I hate that all playcounters are wrong in this game...
tfw memes are an excuse to rank bad mappingMaeglwn wrote:
thats the point of the map
if by "poor" you mean "hard to read because of low AR" then oh dear, that must be the first time I disagree with you completely.Charles445 wrote:
First let's start with what is usually the goal of a joke map.
To be funny! Get some laughs, that's always nice.
In order for a joke map to be ranked, however, it has to focus on a very important detail.
It must strive for good gameplay.
If a joke map has poor mapping, it stops being funny and ends up being a hassle to those involved in playing it.
The joke of how absurd the song or storyboard is will be overshadowed by its bad mapping decisions.
Everybody makes mistakes in maps.
A lot of maps have problems, and that is usually because the mapper was unaware that they were issues. Accidents, as they are called.
The problem with this set is that it has bad gameplay on purpose.
The map is deliberately designed to play poorly, which quite frankly is pretty appalling to see coming from those closely connected to the team.
This set really shouldn't stay qualified, as not only is it poor itself, but it sets a bad precedent for other maps like it.
the set is not poor in the slightest. are we not allowed to qualify ar7 anymore just because people aren't good at playing it?Charles445 wrote:
First let's start with what is usually the goal of a joke map.
To be funny! Get some laughs, that's always nice.
In order for a joke map to be ranked, however, it has to focus on a very important detail.
It must strive for good gameplay.
If a joke map has poor mapping, it stops being funny and ends up being a hassle to those involved in playing it.
The joke of how absurd the song or storyboard is will be overshadowed by its bad mapping decisions.
Everybody makes mistakes in maps.
A lot of maps have problems, and that is usually because the mapper was unaware that they were issues. Accidents, as they are called.
The problem with this set is that it has bad gameplay on purpose.
The map is deliberately designed to play poorly, which quite frankly is pretty appalling to see coming from those closely connected to the team.
This set really shouldn't stay qualified, as not only is it poor itself, but it sets a bad precedent for other maps like it.
map ranking isn't based on how much they deserve it, it's based on 1) number of ranked maps from the people ranking it, 2) general quality, 3) people involved in the mapset, and 4) most importantly, how fast you can find BNsDm1321 wrote:
I actually really like how some difficulties are mapped to make a bit of a joke of what's the trend and be purposefully hard to read or "unliked" because of various reasons (Irre's CS7 or BD's AR7) and I don't really mind it at all, since I do enjoy these settings...
But I do get a bit confused that maps like this still get ranked faster than actual serious maps that have been around for a long long time and are still waiting for a bubble.
thank you, I appreciate thatStarry- wrote:
This map did serve it's purpose and it's really subjective on what you call enjoyable. Low AR =/= unenjoyable.
If this map just had a bunch of generic CS4 AR9 settings on diffs it'll just be completely boring anyways considering it's length.
I'm speaking as a player here (being a mania BN), and I don't usually speak on map threads like this, but if this is disqualified due to the settings then I'll be really disappointed since I really enjoy the map how it is right now.
Just my views anyways. I know there would be a lot of controversy about the AR7 difficulty but not to the point of calling the whole mapset poor.
I don't think he is referring to the AR. The AR is not an issue here. The issue is that you intentionally used patterns which aren't by any means rankable (because they are bad) and then use "but it's an epic meme map and intended to be shit xD xD xD" as an excuse for ranking poor mapping. Remember that there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard if you want to make maps that are not suitable for ranking.Blue Dragon wrote:
if by "poor" you mean "hard to read because of low AR" then oh dear, that must be the first time I disagree with you completely.
The map was designed to be hard to read and aim. It's called a challenge, and as streaming and aiming are considered skills, reading also should be.
I really hope you aren't implying that you'll abuse your moderator powers to remove legitimate criticism.Maeglwn wrote:
you should really stop being so negative, I'm not going to deal with it on my map
"they are objectively bad, it's not my opinion, it's a fact! this is legitimate criticism!"blahpy wrote:
(because they are bad)
legitimate criticism.
Okay I'll spell it out for you:Maeglwn wrote:
unless criticism is constructive its not helpful or wanted
Man, by this logic any piece of shit map could get ranked if one person considers it good. (Not calling your map shit, it isn't, but there are plenty of unranked maps that are shit)Blue Dragon wrote:
"they are objectively bad, it's not my opinion, it's a fact! this is legitimate criticism!"
The map is deliberately designed to play poorly, which quite frankly is pretty appalling to see coming from those closely connected to the team.I agree. If completely unfitting difficulty parameters like the ar7 on bds diff and cs7 on irres are rankable, it sets a huge negative impact as an example and attitude towards the mapping community..
This set really shouldn't stay qualified, as not only is it poor itself, but it sets a bad precedent for other maps like it.
cs7 diffs have been being ranked all yearSotajumala wrote:
The map is deliberately designed to play poorly, which quite frankly is pretty appalling to see coming from those closely connected to the team.I agree. If completely unfitting difficulty parameters like the ar7 on bds diff and cs7 on irres are rankable, it sets a huge negative impact as an example and attitude towards the mapping community..
This set really shouldn't stay qualified, as not only is it poor itself, but it sets a bad precedent for other maps like it.
I mean after this, if a nominator or QAT says "This difficulty has ar9 but you should change it to ar 9.5". It loses all its credibility if the mapper can just post a link to this maps thread saying "Oh then why is this ranked?"
What? You can have the mappers name in the difficulty name as long as its referencing ownership, not something like "BLUE DRAGON STYLE"Riince wrote:
every single diff has the mappers name in it
talk about spitting in the eye of that ranking criteria that i thought was supposed to prevent that
if this gets unranked I'm graveyarding itNice mentality for people who doing effort to mod and map this. Really mature yep.
Don't start the unneeded comments either you provide something that helps or don't provide anything at all. Stating your opinions without any flaming is fine to some extent (expect when there is about 30 comments like that already no point then) but don't start the QAT flame storm-Trophy- wrote:
haters gonna hate
I'm graveyarding it for outside reasons, I had full intentions to get this going and rank it and have a blast with this map, but that's not allowedAldwych wrote:
if this gets unranked I'm graveyarding itNice mentality for people who doing effort to mod and map this. Really mature yep.
This wasn't an attempt to be that map. In the slightest. In fact, it was the complete opposite. It was an effort to try out different difficulty settings across the highest diffs in order to change up what's currently being mapped and seen for maps all around. If anything this map was more of a message that people should dare to be different and try out different styles/map difficulties in order to shake up the mapping community a bit and change the "regular" in order to go back to more creative mapping.Loctav wrote:
a staff member is supposed to be a representation of the game. This is not quality, and it is a shame to see such a thing attempt to make it to rank. It is basically a "fuck you to all the mappers out there who toil endlessly to have their (arguably better) maps ranked, we are staff members, we can do whatever we want!".
Additionally, QATs disqualify maps after discussion. This is not a question about a single staff. This also applies to any situation.LexiaLovesU wrote:
Don't start the unneeded comments either you provide something that helps or don't provide anything at all. Stating your opinions without any flaming is fine to some extent (expect when there is about 30 comments like that already no point then) but don't start the QAT flame storm-Trophy- wrote:
Dear Loctav, please stop unranking/unqualifying maps just because you don't like them.
Thank you.
Well if you want my vision of mapping :Maeglwn wrote:
for no floodingI'm graveyarding it for outside reasons, I had full intentions to get this going and rank it and have a blast with this map, but that's not allowed
It's really disappointing that I was able to rank 3 other songs just like this one without any issue, but now this one suddenly sparks an issue.
I'm extremely saddened, honestly.
Actually, let me change that wording for a bit. It's upsetting that because I had so many difficulties from different people on this map, that this map happened to be seen and apparently is so much worse than every other map I've created, to the point where frank and disdainful remarks had to be put into play because of it. It's honestly embarrassing.
I can't believe that, in quote, this is what is actually believed, if anything.This wasn't an attempt to be that map. In the slightest. In fact, it was the complete opposite. It was an effort to try out different difficulty settings across the highest diffs in order to change up what's currently being mapped and seen for maps all around. If anything this map was more of a message that people should dare to be different and try out different styles/map difficulties in order to shake up the mapping community a bit and change the "regular" in order to go back to more creative mapping.Loctav wrote:
a staff member is supposed to be a representation of the game. This is not quality, and it is a shame to see such a thing attempt to make it to rank. It is basically a "fuck you to all the mappers out there who toil endlessly to have their (arguably better) maps ranked, we are staff members, we can do whatever we want!".
However, this was apparently seen as a ploy to just use staff powers to get maps ranked faster than other maps that deserve it.
I apologize to anybody who felt that way; it was absolutely not that. It's a shame to see that our mapping in this regard is suddenly diminished and looked down upon because of the "staff member" regard.
Like fine, you can say my diffs have all of the quality issues in the world and that's fine, but there's literally no reason that everybody else on the set should have to suffer as well.
I'm graveyarding this for various reasons, but one of them being that I don't really like how this was treated as a map. As much as many different people enjoyed the map and I recieved MANY different highlights/pms in and out of the game regarding congratulations and how much they liked the map, apparently the "haters" to put it frankly got the best of it.
I'll still be mapping, but I guess this is the end of my soundcloud mapping for good.
Have a good one to anybody reading this.
its not that the problem but there some 2007/2008 maps with cs5/ar7 that are funnier and more playable Than ur diff ( u can fc it but u will not enjoyed doing that )Blue Dragon wrote:
Remove my difficulty since people apparently suck too much to play AR7.
Good job for ruining a great map and still ranking *CENSORED MAP*
Oh, by the way: "this difficulty is quite bad"
Yeah, thank you for considering the effort I put on it and making as fun as possible with AR7. Because of some whiny players who can't stand anything non-AR9 is why mapping nowadays sucks so much.
After all, encouraging different settings to map, such as small CS or AR seems to be "trolling" nowadays, and ranking maps who are barely playable and focus on "art" should be 100% fine.
Congratulations for this community proving itself worse everyday.
Who are you to say that? You can't even play my diff, it's way out of your skill level to say that.OSUjanaiKATSURAda wrote:
its not that the problem but there some 2007/2008 maps with cs5/ar7 that are funnier and more playable Than ur diff ( u can fc it but u will not enjoyed doing that )Blue Dragon wrote:
Remove my difficulty since people apparently suck too much to play AR7.
Good job for ruining a great map and still ranking *CENSORED MAP*
Oh, by the way: "this difficulty is quite bad"
Yeah, thank you for considering the effort I put on it and making as fun as possible with AR7. Because of some whiny players who can't stand anything non-AR9 is why mapping nowadays sucks so much.
After all, encouraging different settings to map, such as small CS or AR seems to be "trolling" nowadays, and ranking maps who are barely playable and focus on "art" should be 100% fine.
Congratulations for this community proving itself worse everyday.
Maybe JUST MAYBE theres a reason these kind of difficulties are in higher ar? What youre basically saying is that "Im allowed to have a little bit of fun with approach rate" ..Blue Dragon wrote:
Remove my difficulty since people apparently suck too much to play AR7.
Good job for ruining a great map and still ranking *CENSORED MAP*
Oh, by the way: "this difficulty is quite bad, it has to be remapped"
Yeah, thank you for considering the effort I put on it and making as fun as possible with AR7. Because of some whiny players who can't stand anything non-AR9 is why mapping nowadays sucks so much.
After all, encouraging different settings to map, such as small CS or AR seems to be "trolling" nowadays, and ranking maps who are barely playable and focus on "art" should be 100% fine.
Congratulations for this community proving itself worse everyday.
what is so bad about encouraging people to learn how to read lower ARs? my godSotajumala wrote:
Maybe JUST MAYBE theres a reason these kind of difficulties are in higher ar? What youre basically saying is that "Im allowed to have a little bit of fun with approach rate" ..Blue Dragon wrote:
Remove my difficulty since people apparently suck too much to play AR7.
Good job for ruining a great map and still ranking *CENSORED MAP*
Oh, by the way: "this difficulty is quite bad, it has to be remapped"
Yeah, thank you for considering the effort I put on it and making as fun as possible with AR7. Because of some whiny players who can't stand anything non-AR9 is why mapping nowadays sucks so much.
After all, encouraging different settings to map, such as small CS or AR seems to be "trolling" nowadays, and ranking maps who are barely playable and focus on "art" should be 100% fine.
Congratulations for this community proving itself worse everyday.
Maybe so but if thats the case i dont see any reason why said diff should get ranked.