RoseusJaeger wrote:

Okay, I have some concerns. Most of what I'm concerned about was on Salad and Platter.

Ascembomb's Platter

I do have concerns when it comes to the density of h-dashes in this difficulty but it's overlap that is the biggie for me on this one.
00:01:555 (3,1) - Two problems here. One, This border overlap on slider (1) is extremely obvious to the player and does not flow right for map to be rankable. Overlap like this can confuse the player with the sudden stopping of the fruit catcher and also messes with the flow of the vocal. Two, the h-dash is too much emphasis for what a basic dash could convey and also eliminate the first problem. I don't want a basic dash because of the strong emphasis on the vocal (which I've done in all diffs), as well as my finisher for the artificial additional emphasis. Realistically, I could lower the hdash distance by up to 3 grids at maximum before it becomes a pixel dash, so even though it's closer to the border than normal (Though well in the range of rankability and also within the approved guidelines), it doesn't impact gameplay enough for me to warrant a change.

Response is fair, I agree a hdash is warranted here and only the extreme of the curve (1) touches the border. The hdash distance could be reduced as mentioned, slightly improving this, but this depends on the playstyle of the player and is quite minor.

00:04:150 (3,1) – Again, border note is really obvious, too much emphasis and the h-dash itself seems overspaced. Normally I'd say yes because of 00:04:150 (3) - this note being at x:0, but since there's 1/1 spacing and a wait between 00:03:501 (2,3) - , it's 100% fine. Also the distance is only like .30x more than the previous one you pointed out, and not even the biggest hdash I have in the map

The wait you mentioned is the exact reason why this is a problem. The transition from a flowstop 1/1 with hardly any spacing (for what reason?), right on the screen border into an unexpectedly strong hyperdash is very jarring and uncomfortable to play. The screenshot I linked provides an alternative that results in better flow and more consistent patterning.

00:56:041 (3,1) – I thought h-dashes into anti-flow were not allowed in Platters anymore. The slider may be curved but when playing this appears as anti-flow. The incline and curve is there to keep it's original intent of an antiflow slider, but is soft enough to where I can't call it an anti-flow slider anymore. It would be the same if I made a 1/1 vertical slider and added a circle to the right at 00:56:689 - , just 100% in slider form.

Antiflow is a somewhat subjective concept, therefore it is up to the interpretation of the mapper and community as to what patterns play well and poorly. The vertical nature at the start of this slider, as Ascendance suggested, provides a comfortable safety net allowing the player to readjust if they overshoot slightly. Personally I would still prefer the starts of these to be a little more vertical, but that's preference only. Same applies to the point following this, since it's an almost identical case.

01:05:122 (4,1) – Again, h-dash into anti-flow. This one is kind of an edge case since the incline is a bit more steep, but I also feel it's fine, since the intention is the same as above. It creates a non-antiflow beginning of the slider, while transitioning into a new direction at the end of it, which seems like a good workaround for the new rule.

01:25:230 (1,2) - ^ Again. JBHyperion said the 1/1 was fine so I left it. Not that I think this is anti-flow anyways but yeah.

Similar to the previous, though this is more clear-cut. The 1/1 spacing provides a very lenient hyper compared to the previous 1/2, and again, the vertical nature of the slider start make this perfectly fine.

JBHyperion wrote:

Please don't assume that I disregarded the mapper's opinion simply because I didn't copy it into my post. My comments implied whether the response given was satisfactory or not, but since people would prefer more clarity, I will accede to that.

RoseusJaeger wrote:

Okay, I have some concerns. Most of what I'm concerned about was on Salad and Platter.

Ascembomb's Platter

The wait you mentioned is the exact reason why this is a problem. The transition from a flowstop 1/1 with hardly any spacing (for what reason?), right on the screen border into an unexpectedly strong hyperdash is very jarring and uncomfortable to play. The screenshot I linked provides an alternative that results in better flow and more consistent patterning. ||| 00:03:501 (2,3) - doesn't have any type of emphasis that could warrant any type of movement. I could have put 00:04:150 (3) - on the tail of 00:03:501 (2) - to further emphasize that fact, but that would remove the emphasis AND the hdash between 00:04:150 (3,1) - that I want to keep. Seriously, there's no issue in it. The flowstop is there for a reason (no reason for movement when there's nothing there to move to?) and the hyperdash is NOT unexpected. The player has a 1/1 gap of time to react to the hyper, which is at close to the minimuim distance needed for the hyperdash.

Hopefully this explains the reasoning behind the DQ in more detail. I apologise for any misconceptions caused and hope we can work together in a civil manner to resolve this.

CLSW wrote:

iirc if the discussion has been done between mapper and QAT this map can be rebub and qualify instantly like this map : p/5146407

good luck to all!

Ascendance wrote:

00:02:853 (4) - has more movement because the vocal pitch is higher, therefore deserves more movement. Thanks Millhi and Tari for your help!

1. If 00:02:853 (4) - is following vocals then you don't need 00:02:528 (3) - at all as it is a ghost note and 00:02:204 (2) - is faint enough to leave out. The three notes themselves should follow the instrumental together rather than having the last of the three be different. It is also rather odd to specify that you are following vocals here when it is very loose when compared to the instrumental. You have no consistent vocal flow after this section and it is heavily based upon the instrumental so I don't see why you can reason with this.
2. 00:06:096 - missing a note here? you follow the instrumentals with the vocals at 00:00:583 (1) - but you leave this out even though it is pretty prominent in the song. Also it fits with the "me" of the vocals, which fits nicely since you said you are following them.
3. 00:15:988 (1) - This feels like it should be a 1/2 repeater. You are following something clear here but I think the kick is a bit too much to leave out. The kick follows what you are going with unlike parts such as 00:15:339 - that you have left out.
4. 00:08:366 (1) - Feels a bit odd for vocals? Ending at 00:08:691 - makes more sense then ending at 00:08:853 - where you could place a note to differentiate the syllables.
5. 00:18:582 (1) - Same point as 00:15:988 (1) - here, it just feels odd to leave it out as it is pretty core.
6. 00:30:096 - needs to be repeated to or have a note on it. Although it doesn't follow the vocals it is consistent with other notes you have placed such as 00:30:745 (2) - .
7. 00:32:204 (3,4,5,6,7) - Doesn't fit at all. You've purposedly missed out kicks and whatnot but have a stream here on extremely faint sounds. Pairing up with 00:32:042 (2) - with some 1/2 sliders makes much more sense. This stream feels pretty wrong to me.
8. 00:35:447 (5) - Same as above here, there is extremely forced. You have plenty of room to work with hypering to 00:35:610 (1) - with a 1/2 spacing as 00:35:610 - is extremely prominent. This 1/4 feels random and awkward as it is not consistent with the rest of the map due to the sudden density increase that is rarely seen in the last third of the map.
9. 00:38:042 (2) - Same with the tick in the middle here, I don't know why this is covered when much softer beats are heavily mapped.
10. 00:52:473 (1,2,3,4) - This sounds so much better as just 1/2 sliders here to me. A strong set of jumps before the kiai can do wonders.

Riari wrote:

Quick few points on the platter, I can check other difficulties too if you want.

1. If 00:02:853 (4) - is following vocals then you don't need 00:02:528 (3) - at all as it is a ghost note and 00:02:204 (2) - is faint enough to leave out. The three notes themselves should follow the instrumental together rather than having the last of the three be different. It is also rather odd to specify that you are following vocals here when it is very loose when compared to the instrumental. You have no consistent vocal flow after this section and it is heavily based upon the instrumental so I don't see why you can reason with this. Hi, I can reason with it. 00:02:528 (3) - While admittedly, yes, being a ghost note, is used as a transition note for 00:02:853 (4) - , as I've explained above, with it needing to be where it is due to hyperdashing. Without it, 00:02:204 (2,4) - become stacked, creating low movement and a flow stop that doesn't make sense with the higher pitch of 00:02:853 (4) - . I could turn it into a repeat slider but realistically this does the same thing.
2. 00:06:096 - missing a note here? you follow the instrumentals with the vocals at 00:00:583 (1) - but you leave this out even though it is pretty prominent in the song. Also it fits with the "me" of the vocals, which fits nicely since you said you are following them. Following the same rhythm as the cup here, I don't wanna add extra density (dunno why nely did) so I excluded it on purpose while still trying to keep similar vocal intensity.
3. 00:15:988 (1) - This feels like it should be a 1/2 repeater. You are following something clear here but I think the kick is a bit too much to leave out. The kick follows what you are going with unlike parts such as 00:15:339 - that you have left out. Yeah but I like what the guitar slider brings in terms of transition here.
4. 00:08:366 (1) - Feels a bit odd for vocals? Ending at 00:08:691 - makes more sense then ending at 00:08:853 - where you could place a note to differentiate the syllables. I wanted to keep similar rhythm to the cup but I guess I can make the change here
5. 00:18:582 (1) - Same point as 00:15:988 (1) - here, it just feels odd to leave it out as it is pretty core. Guitar!
6. 00:30:096 - needs to be repeated to or have a note on it. Although it doesn't follow the vocals it is consistent with other notes you have placed such as 00:30:745 (2) - . I had it originally but was told to remove it. Guess I'll put it back now.
7. 00:32:204 (3,4,5,6,7) - Doesn't fit at all. You've purposedly missed out kicks and whatnot but have a stream here on extremely faint sounds. Pairing up with 00:32:042 (2) - with some 1/2 sliders makes much more sense. This stream feels pretty wrong to me. Fits fine with the piano
8. 00:35:447 (5) - Same as above here, there is extremely forced. You have plenty of room to work with hypering to 00:35:610 (1) - with a 1/2 spacing as 00:35:610 - is extremely prominent. This 1/4 feels random and awkward as it is not consistent with the rest of the map due to the sudden density increase that is rarely seen in the last third of the map. uhhhhhh its fine lol you can just stand still if you wanted to
9. 00:38:042 (2) - Same with the tick in the middle here, I don't know why this is covered when much softer beats are heavily mapped. Vocal
10. 00:52:473 (1,2,3,4) - This sounds so much better as just 1/2 sliders here to me. A strong set of jumps before the kiai can do wonders. It could, yes. But 00:52:473 (1,2) - Is emphasis on the vocal and 00:53:122 (3,4) - is the uplifting instruments that lead into the kiai. It's fine imo

I'll leave it here since if this wont convince you of anything then there is nothing else I can say.
This difficulty seems like an odd mess of vocal and instrumental focuses that swap at random points or come in to create a sense of flow due to a lack of the other. Overreaction

1. 01:02:203 (3) - 1/2 slider facing outwards here instead? It's consistent with other vocal parts such as 00:58:797 (1,2,3,4) - and I like having those small breaks between vocal sections only, this slightly breaks that and I think it would be an easy fix.
2. 01:07:230 (2) - Reduce a repeat here? The end repeat does not hit on anything and would be placed at 01:07:716 - or 01:07:230 (2) - would be a 1/1 slider. I suggest this also because it creates a nice gap that I have mentioned above.
3. 01:12:257 (2) - Same point as 01:02:203 (3) - here.
4. 01:18:257 (4) - Why is this spaced away from 01:18:095 (3) - more than 01:18:095 (3) - is from 01:17:608 (2) - ? It also has a direction change making it an even stronger emphasis. 01:18:257 (4) - is stronger vocally and instrumentally so this makes no sense to me.
5. 01:21:014 (1,2,3) - Repeat the first two and drop a note you hyper to on 01:22:311 - ? I think it plays really nice and contrasts with the non hyper 01:22:473 (1,2,3) - . Also making 01:23:608 (1,2,3) - consistent with it would be a nice idea if you do apply this.

1. 00:05:285 (3) - Feels odd as a ghost note, especially when you've left out 00:05:447 - which is an actual beat. You seen to try to follow the vocals with 00:04:799 (2,3) - to bridge the gap so I would suggest turning 00:05:285 (3) - into a 1/2 slider to at least bridge it a bit better.
2. 00:11:853 (4,5,6) - These should be separate from the stream since you have separated 00:12:096 (7,8) - at the end. It makes it more consistent.
3. 00:13:393 (1) - 1/2 repeater? Clear beat on 00:13:555 - that you have covered.
4. 00:15:177 (2) - Same as above. Feels odd to map 1/4 parts such as 00:14:042 (3) - but to leave out these 1/2 separated beats.
5. 00:15:988 (1) - Same as above.
6. 00:18:582 (5) - And again.
7. 00:36:745 (4) - ^
8. 00:38:042 (2) - ^
9. 00:53:608 (1) - Cut this down to a 1/2. It doesn't feel right to bridge into the next section here at all for me. I'd suggest putting a note on 00:53:933 - separately to start it off rather than this odd feeling slider.
10. 00:56:203 (1) - Same as half the other points.
11. 00:57:500 (1) - ^
12. 00:58:149 (3) - ^
13. 00:58:797 (1) - ^
    etc

Riari wrote:

Placeholder


[Platter Cont.]

1. 01:02:203 (3) - 1/2 slider facing outwards here instead? It's consistent with other vocal parts such as 00:58:797 (1,2,3,4) - and I like having those small breaks between vocal sections only, this slightly breaks that and I think it would be an easy fix. It's inconsistent cause it's not my part. I think that his intention of having a hard dash to 01:02:527 (4) - into a hyper works well for emphasizing the appropriate vocal, so I'll keep this.
2. 01:07:230 (2) - Reduce a repeat here? The end repeat does not hit on anything and would be placed at 01:07:716 - or 01:07:230 (2) - would be a 1/1 slider. I suggest this also because it creates a nice gap that I have mentioned above. Idk what that descending instrument in the back is, but it definitely lands on it
3. 01:12:257 (2) - Same point as 01:02:203 (3) - here. Same as there tbh, since the emphasis is to remain on 01:11:770 (1,2) - , no need to make it more dense afterwards.
4. 01:18:257 (4) - Why is this spaced away from 01:18:095 (3) - more than 01:18:095 (3) - is from 01:17:608 (2) - ? It also has a direction change making it an even stronger emphasis. 01:18:257 (4) - is stronger vocally and instrumentally so this makes no sense to me. Adjusted slightly
5. 01:21:014 (1,2,3) - Repeat the first two and drop a note you hyper to on 01:22:311 - ? I think it plays really nice and contrasts with the non hyper 01:22:473 (1,2,3) - . Also making 01:23:608 (1,2,3) - consistent with it would be a nice idea if you do apply this. I adjusted a few rhythms but I kept the main rhythm since it's consistent with the way the other difficulties end.

Off to watch men in skimpy trunks jump into water over and over.
gl with map etc etc

Yuii- wrote:

ProfessionalBox why are you on Mike's account?

Riari wrote:

Placeholder

[Piku's Rain]

1. 00:05:285 (3) - Feels odd as a ghost note, especially when you've left out 00:05:447 - which is an actual beat. You seen to try to follow the vocals with 00:04:799 (2,3) - to bridge the gap so I would suggest turning 00:05:285 (3) - into a 1/2 slider to at least bridge it a bit better. | How does it feel odd? Seems perfectly fine to me
2. 00:11:853 (4,5,6) - These should be separate from the stream since you have separated 00:12:096 (7,8) - at the end. It makes it more consistent. | Idk it plays fine so I'll leave it like that
3. 00:13:393 (1) - 1/2 repeater? Clear beat on 00:13:555 - that you have covered. | I don't hear a beat there o.o
4. 00:15:177 (2) - Same as above. Feels odd to map 1/4 parts such as 00:14:042 (3) - but to leave out these 1/2 separated beats. | Same as above, seems fine to me
5. 00:15:988 (1) - Same as above. | ^
6. 00:18:582 (5) - And again. | ^
7. 00:36:745 (4) - ^ | ^
8. 00:38:042 (2) - ^ | ^
9. 00:53:608 (1) - Cut this down to a 1/2. It doesn't feel right to bridge into the next section here at all for me. I'd suggest putting a note on 00:53:933 - separately to start it off rather than this odd feeling slider. | It was suggested by another mod and I don't think it's odd at all
10. 00:56:203 (1) - Same as half the other points. | Still no change
11. 00:57:500 (1) - ^ | ^
12. 00:58:149 (3) - ^ | ^
13. 00:58:797 (1) - ^ | ^
    etc

This timeline feels much more fitting for a salad at points, the number of 1/1 and 2/1 sliders that cover key beats is too much for a rain in my opinion. | Happens

Off to watch men in skimpy trunks jump into water over and over.
gl with map etc etc

Sinnoh wrote:

lmao what happened to the graveyard plan

lLinutionHD wrote:

P i k u wrote:

Sinnoh wrote:

lmao what happened to the graveyard plan

The plan was graveyarded

lLinutionHD wrote:

Nice banner, but why is the "Mapped by Ascendance" text black? Barely readable

lLinutionHD wrote:

good for the next level to tell me that banner on your taste do you............xd