Won't say anything more then. Good luck to the 3 nominators that you've just plunged into a terrible situation.

Like I said, there are other "technically unrankable" elements that have next to no impact in terms of playability. It doesn't mean we can just rank maps with unrankable elements.

Other unrankable elements without any harm to playability

-x pixels offscreen slider-ends / sliderborders
-burai's that are only overlapping by x pixels
-using red lines to reduce SV
-editing notepad to use two-decimal CS/AR/HP/OD

Just to name a few. I'm sure there are others, but i don't have my Aspire thinking cap on right now.



You guys are arguing that the sliders are playable. They probably are, Shiirn made a good case for playability through reaction times etc... An element being playable doesn't make it rankable though. People have to respect the RC. If mappers are allowed to break the rules, then why should everyone else respect the rules? Do you guys plan on promoting other unrankable but playable elements in the future? As much as I love unrankable elements (woo Aspire) I think we still need to respect the Ranking Criteria currently in place. It's dated, and we know that it's getting replaced soon enough. Wait for the new RC to be finalized and then we can revisit whether unrankable elements like this can become rankable.

Ascendance wrote:

Won't say anything more then. Good luck to the 3 nominators that you've just plunged into a terrible situation.

R.I.P. Xexxar: 2016-2016

Those are all literally gamebreaking mechanics. They literally break the game by causing it to act unpredictably and unusually.

And pixels offscreen is more of a global aesthetic rule, just like skin requirements.

There are plenty of rankable self-overlapping sliders out there. I threw this together in five seconds and it's a fairly common shape for wub maps.


This map setting a precedent is the major valid argument against it, however, and I applaud that you're going that route instead of Ascendance's "rules are rules" diatribe. That's why it's in qualified for discussion at all. If enough people agree with you, it should be taken down. But only you and Ascendance have spoken against them thus far for the sake of blocking it to avoid it setting a precedent. And Sahuang made a post, i guess. But I hesitate to count people who just spit out "rules are rules". So only really you count, Monstrata.



If enough people think this map should be stopped to avoid it being easier for future maps to "break the rules by saying 'But Shiirn's map did it!'", in a mapping community that already immediately discards said other maps from being used as justification, then that's cool. Cool beans for you.


But it's not good enough for me, and apparently not good enough for a few other people.

"Maps should be judged on a case-by-case basis" has been a concept that's been around for far longer than any of us have. And it's a very good concept. I distinctly remember Lesjuh having something far worse than this in his Freestyler map, and it had tons of discussion as well. I'm not comparing myself to Lesjuh as a mapper or the situations at all, but I'm just saying this isn't the first time this has happened.

Xexxar wrote:

Ascendance wrote:

Won't say anything more then. Good luck to the 3 nominators that you've just plunged into a terrible situation.

R.I.P. Xexxar: 2016-2016

Kek.

Shiirn has valid points for bringing this to the qualified section and a lot of people (beside us 3 BNs, and even including QATs) agree on it. And since the qualified section is made for discussions I don't really see a problem at all here. Every QAT can easily DQ it if he wants to. Sure Shiirn could have made a proposal (or whatever it's called) but I don't remember that anything there has been accepted (might be because I'm new to mapping still).

Including QATs? I'm not so sure about that one The point is you've NOMINATED AN UNRANKABLE MAP, regardless of how Shiirn wants to put it, the map is unrankable. It's against the rules of the BNG and I'm sure you're 100% aware of that, since you read those rules, right?

Ascendance wrote:

Including QATs? I'm not so sure about that one The point is you've NOMINATED AN UNRANKABLE MAP, regardless of how Shiirn wants to put it, the map is unrankable. It's against the rules of the BNG and I'm sure you're 100% aware of that, since you read those rules, right?

Rules are meant to be broken anyways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Monstrata used a wiggle in Hey kids!! too to slow down a slider even though it's against the RC, isn't it?

But anyway, let's wait for more opinions or a QAT who doesn't want this map to be pushed forward.

Stjpa wrote:

Monstrata used a wiggle in Hey kids!! too to slow down a slider even though it's against the RC, isn't it?

methinks that the issue here isnt about the wiggle sliders. i think its because that some sliders such as this one forcibly slows down the slider. isnt that the unrankable one?

for convenience, i believe that this slider is the one stjpa is talking about.

Anxient wrote:

methinks that the issue here isnt about the wiggle sliders. i think its because that some sliders such as this one forcibly slows down the slider. isnt that the unrankable one?

for convenience, i believe that this slider is the one stjpa is talking about.

Yup, basically this. On this map, the slider is burai and undetectable until after it has happened. The monstrata one is obvious because of the sliderborder and shape

"Slows down" for all of 170 milliseconds. Literally faster than AR11. It's purely a visual effect. Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Stjpa wrote:

Monstrata used a wiggle in Hey kids!! too to slow down a slider even though it's against the RC, isn't it?

But anyway, let's wait for more opinions or a QAT who doesn't want this map to be pushed forward.

Hey, that's not even relevant, maps are judged on a case-by-case basis.

Anyways, wiggle sliders are game breaking mechanics too, Shiirn. But they can be done in a way to be perfectly playable. It doesn't excuse their unrankability .

after reading some of the discussion on this thread, i have some suggestions myself.

a lot of the arguments presented seem to revolve around the ranking criteria and the inability to break it. and arguments regarding a "case-by-case basis" are somewhat invalid at this point because those only relate to Ranking Guidelines.

Guidelines wrote:

Guidelines are important and should be followed in most maps. However, they are NOT rules, so they may be broken in special cases. If you want to break a guideline, ask yourself this: Does what I'm about to do make sense? Is it more fun to play like this compared to sticking to the guidelines? If you answer yes to both these questions, then it is probably okay.

i do have to agree that these sliders are perfectly fine and without it the map would feel hollow, but unfortunately in the current state of the ranking criteria, it does remain unrankable. which why i restate ascendance's point, of bringing this up with the criteria council in attempt to move the rule from the criteria to the guidelines. this allows for "case-by-case analysis" to be employed and makes arguments such as "rules are rules" invalid.

you may also point out the large amount of biased opinions that get thrown around which is why i encourage for the criteria council to take a non-biased approach to this proposal and disregard the thought of "shiirn changing the rules to rank his map", if that has even been brought up. consider the proposal was suggested by a random community member, and then promoted by another random group of people. no drama.

from my point of view, allowing for this kind of leniency in the ruleset is healthy for the future of osu! and allows mappers to push the limits of the editor like shiirn has done here. this allows for nominators to make the decision on whether or not the gimmick can be justified, and if it fulfills the reason's that guidelines exist.

at a look, it would be completely fine to somebody with some common sense

we just have to see whether its fine to break the RC for this

/me whispers case-by-case is a thing even when breaking the RC

The only thing I would agree on would be changing the slidershape of the looping one.

If I'm not wrong, these sliders 01:14:749 (3)- , 01:20:903 (3)- and 01:27:057 (3)- doesn't have their speed changed exactly in the middle of them because of the *wiggled* part of the slider?I know that changing the speed in the middle of the slider is forbidden.
Also, in 00:18:210 (1,2)- Maybe CTRL+G? You're using mostly 1/1 slider + note rhythm and not note + 1/1 slider.1/1 slider + note would work better plus for the sake of consistency.
00:43:980 (1)- I think you don't need the NC here.00:37:826 (3)- doesn't have the NC and this note is pretty similar with that one *they are placed on the same piano sound*.
Throwing my 2 cents only.

welp, since there is no consensus about these sliders between people who can qualify/disqualify maps i believe it's time to ask ppy :^)

personally i don't really like this slider being there 07:23:018 (1) - because the way the one before the break is set up it feels like it'd end the map (it'd also end the map on a more intense note)
not dq-worthy issue, just personal shit

u kinda need to have a seizure mid-slider to actually break on these t b h (but the issue is the rc being broken so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

Do people even read the thread?

Edit: The sentence above probably sounds passive-aggressive, but it's not supposed to be.

@Stjpa Of course not we're here to meme, what did you think osu! was all about. It's about friends and family coming along together to tilt over every little thing, the tone used in all these posts baffle me, but I don't have a say in this so I'll just kick back and enjoy myself

stjpa lul

complaining about people not reading when he couldn't even read the ranking criteria to see things are unrankable O:O:O:O:

Please don't shame modders for not reading the thread, especially when it's not a realistic expectation. Ideally people will read the thread before posting, but that's not reasonable especially if a modder is just taking a quick look and mentioning stuff they found to be needing improvement. We shouldn't have to require modders to read through 8 pages of drama and discussion. They may not be adding to the discussion, but they still show that other people aren't fine with those patterns. The numbers will still matter. Modding v2 will hopefully fix some of this but until then, you have to deal with this.


Okay, lets wait for a QAT.

Stjpa wrote:

/me whispers case-by-case is a thing even when breaking the RC

since when o-o

lo i've read dw

Irreversible wrote:

I just have one simple question.

If something isn't allowed by the rules, why is this approved? As you said yourself, the new RC isn't in effect yet, so this theoretically is unrankable. 10/10

idk if this was adressed yet but loctav said that there is no point of waiting on others and letting that take over your thinking when we mentioned that we wanted to wait for the new rc to come out to handle this

I've been talking about several inconsistencies in this map, but never really told you what I mean with that. I decided to spend some time to list some up.

01:20:133 (1,2) - Why have you decided to make this slider, and none of the rest? I do not quite hear anything that supports this in the song - could as well be two circles, right?
01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Considering that the strong beat is on the white tick here, this is pretty counterintuitive. If you let all the sliders end on red, it still follows what you intended to follow, but it supports the strong beats better.
02:17:730 (3,4,5,1) - That spacing is really just something. You have higher spacing on 1/8 than on the 1/4. And then it gets higher again. Why?
02:25:710 (3,1) - You never really used that kind of antijump, so why have you decided for one here?
02:55:903 (1,2,3,1,2) - What's that increase in spacing? The song literally stays the same.
03:03:403 (2,3) - That's pretty much the same as 01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -
03:04:749 (1,2,3) - Why are these in one pattern? The piano starts on 2, but it connects with 3 and 1... this is not really correct if you ask me.
03:07:056 (3) - According to your logic (03:05:903 (4) -) this should be higher spacing. The whole part can be checked for that.
03:27:890 (1,2,1) - Why 1/6 and 1/4? And the spacing is heavily increased at points, why?
03:46:095 (3) - This wiggle now really doesn't make sense. The sound is just as subtle as it could be..
04:05:518 (1,2,3) - Again, this patterning is weird. Slider end of 1 does not go with 2 musically.
05:40:326 (1) - I mean, so far you've only used smooth sliders how comes that you randomly decide to use a super special slider now? It would be really nice if you could accentuate the same sounds with similar stuff, especially in this part it could become a really nice effect. Right now, there is different sliders for everything which kind of defeats the purpose..
06:08:018 (3) - There is one slider that end on a red tick, but this and some others end on blue, why?

Other issues:

01:01:672 (1,1) - Why does this need two NCs?
01:27:057 (3) - Imo that slider would look better if it had the same distance around the starting point. http://puu.sh/qT9Om/5135a73485.jpg (pretty optional)
02:30:566 (1) - I think someone could try fixing the mp3, so this doesn't have to be so weirdly unsnapped.
04:18:980 (2) - A NC would be beneficial here since it's a new part.


I know, there are a lot of why questions, but this basically should help me understanding why you do these things, because for me and some others it simply doesn't make sense and it's odd to me, that it wasn't pointed out (it seems). I haven't pointed out all things because I want to see how it goes, but this should definitely give you an idea.

Hope we can clear things up.

hi~

Irre raised some points which should be discussed imo.
additionally to that post i can't really tell if 02:30:566 (1) - isnt supposed to be ending on 02:30:550 -
02:17:730 (3) - shouldnt this end on 02:17:954 - ? i'm pretty unsure about this but 1/8 sounds late, additionally agreeing that spacing can be super misleading here as it somehow indicates 02:17:730 (3,4) - are 1/4 apart while they arent
03:27:890 (1) - i think sliderend actually sounds late, a thing around 03:28:435 - sounds more accurate... to me at least but then again it's late so im not too sure on this call. for this issue in particular
06:04:941 (3) - shouldnt this be same length as 06:08:018 (3) - 06:11:095 (3) - 06:14:172 (3) - cuz same sound

Irreversible wrote:

I've been talking about several inconsistencies in this map, but never really told you what I mean with that. I decided to spend some time to list some up.

01:20:133 (1,2) - Why have you decided to make this slider, and none of the rest? I do not quite hear anything that supports this in the song - could as well be two circles, right? Honestly, this is grumd's bit. I initially had the idea for vibrations during the bass, grumd made the actual entire section except for the ending, 01:29:845 (4,5,6,1,2,3,1) - is what I did. I was going to change them to circles, but this screwed over the storyboard and Nephroid was unavailable to change it at all, and nobody I knew could change the SB, and I couldn't figure out heads from tails with it, so I left it.
01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Considering that the strong beat is on the white tick here, this is pretty counterintuitive. If you let all the sliders end on red, it still follows what you intended to follow, but it supports the strong beats better. Man you really hate offbeats. This fits better in my mind. If it doesn't fit better in yours, well, that's just unfortunate. I find that consistent offbeats provide the player with a more suiting feeling for the "cascading melody" musical pattern better than following the simply louder beats.
02:17:730 (3,4,5,1) - That spacing is really just something. You have higher spacing on 1/8 than on the 1/4. And then it gets higher again. Why? 02:18:018 (4,5,1) - Is a firm triple. They need to be together, closely. They're individually separate from the held note of 02:17:730 (3) - (which technically ends at the same time as the first beat of the triple, which is why it's 1/8 and doesn't end on the blue tick), as well as 02:18:595 (1) - being the start of a new measure both technically and musically, so the increased spacing between the two sliders is totally normal, if you ask me.
02:25:710 (3,1) - You never really used that kind of antijump, so why have you decided for one here? For the past few measures, and the measures afterwards, there's pretty much always a growl or wub or distortion connecting beats to one another. This the 1/2 duration where they are weakest. you can barely here the distortion on 02:25:710 (3) - 's beat, so I simply made it a circle rather than a slider, and the "anti-jump" just fell into place from there. I don't look at the distance snap of notes to determine where they should go. I simply consider what kind of impact I want the player to feel when they move to the next note - This "anti-jump" is barely noticeable while playing but suits the feeling of it being the weakest beat of the entire section.
02:55:903 (1,2,3,1,2) - What's that increase in spacing? The song literally stays the same. 1/1 spacing at this level, as long as it isn't cross-screen, literally doesn't matter. The heavily increased spacing is also an indicator that "not the entire section is going to be really small movements". The music has 1/1 sections that extend for quite a while, but this one is interposed with various glitchy musical patterns. I'm not going to say that this was a concious choice, but it makes sense in retrospect to have a noticeably bigger bit of spacing that doesn't actually qualify as a jump.
03:03:403 (2,3) - That's pretty much the same as 01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Same response. I prefer using offbeat start sliders to better represent "cascading melodies". The fact that there are both on and off-beat sliders here is due to the "cascading" being a bit more unpredictable and not a straight downwards trend like the previous one.
03:04:749 (1,2,3) - Why are these in one pattern? The piano starts on 2, but it connects with 3 and 1... this is not really correct if you ask me. 03:05:903 (4) - This needs to be alone due to the stick clap, and it's better to connect the nearby three notes into a pattern than to have one and two seperate notes just spilling about randomly.
03:07:056 (3) - According to your logic (03:05:903 (4) -) this should be higher spacing. The whole part can be checked for that. I'm sorry, I don't hear the stick clap at 03:07:057 - . It's also present at 03:12:057 (1) - (which, coincidentally, is already spaced due to it being a new set of three, thanks sakuraburst). The only mistake I might have made here is that I didn't hitsound them with soft claps like I did for the post-lugia area but they'd be excessively loud here anyway.
03:27:890 (1,2,1) - Why 1/6 and 1/4? And the spacing is heavily increased at points, why? Like Monstrata said, sakuraburst just ripped the lugia theme from the movie proper, the timing is going to be iffy no matter what you do. These are good approximations and the flow between the sliders and notes works fine. (This is also mostly Liiraye's contribution. I modified the sliders to play better and abuse OD mechanics. Monstrata is very familiar with using a single bpm on a map that goes slightly off-timed (cough, supercell), and at the time I disagreed but I've come to understand his viewpoint about just making sure it's playable and comfortable by keeping the same BPM so that the player can mentally keep time in their own head as to when they need to click the notes.
03:46:095 (3) - This wiggle now really doesn't make sense. The sound is just as subtle as it could be.. Subtle, but enough for liiraye to put a wiggle there. *shrug* I don't know why you're obsessing over this.
04:05:518 (1,2,3) - Again, this patterning is weird. Slider end of 1 does not go with 2 musically. I felt that the last note should be held in regards to the beginning of a new section. I decided to have it end at the proper place you would have a click because I could not have all three of "Have a click at 04:06:287 - , Have a hold start at 04:05:518 - , and have the slider end at a point that is either suitable or makes sense". So I decided to sacrifice the click at 04:06:287 - so that I could have a hold instead. This was a conscious decision, for sure.
05:40:326 (1) - I mean, so far you've only used smooth sliders how comes that you randomly decide to use a super special slider now? It would be really nice if you could accentuate the same sounds with similar stuff, especially in this part it could become a really nice effect. Right now, there is different sliders for everything which kind of defeats the purpose.. idk what parts you've been looking at but i'm pretty sure it's clear the sliders get progressively weirder over time...
06:08:018 (3) - There is one slider that end on a red tick, but this and some others end on blue, why? I was confused as to what you meant until I actually found the only actual red-tick-ending slider of this relevant beat. It's 06:04:941 (3) - , by the way. 06:06:864 (1) - Is much more subdued and does not have the extremely harsh crash introduction, so it ending later simply makes it distinct. 06:04:941 (3) - can be called a legitimate oversight, it should be a 3/4 slider. Something must have happened to it along the way, I don't remember it being 1/1 nor the sliderpoint extending so far down south. If it was 3/4 at that point, it'd also be close to ending in the crux of the first bend of 06:03:787 (1) - , which is probably what it was going for.

Other issues:

01:01:672 (1,1) - Why does this need two NCs? why not, they're both very significant beats, and are very independent
01:27:057 (3) - Imo that slider would look better if it had the same distance around the starting point. http://puu.sh/qT9Om/5135a73485.jpg (pretty optional) Considering grumd yelled at me for even moving one node of his finished sliders a tiny bit, I'd rather leave them alone.
02:30:566 (1) - I think someone could try fixing the mp3, so this doesn't have to be so weirdly unsnapped. #blamesakuraburst
04:18:980 (2) - A NC would be beneficial here since it's a new part. There was't a new combo at 04:05:518 (1,2,3) - tho and the same concept is used here??? :eyes:


I know, there are a lot of why questions, but this basically should help me understanding why you do these things, because for me and some others it simply doesn't make sense and it's odd to me, that it wasn't pointed out (it seems). I haven't pointed out all things because I want to see how it goes, but this should definitely give you an idea.

Hope we can clear things up.

I hope I was clear. I know we have extremely different views on how mapping should be done, and if it helps I actually do understand where you're coming from with your concepts of consistency and adherence to the raw structure of the music, I just.... disagree with them and feel that the pros of creative expression on the part of the mapper, and manipulating game concepts (as a simple example, my use of offbeat sliders even though they end on a "stronger beat") to provide a different experience for the player (offbeat slider patterns cause the player to feel different from on-beat) outweigh the cons that are associated with them (hard to pin down logically, sometimes very confusing from just looking at the editor).

The only things I'd be okay with fixing up pending a DQ (And help getting it back on track would be an instant "okay sure I can fix a lot of the minor stuff", after all) are

1. the slider at 06:04:941 (3) - (should be 3/4)
2. adding claps, possibly custom, to the stick claps at 03:05:903 - and 03:12:057 -
3. cleaning up those green inherited sections

Okorin wrote:

hi~

Irre raised some points which should be discussed imo.
additionally to that post i can't really tell if 02:30:566 (1) - isnt supposed to be ending on 02:30:550 - #blamesakuraburst, these are accurate
02:17:730 (3) - shouldnt this end on 02:17:954 - ? i'm pretty unsure about this but 1/8 sounds late, additionally agreeing that spacing can be super misleading here as it somehow indicates 02:17:730 (3,4) - are 1/4 apart while they arent Went over this in irre's mod. I'll change it to 1/4 if necessary, but I'm still saying I disagree.
03:27:890 (1) - i think sliderend actually sounds late, a thing around 03:28:435 - sounds more accurate... to me at least but then again it's late so im not too sure on this call. for this issue in particular I'm not confident in my timing skills due to poor hardware, if you want to help me pin it down, I'll be glad to go over it.
06:04:941 (3) - shouldnt this be same length as 06:08:018 (3) - 06:11:095 (3) - 06:14:172 (3) - cuz same sound This is one of the things I mentioned I'd be happy to change.

lowering spacing like 02:16:480 (4,5) - may help for 02:17:730 (3,4) - then?

I mean, the concept there was that 02:16:480 (4,5) - is very much the "same sound", it just snaps at the end, while 02:18:018 (4,5,1) - is a very distinct triple and 02:17:730 (3) - is only extended because the hold it's meant to represent is a full 3/4s of a beat rather than 1/2. If you just individually look at them both as "sliders that end on the 1/8th tick before the next circle" then yeah it's not going to make sense but that's because you're missing the content and context around it.

Quotations marked in Green have been accepted post-disqualification. Explanations follow as seen fit. This does mean, yes, I was bullshitting a couple of points ("bullshitting" being a popular lingo for "stretching reasoning", for better and worse) to stave off a potential DQ. Like many other mappers do. So please don't punch me. Anything but the belt Irreversible!

Shiirn wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

I've been talking about several inconsistencies in this map, but never really told you what I mean with that. I decided to spend some time to list some up.

01:20:133 (1,2) - Why have you decided to make this slider, and none of the rest? I do not quite hear anything that supports this in the song - could as well be two circles, right? Changed to two circles. Will figure out the SB situation before requalification.
01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Considering that the strong beat is on the white tick here, this is pretty counterintuitive. If you let all the sliders end on red, it still follows what you intended to follow, but it supports the strong beats better. Irreversible mentioned that "the only spot i was making sense was on the offbeats" so I'm assuming that means he's okay with me denying these.
02:17:730 (3,4,5,1) - That spacing is really just something. You have higher spacing on 1/8 than on the 1/4. And then it gets higher again. Why? Changed the slider to end on blue tick for relevant consistency. It's not worth decreasing the spacing, as that hampers the independence of the triple, so I figure shortening the slider is a good middle ground.
02:25:710 (3,1) - You never really used that kind of antijump, so why have you decided for one here? Ctrl+G'd 02:25:903 (1) - to increase the spacing, and ctrl+g'd 2 as well to maintain the patterning, just flipped, of the previous combo. This solves any spacing-related issues neatly. I still think the anti-jump was more in line with my original reasoning, but I'll cave under pressure here.
02:55:903 (1,2,3,1,2) - What's that increase in spacing? The song literally stays the same. I still think that the actual spacing used wasn't of any particular negative influence, but this is one of those things where it's like "well yeah fine sure". But that kind of thing isn't something you just go "Well yeah, let's DQ the map and go through the entire process and spend everyone's time again requalifying over this". At least, I don't. Please don't punch me.
03:03:403 (2,3) - That's pretty much the same as 01:48:018 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Same response as above
03:04:749 (1,2,3) - Why are these in one pattern? The piano starts on 2, but it connects with 3 and 1... this is not really correct if you ask me. I'll figure this out later, it'll probably need a bit more than a "move note five pixels" solution and I don't want to change it haphazardly.
03:07:056 (3) - According to your logic (03:05:903 (4) -) this should be higher spacing. The whole part can be checked for that. This still follows proper in-map logic and consistency, if you're looking at it from the proper way (stick claps being the changing force, rather than basic measure-based pattern changes)
03:27:890 (1,2,1) - Why 1/6 and 1/4? And the spacing is heavily increased at points, why? Will need to go over this later.
03:46:095 (3) - This wiggle now really doesn't make sense. The sound is just as subtle as it could be.. Still don't know what you're exactly saying by this. Should this juts be straight? I think the wiggle is fine.
04:05:518 (1,2,3) - Again, this patterning is weird. Slider end of 1 does not go with 2 musically. Since this choice happens twice, it's internally consistent, even if some people disagree with it. And I honestly like it more this way.
05:40:326 (1) - I mean, so far you've only used smooth sliders how comes that you randomly decide to use a super special slider now? It would be really nice if you could accentuate the same sounds with similar stuff, especially in this part it could become a really nice effect. Right now, there is different sliders for everything which kind of defeats the purpose.. idk what parts you've been looking at but i'm pretty sure it's clear the sliders get progressively weirder over time...
06:08:018 (3) - There is one slider that end on a red tick, but this and some others end on blue, why? This has been fixed.

Other issues:

01:01:672 (1,1) - Why does this need two NCs? See referendum: "Sure, whatever" changes.
01:27:057 (3) - Imo that slider would look better if it had the same distance around the starting point. http://puu.sh/qT9Om/5135a73485.jpg (pretty optional) Still avoiding touching this slider..
02:30:566 (1) - I think someone could try fixing the mp3, so this doesn't have to be so weirdly unsnapped. Still #blamesakuraburst
04:18:980 (2) - A NC would be beneficial here since it's a new part. Still consistent with the other time this happened. New combo is used beforehand. Reasoning can be "Very end has a new combo and the new section doesn't want a new combo start at the red tick after it starts".

Okorin's post basically went over the same stuff Irreversible did.

Map will not be updated for a few hours, I'm really hungry. fetish pointed out it'd be weird to eat for four hours because it'd make me look like a fat american so i'll actually come out and say that i'll be enjoying some anime and visual novels instead

you should try play Never7 -The End of Infinity-

i actually did to be honest. Also Ever17 was one of my first reads and def top 10 in my favorite stories of all time


the fact that the entire fuckign plot was only adequately explained in an obscure bad ending pissed the ever living shit out of me


i'll never(7 hahaha) forget how fucking confused i was when the nadeshiko bitch holding the baby suddenly went fucking all berserker and then the story just fucking ENDED on the first playthrough



btw spoilers



I've read pretty much every single english visual novel worth reading (and a bunch that aren't, tbh) Check out them votes fam, 50 votes per page, 260 votes total.

can you suggest me sum shit with really good twist what make me feel mindfucked?

If you haven't read Sharin no Kuni - Himawari no Shoujo, it's got one or two really, really, really good twist(s), but otherwise it's a bit plain

Root Double is basically Ever17 except more modern and with a less psuedo-science bullshit theme (In that it's a lot more obvious that it's psuedo-science bullshit and doesn't try to pretend it's realistic like ever17 does) and has a pretty twist-filled plot (Although you start to expect the twists)

Steins;Gate doesn't really have many major twists, at least, they're more "holy shit it got worse" moments rather than "how did i not notice all this foreshadowing" twisting

And of course you can't forget Umineko, which is basically twist town. but you don't go into multi-million word stories just because you want "sum good shit", umineko takes some dedication to get through.

Little Busters! has a couple major twists but they're somewhat spoiled by the fact that they're basically the "It was His Sled" type of spoilers - if you see any sort of discussion about the story at all, you'll run into a spoiler. And also from KEY, Rewrite has some good ones. I literally almost threw up during Kotori's route because that shit was just disturbing.

There are a few more i'm sure but that's most of the good ones off the top of my head.



And to keep shit on topic, I've gone over the slow bits near the beginning and added/fixed up some hitsounding and aesthetic oversights. Real tiny shit.

thanks dud

first time seeing vn advice in a beatmap topic

hit me up if u want any vn advice fam