Monstrata wrote:

Not that it's unrankable but, is there a relationship between these two songs aside from being by Undead Corporation and part of Touhou Project?

Pelzio wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/395739 is this not the same scenario or am i missing something

Monstrata wrote:

Are they the only songs in the album? xD

Seems like two songs are being arbitrarily put together to make a mapset that's over 5 minutes, thus allowing both songs to be approved without needing a set. Not that i'm against it or anything though, because if people are fine with this, I'm totally going to do this in the future.

Monstrata wrote:

Are they the only songs in the album? xD

Seems like two songs are being arbitrarily put together to make a mapset that's over 5 minutes, thus allowing both songs to be approved without needing a set. Not that i'm against it or anything though, because if people are fine with this, I'm totally going to do this in the future.

Zero__wind wrote:

questionable 1/6 notes:
00:15:397 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - 1/4 with some 1/8 imo - Its a pure 1/6th drum roll.
02:44:057 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - ^ - Same here.
02:06:730 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - probably 1/2- This is a mix of 1/4 and 1/6th. I spoke with a few people about this and we agree that "Overmapping" it to make it more simple and easier to play is the better option.

and questionable 1/4 in the latter part:
06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - most seem to be 1/2 with only a small portion of 1/4 - Same here, random mix of 1/3 1/4 and some just random notes. "Overmapped for simplicity.
07:05:236 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - seems overmapping - 1/4 drum roll is pretty clear here.

and questionable 1/3 notes:
06:51:384 (6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - 06:51:458 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - should be 1/2 and I can't really hear the note at 06:51:384 (6) - - Definitely not 1/2 I originally had this as 1/4 and people suggested I use 1/3 instead. I think its just another case of shitty guitar playing thats a total mess and you cant accurately map without it being stupid.

may not be all, but I believe the above should be reconsidered more carefully

Spork Lover wrote:

00:10:731 and 02:39:391 - aren't these green points pretty much useless? xd
Also, I'm super hyped about this, good luck with ranking!!

Osuology wrote:

I'm torn between whether I want a new 8 star map, or apparition to still be the hardest map since the song perfectly matches it. AGH

Fezu wrote:

osu! needs more UNDEAD CORPORATION!

Shiirn wrote:

Fezu wrote:

osu! needs more UNDEAD CORPORATION!

it really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really
doesn't



this map's ok tho

Yuii- wrote:

01:26:730 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - There are some cool objects unsnapped by 1 ms

Nothing major though, just opened the map and randomly found some of them lul

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Also I thought you were too busy to check this when I asked you, Yuii- :^)

Cryptic wrote:

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Also I thought you were too busy to check this when I asked you, Yuii- :^)

Takes a lot less time to peak at a map than to actually mod it.

Monstrata wrote:

Not that it's unrankable but, is there a relationship between these two songs aside from being by Undead Corporation and part of Touhou Project?

-Ran Yakumo- wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

Not that it's unrankable but, is there a relationship between these two songs aside from being by Undead Corporation and part of Touhou Project?

>saying Undead Corporation instead of UNDEAD CORPORATION
TRIGGERED

Shiirn wrote:

micro-unsnaps aren't even that major... they're just like "oh, weird". <5ms is completely negligible.

Ayyri wrote:

Looking at a map =/= Modding a map.

Xexxar wrote:

hmmm

chainpullz wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

micro-unsnaps aren't even that major... they're just like "oh, weird". <5ms is completely negligible.

I mean, 4-5ms can be really pushing it on higher od (ie. od 10) especially if it's inconsistent (ie. can't just toss local offset on and be all set). <3ms is probably unnoticeable on any od though.

Osuology wrote:

I'm torn between whether I want a new 8 star map, or apparition to still be the hardest map since the song perfectly matches it. AGH

Biwa Hoshi wrote:

A Y Y

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Madman who is gonna qualify this where are you.

Ekoro wrote:

seriously

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Not gonna lie I dont see why Ekoro maps shouldnt be ranked, nothing fundamentally wrong with them.

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares.
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream - Rare case in the song where the snares are stonger on certain spots at the end (Slider heads, last circle) And the long snare roll I is the only one thats that long and powerful in these sections so its justifiable being that hard compared to the rest.
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e - Discussed with a few people, agree'd to map as 1/4. Random mess of 1/4 1/3 and just plain random notes that dont fit anywhere. "Overmapping" for pure 1/4 to cover shitty guitar playing actually makes it much easier and simple to play, as opposed to a bunch of nonsensical mess that I doubt anyone would like to be playing.
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. - [/color]This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. I honestly dont know how to explain this because I literally do not see an issue what so ever. 1 2 3 are basic snaps and the 4 clearly has the most emphasis which is needed, so yeah. This in itself is just another regular pattern anyways, you still have to snap to the 4 as well.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. - No emphasis needed aside from the 3 > 1 which I have, so again no issue for me. Playing these you actually move smoothly from 1 > 3 rather than snapping which is intended, the same as the previous time this part came up.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above - This is a totally differet case seeing as its sliders, I wouldnt wanna make players snap for these aside from each 3 > 1, and its uneeded.
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares. - For guitar and its doubles so it fits. Emphasis on drums matters not since guitar is arguable the stronger instrument here. Plus this song is a mess and a lot of the time instruments dont match up like they do in 99% of other songs
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. - Since the 1 is stronger and indicates a new pattern I figured having the second be spaced more made sense, it works as a nice build up as well, the spacing doesnt really matter since the intensity isnt that noticeable. Everything just feels difficult throughout.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. - Spacing isnt everything when it comes to intensity, aside from these being the exact same, the change in direction on 06:20:347 (1) - Helps add extra emphasis, rather than just replying on spacing.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. 06:28:347 (1) - Not strong enough to need a jump, tighter turn is fine enough. 06:28:791 (1,1) - These 2 are clearly much stronger than all the others so are the only ones that deserve jumps, the rest you pointed out are just blended in with the basic huitar line, they do not have enough power, or dare I say any at all to warrent emphasis on them.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl - 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - Climbs down in pitch while 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Rises, so they're the same basic concept. Having the same DS is fine. They arent 2 clearly different pitches, but on average they are the same.
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam. - Guitar is pretty slow and takes away from the intensity, I did have some longer sliders before but pretty much everyone suggested I take them out.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. - 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Wide angle because 06:42:569 (1) - is strong enough to warrant that. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The rise in pitch is cleaner here than before, hence why its curved and not zigzag like before, no DS need because as I explained before, climbing in pitch on the first 4 and lowering on the second 4. Only the 1's need emphasis. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Jumps start sharp and large at the pitch height, and get less intense to match it lowering.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream This is a transition measure. The spacing is large, but this is also the one time this particular measure (which is used other times, at 04:05:013 - , 04:33:680 - , 06:09:458 - , there are others) is actually only 1/2 away from a drum beat. Unlike most metal tracks, this one has a nice amount of variance so the similarities are muted, but I'm sure you're aware as a mapper of how freely spacing can be abused during transitional phases.
2. 06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e This is not the first time that random guitar wailing has been mapped with a set of steams, nor will it be the last. I'm confused as to why you find this objectionable when it's a technique commonly used.
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. This is pure preference.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. Again, pure preference. He probably feels that the individuality of each set of threes is more significant than the entire whole.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above boop
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares. You can't hear changes in pitch, but you can't tell that they're cascading pairs? Like, this is actually some really skilled emphasis that's looking at the music as a whole, rather than data points.
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. This is inane as hell. People do crazier shit during plain 1/2 spam sections all the damn time. You've done it as well. The spacing is not so incredibly large that they count as taxing jumps for the theoretical player.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. This is purely based around distance snap, which is a shitty metric. The entire section is just largely spaced, inane details such as the exact distance is only discernable when you're sitting in the editor armchair. The player does not notice these changes, and musically they are following a consistent rhythm and pattern structure.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. I'm really not seeing your point here. Just by listening to it once, I can tell that the first four beats lead into the second set, while the third and fourth sets are independent copies of the first original four. And this combo setup is very efficient at representing that. Again, you're looking at the raw pitch and sound so hard you're losing sight of the relationships between the beats.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl Honestly, this is just the same thing over and over again. If anything, I find 06:31:013 (1,2,3,4) - to be the most disconcerting of this section because of how it's not aligned with its own structure that well and the jump of 3->4 is overkill for emphasis there. But it's not that bad.
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam. Honestly the music gets pretty boring here too and having a bit of a breather is probably a good idea. It goes back into more dense patterns later on as the music picks back up. My only suggestion here would be to disable kiai for a bit near the middle, but that's personal preference speaking - the music slowly loses energy and slowly regains it, making the harsh cutoff of "kiai on, kiai off" probably disconcerting.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. This is a direct, higher-spacing, higher-energy "copy" (I use quotes because it's not a direct copy, but a similar-use one) of an earlier combo - and because this chorus takes that same musical pattern and continues it, getting even more ramped up, the mapping reflects this. If there's any point at which the spacing should deservedly "go nuts", it's here. And also, fuck the bit about sharp angles. Tablets don't give a shit about sharp angles, people who complain that they're hard to play should just get better or go back to their comfortable pp maps.

Shiirn wrote:

Considering how inane these are, I figured I'd step in real fast and say a few words.
I am not in any way speaking for Fetish, nor am I decidedly defending him because "oh they're friends".
My friends can attest that if I think they're doing something dumb, I'll tell them they're doing something dumb.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream This is a transition measure. The spacing is large, but this is also the one time this particular measure (which is used other times, at 04:05:013 - , 04:33:680 - , 06:09:458 - , there are others) is actually only 1/2 away from a drum beat. Unlike most metal tracks, this one has a nice amount of variance so the similarities are muted, but I'm sure you're aware as a mapper of how freely spacing can be abused during transitional phases. I don't see how this being a transitional phrase qualifies this pattern. It's a large jump, but i think the spacing is alright, like you say. Spacing can be abused during transitional phases as it's one of the best opportunities for extra-large spacings. The problem here is the 180 degree turn you have to make jumping from 9>1 and then playing the spaced stream. Your argument suggests that spatially the pattern is fine, which I don't disagree with. However, the angle change is the crux of the issue imo.
2. 06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e This is not the first time that random guitar wailing has been mapped with a set of steams, nor will it be the last. I'm confused as to why you find this objectionable when it's a technique commonly used.Overmapping to cover up messy snappings is a poor choice. Did other mappers suggest overmapping to cover up the clear snapping issues and messy guitar wailing? Or was this a solution thought up by the mapper? In either case, this is not a good design choice imo. It's better to simplify rhythm and imo, repeats like sukiNathan said, are a good alternative. You can see that the mapper employs them elsewhere too: 06:14:569 (1,2,3,4) - so using repeats will still fit the section well.
3. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. This is inane as hell. People do crazier shit during plain 1/2 spam sections all the damn time. You've done it as well. The spacing is not so incredibly large that they count as taxing jumps for the theoretical player. Doesn't answer the complaint... Spacing doesn't have to reflect the section musically, but justification helps.
4. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. This is purely based around distance snap, which is a shitty metric. The entire section is just largely spaced, inane details such as the exact distance is only discernable when you're sitting in the editor armchair. The player does not notice these changes, and musically they are following a consistent rhythm and pattern structure. Players don't notice these changes? Really...
5. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. This is a direct, higher-spacing, higher-energy "copy" (I use quotes because it's not a direct copy, but a similar-use one) of an earlier combo - and because this chorus takes that same musical pattern and continues it, getting even more ramped up, the mapping reflects this. If there's any point at which the spacing should deservedly "go nuts", it's here. And also, fuck the bit about sharp angles. Tablets don't give a shit about sharp angles, people who complain that they're hard to play should just get better or go back to their comfortable pp maps.Wat. The angles here are really poorly done. It being a copy of something earlier doesn't qualify it being there. It's not so much the spacing thats the problem, its the angles. Large spacings can play very well with the right angles, but with the wrong angles, even small spacings can be uncomfortable to play.

Again, people tend to only look at maps based off their own viewpoints. I'm aware that sukiNathan's generation was the "editor armchair" mapper generation, so I'm trying to explain how some of the concepts that were prescribed as holy back then, actually aren't that vital or even, blasphemously, matter all that much to the player or as a representation of the music. Such as absurd consistency and references to music as data points as opposed to a crafted story. It's like looking at a single sentence of a book at a time. You're never getting the whole picture, and when you make every sentence the same length and consistency, your story's going to be fucking boring and a pain to read.

I'm aware technically speaking that I'm also "only looking at the map from my viewpoint", but I'm not telling fetish to actually change anything that I may suggest because any faults I found in this map came down to what I could recognize as personal preference, and not actually map-destroying errors. The map stays consistent with its theme even if you disagree with that theme. I recently modded quaver and specifically avoided the whole "crescendo" theme commentary specifically because I hated that concept because it spat on the music in my opinion, but kept my tongue and went over other pieces whilst explaining why I felt that theme was patently unrankable (ref: the way it spat on the music).

If you'd like to sit down and explain to everyone why you think Empress' theme should be patently unrankable, feel free - I'd love to hear more about your mapping views and what you consider important to having a good map. Because this doesn't spit on the music at all. It's quite accurate in representing metal at this high velocity.

I don't want to get too deep into the details of my personal preferences towards mapping (too late probably), but anyway, that's enough lol

EphemeralFetish wrote:

JK Ill check now.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream - Rare case in the song where the snares are stonger on certain spots at the end (Slider heads, last circle) And the long snare roll I is the only one thats that long and powerful in these sections so its justifiable being that hard compared to the rest. Hmm. I can agree to that.
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e - Discussed with a few people, agree'd to map as 1/4. Random mess of 1/4 1/3 and just plain random notes that dont fit anywhere. "Overmapping" for pure 1/4 to cover shitty guitar playing actually makes it much easier and simple to play, as opposed to a bunch of nonsensical mess that I doubt anyone would like to be playing. This is not a good mapping decision imo... People are bringing it up now so more discussion can clearly be done, with more experienced mappers now that the map is qualified. I also disagree with overmapping for 1/4's. You've clearly mapped other sections to repeating sliders, so the option of using less technically demanding rhythms and patterns is definitely there.
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. - [/color]This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. I honestly dont know how to explain this because I literally do not see an issue what so ever. 1 2 3 are basic snaps and the 4 clearly has the most emphasis which is needed, so yeah. This in itself is just another regular pattern anyways, you still have to snap to the 4 as well. The reason using a "snappy" angle is better is because a clear angle shift allows for more impact since there's a greater change in momentum. Since there's a really wide angle from 2>3>4 you don't get the impact you want onto 4. Also, the angle relative to the pattern feels really odd as sukiNathan pointed out. I can't open sukinathan's link for some reason, but something like this would fit your pattern and create a better angle: http://puu.sh/rdMPH.jpg
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. - No emphasis needed aside from the 3 > 1 which I have, so again no issue for me. Playing these you actually move smoothly from 1 > 3 rather than snapping which is intended, the same as the previous time this part came up.I see your point about moving smoothly actually. It can work, but I don't think it does, because of how you've mapped the rest of the section. Let me explain. It will definitely play smoothly if you were to alternate this. If i were mapping an alternator style map, this pattern would play really well and have great flow. But you've set up these 1/3 snaps such that they should be single-tapped as evidenced by basically the first half of the map. With that in mind, players will more likely single-tap this, and when you single-tap you lose that flow because you are obligated to snap to each note, like the other 1/3's, or change your playstyle specifically for these triangles. I think changing playstyle is possible too, but in that respect, I don't think there's enough testing done to reliably say what is what, well, going from your vague reply anyways.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above - This is a totally differet case seeing as its sliders, I wouldnt wanna make players snap for these aside from each 3 > 1, and its uneeded. This is exactly the same though... They are sliders, but you are going to play them like they are circles, and as a result, the angles are going to be very similar. The caveat of course, is that kicksliders tend to allow more angle leniency to them, but it still doesn't seem like this has been tested enough, well, looking at your reply anyways.
6. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. - Since the 1 is stronger and indicates a new pattern I figured having the second be spaced more made sense, it works as a nice build up as well, the spacing doesnt really matter since the intensity isnt that noticeable. Everything just feels difficult throughout.Players can still notice these spacings though... And this one in particular, has a very noticeable visual pattern. People can recognize patterns very easily, so here, your argument that "everything feels difficult" doesn't justify the change. Some parts are more difficult, and both the spacing, and the visual pattern itself suggest that. Following the next point though:
7. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. - Spacing isnt everything when it comes to intensity, aside from these being the exact same, the change in direction on 06:20:347 (1) - Helps add extra emphasis, rather than just replying on spacing. The pattern is less recognizable (small square > big square, anyone will see that) but here, its just zigzags with no real structure (sadly) which ends up making it more justifiable haha. I'm okay with reasoning here.
8. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. 06:28:347 (1) - Not strong enough to need a jump, tighter turn is fine enough. 06:28:791 (1,1) - These 2 are clearly much stronger than all the others so are the only ones that deserve jumps, the rest you pointed out are just blended in with the basic huitar line, they do not have enough power, or dare I say any at all to warrent emphasis on them. Reasoning is okay here, but why don't you put a jump on 06:29:569 (4,1) - then? following your logic of where you place these jumps.
9. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. - 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Wide angle because 06:42:569 (1) - is strong enough to warrant that. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The rise in pitch is cleaner here than before, hence why its curved and not zigzag like before, no DS need because as I explained before, climbing in pitch on the first 4 and lowering on the second 4. Only the 1's need emphasis. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Jumps start sharp and large at the pitch height, and get less intense to match it lowering. If you're talking about rising pitch, then making 06:42:902 (4,1) - bigger than 06:43:347 (4,1) - is counterintuitive to your rising-pitch concept. Emphasis is very relative. Relative to other jumps, a spacing that is small, can still be the focus of emphasis. Also, I agree with sukiNathan that the obtuse angles you use just make for really uncomfortable movements and snaps. You are expecting players to single tap these .

.

Cryptic wrote:

05:03:180 (12,13) - Aren't these off the playfield?
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean offscreen but rather off editor-field.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Cryptic wrote:

05:03:180 (12,13) - Aren't these off the playfield?
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean offscreen but rather off editor-field.

My eye sight is not so good so I cant tell, but its possible since I recall making this stream with slider convert.