CLSW wrote:

Can I look for some modders again?

CLSW wrote:

Can I look for some modders again?

Razor Sharp wrote:

CLSW wrote:

Can I look for some modders again?

Yes please!
HW, please give the ctb diffs another chance ;w;

Irreversible wrote:

http://puu.sh/oZhah/9d24bc0c06.txt

I fixed some NC issues updated to last submission.

I would really appreciate if someone could give a hitsound mod on Irrelvis EX because I just always find an inconsistency, but I'm not sure.. orz i think this diff's hs work is really awesome, like the most excellent one in the whole mapset: it only used what i've already provide in source level, but still give various of hs pattern showed different original track to give much more joy expressed among patterns.

Something that caught my attention on wkyik's EX: 01:10:030 (1,2,3,4) - I really believe that you can emphasize this sound better by not overmapping it like this, the stress is kind of really at the wrong place imo (same with repeated place) reduced that part's additional beats (thou they do have some pitch shifting to follow, too weak that change can be noticed thou).

KittyAdventure wrote:

If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?

KittyAdventure wrote:

If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?

KittyAdventure wrote:

If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset, why you keep CLSW & examination in tags?

Strato wrote:

Maybe I'm noob at all of that mapping stuff, but for me, this map looks like unplayable shit..

Deif wrote:

It's senseless to keep in tags the name of mappers whose guest difficulties aren't uploaded into the BSS along with the rest of the mapset. Please get them removed before getting the beatmap qualified. ... ok.

Hollow Wings wrote:

to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.

Xexxar wrote:

Loctav wrote:

1. Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in it’s current design - not force your own style upon it.

The biggest problem that I have with this mapset is the aesthetic style leads to forced mapping choices on the creator that I believe lead to a poor experience for players. As we know, this map follows a grid focused aesthetics that leads to an extremely limited number of places of notes. This style also uses stack leniency of 2 to accomplish said grid style, which means that absolutely no notes are being displaced for any level of readability improvement. In a mapset which relies so heavily on SV changes and chaotic spacing, it's a huge oversight.

For example, in the beginning of this map, 00:35:659 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - there is a very consistent and readable level of spacing variety, which is extreme important given the grid nature of the visuals. 1/1's are consistently larger spaced and the 1/2 spacing is differential from this. However, as the map progresses, we get to this part: 00:45:910 (1) - which's theme is for the downbeat of the next measure to be on the opposite side of the last note of the previous measure. The spacing here simply does not make sense in terms of the choices of rhythm:

00:45:910 (1,2,3,4) - Kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 1.0 linear motion towards the weak beat of 3.
00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - Kick has 1.0 spacing on 2, but then has 0 spacing on the weak 3 that follows then 1.0 spacing on strong 4 with 1.0 spacing to 5.

This immediately is an inconsistency in spacing choices for 3, why have different levels of spacing for the same sound. In a part that is SO restricted that it has literally only two angles of motion, the choices made here need to be extremely purposeful.

00:48:322 (1,2,3,4) - kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 0 distance weak beat 3 underneath.
00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - small spacing on drum on 4 leads to giant 2.0 jump on strong clap of 5.

Now the first pattern should be noted as having the exact same musical sound of the first pattern, but randomly chooses to overlap 3 instead of not. The only reason I can come up for why this choice was made was in order to make it so that the 4 that follows is the maximum distance away from 3.
As for 00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , we have double spacing on the clap that before was only emphasized with a space of 1.0, I understand there is some difference in rhythm, but compare 00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - 4 is the exact same strong beat but is only given half the spacing because HW chose to make her design so restrictive that she has to place 5 on the end not 4 because she wants to keep her theme.

This is where I believe this map starts to fall apart, because she's mapping towards the theme and not the song. I know I'm being extremely short with this mod but... lazy.

The song's should be what drives the theme, and the theme shouldn't be tacked on. If she wasn't using such a restrictive style on this part she could much more closely follow the song's strong beats with appropriate spacing. Therefore I believe that the concept behind the beatmap is fundamentally flawed for ATLEAST this section of the song.


to Blue Dragon: as for a suggestion on what to do about this: Don't use a restrictive style that forces the mapper to make choices that aren't in the best interest of the song.

Xexxar wrote:

Hollow Wings wrote:

to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.

reposting because saying "shows no issue" isnt responding to my mod

Hollow Wings wrote:

to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.

Kathex wrote:

If someone again say me thats not the right place to do it, pls, if you know the right place, where we not get ignored, help me to make it change, im realy trying to help more mappers rank their maps, not just doing a rage about maps.

Monstrata wrote:

Did another check just to be safe. Two quick things I wanted to point out before qualifying:

liangv587's Medium

03:00:382 (1) - I would end this slider on the white tick instead, for better consistency with the set (every other diff ends on the white tick at 03:01:890 - ). agree, changed.

Extra

00:38:071 (6,1) - I know some people found this pattern a bit hard to read at first because the 2x repeat isn't really anticipated, and the 2nd repeat is slightly covered by the hit-burst of 6. Can I hear your opinion on this? ofc, and i think the best way to resolve this problem is change that repeating rhythm into another one, changed the 2-time-repeat slider in to 2 sliders.


[]

Call me back when you've addressed these two issues!

Hollow Wings wrote:

reposting because saying i've already respond your so called "mod", which is really nazi like "this blanket is not perfect". for the map which has decided to be put into qualified section, you should give issue to let me fix. i've also explained why i said those words, in case you only focus on the previous part of my post.

Ascendance wrote:

Hi I'm here to check the ctb diffs





oh

Ascendance wrote:

hopefully no one took it serious, i dont wanna get this dq'd again lol

CelegaS wrote:

Ascendance wrote:

hopefully no one took it serious, i dont wanna get this dq'd again lol

Why not >:D

F1r3tar wrote:

Incoming drama.

/popcorn

Hollow Wings wrote:

have read 7 pages, here i give simple answers because i think it's not necessary to give feedback to mod - i've got no mod.

to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.

to winber1: reading patterns can confuse you ofc, if you really read the map's cw. that truely is the point of that difficulty, and you've missed it at all.

to WORSTPOLACKEU: overviewed the "mod" thou i think most of them can be like "This will never play well." which i really don't think can be regarded as a mod, even did after the map got ranked. the map is obviously possible to play even get fc or ss score. and what's more important, you mentioned no unranble issues.
and if you wanna talking about ranking criteria, this thread is not the right place imo.

to Alveryn: i don't think extra level diff is made for everyone to enjoy.

to SFGrenade: sv change and different kiai for gd are allowed.

to Kurokami: well, i got the situation, and thanks for taking care these things, it's also appreciation that other modes' qats don't mind get involved into this. (qat get really busy lol, everyone should know that, especially mappers imo.)
if responding mods after the map qualified is also a responsibility to any mapper in any maps, i'll do that from now on and avoid such dq like this.

to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.

that's it.

to everyone: i know my maps may be questionalble, and still here those are. believe it or not, i've almost considered all possible points of people even in the last drama, by asking bunches of peoples' opinions much more than ones appeared in this thread. for that, you can regard my works as depending on - i can say, like at least 100 persons' - opinions in every map i've made. they can be short irc mods, tests or even detail checking by tools, double tests after those. noobs have complained those tricky patterns to let me low down some ridiculous spikes, pros have given personal opinions to let me provide more confortable settings to play, mappers even told some unbelieveble ideas or various suggestions as other styles' mappers. then i choose what i wanna insist and what really should be changed: just like seeking mods and giving feedback, but i think lots of people didn't remind how important that is. you may say this map is not perfect and i haven't think deep, just test me, find the issue and convince me. if you really can do that, it'll be always welcomed.

so waiting for next progress.

1. The response to Kathex's mod (p/5112749) is plainly rude, and doesn't address the issue brought up by it.
2. WORSTPOLACKEU's mod also got pretty ignored after bringing up lots of concerns (p/5121844). Even if some points brought by him/her lack proper explanation ("plays bad"), some others look valid and shouldn't be ignored just because you "quickly read the mod and saw the majority of them were poorly explained". Also, stating some stuff "can't be regarded as a mod" is rude, especially considering (judging by his kudosu count) WORSTPOLACKEU isn't an experienced modder.
3. Xexxar brought up several concerns with the map (p/5133943), just to be replied with a "show no issues". Not satisfied by the answer, he re-posted it (p/5156146) to get a proper reply, which was also ignored when re-qualifying.

Shiirn wrote:

Respect is a two-way street.

Don't expect to get any if you don't give it. I certainly don't.

Shiirn wrote:

Respect is a two-way street.

Don't expect to get any if you don't give it. I certainly don't.

I see no reason to have mappers forced to reply to every piece of honest-to-god filibuster mods like it isn't obvious they're massive wastes of time.

Ascendance wrote:

... No more dq pls

ZiRoX wrote:

In my opinion, this shouldn't have been requalified as some people's mods haven't been addressed properly in the following reply:

Basically:

1. The response to Kathex's mod (p/5112749) is plainly rude, and doesn't address the issue brought up by it.
2. WORSTPOLACKEU's mod also got pretty ignored after bringing up lots of concerns (p/5121844). Even if some points brought by him/her lack proper explanation ("plays bad"), some others look valid and shouldn't be ignored just because you "quickly read the mod and saw the majority of them were poorly explained". Also, stating some stuff "can't be regarded as a mod" is rude, especially considering (judging by his kudosu count) WORSTPOLACKEU isn't an experienced modder. and also why i'm rude for that response but modders won't be rude for that "mod"? WORSTPOLACKEU isn't an experienced modder is not a reason.
3. Xexxar brought up several concerns with the map (p/5133943), just to be replied with a "show no issues". Not satisfied by the answer, he re-posted it (p/5156146) to get a proper reply, which was also ignored when re-qualifying. and they already got their proper reply for their proper mod, i've told that.

Even if their mods aren't the best, you don't like their suggestions, or whatever reason you might have, they used some of their free time looking at your map and trying to improve it in their eyes. That should be respected and their mods deserve a proper response. and the map should be respected to recieve mod.