Spaghetti wrote:
You're arguing over spilled milk.
Spaghetti wrote:
You're arguing over spilled milk.
Thanks, I'll just see what I can do it to improve it now.ohad1881 wrote:
00:07:693 (1) - why here did you put a nc on the strong beat and 00:02:893 and 00:05:293 you didn't? Hm.. I'd say because the NCs are indicators for pattern changes.
00:35:893 (1) - i don't see a reason for this nc Alright.
00:40:843 (4) - you are leading to a strong vocal here so why stop the flow and stack? 3 is the strong beat, therefore the jump between 00:40:543 (2,3) - , however 4 is not as strong, and it feels like a leftover, a stack goes well because I am able to do an other jump with the vocals right after.
01:00:493 (3) - nc? 01:00:043 (1) - here remove The better choice indeed, rearranged some NCs here.
01:01:694 (5) - i feel like you should give more emphasis on this by a bit spacing it, it's to close and weird to play imo. There's no justification for emphasization here.
01:06:493 (1) - ^^ Sure.
01:09:343 (2) - ^^ I could but I feel like it's forcing it too much, I slowed down with the pascing from here 01:07:693 (1) - and then resumed it here 01:10:993 (1) - . I think leaving it as it is is the better choice.
01:19:543 (8,9,1) - you are leading to a big place with a lot of vocals here, i feel you should show it by spacing it much more. mb you can stack the end of 01:19:693 (1) - with 01:19:243 (6) . Actually this goes nicely for various other reasons as well, changed.
01:22:093 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,1,2,1) - seems like here you ignored what is coming next, you are leading to something big so why not showing it, i really think you should space this part a bit like here 03:26:893 (5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - It could work, but how am I ignoring what's coming next? The pattern is pretty intense. The first pattern has more back and forth movements compared to the second one, and both has special looking structure.
01:49:693 (1) - way to close for this vocal imo. I agree, changed some other pattern so it became like that, fixed.
01:52:093 (4) - nc here and also space it. NC V, no spacing change.
01:54:118 (2,3) - i saw a lot of problems with this one, so i can suggest to make this slider 01:53:893 (1) end here 01:54:118 (and mb you can silence the end) Pattern changed.
02:06:493 (1,2,3,4) - you can space every note in gradation, the vocals are becoming stronger every note. If I wanted to do that I'd follow the drums, but I am following the ringing sounds which stay the same.
02:26:293 (4) - ctrl g? strong beat. Sure.
02:37:093 (3) - you can make it more symmetrical. Should be better now.
03:12:943 (4,5,6) - space it Why? I don't think it is justified.
04:05:293 (1) - you can improve it, use grid snap. Too lazy, symmetry is hard, it looks almost perfect.
04:16:093 (7) - nc? sure.
04:43:993 (1,2) - switch nc? v
04:59:793 (7) - move this slider here 04:59:743 ? Nope, the slider is snapped correctly.
i do feel you can be more consistent in this, and you should check your emphasis on some notes in and before the hype parts.
but as irre wrote, about the huge problem of the consistency of this map and the overmapping, i feel like he is wrong, it should be improved of course,but it's not a huge deal... vocals are ok with the emphasis of notes, i didn't see a lot of overmapping actually, and about the consistency, he might not made the same patterns, but he didn't skip vocals, he used spacing and emphasis properly, so i don't see a big problem here tbh.
so what can i say, my speeches will be useless, like every other speeches of an unknown person that no one gives a shit about what he will say, gl avishay.
I guess I'll add those to the tags since there's no Romaji (?) in the album.Narcissu wrote:
花たん - ハジメテノオト
Thanks!Side wrote:
Hi for the M4M :vSPOILER[Beginning]
Intro feels a bit too crazy imo xD I kinda expected this to be a slower section kinda like 04:40:093 - and then it picks up in the verses. I feel in general that would give it a bit more sense of direction but up to you. The ending is slightly energetic and the ending has none, well we could give million reasons for each side but I prefer having it this way.
00:05:293 (3) - NC since it's kinda similar to 00:03:643 (1,2,1) - Erm, fine It was suggested before and it doesn't really matter does it.
00:09:493 (1) - Also remove NC. Sure the slider slows down and looks similar to the previous one but for that reason alone people would give you trouble tbh. Considering it's going the opposite direction as the previous slider and it's not SUPER slow to the point where it would cause confusion the NC doesn't do much other than remove the followpoint and then give you three 1 combo sections which is meh. Alright.
00:52:393 (2,3) - Feels overmapped to me. Pretty sure you would think so too since you did mute the slider ends :v Two normal 1/2 jumps would do just fine here. I guess I will do something else since this was mentioned in the past as well.
00:54:943 (5) - Would be cool if you centered it on that diamond/triangle thing. Pretty sure you could make it work Cool.
01:01:093 (4) - Might be nice to make this a 3/4 slider and a note at 01:01:393 - so the next vocal thing is a clickable object instead of holding through it. Plus then you'd be able to NC that object so you can keep a 4/1 NC pattern going again. That's nice, I am not sure if I should mute the slider end since I don't use this pattern much in such rhythms.
01:03:493 (5,6) - This would be really cool if you ctrl+g'd each slider individually so that you have a circular flow going from slider to slider. Currently they flow a bit awkwardly. Also based on how 01:02:893 (3,4) - do that circular effect already it would be nice for the next two sliders to continue it. The four jump notes right after wouldn't be too hard to reposition without changing the rest of the notes. Redesigned pattern.
01:50:893 (1,2) - Might sound better to follow the drums like you did at 01:48:493 (1,2,3) - but it might be a bit tricky so maybe not :v I'll leave it as it is then
03:11:893 (1) - Add clap to head. Sounds cool Cool artificial rhythm.
03:14:593 (6) - Soft addition on the slider tail sounds cool too imo :v Sure.
03:15:493 (4) - I think this was supposed to be soft whistle/addition? Same with 03:16:993 (3) - and 03:20:293 (3) - To be fair I can't quite see much difference with my stereo but it makes more sense so alright.
03:24:493 (1,2) - Could've totally been a 2/1 slider like 01:19:693 (1) - Could've been, but I wanted something different
03:31:243 (6) - I don't know if this is true or not but some people say this is unrankable to have active hitsounds in the sliderbody because it's unexpected feedback. To avoid any issues this would be better as a shorter slider into a triplet like the hitsounds indicate. If that's really unrankable I'll change it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before and that's why I am using it.
03:46:993 (4,5) - Kinda expected an antijump with this pause tbh. That's the pattern I saw for the most part before anyway. You are right, antijump is expected here and I couldn't pinpoint what felt slightly wrong here for me, redesigned pattern to support antijump
04:56:893 (1,2) - Looks nicer if 2 was stacked under 1 slider end or if you did it with a bit of spacing like 04:58:093 (1,1) - maybe That's a nice idea.
Map has a lot of interesting patterns and the jumps are pretty fun. Idk though to me it feels like I'm playing 200 bpm yuikonnu jpop stuff instead of 100 bpm slow ballad music xD I kinda expected less movement and somewhat slower sliders but that's just me I guess. Probably doing that would be to make it way easier though and I don't think you want that :v Well yeah I never had the intention of slow map and song, I don't really like playing nor mapping those, energy and intensity that goes along with the song is fun, which is what I aim for.
Anyway hope this helps. Good luck!
Baraatje123 wrote:
00:38:593 (4,1) - Such low ds Made a slight different pattern, please recheck this.
00:50:893 (1,2,3,4,5) - Way too forced Errrrrrrr.. Alright, I guess I'll remap it to present the beats better, I want to avoid DQs.
00:51:868 (5) - Remove whistle from body please ^
00:56:443 (6,7,1) - DS is a bit confusing here, same spacing, different rhythm Yeah, requires a bit of reading skills but this pattern plays just fine, NC helps a bit and it is relatively commonly used.
01:00:193 (6) - Silence end?
01:01:093 (4) - ^^
01:13:693 (1) - ^^ Sure ^ ^ ^
01:53:293 (1,1) - Might be difficult to read, space the circle closer to the slider Alright.
02:43:093 (3) - Drum sample feels weird, as it isn't used otherwhere Pretty sure I am using the drums in other parts in the song, regarless as long as it sounds fine and doesn't ruin the experience I will let it stay.
02:47:218 (6) - Sure this is there? The other 1/8 feel fine, but this one is a bit weird This one is great, triplet on held vocals that end on a new vocal and a nice slider.
03:16:393 (1,2,3,1) - Feels forced, and the end feel weird (if you don't change it to make it less forced, at least silence the ends) Okay, as I agree that it feels a bit too forced, I remapped this pattern and made some modifications to the section afterwards, please recheck this too
04:24:943 (3,1) - ^^
Call me
As for the jumps, they're fun and might be a bit harder than your usual *insert this kind of song* map, but it seems appropriate for the high difficulty and it goes well. The only sections that can't really have big spacing are the one after the kiai and the one at the end of the song, but some mappers would still use big spacing patterns or idk.-Nya- wrote:
Heya~ Responding to your request in-game.Beginning:Same :3
- The preview point isn’t snapped. Snap it to 00:59:443 –
- 00:09:343 –Clear beat here. Even if you’re following that ping sound, it still won’t hurt to map that beat imo. Well you pretty much said why I don't want to map it
- 00:23:293 (5) –I would add NC here and remove NC here: 00:23:593 (1) – The strong beat is on: 00:23:293 (5) – Just because the strong beat is there it doesn't mean the NC should be there, having the NC there would be more confusing than helpful, the NC indicates no more anti jump and new stanza.
- 00:24:493 (1) –Don’t you think this jump might be too much? Since the music is calm. More instruments are getting into the music, and I want to emphasize the vocals anyway, so it goes nicely.
- 00:28:543 –A note here would fit nicely. I'm pretty sure I had a note here before, but it simply didn't work that well, the note between the beat and the vocal is not that significant so I left it at that.
- 00:43:693 (3) –NC here? There’s a strong beat there. I rearranged the NCs, some SV used to exist and now they're gone.
- 00:43:693 (3) –Dang, this is a big jump, lol. I suggest you try easing down on a jump like that. The music is still calm. Regardless it's really fun, it flows really well and it goes with the strong note, nobody else mentioned it and I think it's great.
- 00:54:793 (4,5) –Since the (5) has to be clicked faster than the previous circles, can’t you maybe move them a bit closer together to make that clearer? Actually it was like that until someone suggested placing 5 in the triangle to make it look cooler, it's not that hard to read with the AR and 5 is relatively closer than everything else, it doesn't really affect gameplay.
- 01:02:893 (3) –Imo, the NC should rather be on the large white tick, since that’s where the beat is strong. But I decided to start it on the vocals, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?
- 01:05:293 (2) -^,etc. ^
- 01:12:193 (4,6) –Ugly overlap. Try to avoid them touching. Yeah, you're right, fixed.
- 01:14:893 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 01:15:193 (1) – V
- 01:16:543 (1) –I wouldn’t place a NC here. V
- 01:53:293 (1) –You didn’t place a slow slider like this anywhere else in the previous part of the kiai so it may cause confusion. I suggest you return the SV to normal there. I will keep it, it's still the first kiai just cut into 4 parts lol, it's a small thing of mine I'd like to keep.
- 02:12:493 (3) –NC?
- 02:14:893 (3) -^
- 02:17:293 (2) -^
- 02:19:693 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 02:20:293 (1) – I made some changes to the NC in this section ^ I don't really want to spam too many, I use them in SV changes and big music gaps.
- 02:48:193 (1) –I don’t understand why there’s a single NC here >.< Oops, lol.
- 03:18:493 (3) –NC Not necessary, the previous NC are due to SV changes.
- 03:19:093 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 03:19:243 (1) – Cool.
- 03:58:093 (1) –Same as 01:53:293 (1) –
Eh, your NC’s are very inconsistent and can use more work imo. I mean, in some places you placed a NC on the white tick (like it actually should be imo) and in other places you didn’t. NC’s should usually be placed where the beat is the strongest. (You’re probably going to tell me that ranting on about NC’ing is stupid, but the wrong NC’ing can affect a map badly imo) I'm not really going to rant, usually I have reasoning but thank you for finding some unreasonable NCs.
Then, I only like pointed out two jumps at the beginning of the song, cuz I felt it would be useless to point out every single one if you’re not going to fix any in any case, but I really feel, especially at the beginning where the music is calm, that you shouldn’t go all out with jumps since they don’t support the music that well at all.
I don’t know, Avishay. In my eyes, this can still be improved. This kind of map is not really my style, so I guess it’s mostly just my own opinion though.
Thank you very much for clarifying some big stuff, I'm still sure 'consistency' by some people means same music = same pattern, but I can relate to your points easily.pishifat wrote:
from el queueo
so i see 5 pages of mapping debate and after skimming through it i understand nothing
from what i see on the surface though, the map was disqualified for ignoring consistency and the song itself, while your response was that it's your interpretation and consistency isn't needed. (if i'm wrong then my b)
with that in mind, i don't know if how open you'll be to this stuff, but i'll try anyway lol. first, being consistent with rhythms usually only matters for the most important sounds. nobody's going to care if you have 01:00:493 (1,2,3,4,1) - 01:02:893 (3,4,5,6) - using slightly different rhythms since you're essentially clicking on the most important sounds for both Someone should've mentioned this to me earlier, although a lot of people seem to disagree, it looks like they are just mad because I don't have the exact same 2 patterns for the same part of music. I agree with the bold statement.
what does stand out as bad is ignoring the more important sounds inconsistently. 03:08:293 (6) - the sound on the tail here repeats itself 3 other times in the song: 01:00:493 (1) - 01:03:793 (6) - 03:06:193 (5) - so why is this the only one where you're not emphasizing it at all? would using this rhythm actually harm your intentions, or am i just unable to understand the intentions here
01:17:893 (1) - vs 03:22:693 (7,1) - they're both getting the hold thing, then only one is putting pressure on the emphasized sound. i dont really understand how it could just feel better to not click on the downbeat in one instance and not the other like what
01:39:793 (3) - vs 03:44:893 (1) - clear empahsis on one one and completley ignoring the other pourquoi
00:02:743 (2) - im sure someone's mentioned this one before. you've got the first strong sound completely unemphasized while you emphasize it everywhere afterwards. how bad is it to do a triple into a strong sound? based on some stuff i read on earlier pages you're in favor of that, so like when teh music supports it what's the issue with doing it lol I did it because the triplet just felt wrong, I can't really explain why, perhaps it was poor implementation or whatever, eitherway I tried something new with a triplet, hopefully it's fine.
there's also some things that aren't necessarily inconsistent with anything yet still are gross. i can see why you'd do a few of these, but it's really easy to follow the instruments you consider strong while still following what's conventionally strong
02:05:143 (2,3) - 04:37:543 (2,2) - i see your intentions of ignoring the white tick since there's no piano there, but how different would this be? it's clear that the piano is what you're following since it's the only sound, then when there's another louder sound present, you're not ignoring it for the sake of just following one instrument (which would sound dumb) I don't really find this dumb tbh, it's not like I completely ignored it, the player is supposed to play the pianos here while letting the other instruments join in if they want, and I find it completely fine.
04:40:093 (1,2,1) - 04:43:093 (2) - focus should be on the downbeats and the introduction of the vocal thing, rather tahn ignoring those and emphasizing the less important stuff Those are fine, first slider is vocal ending, and the second slider is supporting the long held vocal, the downbeat is still felt and it's fineee.
02:40:693 (3) - yea um Honestly it's just fine for various reasons.
you also mentioned how the 1/8 was all now either in the music or used for emphasis, but what's with 03:48:493 (1,2,3) -
emphasis into a slider where the reverse actually has the more emphasized sound whattttttt oooooops I totally forgot abou the clap in the reverse, fixxx
another thing that the dq mentioned was spacing, which doesn't really seem to be that addressed either. just like what i said for the introduction to the rhythms thing, all you really need is the most important sounds emphasized. 03:34:693 (2,3,4,5,1) - nobody's going to care about how 4 technically should be more emphasized than 3 when you've clearly got 1 with major emphasis
01:16:993 (1,2,3) - anyone can tell there's major emphasis on 3, yet you're not showing that through mapping at all. especially offputting when you perfectly show proper spacing to represent intensity half a second before this at 01:16:243 (4,5,6) -
04:10:093 (1) - 03:22:093 (3) - some major sounds that you're emphasizing equally to unemphasized sounds Actually this is a common thing to do to keep the pattern well, 04:10:093 (1) - increasing the spacing here would destroy the nice and consistent spacing throughout this section, I did emphasize this with the slider shape. 03:22:093 (3) - self explanatory I think.
01:59:893 (2,3,1) - 00:54:793 (4,5,1) - 1 there would be one of those major sounds while the thing before 1 = minor zzzzz youve seen me complain about this before ha First one fixed, second one is a recent change and honestly 1 is not a that strong note compared to 00:55:693 (3) -, the whole pattern is really fun and cool this way.
comboing is what i understand the least here. people either choose to place new combos according to musical phrasing, vocal phrasing, or patterns, yet you're doing all three and some more that i dont evne comprehend xd
01:36:043 (7) - vs 03:40:843 (1) - you're even using the same rhythm/placement concepts and they're inconsistent
01:27:493 (1) - vs03:32:293 (2) -
01:48:493 (1) - 01:49:693 (1) - vs 03:53:293 (5) - 03:54:493 (4) - the first kiai seems to be doing it according to phrasing, then the second is some way that is beyond me
03:17:293 (1,2,1,2,3,4) - you've got the same thing repeating 3 times, so like putting a new combo on 3 to express that would make sense. as it is now, does 03:17:893 (1) - need its own combo?
03:19:693 (5,1) - 03:43:693 (1,2) - you've got a lot of these 1/2 stack things. keeping new combos on either the first object or the second object would make snese, but switching all the time doesn't really make much sense
03:12:493 (3) - vs 01:07:693 (1) - really how different are these? they're both symmetric stuff following the same rhythms so likeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I think the reason for the inconsistencies in the NCs is because the different patterns, the patterns somehow represent the NCs by themselves and it self misleads me, heh.
when modding your last map, i kind of already said all that i had to about movement. some stuff like 01:31:243 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - gets really uncomfortable with transitions into sliderbodies and momentum based jumps stuff so you know what i would say
some other unrelated-to-anything things
00:10:393 (2,4) - 00:24:343 (4) - 00:14:593 (3) - and some other 15% stuff -- while really low volume sliderends are fine, when you cant get enough feedback from stuff you're clicking on, it's kind of uh bad. this really shouldnt be controversial at all lolz You could call it lazy keynote hitsounding, I did it just for the beginning (xd). The 15% does leave small feedback while giving the emphasization to the actual strong notes afterwards, like 00:10:993 (5) - 00:24:493 (1) - 00:14:893 (1) -
04:36:943 (5) - the um why's this ending on a 1/8 tick Listen closely, 25% playback rate
one of the really big overall things that i don't understand is how you structured your main slider velocities. i understand the small changes depending on pitches and stuff (which i don't really agree with to the extent you're doing, btu that's not the point). what i dont get is how you mostly use 1x sv up til the second kiai, then increase it for the sake of showing intensity.
by that logic, you should probably have been showing intensity through your primary slider velocity prior, but you've got the same 1x for the super calm intro as you do for the first kiai lol I agree to some degree, but I don't find the intro as weak as everyone makes it. Unlike the sections at the end and after the first kiai, which obviously I did map accordingly imo.
tried to explain stuff as clearly as possible so it got a little too wordy haha. bye!!
Nope, but I know just how much youKrfawy wrote:
#1
Have I ever told you how I hate Japanese vocals?
Thanks applexxx!appleeaterx wrote:
So, I guess Krfawy rebubbled #1?
Well, the map isn't your usual but I think that's okay too (of course, up to the QAT's to decide whether its reaally okay or not), but after playing the map myself, talking with Avishay and watching some play (Frost's liveplay, awesome!!) I think it's okay.
Checked some stuff over IRC. I wish you good luck!
Bubble #2!log22:45 appleeaterx: 00:03:643 (1) - off? or is that on purpose for playability
22:45 Avishay: on purpose for playability
22:46 Avishay: 1/16 doesn't seem like a wise solution lol
22:46 appleeaterx: sounds more like 1/6 tho, idk xd
22:46 Avishay: it's snapped one 1/16 tick backwards
22:46 appleeaterx: oi leave it then
22:47 appleeaterx: 00:06:493 (3,4) - ugh idk why but when playing it felt so weird that these were so close
22:47 appleeaterx: like
22:47 appleeaterx: all the sounds have those clap thingies
22:47 appleeaterx: but all spaced differently, and (3,4) really close
22:48 Avishay: tbh I can't really see the issue here or why it's weird
22:49 Avishay: I have the whole pattern thought pretty well
22:49 Avishay: movements and spacing wise to emphasize what's needed, 00:06:643 (4,5) - those are pretty much the same so they're stacked
22:49 appleeaterx: 00:39:493 (2,1) - reason why its antijump here?
22:49 appleeaterx: sound on (1) seems pretty noticeable for a calm section
22:49 Avishay: yes, the slow vocal
22:50 Avishay: it's a little game with the whole pattern
22:50 Avishay: it starts with this
22:50 Avishay: 00:38:593 (1) -
22:50 Avishay: and ends with this 00:39:793 (1) -
22:51 appleeaterx: 01:12:493 (4) - nc here instead?
22:51 Avishay: sure
22:52 appleeaterx: 01:15:493 (4) - kinda expected a large jump here? i mean most of the times u have a clap the jump is largerrrrrr
22:52 appleeaterx: (example right after this 01:16:543 (5,6) - )
22:53 Avishay: lol I can relate but I have no idea where the hell I should put the note then
22:53 Avishay: I think that's why it's like that in the first place xd
22:53 Avishay: so the pattern forced it into this position
22:54 appleeaterx: http://puu.sh/m41F7/8408a5b028.jpg
22:55 appleeaterx: idk something like that, did that in literally 3 secs
22:55 appleeaterx: 01:40:693 (6) - sad slider cuz no hitsound :c
22:56 Avishay: weps
22:56 Avishay: added
22:56 appleeaterx: 01:42:043 (4,5,1) - lol so confusing... equal spacing different snaps, and especially with this map you cant rely on AR or something cuz everythings everywhere
22:57 Avishay: okay changed
22:59 appleeaterx: so this is kinda minor but also not, maybe itll explain something: 01:53:293 (1) - 03:58:093 (1) -
22:59 appleeaterx: the difference between those sounds: nothing
22:59 appleeaterx: difference between SV
22:59 appleeaterx: you know, its not that everything has to be precisely consistent
22:59 appleeaterx: but if its everywhere
22:59 appleeaterx: you will notice it during gameplay
23:00 Avishay: the difference in the SV is mainly because of the difference in the two kiai sections
23:01 appleeaterx: just a tip for your next map(s) xd
23:01 Avishay: also the patterns that precede are not the same .-.
23:01 appleeaterx: (if you plan on staying here after finding out how ranking system works lmao)
23:01 Avishay: oh believe me I see how it works very well xd
23:01 appleeaterx: oh, i mean that in general because the SVs in your map change like every <insert small amount here> seconds
23:02 Avishay: if I find them appropriate I see no reason not to lol
23:02 appleeaterx: you can see how they are appropriate,but if a qat member doesnt its rip
23:03 Avishay: well I pretty much explain everything when mentioned, there's a lot of thought and time wasted into the crap I do
23:03 appleeaterx: "crap" xdd
23:05 appleeaterx: but i guess your view of mapping is that the song should be judged on each second and not 5 min long same stuff >->
23:05 Avishay: pretty much ^
23:05 Avishay: this is why I never map dnb lol
23:05 Avishay: becsue it is the same thing
23:05 Avishay: OVER AND OVER
23:05 appleeaterx: xdddddd\
23:05 Avishay: but I'll admit playing it is fun
23:06 appleeaterx: and the pp it gives
23:06 appleeaterx: gives the illusion i can actually play the stuff i icon while in reality i cant
23:06 Avishay: yess
23:06 Avishay: arrghrghrgh
23:06 appleeaterx: 03:31:243 (6) - wasnt a fan of this tbh ;( , i kinda like smashing keys when there are strong sounds like that lol
23:07 Avishay: but but vocalssss ;;
23:07 Avishay: I was and still am about in a dilemma about this lol
23:07 Avishay: I said to myself that if many people mention it as a problem I'll change it
23:08 Avishay: but lmao people find it acceptable
23:08 Avishay: I can barely play my maps because I spend so much time on them so I memorize them even if I don't want to, so I suck at playing and testing them after a while zz
23:08 appleeaterx: 03:51:193 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - gotta say this is pretty cool with the vocals
23:08 appleeaterx: i cant play my own maps either
23:09 appleeaterx: unless i use HR or something cuz then its not the same anymore
23:09 appleeaterx: but i suck at HR
23:09 Avishay: I KNOW LOL
23:09 Avishay: and yes vocals too gudddd
23:10 appleeaterx: 04:36:493 (1,2,3,4,5) - because of the cymbal crash before this, theres a extra loud sound here that goes on and on
23:10 appleeaterx: so it makes those barely audible
23:11 appleeaterx: gives almost no feedback, prehaps increase the volume a bit just for that section?
23:11 Avishay: seems right
Lasse wrote:
👀
Lol... If you are uncertain whether it goes through the qualification process or not, don't qualify it at all? .-.appleeaterx wrote:
Well, the map isn't your usual but I think that's okay too (of course, up to the QAT's to decide whether its reaally okay or not)
Irreversible wrote:
Hello Avishay,
after checking your map again I have decided to pull it out of qualification again for the following reasons:As you can see, there are the same points listed up over and over (mainly stacking, consistency, slowdowns) etc. I can not see this map in the ranked section in its current state and you should keep improving your map to get it there eventually. Consistency is actually really important, especially when you try to do special stuff such as slowdowns. At least, we’ve got rid off the overmapping which is a good sign and a step into the right direction.
- 00:06:493 (3) - This sound should be emphasized more than the rest, yet it has lower spacing than the objects before. It's not really strong.. Regardless I did give it some emphasization with the sharp movement from the previous notes.
- 00:09:493 (4) - It doesn’t make too much sense that this is the same slider as before, adding no NC indicates the slowdown even less. I can see you try to emphasize this sound in a special way, but you should try your best indiciating it, then. I had a NC on it before then, however some people suggested that I remove it because various reasons, regardless you are not really supposed to be able to hit everything perfectly on sightread.
- 00:12:943 (4) - Why stacked? There is no real reason to keep it stacked, as the song regurlarly goes on. You only achieve the player to awkwardly stop here, and this really doesn’t fit the songs mood. I agree with you to some degree, there's no real reason to have it stacked, however it is not awkward, the current pattern goes really well, just before the movement with the slider there's a reall small halt, which is fun.
- 00:13:693 (1,2,3,1) - Is there any structure behind these objects? For me they really only look like you’ve placed them pretty arbitrary. In shape and size? Not really, in movement? Yeah. You could say that the shapes are the way I thought of the song, but it doesn't really matter, the movements here are great.
- 00:43:693 (1,2) - Again, the stack. You kill movement and emphasize nothing in the song. I do emphasize 00:43:693 (1) - with the big jump, then comes the really weak note that starts at 00:43:843 (2) - and because it's weak I represented it with the anti-jump.
- 00:45:793 (3,1) - Feels sorta random to me. First of all why this shape and why does it not properly follow to the next note? The way she is saying “anata” is calling for a neat pattern, maybe keep the same slidershape and try working with rotating? I don't really understand why, I'll tell you why I did use this, first of all the shapes do go well with the "anata", then there's the extended vocal slider, the note that starts at 00:46:093 (1) - is really strong so I've wanted to have some emphasization with the previous slider, therefore the anchor on the previous slider.
- 00:50:293 (3,4,1) - It really feels like that something went horribly wrong here with the hitsounding. Really? Why? There isn't really anything to have hitsounds on 00:50:593 (4) - and the drum sampleset before then goes really well with the music.
- 00:52:093 (1) - This should probably be a slowdown according to the rest of your piano, or whatever you tried to emphasize, emphasis. I can't really see a problem here, it's completely fine.
- 01:10:993 (1) - You say you want to emphasize the vocals.. but why is this such a low spacing? Whatever you are argueing with, it’s really contradicting. Pretty sure I've said that before, but the emphasis comes with the movement from the circle-ish slider and the increased SV.
- 01:16:543 (5,6) - Really high spacing compared to the rest of the map. Nothing special to be found either here. Obviously there is the strong drum, but you are probably asking now why didn't I do the same to 01:15:493 (4) - ? The answer is because of the pattern structure, 01:14:893 (1,2,3,4) - slider into (relatively) big spaced circle and bla bla pattern continues, 01:15:793 (1,2,3) - then this starts (with great nice halt at 01:15:493 (4) - ) and then 01:16:243 (4,5,6) - which is a slider into a not so big spaced circle and then the real thing is kickin', regardless I feel that it plays pretty good.
- 01:24:943 (1) - Inconsistent NC with 01:27:493 (2) - To be fair, there used to be a NC until pishi mentioned that it was incosistent with 03:32:293 (2) - , but I don't really think it has anything to do with 01:27:493 (2) - maybe the fact the the vocals start on both of those notes but I don't really go with that.
- 01:41:143 (7) - Again, the stack. I admit that this could have been not stacked, but this was mainly done to emphasize 01:41:143 (7,8) - , I wanted a complete opposite direction movement into 8, and this works well too because the sliderend and 7 are the same sound.
- 01:43:243 (4,5,6) You have only used this once and it doesn’t fit at all. Why are you not using circles like you did before? Why is it a problem that I did not use this again? The important thing is the notes that are getting emphasized, and those are obviously the drums, it plays really well and is just a different pattern to this pattern in the music.
- 01:53:293 (1) - What’s the reason of this sudden slowdown? This sound appears quite often and suddenly you make a slowdown here after an intense build-up. You could probably take a look at the other tens of responses I gave on this.
- 01:50:893 (1,2) - 03:55:693 (1,1) - these 2 are basically the same thing vocal-wise but comboing and slidervelocity are completely different for both cases without any apparent reason. Because it has no affect on the play at all? Both patterns are emphasizing the vocals in different ways and are just fine?
- 02:03:193 (1,1) - There’s clearly no sound these circles could be mapped to. If you listen closely with 25% speed you will realize that there’s just a quiet sound on the blue tick. I'm 1000000% sure that there are notes there, use an audio software to see yourself, regardless, even if there are none, this gives the player something to play with the transition instead of an awkward gap.
- 03:43:093 (6) - if you mainly focus on capturing the intensity of the vocals with this map why do you ignore vocals here and in several other places too Because there's nothing wrong with following instruments as well, just because I mainly focus vocals does not mean I should follow them preciesly all of the time.
- 04:12:493 (1) - Is there any reason for this repeat slider? I’d suggest using a circle instead. Yes, the sounds on the head and the reverse are similar and it gives a nice repetition effect.
Good luck with further processing.
Just because I don't use the same pattern over and over, nor have a clear structure through out my maps it doesn't mean everything is random and put out without thought, I really think that this is just plain nitpicking, hope my explanations are understandable.Avishay wrote:
If anyone has concerns about stuff in the map please contact me or post here, I don't mind discussing my choices and thoughts if necessary.
Avishay wrote:
Okay it's dead, honestly, I'm not going to try and rank anything until something changes, I'm tired of this, let the bias and narrowminded QAT keep everything on.
There is a huge difference between Unrankable and DQ'able. The map is not unrankable, only DQ'able. There are no objective facts which can result in this being Dq'ed, only subjective, something QAT and BN often have a different view onStjpa wrote:
Avishay wrote:
Okay it's dead, honestly, I'm not going to try and rank anything until something changes, I'm tired of this, let the bias and narrowminded QAT keep everything on.
You overmap and think that consistency isn't important, what do you expect? And you also use dumb excuses for something that is really unrankable, as we can see in your response of Irres post. Nice dude.
lulu lemon wrote:
pls revive? ;w;
i love this map