Franc[e]sco wrote:

I don't see why some people claim this map ignores the song's rhythm. I thought it followed it pretty closely. The song is just like that, it calls for 1/2 jump spams. The only thing you could argue about is that the diff spike at the end does not exactly map to an intensity shift in the song, but I don't think it's awkward. The only part I find awkward is the kickslider spam, but that's just me sucking at keeping rhythm on kicksliders.

The fact that the star rating overrates a map in difficulty has nothing to do with its rankability. Don't let yourself be influenced by pp.

Monstrata wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

[Crescendo]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Shiirn wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

[Crescendo]

1. 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. Alright, read your notes at the bottom, and I think its worth fixing. I found a nice placement that still captures the structure and angle I wanted too.
2. 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. I see what you mean now. The first one is a bit simpler, so I thought the kicksliders weren't necessary. Also, circles just felt better aesthetically, whereas in the second section, kicksliders just feel better. They are the same rhythm and circles/kicksliders play roughly the same, so I based the choice of using them on aesthetics and whether they would add to the relative intensity of the map.
3. 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. Idk... I think the first 5 notes deserve more impact actually...

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.

Ascendance wrote:

Hey look another example of the broken DQ system, just throw some random words around, have the mapper defend them, and the map gets taken down anyways and nothing gets changed ayy

don't give the community power like this because a large majority are idiots and can't handle responsibility like this.

The map is literally fine, but because we have to discuss how the weather is outside, the discussion is valid and it goes down anyways wheeee

Monstrata wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

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. Idk... I think the first 5 notes deserve more impact actually...

Shiguma wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

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. Idk... I think the first 5 notes deserve more impact actually...

Monstrata wrote:

Shiguma wrote:

If we're doing it by pitch, why is 03:21:444 (1,2) - less spacing than 03:21:767 (1,2) - when going from 1 to 2? Shouldn't the spacing be increasing throughout 03:21:444 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2)? Nope. Spacing is lower here because I'm just using a different pattern entirely. Higher pitch doesn't need to have a higher spacing. I respect it sometimes, but not always, especially here where I want to utilize a rotational flow between jumps in order to emphasize 03:22:251 (2,1) - . The jumps are structured so that the wider angle of 03:22:251 (2,1) - creates a pivot angle that allows the player to be properly oriented for the final cross-screen jumps. Alright, sure

And if we're doing it by pitch, why is 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - all random spacings? The 5 notes sound identical to each other, and you're not making any visual pattern using 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - either, so why is 03:22:735 (1,2) - 6.41x DS but then 03:22:896 (2,3) - only 5.48x DS? How am I not making any visual pattern? ... But anyways, I want to utilize the entire screen using these jumps, encompassing as much of the play-area as possible.
03:22:896 (2,3,4,5) - Is a visual pattern, sure, but it has no correlation to 03:22:735 (1) - except that it's in the other corner compared to 03:22:896 (2). What I meant was the five notes 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - doesn't really create something that can be considered a pattern imo. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6025555 What does this make? A "P"? Compare this to what you did before, which was https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6025563, which could be called a pentagon or a star

And then in 03:23:541 (1,2,3) - 03:23:864 (3) - is quite distinguishable from 03:23:541 (1,2) - yet the spacing is basically the same between 03:23:541 (1,2,3)? That's fine. I want to use symmetry here to close out the pattern. 3 is distinguishable from the other 2 circles anyways, because there's a spinner following it, so players don't just click/release like usual jumps, then click, and proceed to spin, so when you play this, you do feel a shift in impact that matches the held crash sound of 3. Not everything needs to be distinguished by an increase in spacing. Circle > Circle and Circle > Spinner already creates a distinguishable change in play. I guess, but it still doesn't feel right to me because although there are many people who say 03:23:541 (1,2,3) - is lower pitch, I don't think it really makes sense to make the jumps for those 3 smaller than 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - because it's the climax of the song, yet the jumps are not as big as the previous 5 notes. And many people have said the opposite of the pitch argument for the jumps, and even you had it the other way around in the past, so I would think that the last 3 being the biggest spacing would make more sense.

Doesn't really make sense to me how you're claiming you're doing the spacing by pitch and then in the map I'm seeing inconsistent spacing when using your reasoning, and you're not really making any distinguishable visual pattern with 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - either so I'm not sure how it could be explained with that either.

The pitch there suggests a more intense section, while Shiirn was arguing that the 3 notes at the end were more intense. I'm using pitch as an indicator of spacing, not an absolute measure of spacing. It's sad because I already respect pitch in many sections of the song. Too many. If i respected pitch less, I would be able to create even more interesting jump patterns, but there needs to be a good balance of respecting the song, and not completely following the song. I'm confident a good 95% of the map already respects the song well. You just pointed out sections where I intentionally didn't, and I really can't objectively argue that spacing "should" be how it is, other than that the patterns I've set up already play very well, are angled and structured in a way that make a lot of sense and create interesting flows and motions. However, if the entire map followed the higher pitch = higher spacing concept, it would be really bland as there would be far too many restrictions. Play the jumps, they won't throw you off. Your modding sense is just saying that it's not consistent with a popular mappign concept..., but maps are meant to be played, not viewed.

Monstrata wrote:

If i respected pitch less, I would be able to create even more interesting jump patterns

Shiguma wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

If we're doing it by pitch, why is 03:21:444 (1,2) - less spacing than 03:21:767 (1,2) - when going from 1 to 2? Shouldn't the spacing be increasing throughout 03:21:444 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2)? Nope. Spacing is lower here because I'm just using a different pattern entirely. Higher pitch doesn't need to have a higher spacing. I respect it sometimes, but not always, especially here where I want to utilize a rotational flow between jumps in order to emphasize 03:22:251 (2,1) - . The jumps are structured so that the wider angle of 03:22:251 (2,1) - creates a pivot angle that allows the player to be properly oriented for the final cross-screen jumps. Alright, sure

And if we're doing it by pitch, why is 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - all random spacings? The 5 notes sound identical to each other, and you're not making any visual pattern using 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - either, so why is 03:22:735 (1,2) - 6.41x DS but then 03:22:896 (2,3) - only 5.48x DS? How am I not making any visual pattern? ... But anyways, I want to utilize the entire screen using these jumps, encompassing as much of the play-area as possible.
03:22:896 (2,3,4,5) - Is a visual pattern, sure, but it has no correlation to 03:22:735 (1) - except that it's in the other corner compared to 03:22:896 (2). What I meant was the five notes 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - doesn't really create something that can be considered a pattern imo. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6025555 What does this make? A "P"? Compare this to what you did before, which was https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6025563, which could be called a pentagon or a star It's a symmetrical pattern... 1>2 symmetry, 2>3>4>5, symmetry, and it creates a vector shifting motion from x+y to just x during the transitioning angles of 2>3>4. Originally 03:23:541 (1) - was at the bottom right corner. I elected to do a slightly smaller jump in order so show the reduction of intensity, that's all.

And then in 03:23:541 (1,2,3) - 03:23:864 (3) - is quite distinguishable from 03:23:541 (1,2) - yet the spacing is basically the same between 03:23:541 (1,2,3)? That's fine. I want to use symmetry here to close out the pattern. 3 is distinguishable from the other 2 circles anyways, because there's a spinner following it, so players don't just click/release like usual jumps, then click, and proceed to spin, so when you play this, you do feel a shift in impact that matches the held crash sound of 3. Not everything needs to be distinguished by an increase in spacing. Circle > Circle and Circle > Spinner already creates a distinguishable change in play. I guess, but it still doesn't feel right to me because although there are many people who say 03:23:541 (1,2,3) - is lower pitch, I don't think it really makes sense to make the jumps for those 3 smaller than 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - because it's the climax of the song, yet the jumps are not as big as the previous 5 notes. And many people have said the opposite of the pitch argument for the jumps, and even you had it the other way around in the past, so I would think that the last 3 being the biggest spacing would make more sense. We just have to disagree then, because I believe the last 3 notes should be less emphatic. You say the last 3 notes are the climax. I think the first 5 are. Our views simply differ on a basic level here, and you back your argument on the assumption that those 3 notes should be the climax, so there's not much I can say because I disagree with your fundamental assessment of the song here.

Doesn't really make sense to me how you're claiming you're doing the spacing by pitch and then in the map I'm seeing inconsistent spacing when using your reasoning, and you're not really making any distinguishable visual pattern with 03:22:735 (1,2,3,4,5) - either so I'm not sure how it could be explained with that either.

The pitch there suggests a more intense section, while Shiirn was arguing that the 3 notes at the end were more intense. I'm using pitch as an indicator of spacing, not an absolute measure of spacing. It's sad because I already respect pitch in many sections of the song. Too many. If i respected pitch less, I would be able to create even more interesting jump patterns, but there needs to be a good balance of respecting the song, and not completely following the song. I'm confident a good 95% of the map already respects the song well. You just pointed out sections where I intentionally didn't, and I really can't objectively argue that spacing "should" be how it is, other than that the patterns I've set up already play very well, are angled and structured in a way that make a lot of sense and create interesting flows and motions. However, if the entire map followed the higher pitch = higher spacing concept, it would be really bland as there would be far too many restrictions. Play the jumps, they won't throw you off. Your modding sense is just saying that it's not consistent with a popular mappign concept..., but maps are meant to be played, not viewed.

Monstrata wrote:

If i respected pitch less, I would be able to create even more interesting jump patterns

-REfluxIT wrote:

This garbage better not get ranked.

Irreversible wrote:

I guess most of the discussion has been resolved, it's time to get it rolling again~

Satellite wrote:

regrats!!!!!!

Sing wrote:

Satellite wrote:

regrats!!!!!!

regrets