not be going over any claims that this map has been mapped this way solely for the SR, or that this is getting pushed to rank for pp as it is completely baseless and frankly inappropriate for discussion, but I will try to go over other points one by one.

Mappers have cracked the code.
The misconception that mappers have only recently "cracked the code" and overlapping LN releases have only started to be used because of SR completely dismisses years of 7K LN charting and the history built up so far. People have been mapping LN dumps like this, many of which are extremely overrated in SR, for a very long time, going back much further than even osu!mania itself. For years people have complained about the lack of such content in the ranked section and putting SR back on the table again will push us back to the old days of content drought.

I can speak for many when I say PP milestones don't feel as earned as they used to.
This is a sentiment I can agree with, but it's something that people have always been feeling, long before LN maps like these were normalized on the ranked section. PP and SR has always gotten progressively higher, except during a few pp reworks. I find it unfair to put the blame solely on the recent meta.

While I appreciate the content these provide, I have mixed feelings leaning mostly negative to see charts like this have the most influence on a person's rank.

I believe that this is probably what people are most dissatisfied with. There definitely is an undeniable discrepancy between what how hard maps of this SR should be and how hard it actually is. The question is, how important of a factor is it for the intended audience?

Pretty much anyone that is good enough to play this map will know that PP and rank are horrible metrics for assessing player skill, and a lot of us, at least on the surface, claim to not care about it. I personally do not believe that this is an obstacle big enough to gatekeep maps of adequate quality from the ranked section, especially if it means that there will be less content to enjoy in an already content barren game.

I believe that I am not alone with this sentiment either. Both the mappers, who are well within the target audience, share this with me, and other players responded that they find SR to be less important when asked by the mappers.

Some screenshots (linked instead of embedded as they take forever to load):

from turtlewing:
img link

from UTGY:
img link

from DellyK:
pastebin

from ideu-:
img link

from uni3924:
img link

from Vincus:
img link

You could argue that these responses are biased, but this lines up with the general reception I've gotten from the target audience from nominating high SR 7K maps, which have not been very negative.

I find this to be especially less of a concern now than ever considering the unprecedented activity in pp development, in which one of the mappers actively participate in.

I do not agree that a flawed system beyond the control of the mapper should be an obstacle to a map's ranking process. Only the map's quality should matter, and I believe all of us here can agree that SR is not relevant to map quality.

------------------------------

On the map's difficulty curve:
This wasn't exactly mentioned in the veto but I will be mentioning it anyway. The current difficulty curve is a compromise between myself and the mappers, and I have been asking the mappers to smoothen out the difficulty curve for some time.

While I have rolled with the current diff curve until now as how steep of a progression does a map have to be before it gets unfair is a subjective matter, some discussion in the BN server has led me to think that buffing the first half of the map to smoothen out the difficulty curve will make the map more palatable to the intended audience, and perhaps alleviate the discrepancy between SR and perceived difficulty. Thus I would like to ask if you are willing to accept this as a possible solution to the problem.

------------------------------

My final questions for you are:
What do you actually propose that we do? There are a whole lot of complaints but very few practical solutions. It's unrealistic to wait for the SR system to magically fix itself, so do you propose that staggered release LNs just not be ranked? Would a rebalancing of the map's difficulty curve be a good enough compromise? Would waiting until the next rework be good enough for you? Do you have any practical ideas for fixing pp calculation? It would be great to have a clearer idea on what you actually want.

------------------------------

I hope this was a sufficient response for you. There is little point in us fighting over this, and I hope that we can conclude this discussion without wasting too much of everyone's time. If there is anything in this post that you do not understand, please let me know before jumping to conclusions. While I won't be able to track this discussion 24/7 due to irl responsibilities, I will try my best to answer any concerns when I can.

I will wait for Mono to respond if he wants to (he will have to resolve the veto or start mediation obviously), but since you mentioned one of the mappers being actively involved in pp development (of which I have seen myself), it would be helpful to wait for a rework (and probably smoothen the difficulty curve). This is precisely what happened with Duplicity Shade anyway.

As for the names of players you have gathered, we are also capable of getting names of several players (capable of playing this) who are not fond of seeing stuff like this at all, so we might be at an impasse on that one.

In the future it's worth pointing out how notes that may appear to be unsnapped are actually on snaps normally not possible with the osu!mania editor preemptively. This appears to be common practice elsewhere on this site, so it's worth doing this just to reduce confusion anyone looking at this may have. This is an unfortunate side effect of what is a lack of sophistication in the osu!mania editor according to many mappers (myself included).

I will be able to respond more later, but like you I am busy at the moment and won't be able to track this discussion as long as I ideally should.

Likewise, I apologize if anything sounded too personal in my previous posts.

As for the "wobbliness" of the notes, I'm not sure it actually does anything in practicality as you have said that we don't really read the releases for dense LN sections like this.

I'm not sure representing that detail is worthwhile, as this is something you specifically needed to state.

to Monoseul #3838500

Since the mapper isn't making much movement at the moment, I thought I'd elaborate on my thoughts on your veto.
Please note that I have no malicious intentions and am simply writing down my thoughts.

First of all I am mostly in opposition to monoseul's opinion

I'm very curious as to why this has 23 upvotes

I doubt ppl read that article while analyzing the map.

This is terribly inflated. If you remove the second kiai LNs, you go down all the way to 6-7 stars

• it says it is a 6-7 star map, but when I removed all the notes and it was 8 star. Do not use false evidence when vetoing.
  
  and considering little bit of SR pumping, it feels 8+ star when playing.

I've gathered opinions from multiple players in the community - the difficulty of the map is way, way less demanding than anything even remotely close in it's SR range (around 6-7*, aprox, 8th dan whilst similar maps in this range like duplicity shade approx azumith+)

• This is not really a problem that should be compared to a 6 or 7 star difficulty, but rather a difficulty based on 8 stars.
  If you take Kim_godssi's energy drink map as an example, you can see that the energy drink is harder in the entire map span, but seiga itten has higher spike.
  You can see its spike on here 03:47:619 -
  It's a problem that should be compared to at least 8 star map and
  Saying that this map should compared to 6~7 star map is nonsence.

Which community is actually saying like that
They're obviously people who can't play 8th dan properly.
This map is at least around 10th dan because of its hard second kiai.
It is somethat true that it has lower diff on non-kiai. But same happened on Duplicity shade. (Duplicity jumps to Zenith+)

A lot of the releases are not only seriously inconsistent throughout this chart, some examples:
02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1,206381|0,206451|4)
03:28:554 (208554|0,208624|4,208834|6)
03:27:853 (207853|6)
03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182899|3) -

It seems it is suggestions about ghost notes and consistancy issue.
02:28:694 (148694|1,148694|0,148694|4) - these note is main synth sound which can also consistantly found at 02:27:572 (147572|1,147572|4,147572|0) - 02:29:815 (149815|0,149815|4,149815|1) -
why do you even think this is a problem?

03:28:554 (208554|0,208624|4,208834|6) - i cant understand what is problem.
that pattern should not be judged by those notes alone.

as you can see, 1/8 is for consistant 2/8 gap between those LNs
03:28:624 (208624|4) - LN here 03:28:624 (208624|4,208624|5,208694|6) - helps these note to release with 1/8 grace. This is HUGE benefit when players actually plays it.
although, it has clear structure that has main LN as 03:28:554 (208554|1,208624|2,208694|3,208764|4,208834|5,208904|4,208974|3,209044|2,209114|1) - and some sub notes supporting its structure around.

03:27:853 (207853|6) - this seems mapper's mistake. it should be elongated to 03:27:923 -

All you said was just about ghost note and consistancy issue, but
03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182899|3) - why do you think these notes are issue?
LNs are representing guitar sounds really well. Cant you hear those guitar sounds? maybe changing your audio equipments can solve your issue.

If you veto, shouldn't it be clear to the mapper what the problem is?
If I'm a mapper and I see you just write down saying 'you have a problem' and then follow it up with a couple dozen lines of text and a few links for problems which are actually not problem, I'd be confused.

Same exact examples above
02:36:965 (156965|0,156965|1), 02:38:086 (158086|5,158086|6) -

These notes form a pattern in which the long notes of the melodic sound are released, with the drum sound inserted in the middle. However, this map is an LN concept map.
pointing out that since it is a drum, it shouldn't use long notes and should instead be rice, would be a criticism that goes against the concept of the map and the mapper's intentions for a flowing playable map.
Also, LN adds to the melodic stretching sound, so even if this is not a longnote concept map, you cannot point it out as a reason to veto.

03:02:619 (182619|3,182689|6,182759|2,182829|5,182899|3,182969|1,183040|4,207853|6) - guitar sound huh?
It is well placed representing random guitar sound while keeping playablity and pitch relevancy.

03:08:367 (188367|1,188367|0,188507|2,188507|4,188647|3,188647|1,188647|6,188787|2,188787|4,188927|0,188927|6,188927|3,189068|1,189068|4,189208|6,189208|2,189208|0,189348|1,189348|4,189488|2,189488|3,189488|6) - these ones are pointed as veto reason, but

03:08:507 (188507|2,188507|4,188787|2,188787|4,189068|1,189068|4,189348|1,189348|4,189628|4,189628|1) - this is for bass
03:08:367 (188367|1,188647|3,188647|6,188927|0,188927|6,189208|2,189208|6,189488|2,189488|6) - this is for drum
03:08:367 (188367|5,188367|0,188647|1,188927|3,189208|0,189488|3) - this is for melody
03:08:367 (188367|0,188647|1,188927|3,189208|0,189488|3) - these are notes for vibration of melody for each 1/1
What is problem? I think I prefectly understanded mapper's intention.

03:17:198 (197198|0,197222|1,197245|2,197268|3,197292|4,197315|5,197339|6) - Are you really sure there is no sound at all?
I don't think so.

02:59:395 - 03:01:077
02:59:395 (179395|5,179395|1,179395|0,179535|4,179535|5,179675|0,179675|2,179675|6,179815|3,179815|6,179955|0,179955|4,179955|3,180096|2,180096|1,180236|3,180236|0,180236|6,180376|6,180376|4,180516|2,180516|5,180516|1,180656|2,180656|3,180797|0,180797|1,180797|6,180867|3,180867|4,180937|1,180937|6,180937|5,180937|0,181007|2,181007|3) - Clearly, it is drum sound and it does end on same timing with other LN drum notes. I think it is fair to use it on LN concept map. Is it problem?

02:59:395 (179395|3,179535|1,179675|4,179815|2,179955|5,180096|4,180236|2,180376|0,180516|4,180656|5) - These notes worl well as synth sound. also, it is consistantly placed that seels. They also have a consistent placement to give the player a sense of rhythm.
This works really well with LNs that represent drums. I had fun playing with it and could understand the intention.

And as a result any sort of distinction, emphasis, or contrast with your patterns is completely thrown away. What are we even playing to? Why is half of this LN when it's not even the melody?

I don't feel justified in your oppinion because you can't actually play this, what's the problem? The map is representing a melody with LNs.
If you heard the song, you can't say this doesn't have note for melody.

What i think a problem is on here.
03:26:871 (206871|0,206871|2,207011|5,207011|3,207011|6) - 03:27:993 (207993|0,207993|2,207993|1,208133|6,208133|2,208133|5) -
It has same sound but has different patterns. but it should be your role why it is problem.
plz explain which note is not consistant and which LN is not doing its job.
I can understand each note's role and mapper's intention.

#3 Inconsistency

There are a lot, and I mean a lot of inconsistencies. Scattered through this entire chart.

02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) - Why is this a grace now when the chiptune is just as similar as the other peaks before it (02:29:815 for example) yet you don't use a grace at 02:35:563 when a flam plays? 

If you listen to the song, i bet you cant say its similar.
melody somes at once at here 02:29:815 -
and does not at here, 02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) -
on here, 02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) - it divides into three sounds with 1/8 snaps 02:35:563 - 02:35:598 - 02:35:633 - but i can see mapper didnt represented it with intentionaly. also, mapper didnt represented it on 00:52:245 - 01:56:170 - 02:12:993 - 02:14:254 -
three examples you gave is different sound.

03:11:801, 03:11:941 why are the synths ignored?

you can see LN on col 7 03:11:451 (191451|6) - .
because of this LN, if you place note for synth, it makes playablity issue. i'll post picture so you could understand better.


mapper probably dont want to change direction of main LN and would like to avoid patterns like those pics.
also, most of 7k players can feel this is not good for playablity. this is why i think mapper would like to avoid it.
How about play 7k? It would be much easier to understand what i'm saying if you reach just #1000.

02:21:825 (141825|6,141825|3,141825|0,141895|4,141895|1,141965|2,141965|5,142035|0,142035|3) - ...no burst? 

I think it would be better if 1/8 drum sounds are represented. but it cant be good reason for Veto.
Also, my thought (placing 1/8 would make map better) is belong to "subjective style" and can varies among mappers.
If mapper wants to make it cleaner, he can just not place a note for that.

but as i see, it has same part on (03:19:301 - ), so it would be better if mapper proceed to same pattern.
this can be consistancy issue.
02:20:983 - on here, i suggest using tripple to make jack pattern 03:19:301 - just like this.
examples

02:36:404 (156404|1,156544|0) - What is this even following? If it's the chiptune, it's playing a 1/4 rhythm, not 1/2.

02:36:404 (156404|5,156404|4,156439|3,156474|2,156509|6,156544|5,156579|4,156614|3,156649|2,156684|1) - If you played this, you would know this piano sound and 02:36:474 - 02:36:614 - this part you mentioned can't have LN.
It harms playablity a lot. Mapper skipped this note cause he probably knew it.

02:42:432 (162432|5,162450|0) - Why the grace here?

maybe mapper's mistake. nice

03:10:294 (190294|1) - What even is the point of this LN?

03:09:768 (189768|0,189804|1,189839|2) - when you see this, you can understand what mapper intended.
03:09:839 (189839|2,190329|0) - this note works as connector. it helps a lot to make meaningful flows on the map.

03:19:301 - 03:19:862 - Why are half of the synths ignored?

if 03:19:301 (199301|6) - this LN didnt exsists,
synth sound you mentioned would expressed. but there is LN.
also, intentionaly ignoring synth is not "problem"

03:27:993 (207993|0,207993|2,207993|1), 03:26:871 (206871|2,206871|0,206871|3) -> Why are the LNs different when it's the same rhythm?```
i agree this one might confuse player.
these section should use same pattern.

#4 Drastic jump between kiais

The first and second kiai are not even that different in the music. Its intensity are pretty similar to each other, the second kiai slightly more at most. Yet the first kiai doesn't even come close to what the second kiai contains. Refer to all my other points as to how this becomes an issue.

I cant understand you saying first and second kiai is not as different.
This is the most incomprehensible oppinion I've ever seen.
There is no duty for you to make me understand, but this needs more justify.

It is common to make first kiai easy and make it harder on second kiai.
This song has different kiai, so should have more gap between kiai.
Actually, Second kiai has higher pitch(key) and from 03:23:787 - (2 seconds after second kiai) you can hear "completly different" progress of song.
This justifies enough for this map.

#5 Weird snaps

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1), 02:29:815 (149815|1,149815|4,149815|0) Why is this ending in 1/8?
02:40:610 (160610|1,160785|1) - Why the gap here?
03:01:077 (181077|0,181100|1,181124|2,181147|3,181170|4,181194|5,181217|6,181217|0,181240|1,181264|2,181287|3,181311|4,181334|5) Why is this even 1/12? The sound is 1/8 at most. This is literally overmapped.
There are 76 unsnapped notes to Aimod. I looked through a few of them and it's clear they aren't intentional. Even if they were put in their respective snaps, it wouldn't even make sense and be part of the inconsistency issue that this chart severely needs to be looked through.
Adding to the point above, it looks like every snap is being used throughout this chart, with no consistency or reason as to why and when they're being used the way they do.

If you look at RC, it is not problem.

If is just not supported on editor. and it is under mapper's intention because LN length is based on 1/8, and all end snap on 1/24.
also, is there ANY sure evidence for mapper didnt intended it?

This is my opinion, and the mapper's opinion always trumps mine.

I don't care if it snaps, so I snapped it. But then the sr increased. I'm not sure why the SR increased slightly. I would like to say that I intentionally did not raise the sr

@Niks:

I'm very curious as to why this has 23 upvotes. I doubt ppl read that article while analyzing the map.

I don't think this is a fair statement to make. Personally, I am not related to several of the people who upvoted this veto. I actually think they read and understood the basis of this veto at least, and wanted to give an opinion not involving posting directly.

Either way, I'm not under the impression there is any malicious targeting going on. I understand why it might look that way, though.

Also, if there are any issues due to language barrier, pleask ask us to clarify. We will gladly do so.

@Mango:

I am sorry that your first real attempt at ranking a map ended up like this, but this is something we strongly felt was worth discussing. I promise ranking maps is not usually this annoying.

#3838500/10271231
@Hugged
Mappers have cracked the code. Staggering short LNs with very irregular snaps squeezes as much strain out of each note as the calculator allows.

so mango did snapped those in nearest 1/8 and SR rised by its side effect.

now you participated raising SR. I hope you dont say "mapper intentionally used weird snaps to increase SR" anymore.

I know it is just modding post, but reading it was not pleasant at all.

Of the issues Monoseul mentioned, I fixed the ones that needed to be fixed. (Which ones I fixed and which ones I didn't are detailed in the comments by MadBrickTree and Niks, thanks).

-Translated by Deepl Translator.

Mono will (hopefully) respond in a day. Please be patient with us

I also noticed that you're bringing more people into the discussion which is good - more opinions are great, even if they don't agree with what we're saying

i dont wanna get involved too much but like

"This is not really a problem that should be compared to a 6 or 7 star difficulty, but rather a difficulty based on 8 stars.
If you take Kim_godssi's energy drink map as an example, you can see that the energy drink is harder in the entire map span, but seiga itten has higher spike.
You can see its spike on here 03:47:619 -
It's a problem that should be compared to at least 8 star map and
Saying that this map should compared to 6~7 star map is nonsence."

i dont think a 1-2* difference in proposed theoretical difference is enough to discredit that whole argument because the chart is still 4*s between the theoretical and applicable star rating, which again was kinda the whole point being made

and also applying dan charts to levels of skill is something that i thought everyone had moved on from? theyre clearly not enough to suggest an accurate level of difficulty because
1- they arent accurate in terms of representing all skill sets. they measure 4 at a certain density but dont really take other sort of patterning into consideration
2- certain pattern types can be harder for certain players, so suggesting a map be 8th dan for one person is entirely a subjective view because said 8th dan player could be great at chordstream but awful with jacks.

just because its now a little less 'farmy' according to some people doesnt mean that it makes it any more acceptable.

like the best thing to do would be to gauge a larger community's views on this, and how they see it, rather than just a select few players and mappers which i keep seeing. even so looking at the comments section of all the people talking about how farm it is should be enough to say that something is wrong with the degree of farm that this chart has.

i hold like no opinions on this btw, i literally couldnt care if it is farm or not, its just funny watching the discussion go down, but i wanted to talk about this one point because i dont think it was responded to well enough

@Chandelure:

FWIW I use them as an approximation of skill and not a means to an end. I think I gave off the wrong impression when mentioning those and not much else, so that's my bad. Brick has stated the same thing in that dans are worth mentioning as skill approximations and not a means to an end, so I am sure he agrees with me here. That point still stands.

---

That said, I'm most likely going to be dropping out of this veto after Mono's response to this. I think there's a concerted effort to make things better. I hope discussions can be resolved peacefully, but this has caused me significantly more trouble than it was worth. This has blown up so much, and I'd like to exit peacefully

General: Some things I need to clarify now.

• I'll admit I made some mistakes writing this, it was pretty late at night for me so some statements in the veto were a little rushed, and some may be wrong.
• This veto is not because of the SR. It's the quality. I'm going to mostly stop talking about SR now (and I hope others do too) because I made it very clear outside of this discussion multiple times it wasn't the main reason behind this veto and people have kept insisting it is, twisting my words to downplay everything else I said and throwing baseless assumptions about me. You guys are better than this.
• I've clarified plenty of times that this veto was made with the thoughts of other 7k players. I don't think the "inexperience" part should apply here. I know I don't have the most experience in 7k, but that doesn't mean I can't spot things that can be applied to any keymode regardless of what I focus on.

-----------

Madbricktree: I might skip some points since it refers to the same thing.

LNs do not do anything and just seem to be there for the sake of it

• Expression-wise they aren't beneficial. The mindset of playability > expression which isn't entirely wrong, but the two still correlate with each other. Completely taking away one over another is an odd choice and leads to my concerns with the chart overall. For example, I think the first kiai is fine as is- it's straightforward, a nice contrast between the LN patterns and rice. It's clear on what it's doing and it plays well. It's a nice balance between the two. I'm sure the second kiai plays fine as well, but it completely lacks the other half and structurally, it's beyond confusing. I still disagree with your points:

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1,206381|0,206451|4) - These are just melody LNs.

• I know what it's representing, I'm asking why is it ending like that? This key is not some 1/8 ending. You could easily extend the col 5 LN to the white line as the melody plays up to that point and have the other two ending at the 1/4 line, it'd still give the melody the highlight it deserves and plays fine. I get the idea, but it doesn't make sense to just choose a 1/8 ending for a key that doesn't even play out like this?

03:28:554 (208554|0,208624|4,208834|6) - These specific LNs have little to do with each other. The LN ends in this section form clearly identifiable lines.

• I made a mistake to highlight the LN in between my example, my bad. Still, why are they even like this? Now I can tell it's not random, but they don't follow anything. They are just thrown there without any correlation to what its expressing. Sure, it creates a general shape, but it doesn't make sense. The music isn't that complicated in its consistency.

03:27:853 (207853|6) Another smoothed LN release. It could be longer I guess so it looks straighter but it absolutely shouldn't be rice.

• Looks fine now, so don't worry about it. My concerns with expression are still there but other points will get to that.

03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182899|3) - These are melody LNs, again.

• Refer to first timestamp response (apart from the suggestion). The highlights of the guitar here are not constant. If anything, 03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182969|1,183040|4) are fine but then 03:02:619 (182619|3,182759|2,183110|2) are the exact same despite being a lot less noticeable/more subtle, so the impact of certain notes gets muddled in between. Also, 03:02:899 (182899|3) there just isn't a guitar note here, so not sure what this is for at all? I have no problem with the idea, it's the execution.

02:36:965 (156965|0,156965|1) 02:38:086 (158086|5,158086|6) - These are clearly placed to kicks, and having them LNs accentuates the wobbliness of the synth.

• The LNs that do accentuate the wobbliness are 02:37:946 (157946|5,157946|4,158156|3,158156|4). The ones for the kick aren't accentuating the synths. It's put under the same emphasis as the short LNs for the synth, which by this logic would muddle that accentuation, don't you think? If you really do want to emphasize the accentuation, why not extend LNs like 02:37:806 (157806|0,158016|2) 1/2 longer and leave the kicks as rice? It's better contrast with the accentuation and kicks here.

03:08:367 (188367|1,188367|0,188507|2,188507|4,188647|3,188647|1,188647|6,188787|2,188787|4,188927|0,188927|6,188927|3,189068|1,189068|4,189208|6,189208|2,189208|0,189348|1,189348|4,189488|2,189488|3,189488|6) - These LNs are very trivial in difficulty, and it is very common practice to have LNs like these to drums.

• Not concerned about difficulty. I find the way its used very trivial. They aren't accentuating anything (except a couple of LNs) and the releases used are superficial when it comes to the patterns and its correlation to the music right now. If you do want to use LNs for the instrumental, I feel like something like this would also work?
  
• You still have LNs here for the background synths, and the middle column accentuating the snare in those beats. Keep in mind this is just a visual example. I don't know how it plays, feel free to comment on that if needed but I still think in its current state it's just really superficial and lacks any emphasis/accentuation.

03:17:198 (197198|0,197222|1,197245|2,197268|3,197292|4,197315|5,197339|6) - This adds a noticeable emphasis on the rising synths.

• I thought it was for that wind-like sound? If it's for the rising synths then I still don't agree with the current execution. If anything, it only starts rising slightly at 03:17:268. Why not something like this?
  

02:59:395 - Not only is it not common to have LNs like these, they actually do significantly add difficulty to the map. Having this rice will result in a very different map.

• I know that these are common. But its current execution is just..bland and again doesn't make sense. It follows the same pattern despite the music changing intensity midway and some parts of it clearly taking the highlight over others, yet everything is just the same so any impact this has is just gone and monotonous. Like, why are 02:59:395 (179395|3,179535|1) the same when one is the melody and the other is just a kick? Couldn't you do something like this? It's still the same idea but the concept is clearer while still being difficult.
  

03:21:544

• I should've been more specific here. The whole entire segment is not an issue itself. Specifically, I'm referring to stuff like 03:35:002 - 03:38:367 and so on. For this I'd just say refer to the stuff I've had to say with previous timestamps. I know I was too vague with this, though my other points should be enough to show my main point.

This is a very bold claim. These LNs are absolutely noticeable and I doubt many players will think otherwise. I really don't have much to say if you still think otherwise after playing the map.

• Gameplay wise, I can tell what's going on to an extent. I think the gameplay is fine. I'm talking about the patterns themselves. Like, how are we supposed to tell what we're playing to with 03:35:002 - 03:38:367 when everything is treated with the same releases apart from like one note added/removed?

Why should LNs be only placed to melody? There is no objective basis to this and LNs absolutely should be, and have been, placed to any arbitrary sound the mapper wants. Whether a certain pattern is "befitting" of a sound is highly dependent on the context of the map, and the background of the player.

• Honestly it's my fault I said this, I take back what I said here. I should've been more specific. I'm moreso referring to the way the LNs have been used throughout this chart. I'm not gonna repeat my point since everything beforehand has been said and should be enough to show why I believe it's an issue. If there's any more confusion please let me know.

02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) - There is a clearly audible synth grace here that is not present in 02:29:815. The faster synth at 02:35:563 is a lot more pronounced and slower than the others, and is in a different section.

• Made a mistake on this. My bad.

02:21:825 (141825|6,141825|3,141825|0,141895|4,141895|1,141965|2,141965|5,142035|0,142035|3) - Adding a burst here will mean it'll be harder to transition into the quad anchors right after. I do think that this can be tackled by shifting some notes around without changing density but the lack of 1/8 drum representation is a very small sacrifice for visible synth emphasis at 02:22:105

• While I understand your point, like you mentioned I do think you could shift some notes around to fit it in. I don't have suggestions since I'm not sure how it'll play on my end. If you and the mapper prefer to keep this then that's fine since the reasoning is good.

02:36:404 (156404|1,156544|0) - obviously the drums.

• I got conflicting answers over this. You said the drums but someone else is saying the chiptune. Are you sure it's obvious? Especially since the chiptune and piano is the highlight so even then it's odd to be focusing on highlighting the drum this way? At that point I do think they'd be better off as rice to just focus on the piano instead (and then you could add a note at col 1 in 02:36:684)

03:10:294 (190294|1) - guitar legato? Same reason why there is a LN at 03:09:804.

• I understand 03:09:804 but 03:10:294 (190294|1) doesn't seem to have that when you compare the two. It's just a tiny fade you can slightly notice slowed down so in gameplay this just isn't noticeable.

03:19:301 - Ignoring synths allows for a stronger kick emphasis

• Fair.

A lot of these "inconsistencies" are extremely minor as well, and it's very unlikely that any player will notice changes resulting from these - testplayer responses on whether they keep track of every individual LN release has been very mixed.

• I get what you're trying to say but that doesn't mean they should be ignored if they're noticed? I'd understand if it was just like one or two cases, butplease keep in mind I said "some examples.", there are indeed more. This isn't just "extremely minor" when there are plenty of cases and shouldn't be neglected just because they're "nitpicky."
• 02:06:404 (126404|6) - The release?
• 02:39:418 - Ignored synth?
• 00:08:180, 00:09:301 - no LN?
• 00:08:927 - Why a triple LN? Shouldn't the triple LN be at 00:08:647?
• 00:11:731 (11731|5,11825|6) - Pretty sure the piano stops by this point, or there should be an LN at 00:11:918
• 00:16:497, 00:17:619 - Should be 3 notes? Same intensity as 00:15:656 and 00:17:899
• And so on..

The difference in intensity perceived at the two kiais is extremely subjective and there is no way to objectively quantify which section is more "intense" than the other..

• Don't have a concern with the difficulty (as said before). It's the expression and the curve. Concerns above.

02:40:610 (160610|1,160785|1) - this is an extremely insignificant reverse shield. If you have trouble playing this you're not going to be able to play much else in the map.

• Will admit this was a little nitpicky, ignore this.

03:01:077 - snaps here are not as clearly audible as you claim it to be. The kicks are fast enough to be impossible to hear each individual kick at full speed while playing, and considering that the map is very dumpy in nature anyway, it hardly matters whether the 1/12 snap is correct or not. Even if it were 1/8 it would still make sense to overmap it to adequately emphasize the kicks here.

• Still gonna have to disagree. Not sure if this is the right term but the kicks have some sort of "reverb" or "distortion" to how they sound, which makes it sound more rapid than it seems. If you listen closely, there are distinct kicks playing in the 1/8 snaps, not 1/12. Just the LN bursts is enough to emphasis the kicks, so I don't understand why overmapping it is a necessity.

Regarding the unsnaps

• I will admit I've made a mistake with this. I understand the unsnaps now. I don't have much else to say about this. I still disagree with the way its handled but I don't have the knowledge/experience to provide suggestions right now. If anyone else has something to say about the segment, please do so (it looks like people are working on that, keep that up!)

Regarding the nominators paragraph

• I'll admit this might've been a bit too far. I apologize for that. It's still a little concerning with how much people still have to question about this map after its dq (both here and outside this discussion). That's all I have to say.

'taba2 responses'

• I really wasn't - I wasn't implying that they were being intentionally dismissive, language barrier or not. But the way it was being resolved was hasty and I felt it was enough to warrant my post.

'Screenshots' - Few things worth noting.

• The questions asked is really downplaying what my post was about. Of course if you only ask "can you read every individual release" and "do you care more about accurate SR" people are going to think this post is just about being extremely nitpicky over releases and an artificial metric when that's not what it's about. You guys asked a manipulative and loaded question that was bound to have manipulated answers. I will admit that I should've been more clear on what I had a problem with, but the way this was "discussed" does not make the screenshots any more valid than they currently are already.
• I've never once mentioned any problems with gameplay. Commenting on my "skill" doesn't make sense here (reminder this post was made with the opinions of those experienced in 7k) and this is not about some "meaningless faction war." I don't care about the differences in 4k and 7k in this regard.

I do not agree that a flawed system beyond the control of the mapper should be an obstacle to a map's ranking process. Only the map's quality should matter, and I believe all of us here can agree that SR is not relevant to map quality.

• I never said this shouldn't be ranked because of its SR. I literally said this first thing at the top of my original post, and even clarified it to you multiple times outside this discussion. Why you (and some others) keep insisting this is beyond me.

While I have rolled with the current diff curve until now as how steep of a progression does a map have to be before it gets unfair is a subjective matter, some discussion in the BN server has led me to think that buffing the first half of the map to smoothen out the difficulty curve will make the map more palatable to the intended audience, and perhaps alleviate the discrepancy between SR and perceived difficulty. Thus I would like to ask if you are willing to accept this as a possible solution to the problem.

• As I said earlier, I think the first kiai is fine as is (it really doesn't need a buff). My issue was mainly on the second kiai (with some stuff outside of it as well but this was the main one). The issue isn't "staggered releases can't be ranked" it's the execution of it here.

What do you actually propose that we do? There are a whole lot of complaints but very few practical solutions.

• I apologize for not giving some suggestions originally, that's on me. I provided some suggestions here for a start on what could be done. Some people have already started giving suggestions themselves. I hope this works for you and the mapper.

It's unrealistic to wait for the SR system to magically fix itself, so do you propose that staggered release LNs just not be ranked? Would a rebalancing of the map's difficulty curve be a good enough compromise?

• Refer to what I said above regarding difficulty curve. I do think a rework of the curve would be the best choice (but I don't agree with what you're suggesting). NoName's comments about some of your points are also worth looking at.

-----------

Niks:

• Most of your response is the same thing Madbrick already brought up, so I suggest reading that. However:

I'm very curious as to why this has 23 upvotes. I doubt ppl read that article while analyzing the map.

• This isn't a valid point to make- you have every right to disagree, but those who do agree with me have read the post and have similar concerns as well. I know my post is not the best, but I hope my response here is enough to make my intentions clear and why there are people who agree.
• I have no malicious intentions with this post or anyone involved.

it says it is a 6-7 star map, but when I removed all the notes and it was 8 star. Do not use false evidence when vetoing.

• I'm sorry about that, it was a mistake on my part. Thank you for pointing it out. Though I disagree that it's a "little bit of SR pumping." That's still 4 stars off if it really does play like 8*. It's not my main concern, but I hope this clarifies things.

I don't feel justified in your oppinion because you can't actually play this, what's the problem?

• No issue with gameplay, I'm talking about other things. My skill to play doesn't apply here, and again this veto was made with the opinions of other 7k players as well.

"Not reasons to veto."

• I didn't veto for nitpicks. It was for quality concerns that applied throughout the entire chart which someone else already tried bringing up. The examples I gave are not the only ones that apply (I am aware now some of them were mistakes), which is why I said "some examples."
• I feel that there are significant issues with this map, which is why the veto was put. A veto is used when a BN thinks that a map shouldn't be qualified in its current state for any reason, which I applied here. You have every right to disagree, though that's how I see this chart right now.

Thanks a lot for your explanations and screenshots though, I do appreciate it. If I missed anything, let me know.

-----------

Mango:

I'm really sorry if my post came off as me saying you intentionally boosted the sr. That wasn't my intention and I should've been more clear on that. Please read through my response to Madbrick with my concerns for more details.

-----------

I'm sorry for how the veto was originally written. I made some mistakes with it and some of it was misunderstood. I hope this response makes everything more clear and what my intentions are. If there's anything else you guys don't understand, or something I missed, please let me know. However, please don't rely on assumptions about me or the people involved or nitpicking the "SR" aspect over everything else as that won't get us anywhere. I just want to focus on the chart and I'm sure the others do too.

If the mapper does not agree with any suggestions (or the compromise), a mediation can be sent if needed as I don't think my thoughts on this will change.

"I'm very curious as to why this has 23 upvotes. I doubt ppl read that article while analyzing the map."
I would like to explain why I made this statement.

It was not justified as a veto reason because, as I already said, removing the second kiai completely would have made it an 8.00* based on local star rating instead of a 6.00-7.00*.
I thought this was a forced story to weigh in on the veto opinion.

and, 'The first and second kiai are not even that different in the music'
02:36:684 - 03:35:002 - Comparing the two, you can hear that the melody is more frequent, the pitch of the melody is higher, and you can also hear the change in the drums.
It's also true that there should be some difference in difficulty, since it can serve as the final burst part.

But even taking that into account, I think the gap between the first and second Kiai parts is larger than it needs to be, so I think it's inevitable that the pattern difficulty of the first Kiai part will increase.
I vetoed this suggestion and thought it was valid, but ending the article with the comment that the first and second Kiai are surprisingly similar did not resonate with me.

I thought these were the two biggest reasons why monoseul couldn't vote, and I didn't understand why the people who upvoted didn't leave any comments about these faulty reasons.
I thought they were in agreement with everything in the monoseul.
If it wasn't, I apologize. sorry

For the record, I stand corrected that I said "little bit of SR pumping" due to a translation error.
my careful check was lacking...
I was obviously referring to a little bit of SR pumping based on being 8* with the 2nd key-eye removed, which can be misleading enough.
I apologize for my lack of English

I hope this all ends in a good way.

#3843341
Since mapper already dropped the map, there is no need to do veto mediation now. If mapper sill wants to rank it and go mediation in the future, please coordinate with the vetoer to re-submit it on bnsite.

couldnt have said it better we need more mania pp devs man :(

ㄹㅇㅋㅋ

my concern was the opposite:

Due to the higher strain towards the end of the map, having too high of an HP will unfairly fail players even with high accuracy. o!m is not known for good HP clearing mechanics, especially for LNs, and it can be very easy to slip up and fail. I personally found such experiences far more frustrating, and not really worth the satisfaction from clearing them.

Open for opinions though.
Adjustments to HP/OD is a very quick change and if people don't think it's not frustrating to fail with high As, or if the current HP values are not high enough to fail very low mashed scores without unfairly failing a significant number of players, there should be no reason to keep it.

Short note about HP sysyem
HP9 Regens half HP per notes compared to HP8
Which means players should do twice better to pass the map (40miss -> 20miss is twice)

Additionaly, there is significant burst on ending, which forces players to reduce misses more than actual HP forces to.

:D

This mapset directly violated this guideline:

Any metadata that contains ambiguous or hard-to-write unicode characters should be accompanied by easily searchable variations or romanisations of these words in the beatmap's tags.

Writing 太鼓の達人 is hard without specialised Japanese IME.

Yes, there is an issue with the metadata. Per the guideline cited by Ryu Sei, maps with metadata that has ambiguous or non-Unicode characters should include tags relevant to the metadata present. In this case, even though '太鼓の達人' is the source, this map cannot be searched by simply typing in 'taiko no tatsujin' as they are not present in the tags. Therefore, adding these tags is necessary to ensure this map gets ranked and is easily searchable.

this guideline is more relevant imo:

If the source of the song is available in both unicode and romanised formats, the option not used in the source field should be added to tags.

Generally, a hard-to-write unicode character was added to the RC as a reference to umlauts, accents, or symbols used in place of roman characters, though it kinda applies here.

no harm in adding the tag
just waiting for the mapper(s) to check before dq'ing

I'll fix it

fixed

fixed

Oke
Gonna fix later

fixed

ok sure

wait... is this my first time hyping this?

check

edit tag:
remove "ssapgou" tag since i am added as guest
add "collaboration" tag

(method from kobii's king atlantis)

according to some discussion at discord call, we decided its OD/HP to 6.5/9

You forget youtube :) It uses libopus nowadays, so quality is shockingly good (if the source is good).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iQs2x3G70bwLUlOW9h9SJ1u5WD2YIFXO/view?usp=sharing
(Opus source -> Vorbis q6 - 189kbps)

Spek:
https://i.imgur.com/KYL2RjF.png

hopping in cuz the mapper asked me some questions through discord

two things:

1. the bandcamp page provides much more than just 128kbps mp3. The 128kbps mp3 ssapgosu saw is probably the preview audio. The best possible source is usually lossless (you need to buy it on the page to access it.)

2. If you're ripping from youtube, you should avoid transcoding to higher than q5. Youtube does provide opus audio but they are only up to 160kbps average. Transcoding to q6 means that you're wasting a lot of storage.

I have DM'd the mapper a better vorbis q6 audio file transcoded from a lossless source. Please close this after replacing the audio.

audio modified

Adjust the offset after this, new offset is 3050

Actually it's closer to 3040, sorry

i think 3040 is right, too. I fixed it