also, no need for the bg to be so low res when versions like this exist.Blue Dragon wrote:
What's up with that unnecessary panty shot in the BG? Can't you find a more suitable BG for this map?
2 different thing s that are now being inductively connectedAyu wrote:
No, we like quality.VINXIS wrote:
we all love post-rank modding
你说的对，有人问过了确定漏内裤不等于NSFW，所以如果这图被dq了，就换回原来的bg吧=。=DarknessAngel wrote:
我在放這張圖前有先思考過，首先是這個
再來是說，我覺得那邊看起來其實很有可能是內搭的短褲，有點微小到看不出來，這位畫師把重點焦距在兩位女孩子和景色上所以感覺很不明顯，並不會讓人感覺到色氣~
希望你們覺得這些解釋合理:>
其實之前給Karen發過PM了，既然還有人有問題那我就發出來吧
我覺得思想還是純潔一點好呃...難道一定緊盯著那地方瞧那到底是不是內褲麼
EDIT: 為了避免爭議，我用遮蔽物擋掉了。不過我覺得很奇怪，是否是全年齡的標準不應該是以「有沒有性暗示」為判定標準呢？露內褲也是有區別的，而且也有就算沒有裸露太多也依然色氣滿滿的圖片啊(看過好多samples)。單純以「有沒有露內褲」來判定我覺得很膚淺，想想看小孩子在看一位女孩子身著泳裝搔首弄姿的圖片，跟現在BG這樣的圖片，哪一個才真正對他不好？在遵照制度走的時候也不能放棄作為人的思考，不然會變得像「機器」一樣無聊
There's not so much difference between modding and improving quality, unless you of course "only do it for the kd"VINXIS wrote:
2 different thing s that are now being inductively connectedAyu wrote:
No, we like quality.
let us hope that our quality is assured.Ayu wrote:
No, we like quality.VINXIS wrote:
we all love post-rank modding
i just wondering what kind of map "panty shot" could fitBlue Dragon wrote:
[General]
- What's up with that unnecessary panty shot in the BG? Can't you find a more suitable BG for this map?
possibly some good ol' rise against or bad religion.EvilElvis wrote:
i just wondering what kind of map "panty shot" could fitBlue Dragon wrote:
[General]
- What's up with that unnecessary panty shot in the BG? Can't you find a more suitable BG for this map?
@passing by
canadian tire xdddddddddCherry Blossom wrote:
Mapping is a VINXIS thing.
Blue Dragon wrote:
[General][Insane]
- What's up with that unnecessary panty shot in the BG? Can't you find a more suitable BG for this map?
there's probably more but this map DEFINITELY needs more work
- 00:11:806 (10) - forgot a clap hitsound here?
- 00:12:663 (4) - ^
- 00:14:806 (1) - Why the NC?
- 00:20:806 (1,2,3) - Why is the spacing for strong beats lower than the spacing for red tick beats? If you're going for intensity-based mapping, then you're doing the opposite of what it should be.
- 00:38:806 (3,1,3,4,5) - aren't stacked properly
- 00:51:020 (6,7,8) - Why ignore the 1/4s?
- 00:51:985 (2,3) - I'm pretty sure this is overmapping.
- 00:55:413 (2,3) - ^
- 00:58:306 (4,1) - Why the anti-jump here? That makes no sense since the intensity is much higher in this beat.
- 01:04:735 (6,7,8) - Why ignore the 1/4s?
- 01:09:127 (2,3) - overmapping
- 01:09:663 (4,5,6,7) - not sure what you can do about this one and it's mostly personal preference, but the flow here seems pretty weird to play
- 01:31:842 (2,3) - overmapping
- 01:33:663 (5,6,7,8) - This flows extremely awkward..
- 01:33:877 (6,7,8) - 1/4s ignored again
- 01:35:806 (6) - I'd make this beat much more interesting by placing it at 190;286.
- 01:45:556 (2,3) - overmapping
- 01:47:592 (6,7,8) - 1/4s ignored again
- 01:54:449 (1,2,3) - I'm pretty sure the intensity doesn't change here to make such a big difference in spacing..
- 01:55:949 (x) - Why did you skip this beat? ... and apparently every other strong beat in this section? This feels so awkward to play, it's like you're making your own rhythm in the song and ignoring what the song has to offer.
- 02:23:377 (3,4,5) - flows really weirdly
No one's "hiding" behind anything; it's long been a problem now that anytime a map was DQ'd, the QAT member who posted the disqualification notice would be treated as a scapegoat as if the entire takedown of the map was that person's decision alone, which it wasn't. Placing blame on someone for faults pointed out within a map when it's removed from Qualified is not the purpose of the posts, so to prevent abuse and such, a generalized QAT account was made to handle all DQ notices.Mazziv wrote:
Why do QAT's need to hide behind that profile? lmao no ballz kekeke
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
