Infevo wrote:

LexiaLovesU wrote:

Guys seriously stop harassing the mapper He hasn't replied to any of the mods yet so please don't start questioning everything he is doing wait till he is done :/

No offense but if anyone harrasses the mapper it is those who go dq a second time.

To avoid this kind of drama in the future I have a simple suggestion to make.

1. Don't qualify a map unless you are very certain it can get ranked in its current state. (Apparently it is not enough to have top players fc a 7 star map after some tries which shows it is possible with a certain level of skill.)
2. If the particular map needs minor tweaks to get ranked you can still qualify it after negotiation of terms the mapper has to meet.
3. Only if the mapper agrees to set terms but doesn't eventually meet them the map can get dqed once qualified duration is due.
4. This particular map is not allowed to get qualified ever again unless the mapper provides reasonable explanation why the terms couldn't be met.

Now, please refrain from telling me this won't help the mapper. This actually might help all future ranking processes.

Priti wrote:

The ranking process sure doesn't have compassion towards Awaken..
Hanairo Biyori and now this.

Anxient wrote:

Priti wrote:

The ranking process sure doesn't have compassion towards Awaken..
Hanairo Biyori and now this.

mind if I asked, but what happened to hanairo biyori?

IntelliTroodon wrote:

Why is this not ranked ffs literally everyone likes this map and wants it ranked.

Lust wrote:

Howdy Awaken, after many testplays and discussion, we have reached a consensus that this map must be disqualified over the following reasons:

[Second Gonkanau]

1. According to many, the AR is just too low for the patterns you implemented. AR9.7 or even AR10 would make the play a lot smoother and inevitably solve issues on some patterns that were awkward yep
2. 02:14:220 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - After internal discussion and various testplays, we have come to the conclusion that this section has not been lowered in difficulty the way we were hoping. Lowering the spacing is still recommended. Also, we believe that the patterns can be made a lot more intuitive. 02:17:493(1,2,3,4,1,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - focuses too heavily on the right side of the screen. More movement around the playfield will allow for a more enjoyable pattern. I.. I don't think difficulty is a problem, for now.
3. 01:56:220 (7,2) - This overlap (as mentioned by jesus1412 and pointed out in various testplays) has been known to cause readability issues. Please try to avoid this. done

In addition to these points, across the testplays we have received we have gotten feedback that should be considered and addressed appropriately:

1. 00:10:402 (3,4,5,6) - The back and forth down and up motion is a bit too fast and awkward for the play. Suggestions have said that unstacking 00:10:811 (6) - and moving it to another location would be pretty beneficial yep
2. 00:18:039 (1,2,3,4) - Same issue as above, players have said moving 00:18:448 (4) - to another location for a more oval flow works a lot better
3. 00:53:493 (1,2,3,1) - The slider movement is quite fast and also flows downward to 00:54:039 (1) - and back up to 00:53:902 (3) - . The confusion stems from moving to 00:53:902 (3) - and then down to 00:54:039 (1) - , which can be hard to read with the AR
4. 01:50:766 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Another pattern that can benefit from an oval flowing triangle, the change in directions seems to cause some issues. Here is an example that works rather well: http://puu.sh/ggXZH/a5fc78f88e.jpg
5. 02:04:130 (1,2,3,4,5) - You have a pattern flowing in one direction, then changes rather abruptly from 02:04:675 (5,6) - . This, followed by 02:04:948 (1) - coming downwards made the whole play either confusing or weird to handle appropriately. A more clear, smooth flowing pattern going around would be more beneficial for the play you wish to create here
6. 02:09:857 (1,2,3,4) - The angle to the triplet plays out strangely, a less harsh angle of approach would be preferred

The BNG will handle this mapset from now on. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me and good luck with requalification!

Maruku wrote:

I think Awaken should upload Second Gonkanau separately, letting the rest of the difficulties get ranked while he still works on it.

[ Asuna ] wrote:

Well i just have to say this map need 2 get fixed there is alot of unreasonable beats and streams

Valgas wrote:

[ Asuna ] wrote:

Well i just have to say this map need 2 get fixed there is alot of unreasonable beats and streams

Well, if you could point out some examples of what you think are unreasonable that'll probably help.

Sotajumala wrote:

MMmm if awaken doesnt want to go for rank anymore i would hope he'd atleast change it to a fitting AR to make it playable again. 9.6 on 7 star is the same as mapping a 5star with ar8..

Default wrote:

Sotajumala wrote:

MMmm if awaken doesnt want to go for rank anymore i would hope he'd atleast change it to a fitting AR to make it playable again. 9.6 on 7 star is the same as mapping a 5star with ar8..

If it isn't ranked just change it yourself

Ritalityxx wrote:

amazing

Jacob wrote:

I think offset 1122 instead of 1130 feels better.

Sognux wrote:

Personally i think the Second Gonkanau feels alot more boring to play then what it did before the update. Before the update i actually enjoyed playing the map, after, not so much.

Ohrami wrote:

i love your map

1. 02:16:402 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I guess this part is the most troublesome when it comes to ranking? I dunno about increasing the spacing gradually here, since it doesn't really feel like the song is getting more intense, and is mostly just holding the same intensity. I'd rather go with higher spacing at 02:14:220 (1,2,3,4) - , then decreasing it for 02:14:766 (1,2,3,4) - , and gradually increasing it on 02:15:311 (1,2,3,4,5) - and 02:15:857 (1,2,3,4) - , then have 02:16:402 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - closer and constant before increasing it again for 02:18:039 (1,2) - .Oh, and I also think 02:16:402 (1,2,3,4) - and 02:17:493 (1,2,3,4) - would work well with more circular flow similar to 02:16:948 (1,2,3,4) - , since the music is repeating itself.
2. 02:18:993 (3) - This huge jump is also a bit weird, as it doesn't seem to be a particularily strong note in the song, and the stronger part later at 02:19:675 - is spaced closer together than this.
3. 02:21:857 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,1) - Wouldn't it be better to not overmap the stream? http://i.imgur.com/lXA8xur.png Unless it's just my headphones being crap, that is.

Artorias wrote:

Ohrami wrote:

i love your map

Never post anything else in forums, you have 666 meme post count.