DQ is coming shortly don't worry
Thanks for telling me thatLolparty wrote:
DQ is coming shortly don't worry
deetz wrote:
where's the response to captin's post then?
auux wrote:
This is just issues according to the QATs... We need people to be experimental. There are way worse maps currently ranked, *cough* *cough* chocobo *cough* *cough*
Quality Assurance Team wrote:
Disqualification Notice
- 03:08:024 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - This section is a build-up too the chorus with strong emphasis on the white ticks, yet there are jumps between every objects jesus christ its almost like you didnt even listen to the song. No offense but, even a noob can tell that the song is very intense here with the huge 1/1 snares and stuff...
by the way it should be 'to'* proper grammar is important here, careful guys
###M
Kibbleru wrote:
Quality Assurance Team wrote:
Disqualification Notice
- 03:08:024 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - This section is a build-up too the chorus with strong emphasis on the white ticks, yet there are jumps between every objects jesus christ its almost like you didnt even listen to the song. No offense but, even a noob can tell that the song is very intense here with the huge 1/1 snares and stuff...
by the way it should be 'to'* proper grammar is important here, careful guys
Yeah like you said.Lolparty wrote:
I would say contest but there is no point because the QATs won't even look at it if you do. Actually why don't you just let the QATs map the whole song because regardless of who maps it, they won't let it get ranked unless it looks exactly how they want it to.
Most reasons brought up by the QATs here make sense, but what were mapped by captin1 also make sense to me. Both sides work in their way, I hope it's requalified soon.Quality Assurance Team wrote:
captin's Extra
Examples for the above issue:
- 00:21:067 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - There are jumps between every pair of objects, even though this is not even the most intense section
doesn't feel overdone according to the slider velocity used in this map, as to polish the whole map up, avoiding overlaps is needed so that could be the reasons why jumps feel overdone, but in my opinion, they are fine as captin1 did place larger jumps on more intense parts.- 00:52:371 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - All the triplets and extended sliders make the rhythm much more dense than it should be. Most of them are overmapped.
Could partially agree according to the music itself, however these built-up triples are fitting with the map itself compared with the other non-kiai parts. It becomes much more distinguished when the whole map is chaotic yet reasonable in the range that this song allows as it's an extra that is harder than the other extras.- 03:08:024 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - This section is a build-up too the chorus with strong emphasis on the white ticks, yet there are jumps between every objects
I see no problems here. Fast slider velocity naturally leads to larger spacing. It artificially looks hard but it practically flows well. Having short spacings with this sv could lead to anti-climax flow, and is distracting to players.
sukiNathan wrote:
nobody cares about your pp now stop ty
I still find it weird when maps like that are still around but this maps is not okay because it has "some spacing inconsistencies". It's a bullshit claim because this map is fine as heck.Kiyame wrote:
auux wrote:
This is just issues according to the QATs... We need people to be experimental. There are way worse maps currently ranked, *cough* *cough* chocobo *cough* *cough*
please dont compare VERY OLD MAPS to maps that get ranked these days, jesus christ.
sure this DQ was kinda unnessecary but your point was simply stupid.
i dont even mind anymore when all my top scores suddenly get DQ'd without a reason.
This DQ is starting to annoy me so I'm just going to post what I said on your thread here, enjoy :-):Spaghetti wrote:
_dog has a much better explanation of this current issue on one of my maps threads
Welp, it seems like this issue is finally starting to surface. I addressed this two years ago, and was told the community was “not ready for this discussion”, but upon recent events, it seems like we are now.Spaghetti wrote:
When I first mapped it, everything was great, after so many DQ's and applying changes for the sole purpose of making this rankable, it isn't the same map anymore, it's just so changed that I can't deal with it anymore. Every point I get into pkk's mod, the more I dislike the changes and the worse the map gets, but the changes have to be made or people will get mad.
If every little thing of this map has to be pin-perfect in order to get into QUALFIED, this becomes more of a job than a hobby.
I might change my mind later, but I feel as I'm editing someone else map at this point, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry pkk, but all these changes are way too specific and nazi for me. I want this to be my map, not yours, and not nobody elses. In return, since I see that you put so much effort into this, I'ma owe you 3 mods in return, and for every KD I get from those mods, I'ma shoot them at your map.
I'm sorry.
Process:dorothy3242 wrote:
While there appears to be variety among maps today, it's not just about current variety using current methods, but also allowing for the entrance of new ideas
Normalized.Spaghetti wrote:
applying changes for the sole purpose of making this rankable
It is at this time that I ask you to go read the post marked with the asterisk.Spaghetti wrote:
Every point I get into pkk's mod, the more I dislike the changes and the worse the map gets, but the changes have to be made or people will get mad.
Deny:Cl8n wrote:
If we all just recognize the existence of this problem, then surely, we as a community together, can make a better system and/or environment for everyone. The community is "ready for this discussion" now.
monstrata wrote:
Feels like whoever did the dq this time is also part of the other asymmetry set :p.
what exactly do you mean by "still around"? a map in the ranked section cannot be removed from it (except by copyright claim). chocobo entered the ranked section a very long time ago, before the qualified section existed.auux wrote:
I still find it weird when maps like that are still around but this maps is not okay because it has "some spacing inconsistencies". It's a bullshit claim because this map is fine as heck.
I seem unable to get my point forward. If that was a ranked criteria back then, considering how awkwardly mapped it is, this should also be able to be "awkward" (It really isn't). I just find it so odd.deetz wrote:
what exactly do you mean by "still around"? a map in the ranked section cannot be removed from it (except by copyright claim). chocobo entered the ranked section a very long time ago, before the qualified section existed.auux wrote:
I still find it weird when maps like that are still around but this maps is not okay because it has "some spacing inconsistencies". It's a bullshit claim because this map is fine as heck.
uh no, because maps were done differently back then with different philosophy. That's like saying all my maps should get ranked because they're better than 2007 maps that got ranked.auux wrote:
I seem unable to get my point forward. If that was a ranked criteria back then, considering how awkwardly mapped it is, this should also be able to be "awkward" (It really isn't). I just find it so odd.deetz wrote:
what exactly do you mean by "still around"? a map in the ranked section cannot be removed from it (except by copyright claim). chocobo entered the ranked section a very long time ago, before the qualified section existed.