Hear the song and you will understand why =P
it's intro. First half of mp3 is unmapable. So it's ok.Lance wrote:
Almost half of the mp3 isn't used. Shouldn't this be cut?
Same here, because in ANN says the artist is Hayami Saori & Seto Asami:ykcarrot wrote:
I think the aritsts must be actual name of singers.
I know that this song can be categorized character song.azu-nyan14 wrote:
Same here, because in ANN says the artist is Hayami Saori & Seto Asami:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclo ... p?id=14167
If you looked back through the end of the anime,ykcarrot wrote:
I know that this song can be categorized character song.azu-nyan14 wrote:
Same here, because in ANN says the artist is Hayami Saori & Seto Asami:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclo ... p?id=14167
Then the artist of every map that used character song should be character name? It's just NO.
GiNa, you are wrong.
Then I ask back.GiNa wrote:
Why are "Seto Asami" and "Hayami Saori" in parentheses instead of the characters' name ?
EDIT : If the artist were a group, I think that would work well. Also 'The title of the anime Cast' would work in this case imo.GiNa wrote:
And, I'd say this is one of those songs that has special artist (just like the original ed, you would put the artist as "Shirahamazaka High School Chorus Club" instead of all the singers' name)
Melophobia wrote:
congratz~!
uh, isn't this unrankable if it's not mapped?Kei wrote:
The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l
Yes it is, unranking, mapper needs to finish mapping the first halfdkun wrote:
uh, isn't this unrankable if it's not mapped?Kei wrote:
The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l
The rule states 20% of the mp3 (not cumulative), so 15% intro and 15% outro unmapped is allowed, but 21% intro alone unmapped isn't.dkun wrote:
uh, isn't this unrankable if it's not mapped?Kei wrote:
The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l
GladiOol wrote:
I love it how such a mistake was made by a BAT.
Natteke wrote:
People never learn
Pretty much what it is, indeed.Tanzklaue wrote:
this is a punch into the face of everybody who actually cares about his map, everybody who desperately tries to get MATs and BATs to mod his or her map, and to every MAT/BAT who actually tries to do his or her job properly.
your avatar is perfect for that postSeph wrote:
yay another quality map ran-
oh.
Another question to Andrea:Blue Dragon wrote:
your avatar is perfect for that postSeph wrote:
yay another quality map ran-
oh.
Also... I completely agree with the previous posts.
Also, a question to andrea:
Why do you have to ignore the people who say this? Why do you just keep doing what you are doing? Don't you think it's unfair?
But please don't troll. Give constructive criticism instead of trolling, thanks. Any trolling posts will be deleted.
Rules wrote:
You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.
50% of the mp3 is not an intro :3popner wrote:
Rules wrote:
You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.
Also, 50% of the MP3 is a big problem.popner wrote:
If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space.
popner wrote:
Rules wrote:
You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.
can't tell if stupidRules wrote:
You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.
And that 50% is completely mappable in this case.Tanzklaue wrote:
50% of the mp3 is not an intro :3
Then a mapper, when in doubt, should check what's right and what's wrong instead of outright ranking his map in 9 days without even checking the rules.popner wrote:
thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.
So what if two rules conflict?
rule of thumbpopner wrote:
thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.
So what if two rules conflict?
common sense seems to be an big issue with the staff involved in ranking generally. helping people who don't need the help (or shouldn't need itdkun wrote:
rule of thumbpopner wrote:
thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.
So what if two rules conflict?
50% of an mp3 not being used is blatantly stupid
have some common sense
did you even look at the ranking date? I don't see the MAT/BAT ranking this asking if it was in question?
We're complaining about how a mapper gets a half-assed map ranked in 9 days -not just the unrank thing-, being so lazy that he can't even map the whole song, and only maps 2 diffs with pure copypaste and gets 2 XATs in the blink of an eye; while other people have to struggle hard to get their maps ranked for months and months, and they put 10x the effort Andrea made in this map. Also, the intro is completely mappeable, it matches with the bpm perfectly.Lybydose wrote:
There's no reason this should have been unranked. Unmapped portion requirements don't apply to the intro, and this file isn't even large to begin with. It's a stretch to even call the intro "mappable" due to the lack of a steady beat to follow.
Instead, you're just coming up with completely arbitrary and irrelevant reasons to unrank something just because you disagree with who the mapper is and/or don't want it ranked in a short period of time, neither of which have anything to do with map quality or "rankability".
So, this is bad?Mercurial wrote:
Atte: A mapper that took 11 months to get his map ranked.