forum

Reol - Asymmetry

posted
Total Posts
385
show more
Kibbleru

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

Disqualification Notice



  1. 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
Lolparty
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.
Natsu

Kibbleru wrote:

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

Disqualification Notice



  1. 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 ;)

lol, that section actually is asking to be mapped like that, totally agree with Kibbleru.
Kotori-Chan
you shouldnt change it...


For us players that jumps are perfect ;-;

you always have to try something new,,, right!?
Sivies
All my pp :(
Emonal
It's not fair to players right?

before we play the maps, we need to think about ''If the map is unqualified, I will lose the pp I gained from this map? Should I play it?''

why do we need to think of this question? Is osu! not a happy game? this map makes me confused. :(

by the way, I like all the jumps in this map
Nathan
nobody cares about your pp now stop ty
Makyu

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.
Yeah like you said.

this is getting out of control...
Alexis8
Im going to have to agree. I think the QAT Is a good thing. I think there are plenty of ranked maps that need to be reexamined because theyre garbage. The first DQ of this map wasnt the most necessary of DQs but it was understandable...then the mods decide its good enough...but then the QAT determines its still not quite perfect enough...

Seriously, there is a point at which youre not making something better, youre just making it different. As a producer that was a lesson I had to learn, at some point you have to say "its good enough" and just let someone else enjoy it.

And I think the QAT is so important that it really bothers me that you are wasting time on this. Please, there are so many maps that need to be fixed, dont fixate on tiny (nonexistent?) issues in one song thats already quite good.
Frostmourne

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

captin's Extra


  • Examples for the above issue:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
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. :)
Chaoslitz

sukiNathan wrote:

nobody cares about your pp now stop ty





Even BNs and mappers haven't say anything
Spaghetti
At this point the QAT are just normalizing the maps for the sake of having things as they want it, not as the mapper does.


Go read threads from 2008, the suggestions made were more laid back and focused on what the mapper wanted. Mapping threads now in days are filled with mandatory suggestions made in the eyes of everyone but the mapper, and maps are changed to the point where half the map isn't even the mappers work anymore, just for the sake of qualification.

The point is, the QAT is making more and more poor decisions without keeping the mappers reasoning in mind, which is pretty unfair in my opinion. I've had maps butchered by mandatory suggestions to the point where I don't even see my map anymore when watching replays or looking at it in the editor, just to have it ready in the eyes of all besides my own.

These are my thoughts, _dog has a much better explanation of this current issue on one of my maps threads due to how people are starting to alter my map as well, just to make it like everyone elses and avoid different styles and ideas that many people think play well and enjoy: p/4306089

Good luck on requalification, and please contest this DQ.
Nakano Itsuki
And I thought the normalizing was from loctav and not the QATs...
auux

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.
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.
Monstrata
Feels like whoever did the dq this time is also part of the other asymmetry set :p. To me these reasons sound a lot more like differences in interpretation rather than actual quality issues. If qats could mod without any personal bias they'd be able to manage dq contests honestly... But from taking with ztrot, currently that is not yet foreseeable.

Also can you qats use more appropriate wording when it comes to making objective statements? Stuff like "The difficulty seems to lack..." Just make you sound uncertain, unsure... Don't use seems. or appears. And phrases like "x is completely lost"/"unreadable" overstate your intention and offend the mapper.

Both language misuse create fruction with the community :p. Please fix that.

Good luck with the set, Gaia & friends.
ithgyu
lol, I think QATs are misinterpreting what quality means, it means its of high grade, not fucking perfect, jesus christ its clearly out of hand when maps that are clearly good, but dont fit into the generic mesh that the QATs require get unranked
_dog

Spaghetti wrote:

_dog has a much better explanation of this current issue on one of my maps threads
This DQ is starting to annoy me so I'm just going to post what I said on your thread here, enjoy :-):

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.
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.

While Spaghetti’s comment may seem just like someone who is denying a DQ, the words stated in this comment are profound. I will be dividing this into sections.

*While reading this post I also would like you all to take note of: t/331416
The steps to mapping and ranking from my perspective is:
Create -> Normalize -> Process -> Discovery -> Deny


Creation: The time when a map is first born.
The mapper has picked an idea for their map to revolve around and has placed what they feel is appropriate. They have decided to post and are now looking for people to better their map. They have gotten their GDs/Collabs or sets complete and they are, by assumption, content with what they have done and are ready to ‘rank’.

Now it is time to receive mods. The mapper discovers some things they have missed and learns what they need to do for rank and, at first, they do it nothing’s wrong their map is still the same they’ve just… improved it a bit

Normalize:
Now the map has reached an SP of 12 and is ready to be ranked. The map is looking clean and it's starting to look like a ‘real’ map. It fits what is out there today. It has its PP giving jumps. The mapper is filled with hype they think they’ve made it. The map is “ready”.

What is ready to you? Good ‘flow’? Good ‘structure’? Pixel perfect symmetry? You can’t say ‘good map’, and what you say honestly won’t matter so why bother? The map is ready because a group of individuals believe it’s ready. This group of individuals have created the idea of ready. Well, divided group of individuals. One side thinks it isn’t ready the other does, and only when both have reached a point of agreement can the map be ranked. This is normalization.

Quality is subjective, and while there is a widespread agreement on a certain level of quality, relying on one group to determine and decide that level has made it impossible for a map with different standards to be able to even be considered. Now, I’m not here to say it’s this ‘group's’ fault as the idea of it is great; however, the frame for it is weak and doesn’t allow for many options before it falls down.

If a map is disqualified the ones who ranked it receive a penalty. Why put trust in a mapper who has used controversial techniques, isn’t well known, and mapped in a style thats different than average. Some may say well that mapper needs to gain experience and gain a higher status in the community before they can do crazy things like that. Why though? Why limit a map because of the status of a mapper?

Some may say well the standards are changing everyday so what we allowed before we don’t allow anymore, but then you give examples of maps that are in the process of being ranked or recently got ranked with those things, and you sit and wonder to yourself, when on earth did this standard change to not allow that to happen, and why is that already well known mapper about to rank a map with that in it?

So then you say, well maybe it doesn’t fit the song? People back it up.

Widely known and accepted mappers with non normalized maps haven’t shown up in years. People say that a new mapper can get to that level but our system doesn’t allow for it. The mappers who are able to get through now are able to because when they were at the bottom they were presented with a more lenient system, and now they’re at the top so people trust their decisions without contest and they get through while the lower potentially good mapper does not.

At this point in time people will send me maps by lesser known mappers, and each map will have a differing and noticeable style. At the same time however, I can provide you with multiple maps all pairing with those styles. Variety can still equal normativity.

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
Process:
These are the final stages of the ranking process. The QAT and BNs are bubbling and the disqualifications are happening. Upon disqualification we head back to the normalizing step. And soon we enter the stage of discovery.

Discovery:
So let’s head back to our original quote at the top. Spaghetti is in the stage of discovery. They have realized what their map has become. They have seen that it is not theirs anymore and they are unhappy with it.

Spaghetti wrote:

applying changes for the sole purpose of making this rankable
Normalized.

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.
It is at this time that I ask you to go read the post marked with the asterisk.

We aren’t modding in the eyes of the mapper. We are pushing and enforcing our views on their map. It has become no different than any other, and this is where it’s understood that it is a false idea to think that you are creating your own map, but rather you have picked a song and done the work required for it to be ranked. With this idea in mind, osu! should have switched to an auto-generate beatmap system a long time ago.

What’s interesting is that the older members of the community who tend to be a part of these groups and work on making these decisions tend to reminisce on the times before systems like these. For instance, read a couple of beatmap threads from 2008, and you will realize there was a whole different view on how maps should be back then. It was all about what the mapper wanted in the end, and others just gave suggestions. Not requirements, suggestions.

Discovery is a time when we all should have recognized the issue. Not just in Spaghetti’s situation, but for all maps.

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.
Deny:
This is our usual response to this issue, and hopefully that will change. This is where we deny what’s going on, dismiss Spaghetti, and move on to another map for it to happen again. This is when a map has finally been ranked, and we deny how changed it is: how normal it has become. This is where you deny this post and move on.
Lavender

monstrata wrote:

Feels like whoever did the dq this time is also part of the other asymmetry set :p.
ithgyu
_dog knows
ac8129464363

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.
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

deetz wrote:

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.
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.
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.
Spaghetti

auux wrote:

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.
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.
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.
FriendoFox
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! ._.
Mikii
;w;
Please contest that disqualification
Hinsvar

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

captin's Extra

Lack of a concept regarding spacing and rhythm
  1. 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 Then? Doesn't Gaia's Extra diff employ jumps "every pair of objects" too? Admittedly Gaia has the jumps more structured, but the patterns captin made are fine, really. The rhythm, though, is a completely different story...
  2. 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. I... have to agree with this, actually. I'll elaborate later.
  3. 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 can understand what are you trying to say here, and yes, in a few cases, the constant jumps can feel kinda odd due to the fact that the drums are stronger on the white tick here. However, I don't think this is... like, super bad or something.
ok lemme mod captin's diff

  1. 00:21:067 (1,2) - I get it that you want to emphasize the instrument at 00:21:393 and you'll need an object you can click to properly emphasize it. However, (1) currently ends at... nothing, right now. It also ends at an irregular spot, which makes it weird to play this slider. What I'm trying to say by irregular here is the instruments are mainly played in a rhythm every half a beat, landing on the white and red ticks.

    It'd be more natural to hit and play this slider entirely if you ended this on the red tick before the blue tick you're currently placing the end of the slider at (00:21:230) due to the reason I'm saying above. And you know, there is actually an instrument being played at 00:21:230 (although it's admittedly a faint one compared to 00:22:534, but it's there), but none at 00:21:312 (at least none that is played starting from this tick). Ending this on the blue tick will only cause awkwardness because you're not really emphasizing anything there.

    (This applies to stuff like 00:23:676 (1,2) and 00:24:980 (1,2); the latter also has the exact same instruments played as 00:22:371 (1,2), so why the usage of the 3/4 slider there?)
  2. 00:32:806 (1,2) - Umm, there isn't even anything that'd give a valid reason to use a 3/4 slider here, such as any sound mapped by the circle that'd be weird if it were mapped with a slider's tail (in short, clickable objects). A 1/1 slider is definitely the best choice to map this spot, just like 00:34:111 (1).
  3. 00:43:486 (2) - Now... why? Okay, this is actually an okay overmapping that I have to approve. However, the triplet at 00:43:730 (3,4,5) loses its emphasizing power of the instrument the circles are mapping because you just used an overmapped triplet the moment before it.

    They might sound unrelated, yeah (I'm bad at explaining things like this lol), so I recommend you to just try comparing the current state of 00:43:241 (1,2,3,4,5,6) to how will it be if (2) didn't exist and you just made a jump between (1) and (3) instead. Trying it by yourself will be better.

    (This also applies to 00:52:861 (3,4,5,6,7), 00:54:002 (2,3,4,5,6), and patterns with a similar rhythm.)
  4. 00:46:339 (4,5,6,7) - The rhythm and the usage of the 1/4 jump is okay, but don't you think the flow is odd considering how the slider and circles are placed? I'd make the slider... point at (5), and make 00:46:502 (5,6,7)'s placement corresponds with how (4) is placed. Something like this, I guess.
  5. 00:54:002 (2,3,4,5,6) - I just mentioned this two points ago, but I felt the urge to mention it again. The overmapping doesn't go well with how the song rolls. It... just doesn't. I wish I could've elaborated this further, but it's impossible since it's pretty much because it doesn't "click" with the song's general rhythm, and that's it. Maybe it'd be better if the triplets began on the red ticks and end on the white ones (something like 00:52:861 (3,4,5)).
  6. 01:02:480 (1,1) - Use a 1/2 slider like this instead (I'm only showing the screenshot to show the rhythm; the placement is, of course, not the greatest choice)? Unlike 01:02:154 (1,2) where the 1/4 slider jumps would be really fitting with how the instruments are played, this one has a different music structure, and two 1/4 sliders with jumps between them definitely isn't the best choice to map this spot.
  7. 01:26:284 (1) - Any reason why should this be... disjointed? I believe 01:25:632 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) should just have a constant spacing. 00:52:045 (3,4,5,6,1) is acceptable (for me at least) because (1) is the beginning of the chorus, which is pretty strong, and a bigger spacing is okay to emphasize that, but this one doesn't really have any reason, especially considering (8) is a circle. This would've been acceptable if (7) and (8) were combined into a 1/4 slider, IMO.
  8. 01:28:241 (1,2,3,4,5) - ^
  9. 02:05:415 (3,4) - This is purely an optional suggestion: How about combining them into a 3/4 slider to emphasize the instrument sound at 02:05:659 better (since it feels very different compared to the other instruments played at the second blue tick of a beat in this song)? It'd also help in making 02:05:741 (5) more accentuated.
  10. 02:32:725 (1) - What makes you think this would fit in the group of objects of 02:32:480 (5,1,2)? I can't find any reason for this, so I thought it'd be cool to have more understanding about it.
  11. 02:51:638 - Why isn't this mapped? It's odd to just leave the instrument here unmapped because it's just as noticeable as 02:51:801.
  12. 02:56:937 (7,8) - Honestly, I'm wondering why didn't you use 1/4 sliders or continue the 1/4 stream here considering how great they'd be emphasizing the instruments here.
  13. 03:08:024 - 03:13:078 - I think the problem here doesn't lie on how this section has jumps between every object consistently, but more on the fact that you emphasized the stronger instruments with smaller jumps than the weaker instruments, which makes the accentuation of the instruments here happen in an inconsistent manner. This happens at:
    1. 03:08:676 (3,4,5)
    2. 03:11:121 (3,4,5)
    3. 03:12:100 (2,3,4)
    At those spots, the jumps from the red tick to the white tick (from the weaker to stronger instrument sound) are smaller than the jumps from the white to red ticks (from the stronger to weaker sounds).

    But frankly, I think this isn't really that problematic anyway; I'm just sharing my thoughts here because I just... feel the need to.
  14. 03:17:154 (1,2,3,4) - Are you sure on using such a big spacing in a section where the music is really weak? I can understand the spacing from (1) to (2), but (2,3,4) really has no reason for the wide jumps.
  15. 03:25:306 (2,3) - 03:22:697 (3,4) is okay since there is actually a base (instrument sounds) you're mapping to, but there is nothing to map at the end of these sliders, and the sounds of the instrument on the red ticks are of the "solid" type (without any kind of elongated sound and ends on a "flat" note). I... personally won't recommend the usage of 1/4 sliders here.
  16. 03:28:241 (1,1) - Very minor stuff, but uh, try to make them not touch each other?
  17. 03:45:116 (4) - Why do an overmapping here while there is actually something to map at 03:45:442? This way it goes way better with the song's instruments (you don't map emptiness, but something actually in the song which sounds weird if left unmapped anyway).
That's it.

I seriously hope you won't take this as an attack on your interpretation of the music. I respect how are you mapping the song with the rhythm and placement of the objects, but sometimes the map just... goes on its own way, going quite far from what the song presents.

Loctav wrote:

Whereas the Extra has a multitude of concepts that were not composed together fluently, this one appears to have no real concept and is more of a compilation of difficult patterns for the sake of it.
Still though, I'd like to disagree with this statement. I believe captin won't just paste hard stuff here and there for the sake of it. He knows what he's doing; he just went... a little too far at times.

Well uh, with that, I hope this will be requalified (and then ranked) without any more problems later :)
Sharkie

monstrata wrote:

Feels like whoever did the dq this time is also part of the other asymmetry set :p. To me these reasons sound a lot more like differences in interpretation rather than actual quality issues. If qats could mod without any personal bias they'd be able to manage dq contests honestly... But from taking with ztrot, currently that is not yet foreseeable.

Also can you qats use more appropriate wording when it comes to making objective statements? Stuff like "The difficulty seems to lack..." Just make you sound uncertain, unsure... Don't use seems. or appears. And phrases like "x is completely lost"/"unreadable" overstate your intention and offend the mapper.

Both language misuse create fruction with the community :p. Please fix that.
I can't agree more,
the wording MUST be more precise.
If you want QAT to be considered a somewhat professional status, you MUST have proper wording and have some professionalism.

In addition,

monstrata wrote:

"x is completely lost"/"unreadable" overstate your intention and offend the mapper.
Like I said earlier, can't agree more. You should sound like you're trying to help, instead of sounding unnecessarily condescending.
I don't think anyone likes it, whether good mapper or not, when you are being looked down upon.
Jesus Christ, At least have some manners.
Saoji

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

Disqualification Notice



Hello!

Unfortunately, the Quality Assurance Team has decided to disqualify this beatmap. The following is a list of reasons and examples for the disqualification. We do not outline every issue in detail, so make sure to take the idea behind each reason and apply it to the entire beatmap as issues might be found in more than the spots mentioned below. If you have any questions, please reply to this post and we will do our best to clarify any misunderstandings.

captin's Extra

Lack of a concept regarding spacing and rhythm

  • The issues mentioned by Loctav have not been addressed - since it was an unsucessfully contested DQ, everything posted there must be fixed before it can proceed towards ranked status.
    The difficulty still seems artificial and lacks a concept in many aspects; There are jumps between essentially all of the objects, so there is no basic spacing the map goes back to. Emphasis for really strong beats through jumps is completely lost, as there are also jumps before weaker beats.
    The rhythm is very dense and consists of a lot of overmapped triplets and extended sliders. Similar to the jumps, those take away the emphasis of triplets and streams that really fit the music and those feel like they were artificially inserted.
    Examples for the above issue:
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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

If you happen to have concerns about this disqualification, you can contest the decision with this form. Before using this form, please read the instructions carefully.

The Beatmap Nominators may handle this mapset after the issues have been addressed.

Good luck!

###M
As I can see you are a beginner at modding. Your points can be interesting but they do really lack of substance because most of it is really subjective. Also, I advise you to read this thread https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/331416. It's a really nice tutorial for beginners at modding. You will improve a lot if you read and understand it!
ithgyu
^ lol very funny and in a lot of ways very true
Keada


This in a nutshell
Xilver15
box
ithgyu

Quality Assurance Team wrote:

Disqualification Notice



Hello!

Unfortunately, the Quality Assurance Team has decided to disqualify this beatmap. The following is a list of reasons and examples for the disqualification. We do not outline every issue in detail, so make sure to take the idea behind each reason and apply it to the entire beatmap as issues might be found in more than the spots mentioned below. If you have any questions, please reply to this post and we will do our best to clarify any misunderstandings.

captin's Extra

Lack of a concept regarding spacing and rhythm

  • The issues mentioned by Loctav have not been addressed - since it was an unsucessfully contested DQ, everything posted there must be fixed before it can proceed towards ranked status.
    The difficulty still seems artificial and lacks a concept in many aspects; There are jumps between essentially all of the objects, so there is no basic spacing the map goes back to. Emphasis for really strong beats through jumps is completely lost, as there are also jumps before weaker beats.
    The rhythm is very dense and consists of a lot of overmapped triplets and extended sliders. Similar to the jumps, those take away the emphasis of triplets and streams that really fit the music and those feel like they were artificially inserted.
    Examples for the above issue:
  1. 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 - I disagree, I think it is wrong to even call these jumps considering the difficulty of the map, plus there needs to be space there to highlight the transition between quiet intro and the louder section with the "jumps," if they remained similar in spacing it would feel like the mapper isnt acknowledging the change in tone of the song
  2. 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. - I see where you are coming from, but once again i disagree on the basis that it makes it clear that the map has transitioned into the chorus. At the same time however I wouldn't call it overmapped because it still fits in with the music nicely. I like the fact that it isnt just trying to play to the beat of the music, but rather tries to be a part of the song, and I think it does it well.
  3. 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- Yes it is buildup, but it becomes more intense at 3:13 where the jumping becomes more intense as well, thus making the buildup clear. Between 3:08 and 3:13 the intensity doesn't change, but rather leads into another increase in intensity, so why should it be mapped in a way that suggests the contrary?


If you happen to have concerns about this disqualification, you can contest the decision with this form. Before using this form, please read the instructions carefully.

The Beatmap Nominators may handle this mapset after the issues have been addressed.

Good luck!

###M
It feels like you have simply interpreted the map differently to the mapper. This isn't a bad thing until you try to force upon your interpretation. The map may not have a basic spacing to return to, but rather a basic density. The softer parts of the song have a much lower density, the buildups are characterized by sharp consecutive jumps, and the chorus by its increased density that still sounds very much a part of the song. I feel that this is a good approach in this case because it highlights the changes in intensity, whilst keeping the softer parts of the song entertaining still for experienced players.
ithgyu
accidental duplicate
tanakaa
Best Map Ever plz rank this It's really good!! Make other maps like this!! :) :) :) :) 8-)
captin1
let's chill for a bit
Aleycks
For the love of god, could you leave this map alone and let it be ranked. Please.
Serraionga

Aleycks wrote:

For the love of god, could you leave this map alone and let it be ranked. Please.
Mercurial
How ironical it is that this map (made by a Nominator) was unranked by the Quality Assurance Team. This map feels totally nice, I don't really thing it needed to be unranked to start with.

But who I am to talk, my modding days are long gone.
Topic Starter
Gaia
wew
Kibbleru
is skystar's gunna get ranked b4 this :(
Spaghetti
Just address the issues and get your old BN's to replace their icons, I doubt the QAT will want to nitpick at this map again after all that drama.

A lot of people want this ranked.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply