i think it should has ar10...
forum
MAXIMUM THE HORMONE - A-L-I-E-N
posted
Total Posts
1,187
i honestly wouldn't be surprised if you could rank your aspire map if this becomes ranked
i honestly wouldn't be surprised if you could rank your aspire map if this becomes ranked
Topic Starter
After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.
Meet Bob. Bob plays osu. Bob finds a song he likes and wants to map. Bob knows the song doesn't translate well into the game, but Bob maps it because he enjoys mapping and he enjoys the song. Bob really enjoys his map, and Bob uploads it to the osu website so that other people might stumble across his map and enjoy it. Bob lets his map graveyard because he understands that the song itself is unrankable and that not everything he uploads needs to be ranked.Monstrata wrote:
I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words
you are not bob
Monstrata wrote:
After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.
wank wank wank wank wank wank wank
there's my words
Topic Starter
I see the song has really moved you.Shiirn wrote:
Monstrata wrote:
After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.
wank wank wank wank wank wank wank
there's my words
maximum the hormone is basically like
edge in a can
edge in a can
Can you rank Quaver next please?Monstrata wrote:
After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.
AR10 just feels a lot more fitting when playing this. And HP 4.5-4.7 feels more fitting than 5. idk that's just my opinion on the matter...
This isn't 5 minutes, where is the set? Or am I missing something.
Edit: Totally forgot about the ol' long spinner at the end.
Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 5 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 5 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.And isn't the approved section dead anyways? I don't see why they would break their guidelines and use a section that has been unused since 2.5 years back.
Edit: Totally forgot about the ol' long spinner at the end.
XII wrote:
This isn't 5 minutes, where is the set? Or am I missing something.Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 5 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 5 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.And isn't the approved section dead anyways? I don't see why they would break their guidelines and use a section that has been unused since 2.5 years back.
the drain time calculator is kind of broken because it doesn't really count spinners
Totally forgot about that![alt][F4] wrote:
the drain time calculator is kind of broken because it doesn't really count spinners
MAXIMUM THE CIRCLEJERK - A-L-I-E-N [Stop! Stop complaining about my map and let me rank this!]
Topic Starter
The NC's here are placed based on movement and flow, and not rhythm. Since its one consistent updown or leftright movement it has one combo, where as the previous ones can be split into two sets of flows/movements with backforth going into clockwise/counterclock.FailureAtOsu wrote:
Extremely minor thing
02:28:885 (1,2,3,4) -
02:32:313 (9,10,11,12) -
Why does the former have a new combo but not the latter? It's the same sounds so I don't see why it would be inconsistent.
Thanks for checking though!
AR 9.7 is high enough imo. Theres already been a lot of discussion going into this, you can check out p/5253277 if you'd like to read more into detail! Thanks for your concerns.N1k0 wrote:
AR10 just feels a lot more fitting when playing this. And HP 4.5-4.7 feels more fitting than 5. idk that's just my opinion on the matter...
I feel like decimal HP values won't really make much of a difference though, just because of how complicated HP drain actually is. 5 is really just there because people believe 3/4 to be too low for a map of this difficulty. I don't really wanna get into the math of decimal HP drain cuz I myself don't really know how to calculate it lol.
Posting for clarification.
https://www.discogs.com/Maximum-The-Hor ... se/4887492
Official run time is 4:46. Making this MP3 an edited version. Yet no mention of this in the metadata. (Even though as far as Im aware editing MP3's for more length is against a rule)
https://www.discogs.com/Maximum-The-Hor ... se/4887492
Official run time is 4:46. Making this MP3 an edited version. Yet no mention of this in the metadata. (Even though as far as Im aware editing MP3's for more length is against a rule)
Editing the song to be shorter is very different to editing it to be longer.Battle wrote:
often times if the mp3 is edited by the user, you still use the same metadata as the source, for example if you cut a song to be shorter such as this due to it being repetitive you still keep the same metadata
I fail to see what point you're making?
Topic Starter
It's allowed currently. The thread is a discussion about making mp3 extension against the rules. I thought i'd link it so people can discuss there instead.lilelf29 wrote:
Wait it's allowed?Monstrata wrote:
mp3 is slightly edited yes. It's not against the current ruleset, but you're welcome to discuss it further, here: t/417977.
I thought you just linked to a thread that says you can't extend the mp3 file, unless I'm missing something.
This song should not be qualified nor ranked.
Half of the map is some kind of lullaby that is FC:able by 5 digit players, including me, this necessarily might not be a bad thing, but I personally find it unfit for a 8.5* map.
Other than that, I find that the map isn't of greater quality, even though I probably wouldn't be able to do shit better myself, but I just find it to play awfully bad.
Half of the map is some kind of lullaby that is FC:able by 5 digit players, including me, this necessarily might not be a bad thing, but I personally find it unfit for a 8.5* map.
Other than that, I find that the map isn't of greater quality, even though I probably wouldn't be able to do shit better myself, but I just find it to play awfully bad.
Oh damn, I know a few people that are under the impression it's not allowed and so instead are making mapsets of 4min+ songs.Monstrata wrote:
It's allowed currently. The thread is a discussion about making mp3 extension against the rules. I thought i'd link it so people can discuss there instead.
Will spread the news that they don't need to.
Topic Starter
Well, if you extend, you should try to make it as natural as possible too. It's sometimes quite hard to extend songs past 5 minutes, especially if theyre like just 4:01 or something. There are a lot of songs i want to map, that are like 4:40-4:50 that I just can't tastefully extend haha.lilelf29 wrote:
Oh damn, I know a few people that are under the impression it's not allowed and so instead are making mapsets of 4min+ songs.Monstrata wrote:
It's allowed currently. The thread is a discussion about making mp3 extension against the rules. I thought i'd link it so people can discuss there instead.
Will spread the news that they don't need to.
placeholder
MillhioreF wrote:
Remember: there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard.
Not every map has to be marathon size. Couldn't you just make more diffs?Monstrata wrote:
Well, if you extend, you should try to make it as natural as possible too. It's sometimes quite hard to extend songs past 5 minutes, especially if theyre like just 4:01 or something. There are a lot of songs i want to map, that are like 4:40-4:50 that I just can't tastefully extend haha.
It's quite literally 11 seconds. C'mon friend.Sliproads wrote:
Not every map has to be marathon size. Couldn't you just make more diffs?Monstrata wrote:
Well, if you extend, you should try to make it as natural as possible too. It's sometimes quite hard to extend songs past 5 minutes, especially if theyre like just 4:01 or something. There are a lot of songs i want to map, that are like 4:40-4:50 that I just can't tastefully extend haha.
I love being lazy!Enkidu wrote:
It's quite literally 11 seconds. C'mon friend.
hi mothew!!Microsoft Vista wrote:
monstrata reply to wank wank wank but not bob
While I don't agree with mappers editing mp3s to push their songs into the marathon category rather than having to map a full spread, complaining about it in this thread will just make you look stupid.
I think the song is perfectly fine, it's music, it has a beat and a melody, and therefore can be adequately mapped. This map meets all of the ranking criteria, isn't over the top ridiculous, and while it does look ugly (which mind you, is the entire purpose of the mapping style that Monstrata chose to use), it is passable (perhaps even fcable).
The best part is it's a consistent group of people who talk crap in these threads. Mappers shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, their map is their opinion, and while everyone is entitled to have one, and you can debate back and forth about them, you can't just blow off the mapper's effort with these stupid backhanded comments like "remap" or "wow this map is BAD." That's like telling an artist that you don't like their painting, and then when they ask why you respond with "it's just bad and I don't like it." If you disagree, please provide some sort of argument that makes sense, and if the mapper tells you to shove it, there's nothing you can do about it. If you don't like the map, don't install it, don't play it. Every day there are probably 3-4 maps ranked that you never even hear about or play, just turn this map into another one of those. It's not like ranking maps like these will destroy the mapping community here in osu!, so don't act like it.
Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.
I think the song is perfectly fine, it's music, it has a beat and a melody, and therefore can be adequately mapped. This map meets all of the ranking criteria, isn't over the top ridiculous, and while it does look ugly (which mind you, is the entire purpose of the mapping style that Monstrata chose to use), it is passable (perhaps even fcable).
The best part is it's a consistent group of people who talk crap in these threads. Mappers shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, their map is their opinion, and while everyone is entitled to have one, and you can debate back and forth about them, you can't just blow off the mapper's effort with these stupid backhanded comments like "remap" or "wow this map is BAD." That's like telling an artist that you don't like their painting, and then when they ask why you respond with "it's just bad and I don't like it." If you disagree, please provide some sort of argument that makes sense, and if the mapper tells you to shove it, there's nothing you can do about it. If you don't like the map, don't install it, don't play it. Every day there are probably 3-4 maps ranked that you never even hear about or play, just turn this map into another one of those. It's not like ranking maps like these will destroy the mapping community here in osu!, so don't act like it.
Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.
I haven't read this thread much, but the only opinion of a top player that I've seen is Elysion's on their stream and iirc they just said "Doesn't play well."total terror wrote:
Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.
I think it would be a pretty neat idea to get multiple top players opinions on this map to improve it (since it is a 8.5* map...), but Monstrata might've already done that.
brb adding 4:30 of cheering to the end of a 30 second map for marathon length
Rafis did say he never wanted it to ever get ranked, make of that what you willisopaharuntikka wrote:
I haven't read this thread much, but the only opinion of a top player that I've seen is Elysion's on their stream and iirc they just said "Doesn't play well."total terror wrote:
Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.
I think it would be a pretty neat idea to get multiple top players opinions on this map to improve it (since it is a 8.5* map...), but Monstrata might've already done that.
lmao wh it's still basically the same regarding metadatalilelf29 wrote:
Editing the song to be shorter is very different to editing it to be longer.Battle wrote:
often times if the mp3 is edited by the user, you still use the same metadata as the source, for example if you cut a song to be shorter such as this due to it being repetitive you still keep the same metadata
I fail to see what point you're making?
blahpy wrote:
MillhioreF wrote:
Remember: there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard.
o btw
thts the point u deege n -_ -estellia- wrote:
also vinxis the structure of your post is so fucked can you get good at being estellia- tyvm
Who cares about ugli aesthetics tbh
Gonna talk about other things blahblah w/e
Mod time!
I'm kinda sad that after these jumps 00:18:626 (1,2,3,4) - here that 00:19:486 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - these are so low spaced, since the later ones have the extra punchy drum to go along with them but have a lower spacing. I feel like the low spaced patterns should be before, while the jumpy/snappy sliders should be after.
00:31:475 (1,2,3,4) - If you play these fully it creates some nice snaps with a bunch of spacing which feels cool, however on the next slider pattern here 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) - I feel as though 00:33:189 (1,2) - these are too cramped up spacing wise to give the same feel. It's minor yes, but every little helps. A 10 degree rotation seems to make the spacing work and keep the same aesthetical style here.
00:34:474 (5) - Unsnapped sliderend, should end later but the slider end is snapped slightly early, may want to wiggle it to place.
(00:34:933 (1) - No idea what this is mapped to, if its an instrument, it should start on the blue tick (00:34:986 - or smth), if its mapped to the vocal, it starts on the red tick (00:35:040 - ) but ssince it coverss both its really confussing.)
00:34:933 (1,2) - This spacing is awkwardly low compared to the slider SV here, I'd honestly suggest you lower the SV more to make it less weird to play here.
01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Well you've probably heard enough about these but still I need to say it but from a different perspective. 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - have similar spacing because the sounds are similar, now 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is increased spacing because there is an extra cymbal sound, right? If that is the case, then there should be no reason to further increase the spacing to 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this pattern, since the previous mentioned one is identical in sound and volume to this.
01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - I can see that you have a bunch of different shapes here, but if possible, could you make 01:38:165 (2,4) - more vertical? I know you can just hit the slider heads and play right, but it would still encourage a more vertical and sharp snapping motion if they were more vertical. You can just rotate the sliders.
I'd also like to mention that 01:39:130 (3) - this slider is the only one that goes up a bit before it goes down, whilst being completely playable if you include leniency in the mix, it still discourages a cooler, consistent vertical play which could be happening instead, so this iss the only slider I'd suggest to make differently and move the redpoint downwards on.
02:09:830 (2,3,4,5) - Two things here.
Obvious no.1) The linear play is really awkward after an entire map of little linear movement and only snapping pretty much, so it feels plainly wrong to put in since it is so out of the maps context flow/wrist-movement-wise
No.2) This looks too damn neat. Needs to be MESSIER.
So a solution to both of those is below I made for ya. Also at the same time, that idea/solution gets lower in spacing as the pitches lower with every sound so it seems more with the music.
That's it for input that doesn't relate to aesthetics wheee hopefully it makes it more enjoyable to play cya
Gonna talk about other things blahblah w/e
Mod time!
I'm kinda sad that after these jumps 00:18:626 (1,2,3,4) - here that 00:19:486 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - these are so low spaced, since the later ones have the extra punchy drum to go along with them but have a lower spacing. I feel like the low spaced patterns should be before, while the jumpy/snappy sliders should be after.
00:31:475 (1,2,3,4) - If you play these fully it creates some nice snaps with a bunch of spacing which feels cool, however on the next slider pattern here 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) - I feel as though 00:33:189 (1,2) - these are too cramped up spacing wise to give the same feel. It's minor yes, but every little helps. A 10 degree rotation seems to make the spacing work and keep the same aesthetical style here.
00:34:474 (5) - Unsnapped sliderend, should end later but the slider end is snapped slightly early, may want to wiggle it to place.
(00:34:933 (1) - No idea what this is mapped to, if its an instrument, it should start on the blue tick (00:34:986 - or smth), if its mapped to the vocal, it starts on the red tick (00:35:040 - ) but ssince it coverss both its really confussing.)
00:34:933 (1,2) - This spacing is awkwardly low compared to the slider SV here, I'd honestly suggest you lower the SV more to make it less weird to play here.
I used 0.8sv and it kept the look whilst making the spacing even, thus less weird to transition from
00:48:192 (3) - For editors sake, can you simplify this slider down? I have an awkward feeling this can be called out for burai for no reason idk01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Well you've probably heard enough about these but still I need to say it but from a different perspective. 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - have similar spacing because the sounds are similar, now 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is increased spacing because there is an extra cymbal sound, right? If that is the case, then there should be no reason to further increase the spacing to 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this pattern, since the previous mentioned one is identical in sound and volume to this.
01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - I can see that you have a bunch of different shapes here, but if possible, could you make 01:38:165 (2,4) - more vertical? I know you can just hit the slider heads and play right, but it would still encourage a more vertical and sharp snapping motion if they were more vertical. You can just rotate the sliders.
I'd also like to mention that 01:39:130 (3) - this slider is the only one that goes up a bit before it goes down, whilst being completely playable if you include leniency in the mix, it still discourages a cooler, consistent vertical play which could be happening instead, so this iss the only slider I'd suggest to make differently and move the redpoint downwards on.
02:09:830 (2,3,4,5) - Two things here.
Obvious no.1) The linear play is really awkward after an entire map of little linear movement and only snapping pretty much, so it feels plainly wrong to put in since it is so out of the maps context flow/wrist-movement-wise
No.2) This looks too damn neat. Needs to be MESSIER.
So a solution to both of those is below I made for ya. Also at the same time, that idea/solution gets lower in spacing as the pitches lower with every sound so it seems more with the music.
That's it for input that doesn't relate to aesthetics wheee hopefully it makes it more enjoyable to play cya
The same could be said about a lot of wub maps since they usually start out like 2* mapsQTS wrote:
This song should not be qualified nor ranked.
Half of the map is some kind of lullaby that is FC:able by 5 digit players, including me, this necessarily might not be a bad thing, but I personally find it unfit for a 8.5* map.