Monstrata wrote:
Shiirn wrote:
[Crescendo]
- 00:08:752 (4,1) - For the entire few measures after this (and future, repeated copies of this musical pattern), you have a click at 00:08:917 - 's beat position. I see no reason to have this transition happen this awkwardly. I want the clicking rhythm to more consistent here since its the intro, but I made adjustments to hitsounds to compensate because there is indeed a drum hit on the 2nd measure's 4th slider that isn't present on the first measure. Making it clickable, however, means either putting two circles here, or changing slider 3 into a 1/1 slider, and neither of which are good rhythms imo. The first makes the rhythm too dense compared to the first iteration, and the second one is just a weird rhythm imo, because it's too similar then, to the next two measures and doesn't create enough of a rhythmic contrast. Yeah i kind of expected you to go "my 4/4/4/4 patterning!" and this is a fairly weak point so it doesn't matter.
- Contrast 00:11:060 (1,2,3,4) - with 00:55:895 (2,3,4,1) - . The first makes sense, you're following the bass. The second makes no sense whatsoever. The clicks in the second have been following the synth&bass (Which for those measures both occur on the same positions), but neither of them actually play on 00:56:060 - . Clearly, you're not adverse to having doubles, as the first combo linked has two pairs of doubles with the bass. If you want to follow just the synth, you'll have a weird empty 3/4 space, so why not just do another set of doubles? This hasn't been mentioned before, but seems like an big discrepancy. You use doubles 01:50:495 (1,2,3,4) - here as well, but you use another random triple at 02:35:165 (1,2,3,4) - . In terms of musical structure, at least you're consistently fucking around, but still. These are clearly patterns that need to be changed, modified, or you need to get your big boy bullshitting pants on and start justifying post-qualification. Also, to keep consistency with the earlier section, 02:36:978 (3) - should be a 1/2 slider. I like the 1/2 slider more than the circle anyway I think both interpretations work. I don't always want to use doubles, especially after jumpy sections and rhythm sections that combine both 1/2 and 1/1 (basically here). Many people use triplets even though the song uses doubles, it's a common thing to do, so personally I prefer using doubles on quieter and simpler sections of a song. You can call it an inconsistency I guess, but it's perfectly playable and I believe both work well. Do note that i did specifically point out that there is no beat whatsoever on the tail end of those triples and that's what i was saying was off about these patterns. See my note at the bottom.
- 01:40:719 (1,2,1,2) - any reason these are circles rather than sliders like at the end? or vice versa. They're literally identical musically and structurally otherwise, after all. Do you mean why aren't they sliders? Not sure what you mean here. If you're asking why they are sliders instead of circles then check Vinxis' mod reply since I elaborated more there. tl;dr is 1/8 holds function to emphasize the slider-ends and the stop/go motion allows me to follow the main melody really closely even though its a slider-end and not a clickable circle. Not the 1/8, the two circles in the linked combo are sliders in the second iteration at 03:20:154 (1,2,1,2) - and considering they're identical musical patterns it seemed weird to have them be inconsistent that way.
- 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - I still don't get why these five notes are so much more massive in scope than 03:23:541 (1,2,3) - , when you first showed off the map to the public it was the other way around and while the spacing was still eye-rollingly, put-up-with-it-in-a-groaning-sort-of-way, stupid, it at least made more sense than this. This isn't the only example but it's the biggest one and for your sake and mine i'm not going to put you up to repeating your same reasoning for the 50th time. Well, Originally I wanted them big, but then someone made a really really good point that the last 3 notes are lower pitch than the first 5, so I reduced the spacing accordingly. So? Screw that guy, make the first five a tiny bit smaller and the last three bigger. The objective pitch can go fuck itself, listening to the music tells you that the final three notes are of more impact to the ending than the five notes before them.
Now see, this is what tends to get sand in people's undies. You're happy to use the raw musical data (pitch, volume, etc) as a justification for a choice even when the beat or noise is barely relevant to the actual spacing/design choice in the music. That's fine. It's a way of keeping hold of creative liberties. But you're also happy to go to the excuse of "well it's playable and it's up to interpretation" when the music
does not support your design choice in any way. These two viewpoints are inherently incompatible because one is saying "but the music says" and the other is saying "fuck the music" and seeing them both in the same mod response is infuriating.
I'll say it again, much more bluntly, to allow for a more coordinated response:
There is no beat whatsoever on 00:56:060 - or 02:35:495 - . This does not classify as "consistent overmapping" as the exact same, identical musical patterns appear at 00:11:060 (1,2,3,4) - and 01:50:495 (1,2,3,4) - . DJ taka is not known for his subtlety in his copy+pasting.
I find the design choice of "I don't always want to use doubles, especially after jumpy sections and rhythm sections that combine both 1/2 and 1/1 (basically here)." or "Many people use triplets even though the song uses doubles, it's a common thing to do, so personally I prefer using doubles on quieter and simpler sections of a song." questionable as these are statements that are flawed at their very core.
The first statement simply is warping the music to do what you want it to do. The music is king, who are you to wrench it around like some common wench? If the music says doubles, you try to make those doubles playable, you don't go "But it's
easier to play a
triple". Make your own music if you have fault with this concept.
The second statement implies that mistakes done before are perfectly acceptable to do again. This is the entire reason why I'm personally stonewalling your design choice here - I feel very strongly that it's a slippery slope to allow mappers to essentially forego the music in favor of making a map
easier or
more comfortable to play, because that just encourages ulterior motives that degrade the attachment a map has to its accompanying music.
The second half of the second statement even claims " I prefer using doubles on quieter and simpler sections of a song." Even presuming that the map allows for the alternating choice between doubles or triples (Very, very, very, very few songs do, but grudgingly, they exist), doubles are much harder to keep rhythm with than triples, so wouldn't they be more prudent to put on a more difficult part of the song? Making hard parts easier and making easy parts harder seems to be a bad idea, balance-wise.
I don't even particularly really care about the 4/4/4/4 1/2 spam spaced jumpfest that the map is. You have your "crescendo" concept, it's executed fairly poorly due to the fact that the map itself is far less straight 1/2 than you probably hoped it was, but you tried and the map is
okay. It's not ALIEN, where you intentionally flipped everyone off, but it's a step away from that and I encourage creativity as long as it's not an outright given that oopsies will be ranked without question. I know some people will think "but shiirn, you always act like a bitch when people stonewall your creativity!" well yeah, it sucks to be on the receiving end, but I've never claimed that it shouldn't happen, there should always be a peer-review and peer-approval system in place, just that it tends to get infected with politics and personal grudges rather than frank opinions.
tl;dr like, the rest of the map is objectively fine, it's kind of a failed proof-of-concept but it's theoretically rankable. The map is being stonewalled due to the design decisions but there are actual issues that can be handled in the map without losing the "crescendo" concept or even losing the ridiculous 1/2 jumpfests. Fix those and re-rank, I seriously wouldn't have issue with that.