LAST MINUTE STARS GIVEN!!
Mei wrote:
恭喜
看看有沒有戏看
Gaia wrote:
we have a winner here
jk ily desu gun
xxdeathx wrote:
Kaguya Hourain wrote:
xxdeathx wrote:
and get 0ppxxdeathx wrote:
First ranked play on this map!
吓得我飞了起来Autumn wrote:
还有人记得这张图当初的模样吗?
Halozy - Gennryuu Kaiko (Hollow Wings) [Waterfall]
What was the map like when first made ↑
转眼间萌萌的HW都要AFK了.
I think even people who can play it will complain, just like when people who can't play something offer compliments. It doesn't matter as long as they aren't acting like a dick and explain their reasoning.Weed wrote:
would never have guessed this map would ever become qualified... really an amazing map, its a shame those who can't play it will proceed to QQ
hmm most of these complaints are coming from people that can't play it and i haven't yet seen one from someone who canLach wrote:
I think even people who can play it will complain, just like when people who can't play something offer compliments. It doesn't matter as long as they aren't acting like a dick and explain their reasoning.Weed wrote:
would never have guessed this map would ever become qualified... really an amazing map, its a shame those who can't play it will proceed to QQ
Darksonic wrote:
... this map is not made for humans.
Huh? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/100348ByBy_ChAn wrote:
WOW ! It's your first ranked marathon map ? If is , congrats HW !!!
pielak wrote:
we are a few days early for the qualified -> first ranked map of 2015
Just wondering, when a QAT wants to unqualify a map, can they do it on their own accord or do they actually need get the approval of other QATs aswell? There are times when I see a map get unqualified, and the QAT post say something like, '' Hello there I've talked with this other QAT and this third QAT and we decide this doesnt work so rip your map'', and other times, like Otsukimi Recital and this, where it's just one QAT saying ''This map is bad and is now unqualified''TicClick wrote:
Sorry, but this map lacks a fair bit of something that is called quality and should have not been ranked in its current state. If you need more details, this is probably due to blatant abuse of patterns like 00:47:399 (1,2,3,1,2) - and the fact there are barely any distinct and audible sounds you mapped most, if not all streams to. Oh, and also a massive pile of overlapping copypaste that starts from 03:43:584, not speaking of the stream that follows the kiai part on 04:05:781 and ignores any features provided to you by music.
I am also going to refer to this post, as similar situation has already happened once in the past; you can read first two paragraphs of it, replacing "Platinum" with "Mysterious Hymn".
yea sure, but there's also a reason for the qualifie section/qatKotonoha wrote:
Just wondering, when a QAT wants to unqualify a map, can they do it on their own accord or do they actually need get the approval of other QATs aswell? There are times when I see a map get unqualified, and the QAT post say something like, '' Hello there I've talked with this other QAT and this third QAT and we decide this doesnt work so rip your map'', and other times, like Otsukimi Recital and this, where it's just one QAT saying ''This map is bad and is now unqualified''TicClick wrote:
Sorry, but this map lacks a fair bit of something that is called quality and should have not been ranked in its current state. If you need more details, this is probably due to blatant abuse of patterns like 00:47:399 (1,2,3,1,2) - and the fact there are barely any distinct and audible sounds you mapped most, if not all streams to. Oh, and also a massive pile of overlapping copypaste that starts from 03:43:584, not speaking of the stream that follows the kiai part on 04:05:781 and ignores any features provided to you by music.
I am also going to refer to this post, as similar situation has already happened once in the past; you can read first two paragraphs of it, replacing "Platinum" with "Mysterious Hymn".
There's a reason why you need to get maps bubbled before ranking, you know...
You're completely missing my point.FlobuFlobs wrote:
yea sure, but there's also a reason for the qualifie section/qatKotonoha wrote:
Just wondering, when a QAT wants to unqualify a map, can they do it on their own accord or do they actually need get the approval of other QATs aswell? There are times when I see a map get unqualified, and the QAT post say something like, '' Hello there I've talked with this other QAT and this third QAT and we decide this doesnt work so rip your map'', and other times, like Otsukimi Recital and this, where it's just one QAT saying ''This map is bad and is now unqualified''
There's a reason why you need to get maps bubbled before ranking, you know...
What's not fitting about it, though? The song is really intense, as is the map. The sv flows quite well and the patterns match the intensity of the song really well too - I mentioned the last section being too hard earlier, but I still think it fits, despite its ridiculous difficulty. I think people are too used to easier maps. A map's difficulty isn't what makes it good or bad. It's how said difficulty is designed. I think we can all agree that Tenshi isn't a bad map and that map is miles harder than this one.SnowflakeStreet wrote:
I'm cool with difficult maps, but the song is just not fitting.
Truth has been spokencaptin1 wrote:
unfortunate that this is the reality of the QAT now, that they believe they can make subjective unranks for "map quality" without any attempt at improving the map because they believe their definition of "quality" is more important than the BATs involved in ranking the map
I personally don't have much of an opinion on the map one way or the other, but the simple fact that this was unqualified on such a weak concept just disappoints me
Yup. Make this my words.captin1 wrote:
unfortunate that this is the reality of the QAT now, that they believe they can make subjective unranks for "map quality" without any attempt at improving the map because they believe their definition of "quality" is more important than the BATs involved in ranking the map
I personally don't have much of an opinion on the map one way or the other, but the simple fact that this was unqualified on such a weak concept just disappoints me
MillhioreF wrote:
05:00:925 (2,3,4,5,1) - Not necessarily a problem, but can anyone even FC this? 1.20x note spacing on 2 x 2.8 slider velocity.
I can attest to their fcability!Pappy wrote:
MillhioreF wrote:
05:00:925 (2,3,4,5,1) - Not necessarily a problem, but can anyone even FC this? 1.20x note spacing on 2 x 2.8 slider velocity.
Just FCed this part after clicking "test" million times in editor. /o/
I fc the first of the two at the end reliably, but for some reason I always miss on the second one ):MillhioreF wrote:
Yeah, that was a bad question. I should have asked if anyone can FC them _reliably_.
I agree with this.nookls wrote:
i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.
I just don't see what makes this a "shitty low quality map". The map is easy to read and feels, at least to me, like it matches the song. The only gripe I can see is that it's moderately difficult to play. And I don't see why difficulty of playing should factor into ranking a map. I'm not a mapper so I know my opinion might not hold much weight at all, but as a player I'm really sad to see this map go ): it seemed like a breath of fresh air and I really enjoyed itnookls wrote:
i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.
OH NO people have different opinions!Soap755 wrote:
I agree with this.nookls wrote:
i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.
Then there's some good un-ranked maps that don't get ranked. Like gg.
this is what i mean, if everything is subjective then why can't this be ranked while maps like dadadadada can and are?MillhioreF wrote:
How do you even determine "quality" to the point that a map can be ranked or not?
- Patterns that make sense? We see less and less of those in Insane/Extra difficulties nowadays and that's not stopping anyone.
- Readability? That's subjective, I can read stuff most people would call totally unreadable.
- Playability? That's subjective too, we saw some very good plays on this map even during the short time it was ranked, so obviously some people can play it.
- Following the music? Maybe, but I'd argue there are a lot of other ranked maps that completely make up their own beats. At least this one follows the constant background 1/4.
What it boils down to in the end, since any criteria (beyond ranking criteria themselves) is subjective, is whether or not the map is the best it can be. I don't think this one is yet, but all the same what right does anyone have to say "this mapping style is unrankable"?
Let me be the boo-man doing this.Cherry Blossom wrote:
Because the angry GM will lock this thread, and nobody will be happy.
MillhioreF wrote:
Instead of tossing around blame and namecalling pointlessly, I'm going to point out some patterns in this map that I don't think are very fair at all. Examples:
01:26:070 (15,1) - You expect the player to cross 75% of the screen in less than 1/10 of a second, and the music isn't even especially intense there, which doesn't make much sense. Most people complaining about the map are doing so because of patterns like this that aim for sheer difficulty rather than playability or going along with the music. thou i don't think my version's wrong but since lots of modders and testers complained about this, i decide to change it to another style to fit the normal sense.
02:01:446 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) - I don't objectively have problems with most of the stream spacing in this map, but the angle change here feels HORRIBLE, at least to me. Around (11) or so, the angle takes a sharp turn instead of a smooth one, and it just doesn't really work. I'm not sure I've full comboed this part ever, and I've tried this map a lot. 00:43:758 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - has a similar problem, although it's not quite as bad. after lots of tests i can say thou the stream looks horrible, even some one recommend me change those shapes to regular pentagon or something like that to give "more clear and well done composing" which i won't agree with those testing results.
03:00:579 (2,1,1) - The slider blanketing here isn't very great, and the blanketing all throughout this slow section suffers from similar issues. Set the circle size to 2.5 to see it more clearly. lol, maybe only u can find issues like this coz u did ez mode www, fixed.
04:00:231 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - The note speedup here also feels pretty bad, and to me it feels more luck-based whether you hit it or not because you have to change your cursor angle and speed so quickly. i can some kind of agree with u after scaning some replays on the score board, so i decide to merge note 7 and 8 into a 1/4 slider to low down the risk of combo breaking, still kept a part of spaced stream thou.
04:13:845 (14,15,16,1,2,3,4) - Another really sharp, weird angle that I screw up more often than not. This one isn't as bad as the others I've mentioned though. yes, this is fine imo.
04:25:116 (16,1) - What am I looking at? I can't think of any possible cursor motion that can play this intuitively. believe it or not, it's easier to play than fluent flow in streams.
05:00:925 (2,3,4,5,1) - Not necessarily a problem, but can anyone even FC this? 1.20x note spacing on 2 x 2.8 slider velocity. even i can do it myself (sometime thou orz).
I actually like this map a lot; it's challenging, fun to play, and has a lot of awesome-looking patterns. The problem is that it's just not very high quality, and the problem with making maps this hard is that almost nobody knows how it actually feels to play, or whether certain patterns work or not, so it's not going to get too many useful mods - and even if it does, you might have to give up some of your awesome patterns because, despite your best effort, and despite how fun they might be to play, they're not necessarily good.
Remember: there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard.
Yauxo wrote:
While we're at it, here's a thing that buggs me quite much.
■ I really love these Streams 04:05:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - and the idea behind them, but I really hate the fact that these sharp turns sometimes happen on normal beats (and not on the very strong ones that'd indicate such a change) or vocals. This goes for: i know what u mean, and actually, i did what u said which is correct to u, maybe it's hard to notice or it's just not good to u thou.
04:09:075 (7) -
04:13:238 (7) -
04:17:313 (7) -
04:18:786 (7) -
04:24:423 (8) -
04:45:318 (9) -
04:46:706 (9) -
04:48:180 (10) -
It'd feel more natural if you'd only use these for the very strong beat in the song (best example is the first stream Ive posted).
■ I would also shape 04:22:081 (13,14,15,16) - more curvy to the right. There's no real reason to have the start of the next combo on the right side if it's shaped like that. the reason u mentioned above fits here imo.
Edit: oh, also. These things 01:28:584 (6,7,8) - feel extremely awkward. You're most likely expecting a repeat Slider like the tons of the times you've had that one before, but there's none and you just suddenly have to play the next repeat Slider that starts on a red tick (opposed to the all-white-tick combo before that) yeah, but well i think this is not that hard to play if u can go through the previous part, and this pattern maybe a little tricky while playing fine thou.
thx for modding!Ovoui wrote:
random mod, hope it will be usefull
[Mysterious hymn]
00:13:064 (2,2) - i believe that stacking slider is an unrankable issue no, it's not.
i understand on what you mapped the stream but i think it's interenting to map this sound because of the hitsounds it's not listenable
02:43:931 (1) - may be this this jump is a bit to much large already changed.
03:13:064 (1) - nice scythe
03:15:839 (1) - this overlapping is very strange
03:15:839 (1,2) - it could be nice of you make a blank with thoses slider current ones r fine enough.
04:50:174 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - it's a bit repetitive here, you can do something better sry but i won't change the last part coz it's perfect now.
i suggest you this
1 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/2377441
2 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/2377443
3 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/2377446
4 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/2377449 (overlapping are visible because i change the ar to 0 to take screen)
well gl hf, i wish this map will be requalified ans pls don't quit osu i'll be sad without your map