Yuii- wrote:

Why hello there

You are ruining CtB, koliron!!!!!!
Someone stop this map from getting played. This is a pp map!!!!!

Jesus. Since when a pp map is bad? If a map gives a shit ton of performance points means the map should not be ranked because it's bad? I blame a lot of people who actually started talking about this, seriously.

randomizer89 wrote:

if map get tooo many pp... it's system problem of pp, not map problem.

Nelly wrote:

I have no clue whats wrong with BNs heads but right now AR 10 on 7 star maps its NORMAL (even 8 star maps)

Nozhomi wrote:

Tbh I think AR10 is k, since the rhythm is sometimes tricky (as start for example) and the object density is way enough high to keep it.
I have no more conplain with the map. Fixes looks k.

Let's try again ?

Asphyxia wrote:

Disqualified on mappers' request, there will be a storyboard.

Nelly wrote:

Disqualified on mappers' request, there will be a storyboard.

Nelly wrote:

Disqualified on mappers' request, there will be a storyboard.

Kroytz wrote:

Shiguma wrote:

But why does this have to be identical to Blue Xenith? 9.5-10 range works, I would expect someone playing this to be able to read ar10

Kroytz wrote:

@Xexxar: Stop crying and l2p AR10. Your attitude towards me about the AR has been nothing but whining. If the BPM is the deciding factor as to what determines a map's AR, then that's quite a poor argument considering there are a couple of "low-bpm" maps utilizing AR10. If your next argument is,"Oh but those maps are mapped in 1/3 hurr hurr so it's technically 200+bpm" then surely it's not the bpm of the song but the way in which its mapped. The map is perfectly readable at lower ARs, and the map is perfectly readable at AR 10, your argument is just as subjective as the players who are able to read 10.

Yuii- wrote:

Don't worry, I always backup hitsounds.

soft-sliderslide42.wav in case you need it: http://puu.sh/phgkr/13b04ac5fd.wav

Battle wrote:

nelly post near nely wao

gz

Nelly wrote:

Battle wrote:

nelly post near nely wao

gz

What

Fezu wrote:

What the staff should do right now is include a rule that all maps over 5 minutes long needs a storyboard. :^)

Fezu wrote:

What the staff should do right now is include a rule that all maps over 5 minutes long needs a storyboard. :^)

Enon wrote:

i hope no more complains

ComfyWolf wrote:

Glad to see this back. I was about to jump in and just storyboard for you since it seemed like you were taking forever to wait for Cl8n (or whoever took over I don't remember).

Disqualified on mappers' request, there will be a storyboard.

Asphyxia wrote:

Disqualified on mappers' request, there will be a storyboard.

Battle wrote:

nelly post near nely wao

gz

Kroytz wrote:

@Xexxar: Stop crying and l2p AR10. Your attitude towards me about the AR has been nothing but whining. If the BPM is the deciding factor as to what determines a map's AR, then that's quite a poor argument considering there are a couple of "low-bpm" maps utilizing AR10. If your next argument is,"Oh but those maps are mapped in 1/3 hurr hurr so it's technically 200+bpm" then surely it's not the bpm of the song but the way in which its mapped. The map is perfectly readable at lower ARs, and the map is perfectly readable at AR 10, your argument is just as subjective as the players who are able to read 10.

@to everyone else: This is sort of how it looked like before, during the time it was qualified in November: with a few agreements/disagreements on the AR. The only difference is simply due to the fact that it would've been ranked with AR10, and have been accepted perfectly fine without complaints had I not DQ'd. Not to say "I could've gone away with it then" but what I'm saying follows more along the lines of, "it was perfectly acceptable then, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be acceptable now". For what it seems like, it's that everyone just has their preference as to what is "optimal" and that will be an opinion that varies from player-to-player or mapper-to-mapper.

Kroytz wrote:

Look, I'm not sure who's been here the first time it was qualified to where it is now but the time it was first qualified (circa November 2015) the general consensus among the majority of players/spectators/mappers during that time was that a higher AR (higher in this sense would be above 9.5) is best suited in this case as to prevent clutter on the screen. So that gives us a few numbers to work with right; AR 9.5 is the slow end of the optimal AR spectrum and 10 would be the fastest end of it.
Now I've talked to many players ranging from single digits to 5 digits and received a lot of feedback regarding the AR and (un)surprisingly, the optimal AR varied completely. Some users within the top 100 couldn't even read AR10 whereas 4-5 digit players could. Somehow, top players couldn't even get through the first minute of the map (yet they can HDDT 10.3 maps with 99%+ amirite). From the many playtesters, I've only received about a dozen comments regarding the AR. A good half stating the higher AR feels good and the other half saying otherwise, maybe tone it down .2. or .3. But I feel as though the optimal AR for this particular map in its difficulty range is so subjective that it comes down to whether or not you're capable of reading it to begin with. If you can deathstream 200 bpm for 5 minutes straight, reading AR10 shouldn't be a problem.

Kroytz wrote:

OD 10 is too OP for me to use. OD9 is good enough to prevent note locking a lot. Anything lower, you'd get the whole x1 miss and you die Freedom Dive thing.