Albertol wrote:

Honestly, I'm really tired that every map goes through the same 'mod - ranker - unranked, fix it and we'll rank it again' process so I am going to give my point of view about this matter:

1- Why do you want to change the map? I carefuly read the reasons why you disqualified it and I think the adjustments make Irreversible's argument invalid to this map in its current state. I want to remind that mods are just recomendations, Suggestions that may help the map that a player gives to the mapper, but it's his (the mapper's) decision if he want to apply them or not because, after all, he owns the map and he took his time and his creativity to make it enjoyable. My point is, if someone wants to make any adjustments to a map, go and make the map yourself and do not play this one if you do not like it.

2- Why was the AR9.5 changed? It has a complete mapset from Easy to Insane, making it adequate for any player with any skill level. The Extra diff does not have to be made so that any player can play it, that's why there are other difficulties ranging from Easy to Insane. Extras can have more difficulty jumps, slider velocity, streams or an overall higher difficulty, this is why I think the AR 9.5 goes hand in hand with the difficulty of the map, also it was the mapper's decision and just because there are some people who can't play it does not mean the map is wrong.

That's all.

Now my mod. Lexia, sorry, but I'll write this in spanish because you know, my english is really bad, but Gero can help haha.

IT'S ME

1. 00:27:099 (1,1) - Estas dos notas, están geniales, pero que tal si le damos mas movimiento y las movemos a los lados? (Específicamente esta 00:27:099 (1) - Hacia arriba a la izquierda de la primera y esta 00:27:390 (1) - hacia abajo a la derecha? Vendría quedando así: http://puu.sh/gEPlR/22d0e9fa4a.png Es una buena idea pero estoy seguro de que Lexia quiere mantener el camino recto.
   
2. 00:37:584 (2) - Esta nota de alguna forma la siento algo incomoda si esta oculta, no se si quisieran cambiarla o dejarlo así. Ya sabes es la transición del siguiente jump.
   
3. 01:08:604 (4) - Esta nota creo que estaría un poco mejor si estuviera algo mas a la derecha. Listo.
   
4. 02:06:856 (4) - Lo mismo que arriba pero a la izquierda. Listo.
   
   Ya sabes que todo esto son solo sugerencias, si las aplicas esta bien y si no también, es tu mapa y haces con el lo que quieras. :3 Muchas gracias Alberto, fue útil.
   

Luck and rank this soon!

• 
  lexia

1. 00:41:516 (3,4,5,1) - I feel this jump pattern is a little bit weird to play, you could find something better to do. That's what I found, still using your 1.8 spacing between 4-5-1 http://puu.sh/gGMGT/8dc0254e61.jpg Tell me if you find something better : )
   
   gero
   
2. 00:55:206 (2) - As you've seen, I'm an HD player and this kind of stuff isn't funny I think it could be better for readability to stack this slider's start on 00:54:332 (4) - 's start => http://puu.sh/gGMgq/005cc3c2a7.jpg
3. 01:32:050 (1,2,3,4,5) - sorry to come back on this since Gamu made you change that part but I feel the triple doesn't really make sense here. I tried some other rythms, if you want to give a try => http://puu.sh/gGL5s/f763907492.jpg | http://puu.sh/gGLeI/f16e5be1d0.jpg

1. 01:36:715 (4) - You missed a NC here, it's totally sudden when you notice the consistency but then there's something different.

1. 01:00:161 (5) - Try with Ctrl+G here, flows better imo.
2. 01:04:093 (1) - Next NC is fine but this one is unnecessary then.

• 00:26:520 (4,1,1) - Playability issue here - the white tick is a strong beat which should be clicked, but the sliderend covers the beat. That alone is bad, but the antijumps right after make this pattern very hard to sightread. I recommend making (4) a 1/2 slider and adding a note at the white tick.

1. 00:29:724 (3,4) - these aren't correctly symmetric in relation to (1) D:
2. 00:34:093 (2,1) - the antijump here doesn't flow too well imo.. there's not too much you can do about it though (and I feel the NC is unnecessary)
3. 00:41:229 (2) - This slider starting in a blue tick plays pretty badly and breaks the flow. I don't think there should be a slider here, actually.. it plays pretty nicely like this.
4. 00:45:744 (1,2,3) - I know the intention behind these, but IMO they just play really weirdly for a player who's never heard the song before. At least they're 1/4 now, so it's much better.
5. 00:48:656 (4) - nazi, but moving 1 grid right will make this symmetric
6. 00:55:210 (2,3) - why do these start in blue ticks? it plays weirdly D:
7. 01:00:598 (1,2) - not sure if offgrid points are rankable
8. 01:20:113 (4) - This plays better ctrl+G'd. the flow when you make them symmetric (as it is) feels really broken and it creates a bad antijump for (4,1).
9. 01:22:006 (3,4) - blue tick sliders ):
10. 01:29:433 (4) - the slidertrack isn't properly stacked with (1)
11. 01:49:530 (1) - well, pretty sure offgrid sliderends are unrankable
12. 02:09:773 (2,3) - still not a fan of blue tick sliders
13. 02:15:161 (1) - same as 01:49
14. 02:22:749 (3) - weird sliderstacking here
15. 02:23:914 (3) - ^
16. 02:33:453 (5) - Pretty sure this note doesn't exist in the song. This overmapping is pretty bad x:
17. 02:36:074 (5) - ^

Blue Dragon wrote:

Remember that most of these are my opinions as a player and are what I noticed when this map was qualified and that didn't make the experience too enjoyable. Alright.

[IT'S ME]

• 00:26:520 (4,1,1) - Playability issue here - the white tick is a strong beat which should be clicked, but the sliderend covers the beat. That alone is bad, but the antijumps right after make this pattern very hard to sightread. I recommend making (4) a 1/2 slider and adding a note at the white tick. Fixed.

1. 00:29:724 (3,4) - these aren't correctly symmetric in relation to (1) D: Fixed.
2. 00:34:093 (2,1) - the antijump here doesn't flow too well imo.. there's not too much you can do about it though (and I feel the NC is unnecessary) I have no clue how to fix that so I took your idea about delete those NC.
3. 00:41:229 (2) - This slider starting in a blue tick plays pretty badly and breaks the flow. I don't think there should be a slider here, actually.. it plays pretty nicely like this. I know that this is starting on blue tick but it's because we are following the vocal so I don't think it's bad imo.
4. 00:45:744 (1,2,3) - I know the intention behind these, but IMO they just play really weirdly for a player who's never heard the song before. At least they're 1/4 now, so it's much better. Seems like nobody is complained about it so I'll prefer to keep it as is.
5. 00:48:656 (4) - nazi, but moving 1 grid right will make this symmetric Fixed.
6. 00:55:210 (2,3) - why do these start in blue ticks? it plays weirdly D: As I said before we're following the vocal.
7. 01:00:598 (1,2) - not sure if offgrid points are rankable You don't have to worry about it they are perfectly safe for ranking also here is the proof that isn't offscreen/offgrid at all.
8. 01:20:113 (4) - This plays better ctrl+G'd. the flow when you make them symmetric (as it is) feels really broken and it creates a bad antijump for (4,1). Sorry but this is intentional so we want to keep it as is.
9. 01:22:006 (3,4) - blue tick sliders ): I don't even know why it's so bad since it follow the other strong sound of the blue tick.
10. 01:29:433 (4) - the slidertrack isn't properly stacked with (1) Fixed.
11. 01:49:530 (1) - well, pretty sure offgrid sliderends are unrankable ^ (Proof)
12. 02:09:773 (2,3) - still not a fan of blue tick sliders You know that this is following the vocal :<
13. 02:15:161 (1) - same as 01:49 ^
14. 02:22:749 (3) - weird sliderstacking here Fixed.
15. 02:23:914 (3) - ^ ^
16. 02:33:453 (5) - Pretty sure this note doesn't exist in the song. This overmapping is pretty bad x: Fixed.
17. 02:36:074 (5) - ^ ^

Some of these are just nazi stuff, but most of them are legit issues that I have found while playing the map when it first got qualified, so please look a bit into these. The map is good, but the blue-tick sliders feel weird to play and there are a few issues here and there.

Niko-nyan wrote:

regratz and thanks to let me #1 gero :> *hides*

[ Space ] wrote:

The audio amplification is really high, for me it crackles at the loud parts and sound displeasing...