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.

Seph wrote:

yay another quality map ran-

oh.

Blue Dragon wrote:

Seph wrote:

yay another quality map ran-

oh.

your avatar is perfect for that post

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tanzklaue wrote:

50% of the mp3 is not an intro :3

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

dkun wrote:

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

rule of thumb

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?

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".

Darksonic wrote:

and if people don't want to listen it, there is a "Skip" button..

Mercurial wrote:

Atte: A mapper that took 11 months to get his map ranked.

Stefan wrote:

Mercurial wrote:

Atte: A mapper that took 11 months to get his map ranked.

So, this is bad?

Snowy Dream wrote:

Re-congratz > <

cRyo[iceeicee] wrote:

TARI TARI!!!!

Philippines wrote:

One thing I should suggest: Never listen to other people's opinion.

those wrote:

So if I understand correctly, another forty-five seconds was mapped and it received... how many mods?

Deif wrote:

Philippines wrote:

One thing I should suggest: Never listen to other people's opinion.

Worst advice ever. If you don't hear what other people suggest, the whole ranking system (playtest - feedback info to the mapper) wouldn't make any sense. In fact, it's useful to improve ourselves and the quality of our maps.

Regardless my opinion, congratulations Andrea!

Philippines wrote:

I might have just said it wrong, sorry. What I mean is, if you know that you're going the right way, why bother listening on others?

Tanzklaue wrote:

because the things you have done probably could be done better, and what other people suggest could be better than what you had originally done.

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love. It's really hard to define how a specific spread could work in a specific song beforehand, but here's a list of things to consider: the difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order and/or with a reasonable gap between them; there should be at least one difficulty around ~2.5/3 star difficulty level; if your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be insane (this basically means that it's highly recommended to have 3 difficulties unless the song itself doesn't allow much variety); if your mapset has three difficulties, one of them should be about ~2.5/3 star difficulty level, and the second should not be Insane; if your map has four or more difficulties, at least two should be something other than Insane.

Andrea wrote:

what's the point of your post? o.o

h3k1ru wrote:

this game became full of haters