thank u~ sco, yuki, lust and oracle, may have this as the best version.
guys, hate and love this map, thx for playing!
guys, hate and love this map, thx for playing!
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.