Kite wrote:
(I don't understand what was wrong with 3 point sliders anyways and why this new mechanic / feature has to be forced)
Kite wrote:
I miss the old 3 point sliders, the red point solution is good but still not the same.
I'd be happy to see a toggle but I guess that won't happen
(I don't understand what was wrong with 3 point sliders anyways and why this new mechanic / feature has to be forced)
About that, About that.. I lost my Inspiration too.. But we are the osu!people. Right?..Natteke wrote:
Well shit, I guess this is how I stop mapping
mother_ing ugly as _haha5957 wrote:
just one moar example
-> This pattern becomes :
-> this pattern.
Doesn't look like reinventing sliders to me.haha5957 wrote:
Just some example here
Above one is with new slider system and below one is with old one. (and, they have curving points at same spot)
If someone asks me which one is better to make a flowing-style map, I would definitely choose old(below) one
Circle sliders are not like total bad but some pattern needs old slider to be best.just one moar example
-> This pattern becomes :
-> this pattern.
Charles pretty much took the words out of my keyboard.Charles445 wrote:
A simple toggle box to switch between P sliders and B sliders would solve the issue.
I personally love how Bezier sliders work - I think that points systems allows for much more unique sliders that can be manipulated intuitively. With this new system, it's frustrating to try and make a sharp turn only for it to turn into a circle. There's no reason to restrict the use of the old method.
WVS wrote:
Charles pretty much took the words out of my keyboard.
there was oneNyquill wrote:
Now that I think of it again,
Should be a toggle. Subtly curved sliders has been part of mapping for as long as anyone can remember. Forcing the new algorithm effectively removes an entire portion of mapping.
Basically. It just permits even more kinds of sliders and opens up more variety.Saten wrote:
I'd say it's a toggle to change the type of slider rather than disabling.
the problem here is that you are not changing the way you think. you can still make the exact same shapes as you had before, but you will need to move the middle point to sit on the sliders' curves, rather than "outside" them.haha5957 wrote:
just one moar example
-> This pattern becomes :
-> this pattern.
That makes no sense. This will encourage people to use circles and large arcs more, which is only a good thing--especially large arcs, which should be a standard feature in maps anyway.TheVileOne wrote:
The problem is that it's pressing a certain mapping style over all the others. It just doesn't seem right to me that if you prefer mapping things differently, then you have to work extra hard to map the way you used to map. It might hurt mapping in general to make simple curves so much easier to make compared to every other slider type. It's a dangerous road that I don't think we should be on to begin with. Sure keep it as a feature, but don't hurt other techniques in the process.
Oh, no. A whole five minutes to play with three-point sliders. Seriously, I still fail to realise how this is such a big deal. Even if adding an extra point is necessary, it takes as long as placing a third point.Kite wrote:
Saw it coming... too bad
Time to get used to the new method or quit, I guess.
I was hoping that for once the majority gets what it wants
Because they're still possible? If a newbie wants to play with waves, loops and slider art, then they can add more points. It's as straightforward as it's ever been.TheVileOne wrote:
Well it isn't that bad. But it does discourage using more difficult techniques, which is why I made that post. Before arcs were technical, just like every other aspect. Now one technique is far easier than any other technique, so why should newbies even try to make other types of sliders?
that way is tech unrankable remember your not allowed to alter the osb file in a way that the game doesn't let you just like other circle sizesSaten wrote:
If you change the P to a B in the metadata, it becomes a regular one.108,192,90193,6,0,P|136:232|104:148,1,495
pain-in-the-ass but yeah
But TVO's suggestion might be better
maybe not because there's no way if you could distinguish if it's mapped on old version of osu! or manually edited via text.ztrot wrote:
that way is tech unrankable remember your not allowed to alter the osb file in a way that the game doesn't let you just like other circle sizes
You mean .osuztrot wrote:
that way is tech unrankable remember your not allowed to alter the osb file in a way that the game doesn't let you just like other circle sizes
.What is the change.. an improvement on what was previously ''changed''... This is not an improvement...peppy wrote:
Sometimes change is a good thing, you know
But continue.. is not the same.. Don't get nowhere but.. Nor lose nothing in tryingSo manually changing slider types in the .osu is fine?peppy wrote:
If you don't want symmetrical curves, make the last point a red point and you will get what you are looking for. I don't think "most" maps want these though, and I would call that an outlier case. Manually setting the type to B is acceptable for ranked maps, but it sounds like the wrong (and harder) way to go about doing things.
I'm actually enjoying the fact I don't have to spend 5 minutes on a single 5 point bezier anymore xDOzzyOzrock wrote:
But for now we can enjoy the circle sliders
I will bear this burden myself with much aplomb. There is no reason to make ugly 1/2 sliders. Symmetrical or not, the flow will be identical and the sliders can be pointed I n the appropriate direction for the creation of good flow.peppy wrote:
@angelfix: both sliders you show are possible using the new method.
The fact remains that any slider meant to be different than the fixed curvature that uses 3 points is sub-optimal. Make it your mission to teach users how to make ones that are >3 points and don't look bad.
It is unequivocally better. That is all.angelfix wrote:
i know use new way can make the original slide, just need a bit more works. but there are centenly somthing wrong with this change. i have no interests to explain it. i can make sure that 90 per cent experienced mappers all know this is wrong. why you do not spend 3 min to ask all bat and mat's opinion just insist your opinion？that's is really disappointed.
we can't says if it is better or not.. There will always be opinions on both sides. only can says is changed. because really is not the same..D33d wrote:
It is unequivocally better. That is all.
I'm not sure if you guys are trolling or just being retarded. Why are you implying that everyone thinks the same way you do and that the statement "these sliders are pretty" is a fact?Sakura wrote:
I don't get it, you hate something that makes your sliders prettier?
just realized that he used my mappeppy wrote:
the problem here is that you are not changing the way you think. you can still make the exact same shapes as you had before, but you will need to move the middle point to sit on the sliders' curves, rather than "outside" them.haha5957 wrote:
just one moar example
-> This pattern becomes :
-> this pattern.