Cherry Blossom wrote:

Find me someone in this community that is able to play this map properly and pass

Cherry Blossom wrote:

and which has also enough modding skills

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Nobody has BOTH enough playing and modding skills to judge this map.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Nobody has BOTH enough playing and modding skills to judge this map.

Weber wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Nobody has BOTH enough playing and modding skills to judge this map.

Explain why you need to both be able to play the map as well as have extensive mapping and modding knowledge when instead, as an experienced mapper, you COULD get the opinion of someone talented at the game who can play it, then through your own knowledge and experienced judgement, determine whether the map is good or not.

Because your train of thought where, just because we don't have a player that's both extremely proficient at both playing the game as well as mapping/modding it somehow gates us from ranking these kind of maps, just doesn't make sense imo.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

@EphemeralFetish
And it's a bad idea to take patterns one by one. A map is made by its global structure, and judging patterns one by one doesn't make sense, because you ignore the context around it. And the context must not be forgotten.
Charles explained something similar in this video (around 2mins), please look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRW8EGbdfLA

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Nobody has BOTH enough playing and modding skills to judge this map.

Shiirn wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:

@EphemeralFetish
And it's a bad idea to take patterns one by one. A map is made by its global structure, and judging patterns one by one doesn't make sense, because you ignore the context around it. And the context must not be forgotten.
Charles explained something similar in this video (around 2mins), please look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRW8EGbdfLA

If you bothered to actually look at the map, this uses global structure pretty well. It's pattern-based rather than distance-based.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Me and mithew both had runs that failed after the last stream at hp5. I asked him how be felr about it being 5 ans he said a little lower wouldnt hurt.

LastExceed wrote:

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Me and mithew both had runs that failed after the last stream at hp5. I asked him how be felr about it being 5 ans he said a little lower wouldnt hurt.

Wait, you actually managed to survive until the very end?! So much to "noone can pass this map"

LastExceed wrote:

Also another question on the side: Is there someone who can "pass" this with relax? i mean is there someone who has the cursor skills but lacks the finger skills?

Worminators wrote:

LastExceed wrote:

Also another question on the side: Is there someone who can "pass" this with relax? i mean is there someone who has the cursor skills but lacks the finger skills?

https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6195011

Now finding someone who can pass this with Autopilot would be a way harder task

LastExceed wrote:

Well in that case id definitely increase the HP and change the end of the beatmap. Putting the hardest part at the very end is extremely evil anyway (evil as in making people hate you for that)

F1r3tar wrote:

LastExceed wrote:

Well in that case id definitely increase the HP and change the end of the beatmap. Putting the hardest part at the very end is extremely evil anyway (evil as in making people hate you for that)

Higher HP with 270 bpm deathstreams isn't generally a good idea.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

I cant believe you find a 0.3 hp change that doesnt even matter that much such a big deal.

LastExceed wrote:

EphemeralFetish wrote:

I cant believe you find a 0.3 hp change that doesnt even matter that much such a big deal.

It's not the recent 0.3 change. If you set it back to 5 it would still be too low in my opinion. I think it should be 6-7

EphemeralFetish wrote:

5 Is considered to be the lowest "acceptable" HP for bragging about passes. If I change it again it wont be anything higher than 5.2

LastExceed wrote:

EphemeralFetish wrote:

5 Is considered to be the lowest "acceptable" HP for bragging about passes. If I change it again it wont be anything higher than 5.2

See this is what i meant with "the ultimate challenge" will never happen. It really is a shame.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Theres a difference between an ultimate challenge and an unfair one.

Also from my queue.

1. This is purely my opinion. The only reason I'm being this strict is to 1. Help Fetish, and to 2. give him a reason to grave since he wanted one. Its also worth noting that I won't be picking apart every pattern, just the immediately apparent ones.
2. Really, aside from the quality of the map itself, this merging of mp3s is just kind of bland. Bloodthirsty Nightmare Lullaby has a BPM of 180 with some triple stuff to make it occasionally 270 (for a player), whereas The Empress is a solid 270. The real difference here is that even though the player has to play at the same BPM, the listening experience and the differences between the song are quite jarring. Overall, since the songs don't flow together and have an entirely different feel (Bloodthirsty being more guttural and Empress being more heroic) it just doesn't work well. There are time when mp3s can be placed together, but in my opinion, this was not one of those times. But I digress, on to the mod.
3. So lets first address mapping metal. Metal typically has a lot of complexity to the song itself, and as a mapper its typically useful to help bring out that complexity in your interpretation. Obviously, though, everyone sees things differently and people who don't have as much experience modding or mapping metal may have problems doing it (it being modding/mapping). Some of the various techniques mappers use to bring out the minor details are stream shaping, distance spacing, and even in some cases overlaps. Using the beginning as the example, 00:10:731 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:12:064 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - could have different DS or the difference in shaping to emphasize the changes in pitch. Sections like 00:37:397 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - and 00:54:730 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - could both benefit from DS/patterning-changes to better represent pitch shift or varying pitch intensities. Having these elements in your map really separate it from a common deathstream practice map and solidify it as something to be taken seriously by modders. Another important thing to remember when mapping metal is to remember to be consistent. If theres a repeating motif within the song (there normally is) its useful to try and have a recall in your map to the way you mapped it the first time (e.g. use the same pattern or a very similar pattern, maybe even a variation if its a modification of the motif). This can even mean making sure you use opposing or linear flow in the same places (as how can a song have a jarring flow in one part but a smooth flow in the exact same musical part?) Doing this will make your map seem more complete not only thematically but also from a modding aspect.
4. Another thing that needs to be addressed is following instruments and why exclusively prioritizing drums can be a very bad thing. Throughout most of Bloodthirsty you give insane priority to drums (even ignoring one of the best parts of the song because of it, the guitar solo). On a lot of songs like this the guitar ends up being the more interesting instrument to give priority to and you should just keep the drum on reserve (so you should still map to it but try to emphasize the guitar rather than the drum, especially in a map like this with minimal changes to the drum's rhythm). Theres not a whole lot I can say here, this tends to be a more subjective thing on my end so I don't want to force anything down your throat. I just felt like it was worth mentioning.
5. 00:14:731 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Why is the DS of these the same and why does flow here seem so jarring compared to the rest of the map? In particular, the transition from 00:14:564 (4,1) - seems much larger than in other places. In general, the overall pattern of 00:14:064 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3) - requires a somewhat slurred movement to play, because when you look at it how it essentially plays (look at the screenshot) its a bunch of fairly obtuse angles. Sure, its 180 BPM and CS 3.5, but thats not really any excuse IMO.
   
   ^

   
6. 00:16:064 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - What are you following here? Didn't you use circles earlier? Rhythm variance is nice and all but you barely even used the prior rhythms.
7. 00:17:397 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Any particular reason you used this rhythm again? Also, why not an opposing flow like last time?
8. 00:18:564 (6,7,1) - Why the 1.8 DS when you used a DS of 00:13:064 (3,4,5,6) - 1.6 back here? The drums are more intense but 1.8 is really large. You should probably have nerfed overall stream DS or something so that the 1.8 makes more sense, or nerf the initial 1.6 and make the 1.8 more like the 1.6 spacing. Regardless, 1.8 seems way overspaced and the flow itself is quite jarring. (I reread this and it's a bit confusing. Change 00:13:064 (3,4,5,6) - to 1.4 and 00:18:564 (6,7,1) - to 1.6.)
9. 00:21:175 (3,4,1) - Angles like this are pretty rough when you start to get over 200 BPM. They can be okay at times, but I don't think they are here.
10. 00:21:397 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Why the NC's? Additionally, why isn't 00:22:064 (1,2,3,4) - Sliders like it was previously? Not a whole lot is changing here musically.
11. 00:22:730 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - When you used this pattern earlier (for the same sounds), it had a more linear flow, so why the opposing flow here? What changed?
12. 00:25:397 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - None of the weird things you were doing here at the beginning of each NC. Its very straight-forward which seems contradictory to the established pattern, especially since nothing much really changes in the music. (To clarify since that reads like trash, I meant why is this a smooth curve when the other parts have the off-set parts on the NCs during the stream?)
13. 00:26:064 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This pattern would probably play better if it was more like 1>2>6>5>4>3
14. 00:28:953 (10,11) - 11 is arguably more intense than 00:28:286 (4,5) - but its represented with the same distance. Also, overall, 00:28:064 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - this pattern is pretty weak musically compared to 00:26:064 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - and other patterns, yet you gave it fairly large spacing. The reason its more weak is because its purely drum with no other instruments there, and since it has the same consistency as the previous drum set, it feels weird being so large. The only spacing that absolutely should be changed is 10,11, but overall it could benefit from a slight spacing nerf on the rest and a buff on those two.
15. 00:29:730 (3) - Not a huge fan of the strong guitar sound on the slider end.
16. 00:30:397 (6) - Why the repeat here? You're putting a fairly prominent guitar beat on a slider end which is typically a huge no-no.
17. 00:31:397 (1) - Based on rhythmic patterning this would probably be better suited as two circles. Listen to the guitar on 50%, and notice how 00:31:286 (4) - is a lead in for the guitar 1/2s. (Also, that being said, 00:30:730 (1,2,3,4) - doesn't seem entirely kosher because 4 isn't quite connected to that pattern musically, so it should probably be a bit more detached.)
18. Continuing from the above point 00:31:397 (1,2) - has such a small spacing when its higher pitched compared to 00:31:730 (3,4,5) - whereas you give the transition between the patterns, 00:31:619 (2,3) - fairly good spacing. Altogether though, it gives the pattern no clear direction. When you, if you, change the slider to two circles, make 1>2>3 larger than 4>5>6 and nerf the transition between 3>4 so that its not as big as your current 2>3.
19. 00:32:286 (2,3) - Incredibly strong drum beat paired with a strong part of the guitar melody, and you give it a practically non-existant spacing. I don't think much elaboration is needed here.
20. 00:32:730 (5,6,7,8,1,2) - This entire sequence here kind of just feels like you ran out of room. It doesn't follow your established flow and overall it feels cramped and way too circular. The worst spot though, is probably 00:33:064 (7,8,1) - after you've established those wider angle jumps on the previous notes.
21. 00:33:397 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - These are all consistent in the music and the map, so good job there. The spacing from the sliders to the next circles is a bit too high, so I'd nerf that. To compensate, give more spacing to 00:34:397 (7,8,9) - since its a buildup and has more intensity. If you want to make the pattern great, give them an expanding DS as well.
22. 00:35:730 (7,8,9) - These definitely need more as well, though probably a descending DS would work better after the 7>8.
23. 00:37:064 (7,8,1,2,3) - Why this at 270? Its essentially a square jump into a borderline linear path. There are definitely better alternatives that can be found. Also, the transition of 8>1 is really really large for no apparent reason.
24. 00:37:397 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I mentioned this pattern itself in one of my earlier statements, so I don't think I need to go into detail. Also, it doesn't even work correctly which I find kind of funny that no one mentioned. 00:37:397 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - 3's are stacked on each other, but 00:38:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - then the 3's are stacked on the 1's.
25. 00:38:730 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - Any reason it goes from stacked, unstacked, unstacked, stacked? I think stacking all or unstacking all is best.
26. 00:39:175 (7,8,9,1,2,3) - I probably would give the 7>8,9,1 more spacing and then nerf the 2>3 spacing just a tad. I think right now it doesn't feel as intense to play as it could/should.
27. 00:40:397 (3,6) - Both of these have strong guitar notes on the slider ends, kind of makes me sad. I think this is undermapped and not for the best.
28. 00:41:619 (2,3,4,1) - Kind of a weird flow + spacing. I feel like if you stared at this for a while you could probably do something that falls a bit more in like with the rest of the map.
29. 00:42:064 (1) - Same point as earlier, two circles. Also, the overall pattern 00:42:064 (1,2,3,4,5) - has pretty poor flow if you look at it note by note. 2 is placed to the up and left of the slider's tail, implying the next note will be in the lower right quadrant, which is not what you've done. After you hit the 3, which defied expectations, you have a sharp angle into the 4>5 which plays quite well, and then a huge jump (bordering on a right angle) into 00:42:730 (1) - which then basically goes the exact opposite way of your cursor flow. So overall the pattern could definitely be improved.
30. 00:43:064 (3) - Same as earlier.
31. 00:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - The guitar is the more prominent instrument to the ears. The current patterning makes sense with the drums, but definitely not to the thing thats dominating the ears. I'd recommend changing it to prioritize guitar and reference the drums. (As in use your circles/sliders to follow guitar but use spacing to emphasize drums.) When you do this, basically 00:44:064 (1,2,3) - these end up being the same sound, which means 1 should be circles, 00:45:064 (2) - ends up being a transition which should also be circles, and overall your spacing should be getting larger until 00:44:953 (1) - due to the increasing drums. You also give some of the largest spacing to 00:45:064 (2,3) - which is relatively mundane. Overall this pattern is definitely the worst pattern in the map so far.
32. 00:45:286 (3,1) - Baby spacing.
33. 00:46:397 (7,8,9) - I'd give this a bit more DS like I mentioned earlier.
34. 00:49:397 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - It would have been cool to see the first 1,2,3,4,5 have a larger DS than the second to emphasize the drum's decreasing pitch.
35. 00:50:730 (1) - I'm kind of sad the piano didn't get any fun emphasis since its such a cool section of music. Overall a lot of your spacing is similar to previous sections 00:50:730 (1,2) - like here and 00:51:619 (2,3) - here, so on and so forth. Overall I'm not the biggest fan of this section design/spacing-wise, just because I feel like theres an entire instrument not being considered in the section. I'll point out a few things that should be changed, but glazing over the rest.
36. 00:52:730 (1,2,3) - 00:58:064 (1,2,3) - Really intense, needs more spacing.
37. 00:54:730 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - Mentioned this in intro paragraphs.
38. 01:00:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - In my opinion, this is way too clean compared to the rest of the map. It feels super unnatural and out of place, as well as the pattern itself is super linear for your BPM. The spacing helps with it being a bit too linear, but yeah. I feel like you could have done something better. 01:01:286 (3,4) - This is getting less spacing than 01:00:730 (1,2,3) - this even though the 3,4 has more intensity, as well.
39. 03:34:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - These are fairly consistent musically unless you listen to the strings. The strings don't really follow this pattern either, so overall I think this is just unnecessary.
40. 03:41:680 (1,2,3) - I actually really like this, when I first mapped this song forever ago (spoiler the map was trash) I wish I had thought of this.
41. 03:46:124 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Having these have two different DS's based on string pitch would be a really cool way to make this map more interesting.
42. 03:47:013 (1) - I think having this really makes the transition jarring. You definitely can't really hear a 1/2 rhythm and its definitely still drumming in the background. I'd either do two kicks OR a 3/4 slider with a silenced end.
43. 03:47:236 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - I think that this isn't quite connected because of the string. I'd do something different than your other patterns, like a really stacked stream or repeating sliders.
44. 03:47:902 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Same as above.
45. 03:48:791 (1,2,3,4) - Visually, I think 03:45:236 (1,2,3,4) - was better as it segmented them into two sets of two. The music kind of follows a do-do du-du type pattern, so I think that 03:48:791 (1,2,3,4) - should try to do the same.
46. 03:50:791 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Similar to the last part, making 03:50:791 (2,3,4,5) - kicks would be worthwhile to emphasize the repeated string that ends on 03:51:013 (6) - .
47. Those points can basically be copy/pasted for a bit, I'll skip to the interesting parts.
48. 03:54:791 (1,2,3,4) - Kicks would have worked much better here because the spacing and movement could have better emphasized the transition and building intensity.
49. 03:55:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - There aren't really a whole lot of times the strings is doing a "do-do do-do do-do, etc" in the song, so having it mapped as a bland stream is dissapointing. I'd suggest kicks + stacked triples.
50. 03:58:569 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Once again, DS changes wold be baller, maybe even to the vocals for added epic-ness.
51. 04:00:791 (9,10) - Repeats because of her held voice? Or is there another reason? Overall it doesn't really seem to fit the standard you've established thus far so I'm not sure how I feel about them.
52. 04:01:902 (1,2,3,4) - Kicks here would be better.
53. 04:03:458 (1,2) - These feel out of place since her vocals are not accompanying them. I would have went with repeat-sliers.
54. 04:03:902 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - Model this off of 04:11:013 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - that. I think you did much better there.
55. 04:05:680 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Wait what, why does the DS randomly change halfway through the stream what
56. 04:13:458 (4,1) - Pretty large spacing out of nowhere accompanied by a pretty circular flow at 04:13:680 (1,2,3) - just feels pretty awkward in general.
57. 04:13:902 (3,1,2,3) - W-why? This doesn't play well at all.
58. 04:14:347 (3,1) - Whats it with you and having opposing slider directions at high BPMs? If It was CTRL+G'd I could see this working, possibly, but as it is now its just really harsh on the player and overall kind of clunky.
59. 04:15:680 (3,1,2,3) - Same thing as earlier, these are pretty weird at the BPM. They kind of remind me of Image Material but not nearly as structured and with DS thats a bit too high.
60. 04:16:569 (5) - Are you missing a drum sampleset whistle here?
61. 04:19:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Definitely one of those places where different DS's would really shine.
62. And honestly, those points really cover the biggest majority of issues that appear in Empress.
63. As a general disclaimer for this post, a lot of people say things like "Well its in {insert generic TV size map here} so why isn't it fine in this?" Really, in the end, everyone has varying standards. (Also its much harder to get mappers to change inconsistency issues over 90 seconds versus 450 seconds. You have more to work with and can support your mods better on the 450.) Its much easier to rank an inconsistent generic 5.8* map than an inconsistent and generic 8.4* map. One of the reasons being is the 8.4* map always ends up with more eyes on it than the 5.8* map - especially with the reddit posts making sure everyone realizes a hard map may get ranked. The other reason is that in all honesty, all hard maps should definitely be held to a higher standard. These maps are the top end of our game for ranked (disregarding mods) and should definitely be mapped in suit. So those reasons, paired with the fact that Fetish wanted me to nazi-mod this, is why I was so hard on this map.