A r M i N wrote:

time to vote 10 Stars

Ascendance wrote:

circlejerk

Ascendance wrote:

its k

JBHyperion wrote:

Some concerns:

Destiny

1. 00:19:291 (4,5,6) - 00:19:977 (4,5,6) - Why are these chained 1/4 hypers? The only strong sounds here are the following snare+cymbals at 00:19:720 (1) and 00:20:405 (1) - by hypering these additional weak sounds you take emphasis away from the strong sounds and are left with an exaggerated pattern with unfitting flow the vocal is pretty strong in 00:19:548 (6) - 00:20:062 (5) - 00:20:234 (6) - 00:20:748 (5) - 00:20:920 (6) - to have hypers imo 00:19:377 (5) - i guess i could agree with remove this one if more people thinks the same, but there is still a strong sound in every 1/1 which could have hyper like this
2. 00:24:691 (2,1,2) - Short antiflow pattern after rapid flow reversal is awkward to play, would be better to have (2) to the left of (1) or else remove a direction change element by mapping three circles in a line instead of a repeat slider mmmh sorry i tested it many times and it isnt awkward imo, maybe it could be hard if there is a hard dash or hyper but it is almost possible to walk
3. 00:30:348 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^ same reason :/
4. 00:33:091 (1,2,3,4) - The strongest sounds in this section and you map a single 4plet when all previous weaker sounds were pairs of 1/4 hdash? Doesn't make sense to me, the emphasis is reversed here in and I don't understand why add hyper in every note would be unaesthetic and boring, so i added more distance in every note, it is not possible to fc without holding dash, try to compare it with 01:04:977 (1,2,3,4) - , they are obviously different o.o
5. 01:10:120 (6,1) - 01:11:662 (8,1) - 01:14:234 (6,1) - etc. Any reason why you decided not to hyper here? There are strong vocal and synth sounds to justify them, and it feels weird that you mapped the exact same sounds from 01:20:062 (1) onwards with frequent hdash... Some sections feel really underemphasized at present, notably 01:17:834 (4,5,1) - 01:10:120 (6,1) - and 01:10:120 (6,1) - , these are the most calm sections in the song, so i decided to not add hypers until 01:10:120 (6,1) - and 01:10:120 (6,1) - where a sound starts to increase until 01:10:120 (6,1) - and 01:10:120 (6,1) - , so the amount of hypers makes a build-up, for example 01:10:120 (6,1) - since here hyper in ever 4/1, since 01:10:120 (6,1) - in every 2/1 and 01:10:120 (6,1) - 1/1
6. 01:53:234 (2,3,1) - Why no hyper to (1) when you have one to (3) which is far weaker? Artificially carrying on this pattern at the expense of proper emphasis is unfitting and lazy. Same can be seen at 01:58:720 (2,3,1) - etc. well, maybe if you listen in 25% they could sounds a little stronger, the sounds in 01:52:977 (1,2,3) - 01:55:720 (1,2,3) - 01:58:462 (1,2,3) - 02:01:205 (1,2,3) - 02:03:948 (1,2,3) - 02:06:691 (1,2,3) - are pretty different to the rest so i decided to add hyper only in them, i dont want to spam hypers, if i follow every sound which could have hyper in this section (because this section is the most stronger except kiais) i'd need to add in almost every object (slider/circle)
7. 02:03:948 (1,2,3) - and similar play really awkwardly due to requiring delicate antiflow dash after a strong 1/4 hyper. I get what you were trying to do here but it doesn't really work, since you end up emphasizing the tail of (2) way more than necessary with that normal dash. A more normal flow where dash isn't required e.g. 02:01:205 (1,2,3) - plays so much better i dont agree because to me it plays pretty fun and i dont understand how is awkward huh, is just a normal hyper with a diferent direction, this movement is the same as 02:12:177 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 02:12:691 (7,1,2,3) - maybe there you could notice that is not like that, also is exactly the same movement as 04:10:120 (1,2,3) - but with a different direction as i said, (2 with ctrl+g) so i guess it is only how it looks in the editor
8. 02:09:434 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Your hdash patterns follow the synth for this combo, but for the rest of the stream follows the drums - why when the synth is still really strong here? I was expecting 02:10:462 (4,5,1) - 02:11:662 (3,4,5) - to have the emphasis for some interesting flow but you just switched right back to the drums randomly when the synth is prominent making the patterns hard to follow. I'd prefer to follow synth until 02:12:177 (1) and then switch to the drums once the 1/4 rhythm really kicks in there drum? o.O mmh i followed the same sound always, is exaclty the same as sounds like 02:10:291 (3,4,5) - but with streams, i only didnt add hypers in 02:10:291 (3,4,5) - and 02:11:662 (3,4,5) - because it would be a spam of hypers, you still need to dash in them so they are emphasized, the only different sound which i added hyper is in 02:10:805 (1) - because is too strong and i think i shouldnt make a dash or walk to it
9. 02:14:920 - Ok so most of the vocal patterns in the kiai are all horizontal sliders with hdash that can be caught by just holding dash, which is really lacking in variety for the part of the song you seem to want to emphasize the most (the kiai). There are a lot of great vocal rhythms you could have layered in here to make this more interesting along with some variation in slidershape it is supposed to dash in every note to emphasize the vocal and kiai (i think that the kiai must be alot harder than the "normal" time), this is the thing which testplayers most liked, so i dont think i could change it even if i agree, there is still a lot of variety in the distances and movements, so the only thing which wouldnt have variety is the horizontal sliders, and that isnt true because i added some vertical sliders too (02:19:034 (1) - 02:19:377 (2) - 02:23:662 (4) - 02:25:205 (1,2) - 02:28:634 (1) - 02:31:034 (10) - etc), same in the next vocal-kiai
10. 03:16:634 (1,2,3,4,1) - Jump parity makes little sense to me here, why emphasize 03:17:148 (4) with a hdash when the strong vocal and cymbal sound 03:17:320 (1) gets a lacklustre (and uncomfortable) walking pattern? Same thing happens at 03:17:662 (3,4,1) - your hdash is much stronger to an average-strength vocal sound than it is to the intense 03:18:005 (1) - such that following the rhythm is very confusing here humm, i cant hear a new vocal sound in 03:17:320 (1) - , just a different sound in the backround but i followed the vocal here so it doesnt looks recommendable imo, and the distances in 03:17:662 (3,4,1) - ar almost the same (03:17:662 (3,4) - x264 and 03:17:834 (4,1) - x240) i dont think that a player would notice it if they are not in the editor > <
11. 03:23:491 (1) - Same concerns about missing hypers as in the previous verse 01:10:120 (6,1) etc. same reason :/
12. 04:04:891 (4,5) - 04:05:577 (4,5) - Care to explain your decision behind these direction changes, and also why (5) is forced up against the screen border? This movement is really unexpected and results in a harsh flowstop as the catcher is forced against the wall the direction change is just for aesthetic, it would plays the same if i ctrl+g in 04:04:977 (5) - (try to test it, in 1/4 you cant move the ryuuta) but i'd agree with move it a little to the left if more people thinks that it is a problem
13. 04:07:891 (3,1) - 04:13:377 (3,1) - etc. Same as 01:53:234 (2,3,1) previously since this is copypaste and suffers from the same issues same reason
14. 04:13:120 (2,3) - 04:15:862 (2,3) - etc. Same as 02:03:948 (1,2,3) except issue displaced to (2,3) instead of (1,2) same reason
15. 04:24:520 (1,2) - Your synth emphasis is better here than in the previous pre-kiai stream, but you're missing a hdash between these two to follow the music since (3,4) are comparably strong with hypers. 04:25:977 (9,1,2) - Could also support a hyper pattern if you wished for consistency here is a different pattern, as before i think it is for how it looks in the editor, actually it is the same movement as in 01:52:977 (1,2,3) - but only 1 of them, again i tested many times and i cant find it as awkward or so hard, even is a little easy > < aaaa
16. 04:29:320 - Same concerns as in the previous kiai 02:14:920 same reason, there are vertical sldiers here too :<
17. 04:39:262 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - There are no 1/4 beats in the music, nor vocal effects to support the inclusion of these extra beats hum.. D: try to listen again and be sure about have sample and music at the same volume, maybe it was a mistake? i can hear sounds in every 1/4 easily, you could notice it too because there is the same in the last kiai 02:24:862 (2,3,1,2,3,4) - (hahah asterisk is a little repetitive xD) compare them, they are exactly the same, i always be sure of never overmap x3
18. 04:53:320 (3,4,5,6,7) - What are the 1/4 beats following here? Aside from 05:01:548 (1) - I don't hear any 1/4 sounds in this section at all until 05:07:034 (2) leaving this feeling very forced there are sound here too, mmmh maybe you didnt hear them for the same reason? o.o

As a whole I just feel like the map is really overdone. The song doesn't call for such strong hypers and harsh flow throughout, and some overmapping is extremely obvious. I'd like to see some more opinions on this before ranking. thank you so much for your time and effort x3!! but i think you didnt understand some things in the map like the overmap suggestions and the vocal-kiais (i explained all), personally i dont agree with a lot of them :s sorry for it, actually noone of the rest modders suggested about the vocal-kiais (an obvious thing except if they didnt testplay, so i think they have no problem with that) or overmap (ayy wait ok i remember that there were 2 suggestions about overmap in the first kiai but i removed them) so i dont want to change the map without more opinions, in any case thank you for your mod >v<!!

1. 00:19:291 (4,5,6) - This is a fair point. 00:19:291 (4,5) - is far greater than 00:19:548 (6,1) - which makes no sense. Also, you state that the vocal is strong in 00:19:548 (6) - but you don't explain why you hyper 00:19:291 (4,5) - at all.
2. 00:25:205 (2) - I'm fine with this, its not awkward because its not wide enough for force movement, but I like the idea of placing it at an opposite side as the movement would make sense.
3. 00:30:348 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^
4. 00:33:091 (1,2,3,4) - Adding a hyper in every note would be boring, but that's exactly what you have done at 00:32:062 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , leaving the stronger 4plet of 00:33:091 (1,2,3,4) - with poor patterning for it being much stronger than the 1/4 6 note hyperspam. How about repatterning this so that the 4plet has the hypers and 00:32:062 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - has a reasonable pattern.
5. 01:10:120 (6,1) - Point is fair, maybe a bit more distance to emphasize them instead?
6. 01:53:234 (2,3,1) - 01:52:977 (1) - is the strongest here, followed by 01:53:234 (2) - and 01:53:834 (1) - and lastly 01:53:491 (3) - , there is no need to listen to this on 25% to notice it. You don't want to spam hypers, so you make 01:53:491 (3) - not hyper as it is the passive slider in the pattern and hyper into 01:53:834 (1) - instead. Conserving hypers is not required and is not an argument.
7. 02:03:948 (1,2,3) - I'm fine with this as it is. However, due to the antiflow hyper, 02:04:462 (3) - is a strong hyper compared to the others here so maybe you could somehow place it on the other side?
8. 02:09:434 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Yet again, hyper spam is not an argument here. 02:10:291 (3,4,5) - are all valid hyper spots that play really well. Just before a 6 note 1/4 hyper section was commented on and you defended it over a more prominent sound. This rejection just seems to be you clutching at straws.
9. 02:14:920 - Having only dashes or hypers does not mean there is a stronger emphasis. A layered and convoluted usage of walks, dashes and hypers together that add emphasis to one another create more emphasis as the stronger notes are shown, constant dash usage is boring and feels very lazy, especially for a kiai.
10. 03:16:634 (1,2,3,4,1) - 03:16:977 (3,4,1) - is my worry here. 03:17:320 (1) - is CLEARLY the stronger note here, but its a walk? 03:17:148 (4) - is stronger than 03:16:977 (3) - so it does deserve some differentiation but this hyper is blatantly misplaced. You don't discuss this in your rejection so please take a look at it.
11. 03:23:491 (1) - I'm not that bothered about this. 03:23:148 (2) - is well defined and a cross screen hyper is ugly here. However, it is possible to repeat 03:23:148 (2) - so that a hyper can reach to 03:23:491 (1) - without it looking ugly.
12. 04:04:891 (4,5) - I'd move 04:04:977 (5) - in slightly, maybe ctrl+g if you wanted to. I don't have a problem with this personally.
13. 04:07:891 (3,1) - 04:08:234 (1) - should be hypered to here 04:07:891 (3) - is the weakest of the triplet sliders and much weaker than 04:08:234 (1) - but you hyper to that. I'd suggest what I said about the previous one.
14. 04:24:520 (1,2) - Hyper to 04:24:691 (2) - and 04:24:862 (3) - or remove your hyper to 04:25:034 (4) - here. The symmetry of 04:24:862 (3,4) - suggests a grouping of their key notes, but 04:24:862 (3) - is not hypered to so it is rather confusing.
15. 04:39:262 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - 04:39:262 (3) - shouldn't be 1/4, the tail is a very small pitch change that reverts back to the head, meaning 04:39:434 (4) - should be grouped with it. 04:39:605 (1,2) - should be a 1/2 slider, I have no idea what the tail of 04:39:605 (1) - is doing. 04:39:863 (3) - is a ghost note and is haunting the map. 04:39:948 (4,5) - should also be a 1/2 slider. and 04:40:206 (6) - is also a spooky ghost. Thats what I got from listening here, not much 1/4 to map unless you overmap.
    

JBHyperion wrote:

Some concerns:

Destiny

1. 00:19:291 (4,5,6) - 00:19:977 (4,5,6) - Why are these chained 1/4 hypers? The only strong sounds here are the following snare+cymbals at 00:19:720 (1) and 00:20:405 (1) - by hypering these additional weak sounds you take emphasis away from the strong sounds and are left with an exaggerated pattern with unfitting flow - For 00:19:291 (4,5,6) - atleast, this will give a kinda empathizment for the vocals, and also fits thanks to the beat at the next combo. 00:20:062 (5,6) - for these, it follows the vocals. And i do find these ok to have here.
2. 00:24:691 (2,1,2) - Short antiflow pattern after rapid flow reversal is awkward to play, would be better to have (2) to the left of (1) or else remove a direction change element by mapping three circles in a line instead of a repeat slider - Awkward to play? THis is not awkward at all, lol. These are perfectly fine to have here, as you got more than enough time to react for the reverse.
3. 00:30:348 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^ - ^
4. 00:33:091 (1,2,3,4) - The strongest sounds in this section and you map a single 4plet when all previous weaker sounds were pairs of 1/4 hdash? Doesn't make sense to me, the emphasis is reversed here in and I don't understand why - I do kinda agree with you. But it does also fit. I do not find this to be any problem tho.
5. 01:10:120 (6,1) - 01:11:662 (8,1) - 01:14:234 (6,1) - etc. Any reason why you decided not to hyper here? There are strong vocal and synth sounds to justify them, and it feels weird that you mapped the exact same sounds from 01:20:062 (1) onwards with frequent hdash... Some sections feel really underemphasized at present, notably 01:17:834 (4,5,1) - - I do agree with how koli mapped this. 01:09:091 (1) - 01:19:720 (7) - , the music is way too calm for hdash here, and i know it is the same music/level for 01:20:062 (1) - 01:27:262 (2) - , but it fits much better with HDash on the last part, due to empathizment for the change that follows. So this is completely fine to have.
6. 01:53:234 (2,3,1) - Why no hyper to (1) when you have one to (3) which is far weaker? Artificially carrying on this pattern at the expense of proper emphasis is unfitting and lazy. Same can be seen at 01:58:720 (2,3,1) - etc. - This do empathize the song correctly imo. There is really no strong sound in between the notes that say "high distance". Between 01:58:462 (1,2,3) - etc, there is a constant sound, but when it transitions from 01:58:977 (3,1) - , there is no sound. Thus it does not fit high distance.
7. 02:03:948 (1,2,3) - and similar play really awkwardly due to requiring delicate antiflow dash after a strong 1/4 hyper. I get what you were trying to do here but it doesn't really work, since you end up emphasizing the tail of (2) way more than necessary with that normal dash. A more normal flow where dash isn't required e.g. 02:01:205 (1,2,3) - plays so much better - Looking at this, it does play fine, and i do not personaly find it awkward at all. The antiflow here is not hard at all too hit, and the tail of (2) does not get too much empathizm imo. And i think it fits the song.
8. 02:09:434 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Your hdash patterns follow the synth for this combo, but for the rest of the stream follows the drums - why when the synth is still really strong here? I was expecting 02:10:462 (4,5,1) - 02:11:662 (3,4,5) - to have the emphasis for some interesting flow but you just switched right back to the drums randomly when the synth is prominent making the patterns hard to follow. I'd prefer to follow synth until 02:12:177 (1) and then switch to the drums once the 1/4 rhythm really kicks in there - I can tell that the stream part is very easy. And i find it interesting to play. It is not weird or anything. 02:09:434 (1,2,3) - 02:09:691 (4,5,6) - follows the synth, 02:10:634 (5,1,2) - this is to empathize new combo, and then 02:11:234 (5,6,2,3,5,1) - follows the synth again, and so do the rest. This is fine to have.
9. 02:14:920 - Ok so most of the vocal patterns in the kiai are all horizontal sliders with hdash that can be caught by just holding dash, which is really lacking in variety for the part of the song you seem to want to emphasize the most (the kiai). There are a lot of great vocal rhythms you could have layered in here to make this more interesting along with some variation in slidershape - She have empethized the correct parts of the kiai the right way. Whatsoever if most is horizontal? It is still fun and interesting to play. The flow here is pretty good too. And i find every pattern to fit.
10. 03:16:634 (1,2,3,4,1) - Jump parity makes little sense to me here, why emphasize 03:17:148 (4) with a hdash when the strong vocal and cymbal sound 03:17:320 (1) gets a lacklustre (and uncomfortable) walking pattern? Same thing happens at 03:17:662 (3,4,1) - your hdash is much stronger to an average-strength vocal sound than it is to the intense 03:18:005 (1) - such that following the rhythm is very confusing here - The vocals hits on 03:16:805 (2,4) - thus making it fit here. And the pattern is not awkward to walk at all, i do find it quite fun and interesting as a matter of fact. The strong hyper at 03:17:834 (4,1) - Do make the strong sound fit. And i do not see any problem with it at all.
11. 03:23:491 (1) - Same concerns about missing hypers as in the previous verse 01:10:120 (6,1) etc. - This is still too weak for hyper imo..
12. 04:04:891 (4,5) - 04:05:577 (4,5) - Care to explain your decision behind these direction changes, and also why (5) is forced up against the screen border? This movement is really unexpected and results in a harsh flowstop as the catcher is forced against the wall - The harsh stop here against the wall actually helps to gain control to move the other direction. Making this a valid part to have imo.
13. 04:07:891 (3,1) - 04:13:377 (3,1) - etc. Same as 01:53:234 (2,3,1) previously since this is copypaste and suffers from the same issues - Same as the other parts.
14. 04:13:120 (2,3) - 04:15:862 (2,3) - etc. Same as 02:03:948 (1,2,3) except issue displaced to (2,3) instead of (1,2) - Same as the other parts.
15. 04:24:520 (1,2) - Your synth emphasis is better here than in the previous pre-kiai stream, but you're missing a hdash between these two to follow the music since (3,4) are comparably strong with hypers. 04:25:977 (9,1,2) - Could also support a hyper pattern if you wished for consistency
16. 04:29:320 - Same concerns as in the previous kiai 02:14:920 - This is different, which is good. Every strong sound does not need a hyper either, and i think she did pretty well here.
17. 04:39:262 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - There are no 1/4 beats in the music, nor vocal effects to support the inclusion of these extra beats - OMFG YES THERE ARE XD I can hear them. The synth has a electric effect that is 1/4..
18. 04:53:320 (3,4,5,6,7) - What are the 1/4 beats following here? Aside from 05:01:548 (1) - I don't hear any 1/4 sounds in this section at all until 05:07:034 (2) leaving this feeling very forced - This is overmapped yes, but it kinda fits imo. Up to mapper what to do here, but i dont see any problem.

As a whole I just feel like the map is really overdone. The song doesn't call for such strong hypers and harsh flow throughout, and some overmapping is extremely obvious. I'd like to see some more opinions on this before ranking.

Riari wrote:

This has nothing to do with style.

Ascendance wrote:

Riari wrote:

This has nothing to do with style.

Let me rephrase it: There's nothing wrong with the mapset. Someone points out things that they dislike, none of which is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The mapper declines everything because they feel it's fine the way it is. Map gets DQ'd anyways and now we're back to square 1, changing minor things on a mapset that was fine. We're basically DQ'ing things for little to no change in this sense, since the reply was made pre-DQ and everything the mapper said was justified.

Dewritos-0 wrote:

Who disqualified this

CLSW wrote:

Well actually the 1/4 rhythms exist in the part 04:51:262 (1) - from 05:07:634 - , but koli's current usage was too random, I found some many of the objects were placed on wrong spots.

Here is the ideal snap of this :
and repeat.

The objects on white tick which were placed between the streams don't represent the main electronic sounds, but there's bass kick instead so it's okay.

I'd like to recommend to use streams without hyperdashes because its 1/4 sounds were really low.

Razor Sharp wrote:

still dq? wtf?

• Destiny

1. 01:02:062 (7) - 01:02:577 (3) - This stream part here, i find it a little weird too play due to iregular spacing. I would recommend having the same spacing for the 2 first notes (slider spacing), then gradualy increasing the distance by 2 grids. sureee changed, now there is an hyper to follow the vocal, i dont even know why i removed it o.O
2. 02:04:462 (3,3) - ctrl+g these maybe? I feel like the melody calls for a little antiflow at these. welp it plays exactly the same xD but sure it is a nice change for aesthetic
3. 04:03:091 (6,1,2,3,4) - This transition is kinda uncomfortable to play. And i do not see the song call for a antiflow stream jump here. Change it maybe? mmh ok why not, changed
   
   
   Rest seems fine.

Thats all i can find honestly.
Good luck!

JBHyperion wrote:

You might wanna recheck and award kudosu to mod posts during qualified, since you made changes.