ezek wrote:

[Andrea's Hard]

1. From 00:01:352 - to 00:11:057 - your combos are every second measure and then after that is every single measure, any special reason for that or was it a mistake? I'm following the instruments at the beginning, that's why combos are different.
2. 00:07:307 (6) - Andrea, is it really you? cuz that curve doesn't look smooth enough for Andrea quality~ Fixed it a bit.
3. 00:39:734 (5,6) - use bigger spacing for emphasis perhaps? I want the last note to end on the middle, so I'll keep it for now.

Thank you ezek!

Here's the update: https://puu.sh/u3ghi/5dd3712f92.rar

Fixed all

http://puu.sh/u3tL9/3796c3a788.txt

@ezek : fixed

@Monstrata Can you add an nc 00:16:351 (3) - here for me since i forgot to change it aaa

JBHyperion wrote:

That done, ctb diff is fine so std peeps feel free to go ahead.

cool~

Scuttlebug isn't a farm map bubble that instead

ezek wrote:

JBHyperion wrote:

That done, ctb diff is fine so std peeps feel free to go ahead.

cool~

yo dude where's my kudosu xd

bubble guilty all the same

please dont rank this

There is a perfectly good scuttlebug family waiting for a ranking

Aaa forgot about that, my bad JBH.

Greetings! I have some concerns regarding this mapset.

I'm going to go straight to the point. The spacing in most of the higher difficulties is chaos. Just because the average jump is half of the screen doesn't make them any more justified as a whole, in any way. Just because you can make the common sound go halfway across the screen, does not mean you should. You may interpret the song in this way, but I can guarantee you that you'll have people disagreeing with this interpretation.

[Cookie-Triangle-Spicy-Cookie]

00:01:352 (1,2) - 00:03:337 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Already from the first note you're conveying that these sounds are very intense, due to the difficulty of aiming the notes which reflect this in the map. This will ultimately end up destroying your overall potential of emphasis in the map, since everything is relative. Let me remind you that how well you accentuate something is not the same thing as how difficult it is to play something. It's only the difference between them that can accomplish this.

00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - was a good approach in trying to differentiate parts of the song, but the spacing of it's section is extremely inconsistent, with 00:06:425 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - being completely different, despite it's musical similarities.

00:09:734 (1,1) - Momentum isn't exactly going in this direction either, and since it's the sound that is landed on in this case that determines it's prior distance, and that the sound itself doesn't sound out in the song, it is not reflecting it very well.

00:13:263 (7,8) - Honestly don't see why this should be spaced as much as it is. If you remove the note you'll notice that the sound it's reflecting is very faint, yet it has the same distance as 00:13:043 (6,7) - and 00:12:160 (2,3) - .

00:11:940 (1,2) - If you compare this with 00:13:484 (8,1) - there's also some very apparent inconsistencies.

In 00:11:940 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - , snares are actually somewhat emphasized in comparison to the other sounds, but in 00:13:925 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - these other sounds are sometimes even more spaced. Refer to 00:12:381 (3,4) - and 00:14:146 (2,3) - in comparison to 00:12:160 (2,3) - and 00:13:925 (1,2) - .

00:16:351 (3,4) - Having clearly different sounds symmetrical like this will make you lose relevance with the song. Instead, make (3) a 3/4 slider and arrange them similarly to like you did at 00:23:410 (1,2) - , using the same principles. In this case even the SV change is different, which makes little sense. Also NC.

00:17:675 (3,4) - This last sound isn't like the others, but it's not reflected in any way through the map, which I find odd.

I don't mean to ruin your patterns, but 00:19:219 (1,2,3) - and 00:12:160 (2,3,4) - are analogous measures, yet, again, their spacing is quite inconsistent to say the least.

00:20:101 (5,6) - What are you even following here. I can't hear any sound as intense as what you're making this out to be. If you're referring to the snare, how come 00:19:219 (1,2) - , and all the previous ones, differ so much? At this point I don't even know if you're ignoring the snares or not because they don't seem to hold any relevance to the map other than in the first of these patterns.

00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - These are, once again, not the same sounds so I don't see why you'd be making a pattern like this out of them. You mapped that last sound much better at 00:15:028 (6,7) - than you did here at 00:22:087 (6,7) - , because of the clear difference in spacing in comparison to the rest.

00:22:307 (7,1) - Is spaced pretty much exactly like 00:22:528 (1,2) - or any other sound is, despite these not being the same sounds.

00:32:234 (1,2) - These are different from 00:32:676 (3,4) - . Honestly I would recommend you prioritize the song over your patterns. We are trying to reflect the songs with our maps, right?

00:31:351 (1,2) - Doesn't even sound much different from 00:32:234 (1,2) -

00:33:116 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Yes, this is kiai. No, this does not mean you can suddenly start building up into full-screen jumps. Also isn't this the same sounds as 00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - ? The only difference is that you decided to add audible hitsounds on all the circles to make them seem like they're meant to be more intense.

00:34:660 - The longer sounds also kind of fail being reflected here because it's all just a giant pattern of circles, which makes it really monotonous, when in reality you could have used cues in the song to make it more diverse.

00:36:204 (7) - There's a vocal here which deserves emphasis, and it seems like you have tried to convey that, but when all previous notes are distanced in the same way, this becomes very difficult to do. If the majority of other notes were clearly differentiated, for example by not all being sharp angles, or at least being in some kind of recognizable pattern, then you could have brought this out much better in accordance with the song, rather than making it look and play like a giant buildup which isn't supported by the song.

00:36:866 (2) - Also makes very little sense that this would be further away from (1) than (3) is from this, if you're truly trying to accent vocals. At the moment, and to be completely honest, they seem like random wack-a-mole to the bpm, which obviously isn't an interpretation you would appreciate of your map, isn't that right? So instead, try keeping your concepts and spacing consistent with what is heard in the song that your beatmap is following. You could even take this opportunity to use sliders rather than circles, since some beats are stronger than others.

00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This is just very over the top in my opinion. There's not even a beat going on here. Yes, they are prominent, and a clear buildup, but, again, not to the degree that this is made out to be. Even something like this would work much better.

Making changes to the mentioned parts will make your difficulty easier, and I would understand if this isn't something you would want, but I do not believe the map to be ready in this state, as it loses a large amount of relevance to the song. Many parts are extremely inconsistent and others simply aren't supported in the way they are mapped.

It's not only this last difficulty, though. Many of the other difficulties also have problems in these regards, and it would take a very long time for me to look over all of these in detail, so I would recommend you both thoroughly reconsider these, as well as gather more mods before pushing this forward.

Should you disagree with what is said in this post, then feel free to ask other nominators, just as I have, or bring your concerns and questions directly to me. Good luck!

i guess monstratas spicy triangle isnt so spicy after all..

im hilarious

lmao

cookie...zi butter cookie....

please reconsider the pop this is a high quality DT set with more diffs than no title thx

i agree with pop tbh, forced jump to raise star rating disgusting

Scuttlebug doesn't een have a bublbe

Who is Naxess lol

Ascendance wrote:

Who is Naxess lol

why does that matter your map's worst nightmare

i guess it's how you look at the map


isn't this map supposed to be a jump flowy sort of map? Wasn't that it's original intentions? I kind of like it tbh



also free pp

Naxess wrote:

Greetings! I have some concerns regarding this mapset.

I'm going to go straight to the point. The spacing in most of the higher difficulties is chaos. Just because the average jump is half of the screen doesn't make them any more justified as a whole, in any way. Just because you can make the common sound go halfway across the screen, does not mean you should. You may interpret the song in this way, but I can guarantee you that you'll have people disagreeing with this interpretation.

[Cookie-Triangle-Spicy-Cookie]

00:01:352 (1,2) - 00:03:337 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Already from the first note you're conveying that these sounds are very intense, due to the difficulty of aiming the notes which reflect this in the map. This will ultimately end up destroying your overall potential of emphasis in the map, since everything is relative. Let me remind you that how well you accentuate something is not the same thing as how difficult it is to play something. It's only the difference between them that can accomplish this. Visually this sets the tone for the rest of the map because it demonstrates a visual gap you would associate with jumps later on in the map. However, the difference here is that these are slider jumps. They are much easier to land, plus due to slider-end leniency you can begin the jump to the next object at an earlier time than say a circle > circle jump. Your point would be absolutely accurate if this were a circle though.

00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - was a good approach in trying to differentiate parts of the song, but the spacing of it's section is extremely inconsistent, with 00:06:425 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - being completely different, despite it's musical similarities. Well, I wanted some variety here, but I'm fine with making this bigger.

00:09:734 (1,1) - Momentum isn't exactly going in this direction either, and since it's the sound that is landed on in this case that determines it's prior distance, and that the sound itself doesn't sound out in the song, it is not reflecting it very well. The idea here is to force the player to slightly go back on themselves, creating a flowbreak occuring in transition from one slider to another. It's a form of emphasis that doesn't utilize jumps.

00:13:263 (7,8) - Honestly don't see why this should be spaced as much as it is. If you remove the note you'll notice that the sound it's reflecting is very faint, yet it has the same distance as 00:13:043 (6,7) - and 00:12:160 (2,3) - . Sure. Made this smaller. Also remapped this jump pattern taking into account your points from below

00:11:940 (1,2) - If you compare this with 00:13:484 (8,1) - there's also some very apparent inconsistencies. ^

In 00:11:940 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - , snares are actually somewhat emphasized in comparison to the other sounds, but in 00:13:925 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - these other sounds are sometimes even more spaced. Refer to 00:12:381 (3,4) - and 00:14:146 (2,3) - in comparison to 00:12:160 (2,3) - and 00:13:925 (1,2) - . ^

00:16:351 (3,4) - Having clearly different sounds symmetrical like this will make you lose relevance with the song. Instead, make (3) a 3/4 slider and arrange them similarly to like you did at 00:23:410 (1,2) - , using the same principles. In this case even the SV change is different, which makes little sense. Also NC. I disagree about your argument about losing song relevancy due to using the same visual for different sounds. I think it creates a consistency within the map actually. But I mapped this differenly on my lower difficulties so I'll do so here too and use a different slider design and slightly increased SV.

00:17:675 (3,4) - This last sound isn't like the others, but it's not reflected in any way through the map, which I find odd. The last sound is just like the others though. It's the 4th syllable in Cho-Co-Coo-Kie xD

I don't mean to ruin your patterns, but 00:19:219 (1,2,3) - and 00:12:160 (2,3,4) - are analogous measures, yet, again, their spacing is quite inconsistent to say the least. Since I remapped the first jump, this should be fine, but I took added measure and made the second jump feel more intuitive as well.

00:20:101 (5,6) - What are you even following here. I can't hear any sound as intense as what you're making this out to be. If you're referring to the snare, how come 00:19:219 (1,2) - , and all the previous ones, differ so much? At this point I don't even know if you're ignoring the snares or not because they don't seem to hold any relevance to the map other than in the first of these patterns. Yep. I redo'ing this pattern I decided to lessen the emphasis onto the snare.

00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - These are, once again, not the same sounds so I don't see why you'd be making a pattern like this out of them. You mapped that last sound much better at 00:15:028 (6,7) - than you did here at 00:22:087 (6,7) - , because of the clear difference in spacing in comparison to the rest. This is simply pattern consistency. Same sound = same pattern and different sound = different pattern create a very boring map imo. But of course, it's a map that will no doubt follow the song to a tee. Feel free to disagree here, we can discuss this further as I have no trouble fixing this if necessary.

00:22:307 (7,1) - Is spaced pretty much exactly like 00:22:528 (1,2) - or any other sound is, despite these not being the same sounds. Visual spacing, and actual emphasis are very different though. Visually they can appear the same, but when you play them, the sliders are much easier to land due to slider leniency which I've explained in your first point.

00:32:234 (1,2) - These are different from 00:32:676 (3,4) - . Honestly I would recommend you prioritize the song over your patterns. We are trying to reflect the songs with our maps, right? No, I disagree with reflecting the songs with our maps. I think that's a mapping philosophy that produces bland and uninteresting maps. The pattern consistency here is quite necessary, otherwise the previous square feels out of place and unsupported. If your view is simply to map for the song, then I encourage you to try out some more creative means of mapping. You could check out my quaver map, or Nandemo Nai ya, or even Can Do, those are good examples of maps that use patterns that don't follow the song. The song doesn't call for 7 different mapping interpretations in Can Do, and it doesn't call for left/right mapping styles in Nandemo Nai ya, yet using these concepts create really imaginative ways of expressing the song past simply following it. I guess this paragraph is concerned with addressing your philosophy though, and not so much this pattern.

00:31:351 (1,2) - Doesn't even sound much different from 00:32:234 (1,2) - ^

00:33:116 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Yes, this is kiai. No, this does not mean you can suddenly start building up into full-screen jumps. Also isn't this the same sounds as 00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - ? The only difference is that you decided to add audible hitsounds on all the circles to make them seem like they're meant to be more intense. I buffed the previous jump to create a better consistency here. In any case though these are not full screen jumps really. They only build up to full screen jumps on 00:37:749 (6,7) - unless you consider vertical full screen jumps in your definition (personally vertical jumps are much easier tho). Anyways, this is a very common jump pattern I've utilized in many of my maps, and I would like to keep this because of its relation to the difficulty's name too xD. Here, the goal isn't to create emphasis with every other note mapping to a snare, its to create consistency in spacing, with an emphasis on when the patterns diverge, in order to emphasize all of 00:35:984 (6,7,8) - . Emphasis doesn't always have to be self-contained in one particular jump. This is the idea of foregrounding, where a specific pattern is set up to be the same so as to foreground the divergence (which happens to map to elmo's woah! as well as wind up the spacing for the final 6 jumps).

00:34:660 - The longer sounds also kind of fail being reflected here because it's all just a giant pattern of circles, which makes it really monotonous, when in reality you could have used cues in the song to make it more diverse. Diversity is not a good idea here. Consistency is better for reasons I explained earler. Also, if you want diversity, usually you want to have a reason for the diversity, ie to foreground a certain sound that you plan on utilizing. The reason youre giving for switching rhythms is simply for "more diversity" which isn't a strong argument.

00:36:204 (7) - There's a vocal here which deserves emphasis, and it seems like you have tried to convey that, but when all previous notes are distanced in the same way, this becomes very difficult to do. If the majority of other notes were clearly differentiated, for example by not all being sharp angles, or at least being in some kind of recognizable pattern, then you could have brought this out much better in accordance with the song, rather than making it look and play like a giant buildup which isn't supported by the song. As I've hopefully explained above.

00:36:866 (2) - Also makes very little sense that this would be further away from (1) than (3) is from this, if you're truly trying to accent vocals. At the moment, and to be completely honest, they seem like random wack-a-mole to the bpm, which obviously isn't an interpretation you would appreciate of your map, isn't that right? So instead, try keeping your concepts and spacing consistent with what is heard in the song that your beatmap is following. You could even take this opportunity to use sliders rather than circles, since some beats are stronger than others. Same idea about foregrounding 00:37:749 (6,7) - . Also emphasizing every note correctly in big jumps like this is not a good idea imo. The jumps currently contain similar DS structures, i don't want to emphasize them too much because when dealing with large jumps its much better to be consistent. Expressing emphasis through individual jump patterns is usually a good idea to maintain in simpler jumps but if you look at jumpy 6+ star maps, generally there is very little specific spacing change within jumps. The majority comes from the pattern holisitically becoming bigger.

00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This is just very over the top in my opinion. There's not even a beat going on here. Yes, they are prominent, and a clear buildup, but, again, not to the degree that this is made out to be. Even something like this would work much better.
It's a bit over the top, but I quite enjoy it. I already discussed this with a few people and nerfed the spacing from the quaver jumps that used to occur here. This is the highest difficulty and the BPM is quite low so the jumps are good for challenging players.

Making changes to the mentioned parts will make your difficulty easier, and I would understand if this isn't something you would want, but I do not believe the map to be ready in this state, as it loses a large amount of relevance to the song. Many parts are extremely inconsistent and others simply aren't supported in the way they are mapped.

It's not only this last difficulty, though. Many of the other difficulties also have problems in these regards, and it would take a very long time for me to look over all of these in detail, so I would recommend you both thoroughly reconsider these, as well as gather more mods before pushing this forward.

Should you disagree with what is said in this post, then feel free to ask other nominators, just as I have, or bring your concerns and questions directly to me. Good luck!

[]

In summary, it looks like the main points of contention are:

1. 00:01:352 (1,2) - These jumps are too big. I believe they are fine since slider-slider jumps are much easier than similar circle > slider jumps due to how you can begin the jump earlier on a slider, as well as the slider leniency allowing more room to prepare the jump.
2. 00:09:734 (1) - Not following momentum. My argument is that i'm using transitional flowbreak to create emphasis.
3. 00:17:896 (4) - This doesn't seem to emphasis anything. My argument is that it's for the 4th syllable in Choco Cookie.
4. 00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - 4/5 and 6/7 are different sounds so they should have different patterns associated with them. My argument is just pattern consistency.
5. 00:32:234 (1,2,3,4) - This not being a good pattern due to 3/4 being very different from 1/2 in terms of sound. My argument is pattern consistency.
6. 00:33:116 - Spacing these triangles similarly does not create note-specific emphasis. My argument is that I prefer consistency here in terms of both rhythm and spacing in order to make the divergence from this pattern more noticeable and create emphasis around that. Namely, setting up the pattern for 00:35:984 (6,7) - .
7. 00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Being over the top. My argument is, it's a low bpm song and I want to challenge players. This is not hard to land. I'm open to suggestions that maintain my intention of challenging the player though.

[]

Thanks for the mod! I was expecting a bubble pop so I had some alternatives planned. Luckily the major patterns you suggested were part of them. I'd like to hear your opinions on those aforementioned points where we ended up disagreeing on. Generally, your view on mapping seems to be very text-book, as in strong sounds should be mapped to jumps/emphasis, and if something sounds different it should be mapped differently. I hope we can come to some consensus.

Monstrata wrote:

Thanks for the mod! I was expecting a bubble pop

maybe that's a sign u should probably not do what you're trying to do...

To be honest, I don't know why people make such a big deal/problem over supposed "pp jumps" or really difficult for no reason. If a map is structured fine with difficulty in the map being relatively more or less difficult in relation to other parts of the song and it has all the other bits and bobs that makes a map a decent map, I don't think it's such a big deal that "HOYL PP JUMPS, UNRANKABLE SHIT MAP"...

In other news, personally I think in "Spicy Cookie", if you have the build up over here 00:33:116 - becoming so highly spaced, the verses over at 00:11:940 - should be spaced a bit more because its a bit disorienting for the most memorable and (imo) most important/intense part of the song having much less spacing than the majority of the build up.

Nah. Like we discussed Xexxar. I had already anticipated people would have different views on how I'd map things. It's the same with other maps like quaver/Can Do/Delta Decision etc... where there are some patterns that I would prefer to keep, but have alternatives in mind in case those patterns become obstructions to the ranking process.

hi guys, concerned community member here!

i had some (subjective) issues with irre's diff.

[irre's extra]
00:03:337 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - i believe that this change in spacing is far too drastic, in my opinion the part before the vocals isn't really that quiet or unemphasized or w/e. for example, 00:02:234 (1) - is another beat with no vocals in the intro, and it has much higher spacing. i believe you should increase the spacing on the first 3 circles to make the sudden difference less pronounced.

00:07:749 (1,2,3) - there isn't any real reason for the 3rd circle in this pattern to be double the spacing of 1 or 2, especially considering that 2 is the note with more emphasis due to the louder drum noise.

00:13:263 (4) - i don't understand why this note has this much spacing and a decently awkward wide angle on top of that. it doesn't have a vocal or anything, and using a repeat slider here has the adverse effect of putting a stronger drum sound on a slider end.

in addition, 00:13:925 (1) - now has much lower spacing than the rest of the notes in that pattern despite being of around the same strength.

00:17:234 (1,2,3,4) - i don't think you should use this big of a wide angle here, considering that the next time you do this pattern you use a sharp angle instead (i know it's copy pasted but the movement required for similar sounds is really different due to the difference in angles.)
i believe they should be made more similar.

00:26:057 (1,2,3) - i don't agree with the difference in spacing with 00:27:822 (1,2,3) - , i think the first pattern's spacing should be increased a bit, same reason as the first time.

00:35:984 (1,2,3) - same thing as earlier, emphasis is wrong.

00:38:631 (2,1) - this is way too small imo, the spacing increase is very large when compared to 00:38:851 (1,2) - even though there is not much of a change in intensity.

i hope this helps!

Nao Tomori wrote:

hi guys, concerned community member here!

i had some (subjective) issues with irre's diff.

[irre's extra]
00:03:337 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - i believe that this change in spacing is far too drastic, in my opinion the part before the vocals isn't really that quiet or unemphasized or w/e. for example, 00:02:234 (1) - is another beat with no vocals in the intro, and it has much higher spacing. i believe you should increase the spacing on the first 3 circles to make the sudden difference less pronounced. I adjusted it slightly. If I understood you correctly, you were simply disagreeing with how lowly it was spaced. I have increased it slightly, so it should be fine for both of us! My idea was to emphasize the next pattern as well as possible, hence why I was interpreting the sound you've pointed out as rather quiet.

00:07:749 (1,2,3) - there isn't any real reason for the 3rd circle in this pattern to be double the spacing of 1 or 2, especially considering that 2 is the note with more emphasis due to the louder drum noise. Thinking of it a second time, I can actually agree with that. It didn't make too much sense following the background so explicitely, so that the vocals after are underemphasized. I reduced the spacing, so it does compliment the next pattern better but keeps the emphasis of the backgrund tone in mind.

00:13:263 (4) - i don't understand why this note has this much spacing and a decently awkward wide angle on top of that. it doesn't have a vocal or anything, and using a repeat slider here has the adverse effect of putting a stronger drum sound on a slider end. 00:13:263 - Loud sound here. The drum is not stronger at the end than this sound?

in addition, 00:13:925 (1) - now has much lower spacing than the rest of the notes in that pattern despite being of around the same strength. Oh yeah, fixed!

00:17:234 (1,2,3,4) - i don't think you should use this big of a wide angle here, considering that the next time you do this pattern you use a sharp angle instead (i know it's copy pasted but the movement required for similar sounds is really different due to the difference in angles.)
i believe they should be made more similar. The vocals here seem smoother than in the next 00:24:293 (1,2,3,4) - pattern here from my point of view. If you disagree, then could you please elaborate which sound you were exactly listening to? To elaborate on my hearing, first it sounds like a rightout statement, "choco-cookie!", hence why I felt like it's pretty straightforward, which I tried to resemble with my pattern. If you then scroll forward to the next pair of vocals, when he says butter-cookie, it sounds slightly more stressed, nervous, and more like "butter-cookie..?!", hence why I felt like some more snappy movements would be appropriate.

00:26:057 (1,2,3) - i don't agree with the difference in spacing with 00:27:822 (1,2,3) - , i think the first pattern's spacing should be increased a bit, same reason as the first time. Could you elaborate further why it exactly should be increased? I tried following the vocals as closely as possible, to create a proper emphasis.

00:35:984 (1,2,3) - same thing as earlier, emphasis is wrong.

00:38:631 (2,1) - this is way too small imo, the spacing increase is very large when compared to 00:38:851 (1,2) - even though there is not much of a change in intensity. Adjusted.

i hope this helps!

Thanks for your concerns, I actually liked the fix I made.

http://puu.sh/u9lOj/1911d1d1d4.txt

Greetings again! The way you replied to my mod concerns me even more than what your map did.

it demonstrates a visual gap you would associate with jumps later on in the map.

It definitely does, and that's the problem. The base spacing is set too high, which makes spacing emphasis less prominent later on. I believe this to be detrimental to your map, since you have many jumps later on that could potentially reflect the song better.

I'm fine with making this bigger.

I suppose I expressed myself poorly. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of your spacing is too large, not too small. Bringing consistency by increasing said spacing would bring the opposite effect to that of which my suggestion was aimed at.

It's a form of emphasis that doesn't utilize jumps.

Sadly it still plays like a jump in this case, so I do not see your point. It may be a slider, and it may have high velocity, but the slider leniency's effect isn't this far and the velocity isn't going in the same direction, which causes a forced acceleration in another direction, hence why it plays like a jump.

Also remapped this jump pattern

Only problem now is that it is accentuating even less of the song, and seemingly ignoring the snares, and the specific point I mentioned is still as large as the snare in comparison. It may be in consistency with the other patterns now, but sacrificing the way you reflect instruments for consistency is not a good idea. It's like saying "as long as a pattern is disregarding the song consistently, it's good". What I was trying to say was that the pattern used here was a good example, which is why I gave examples from this at multiple occasions.

I think it creates a consistency within the map actually

Visual consistency while completely ignoring the song and just looking at the individual patterns themselves? Yes. It does not, however, create a consistency in accordance with the song, especially not when even the analogous measure was mapped differently. To make things clear, the term "consistency", the way I use it, is always in accordance with the song, and means that principles are the same, not that patterns are the same.

The last sound is just like the others though. It's the 4th syllable in Cho-Co-Coo-Kie xD

Yet you reply with syllables that are different. Try listening to the pitch of this last sound in comparison to the other three as well. If you still feel them the same, then you're obviously free to keep them as is. I'm only here to express my concerns with your map and helping you help yourself improve it.

Same sound = same pattern and different sound = different pattern create a very boring map imo

Refer to how I define "consistency". If you think using similar principles for similar sounds is boring, then you either don't know how to vary it consistently or the song is extremely repetitive, which I wouldn't say is the case here.

I have no trouble fixing this if necessary.

This is your map, I don't see why you'd be asking me whether a change is necessary or not. You are the only one who knows whether a change to your map is an improvement or not. You are the mapper, after all. Whether others agree with your decisions is another question though.

the sliders are much easier to land due to slider leniency

I'm sorry but this is still almost the same as the other one anyway. To be completely accurate they are this similar. I would not say that is enough basis.

I disagree with reflecting the songs with our maps. I think that's a mapping philosophy that produces bland and uninteresting maps. The song doesn't call for 7 different mapping interpretations in Can Do, and it doesn't call for left/right mapping styles in Nandemo Nai ya, yet using these concepts create really imaginative ways of expressing the song past simply following it

I think you completely misunderstood the meaning of "reflecting the song". You can reflect a song in hundreds of different ways, including usage of patterns and concepts, such as playing with how the player will predict the song and how well things are recognized. There are reasons as to why what is used is used in the mapping community. This one, on the other hand, is not reflecting it to particularly good degree, in my opinion, because of the aforementioned reasons. If you feel like you need to add on to what already exists in ways that would disregard the song in order for it to be even remotely creative, then feel free. I would actually encourage you try something more elaborate and creative, as long as it still manages to follow the song well. This is where the difficulty of mapping comes into play.

You could check out my quaver map, or Nandemo Nai ya, or even Can Do, those are good examples of maps that use patterns that don't follow the song

One does not simply "not follow the song". Following and reflecting the song is more like a degree that the person observing the map decides, it is not something you can objectively measure, since there is not metric for this, as you already know. If the majority of people find it to be following the song poorly, then that's a bad sign. When the mapper themselves believe them to be poorly followed, then it's high time they reconsider. Personally I had my reasons for these maps, but in the end they still follow the song to a moderate degree in my opinion, which is why I do not quite understand your point here. If they didn't follow the song at all they wouldn't even be considered for rank at all.

Diversity is not a good idea here. Consistency is better for reasons I explained earler

You may find a pattern such as this familiar, as you often utilized them in the past, from what I understand. This just so happens to be an example of a way to bring diversity whilst reflecting the song. Regarding your argument of consistency: There is no point in bringing consistency to something that does not reflect the song at hand well, as I believe was explained earlier.

when dealing with large jumps its much better to be consistent

I agree, since the emphasis won't be of comparable prominence. It makes very little stand out. Hence why I would suggest you refrain from just using full-screen circle jumps like these all over. The potential for spacing emphasis is even less because of your base spacing, as was also explained earlier.

This is the highest difficulty and the BPM is quite low so the jumps are good for challenging players
low bpm song and I want to challenge players. This is not hard to land

Even so, and as you said yourself, this is over the top for what the song is suggesting. It may be playable, it may even play well, but neither of that matters when it doesn't reflect the song well, once again.

setting up the pattern for 00:35:984 (6,7) -

There's no musical cue for a buildup like that from what I can hear, so this seems quite irrelevant.

I'm open to suggestions that maintain my intention of challenging the player though

Sure, I'll just go map dango daikazoku with full-screen jumps all over because it's low bpm and I want to challenge players, brb.

oh wait

I hope we can come to some consensus.

I'd say the same. Again, if you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. As for now you have my reasons above. Good luck on further processing!

At some points, I just start to question certain moves people do.

Current modders want that people fix things (and while they're doing that, they offer horrible suggestions, which don't go with the rest of the map at all) - and if it's fixed, it's not good either. Sometimes I feel like people are right now lacking to understand what we tried to follow at what points, and just blantantly say it needs fixing - obviously, if it's not getting fixed, then the drama starts. But if it's fixed, the drama starts, too... It would be alright, if there are reasons behind "why it's a problem". But mostly, there simply aren't. And that the suggestoins are just drawn out of basically nowhere, doesn't make it better. I'm looking forward to people using this statement against me, but I'd like to repeat; if you can come up with actual reasons why something is bad and why it's not working AND offer suggestions on how to fix it, then it's good. But this mostly just isn't the case here.. even less if the map actually makes sense in itself, and doesn't consist out of 30000 random patterns for 1 similar sound. And again, people mod these kind of things while there isn't even a similar sound. Too much detail now though, lol.

Naxess wrote:

The way you replied to my mod concerns me even more than what your map did.

Even this quote confuses me. Are we now judging maps based on replies? The map apparently is more or less the same, but with arguments behind them. And now it's even worse? I can't quite follow that.

Just my 2 cents

Naxess wrote:

Greetings again! The way you replied to my mod concerns me even more than what your map did.

it demonstrates a visual gap you would associate with jumps later on in the map.

It definitely does, and that's the problem. The base spacing is set too high, which makes spacing emphasis less prominent later on. I believe this to be detrimental to your map, since you have many jumps later on that could potentially reflect the song better.

Okay, made it smaller.

I'm fine with making this bigger.

I suppose I expressed myself poorly. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of your spacing is too large, not too small. Bringing consistency by increasing said spacing would bring the opposite effect to that of which my suggestion was aimed at.

Your view is simply that it is too big then. In which case we'll just disagree.

It's a form of emphasis that doesn't utilize jumps.

Sadly it still plays like a jump in this case, so I do not see your point. It may be a slider, and it may have high velocity, but the slider leniency's effect isn't this far and the velocity isn't going in the same direction, which causes a forced acceleration in another direction, hence why it plays like a jump.

Try playing it. The point of emphasis is exactly how you describe. The higher velocity and slider's leniency effect forced the player to have to go backward on their intended movement slightly in order to land on the next slider's head. You can say it's forced acceleration and I suppose it can function as a jump, but the main point of emphasis is through the flowbreak. Your argument seems rather weak here. Can you maybe supply an alternative or how you would consider fixing this issue? Because not all emphasis leeds to be expressed through larger/smaller relative jumps.

Also remapped this jump pattern

Only problem now is that it is accentuating even less of the song, and seemingly ignoring the snares, and the specific point I mentioned is still as large as the snare in comparison. It may be in consistency with the other patterns now, but sacrificing the way you reflect instruments for consistency is not a good idea. It's like saying "as long as a pattern is disregarding the song consistently, it's good". What I was trying to say was that the pattern used here was a good example, which is why I gave examples from this at multiple occasions.

Vocal emphasis. You can follow snares I suppose, but the snares are very consistent throughout the song which makes it rather boring to follow.

I think it creates a consistency within the map actually

Visual consistency while completely ignoring the song and just looking at the individual patterns themselves? Yes. It does not, however, create a consistency in accordance with the song, especially not when even the analogous measure was mapped differently. To make things clear, the term "consistency", the way I use it, is always in accordance with the song, and means that principles are the same, not that patterns are the same.

That's too broad a definition of consistency then. If you map an entire song consistently, that really limits your freedom of expression. Following the song is honestly very simple and unimaginative. Mapping is it's own form of expression and what you are trying to enforce is very textbook.

The last sound is just like the others though. It's the 4th syllable in Cho-Co-Coo-Kie xD

Yet you reply with syllables that are different. Try listening to the pitch of this last sound in comparison to the other three as well. If you still feel them the same, then you're obviously free to keep them as is. I'm only here to express my concerns with your map and helping you help yourself improve it.

Every syllable sounds different. I really don't see your point. I'm mapping to the four utterances Cho Co Coo Kie, 4 syllables = 4 jumps. Note how the jump to 5 is much smaller because it doesn't contain a vocal syllable.

Same sound = same pattern and different sound = different pattern create a very boring map imo

Refer to how I define "consistency". If you think using similar principles for similar sounds is boring, then you either don't know how to vary it consistently or the song is extremely repetitive, which I wouldn't say is the case here.

The song is extremely repetitive if you want me to emphasize snares which you continue to mention from the above sections concerning jumps. Vocal emphasis is more interesting and this song expresses vocals quite differently. It's not a stretch to see why I express my patterns different too. They are consistent within their own measures and sections.

I have no trouble fixing this if necessary.

This is your map, I don't see why you'd be asking me whether a change is necessary or not. You are the only one who knows whether a change to your map is an improvement or not. You are the mapper, after all. Whether others agree with your decisions is another question though.

I'm trying to figure out what changes you want to see, and what is just cosmetic and unnecessary. I don't like changing things unless they impede the rankability of a map because I believe my current patterns are well thought out the way they are. This song doesn't have a lot of attachment to me though so I'm more willing to make changes than my other maps.

the sliders are much easier to land due to slider leniency

I'm sorry but this is still almost the same as the other one anyway. To be completely accurate they are this similar. I would not say that is enough basis.

There is strictly a 1/2 gap between circles. Once you click, you have 1/2 a beat to jump to the next object. For sliders, You click, and hold, and within 1/1 of a beat, you have to finish playing the 1/2 slider and jump to the next object. Additionally there is quite a bit of freedom between slider-ends for movement. Basically, I am expecting players to play slider 1 and due to slider leniency and how I've arranged the flows here, to release early and/or naturally move their cursor towards the top/right end of the slider in preparation for the jump. Not that instead of clicking + releasing on a slider, you are only releasing too, so there is more freedom of movement. Hopefully I've explained slider movement and slider mechanics more clearly now. This is not something new.

I disagree with reflecting the songs with our maps. I think that's a mapping philosophy that produces bland and uninteresting maps. The song doesn't call for 7 different mapping interpretations in Can Do, and it doesn't call for left/right mapping styles in Nandemo Nai ya, yet using these concepts create really imaginative ways of expressing the song past simply following it

I think you completely misunderstood the meaning of "reflecting the song". You can reflect a song in hundreds of different ways, including usage of patterns and concepts, such as playing with how the player will predict the song and how well things are recognized. There are reasons as to why what is used is used in the mapping community. This one, on the other hand, is not reflecting it to particularly good degree, in my opinion, because of the aforementioned reasons. If you feel like you need to add on to what already exists in ways that would disregard the song in order for it to be even remotely creative, then feel free. I would actually encourage you try something more elaborate and creative, as long as it still manages to follow the song well. This is where the difficulty of mapping comes into play.

I'm not disregarding the song by any means. All of my patterns are based on the song's rhythm and structure. I simply decide not to follow the song 100%. It's the same with jumps and emphasis. Following emphasis perfectly will result in less interesting jumps. If you ignore emphasis sometimes, you can create some really interesting and fun jump patterns.

You could check out my quaver map, or Nandemo Nai ya, or even Can Do, those are good examples of maps that use patterns that don't follow the song

One does not simply "not follow the song". Following and reflecting the song is more like a degree that the person observing the map decides, it is not something you can objectively measure, since there is not metric for this, as you already know. If the majority of people find it to be following the song poorly, then that's a bad sign. When the mapper themselves believe them to be poorly followed, then it's high time they reconsider. Personally I had my reasons for these maps, but in the end they still follow the song to a moderate degree in my opinion, which is why I do not quite understand your point here. If they didn't follow the song at all they wouldn't even be considered for rank at all.

I mean, look how many GD'ers I have who mapped similarly to how I expressed the map. It's not just me who believes this song can be reflected as such. It's a playful song, and honestly you have really overanalyzed it lol.

Diversity is not a good idea here. Consistency is better for reasons I explained earler

You may find a pattern such as this familiar, as you often utilized them in the past, from what I understand. This just so happens to be an example of a way to bring diversity whilst reflecting the song. Regarding your argument of consistency: There is no point in bringing consistency to something that does not reflect the song at hand well, as I believe was explained earlier.

The decision to "bring diversity for diversity's sake" ends up impeding with my intentions here which I already expressed earlier. The consistency reflects the song quite well.

when dealing with large jumps its much better to be consistent

I agree, since the emphasis won't be of comparable prominence. It makes very little stand out. Hence why I would suggest you refrain from just using full-screen circle jumps like these all over. The potential for spacing emphasis is even less because of your base spacing, as was also explained earlier.

Then would you be fine with the use of these jumps only at the end of the map?

This is the highest difficulty and the BPM is quite low so the jumps are good for challenging players
low bpm song and I want to challenge players. This is not hard to land

Even so, and as you said yourself, this is over the top for what the song is suggesting. It may be playable, it may even play well, but neither of that matters when it doesn't reflect the song well, once again.

Over-the-top is not necessarily a negative. There was a very long-winded discussion about over the top jump patterns in my maps quaver and Inferno, and ultimately both maps got ranked and received a lot of positive feedback.

setting up the pattern for 00:35:984 (6,7) -

There's no musical cue for a buildup like that from what I can hear, so this seems quite irrelevant.

It's a cue established through my structure and how I arranged the jumps to increase in order to foreground that note.

I'm open to suggestions that maintain my intention of challenging the player though

Sure, I'll just go map dango daikazoku with full-screen jumps all over because it's low bpm and I want to challenge players, brb.

I hope we can keep things serious here. This is a map that is high quality and vying for ranked. I'm not using full-screen jumps all over the place as you seem to be implicating. As well, I have established clear intentions of reducing the spacing and making the jumps less overdone.

oh wait

I hope we can come to some consensus.

I'd say the same. Again, if you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. As for now you have my reasons above. Good luck on further processing!

I am considering remapping this highest difficulty using snare emphasis instead of vocal emphasis, but I'd like to hear your opinions of what I've mentioned so far, so I can get a better sense of how to move forward. I'm fine with your bubble pop, but I'd appreciate if you gave me a more specific vision of how to improve this map. So far you've thrown out some generalities "reduce spacing" etc... but at what point is that enough? It's the same argument as "how many pieces of paper is a stack of paper?" It's hard to say, which is why I'm finetuning my map based on your answers, but I would appreciate your cooperation in the eventual re-nomination of this map considering the amount of time you've invested into looking at my difficulty.

Monstrata wrote:

I am considering remapping this highest difficulty using snare emphasis instead of vocal emphasis,

don't think this is a good idea, since the instrumental is pretty much the exact same drum beat over and over and over, while the vocals have like actual changes and things to emphasize and stuff

just my 2c

I also emphasized my map because of the vocals, if there were any, so there's that.

Honestly find the vocals a more interesting piece of the music instead of the drum beat.

In a piece of music would you try to emphasize the bass when it has been doing the same thing over and over again, or the melody when it does something interesting?
Of course you would emphasize the melody. This is the same thing with the vocals.
Now I'm not saying that you should never emphasize the bass of a song because there are cases when the bass overtakes the melody in importance and becomes the melody for that section, however that's just simply not the case anywhere in this song.

the vocals is almost the whole song itself while the instruments just add that extra 10%

I could probably make these walls of text more concise, but let's get this over with.

Irreversible wrote:

Even this quote confuses me. Are we now judging maps based on replies? The map apparently is more or less the same, but with arguments behind them. And now it's even worse? I can't quite follow that.

The mapper creates the map. The mapper replies to mods. The mapper is the center of the creation. If their replies deny what would improve the quality of their map for reasons like "I disagree with reflecting the songs with our maps", don't you think this would cause for concern? Do you expect that fine tuning the map by changing some slider shape or adding some note would solve it's problems? These problems are quite fundamental is the thing, and I believe I have made my points clear at this point, but apparently I have to keep explaining them over and over again in gradually larger detail.

Should you have anything to say that concerns the mapset itself, rather than complaining about the mods that are trying to help it, that would definitely be more appreciated. We're all trying to help you to make the mapset the very best it can be before reaching the ranked section, and what you believe to be best if obviously up to you. But let's keep the thread on topic.

Vocal emphasis. You can follow snares I suppose, but the snares are very consistent throughout the song which makes it rather boring to follow.

It is possible to account for both, refer to the way you had it before it was changed. I also explained previously why keeping it as it was would be better. You can find your original map at the end of this post for reference.

If you map an entire song consistently, that really limits your freedom of expression.

Once again, "in accordance with the song", if the entire map is consistent then sections of the song that use one principle will not be the same principle on sections that are musically different, obviously. This is actually a very broad definition, as you say, which means it's possible to be creative and imaginative with it, if you are willing to put in enough effort to accomplish this, that is.

The song is extremely repetitive if you want me to emphasize snares which you continue to mention from the above sections concerning jumps
I am considering remapping this highest difficulty using snare emphasis instead of vocal emphasis

From what I understand, you seem to think I want you to prioritize snares, which is not the case. Just try to at least account for secondary instruments as well. In this case it's rather clear that the song is placing prominence on vocals, so to ignore these would make very little sense.

1/2 slider and jump to the next object

I know of this already, but unless you want to break, you still have to release the slider with the cursor being within the range of the slider follow circle, which is what slider leniency is based on. As you said, this is not something new.

I simply decide not to follow the song 100%

Following the song to 100% makes barely any sense anyway, and depending on the person it may not even be possible in osu, because everything is subjective and not everyone think alike. I thought that was a given.

I mean, look how many GD'ers I have who mapped similarly to how I expressed the map

Yes, and this is why I said specifically:

Naxess wrote:

It's not only this last difficulty, though. Many of the other difficulties also have problems in these regards, and it would take a very long time for me to look over all of these in detail, so I would recommend you both thoroughly reconsider these, as well as gather more mods before pushing this forward.

honestly you have really overanalyzed it

I took a very quick look at this mapset initially and noticed a lot of what is now mentioned in my original post. I would not say that is "overanalyzing it". If anything, you as a mapper, should be even more familiar with your own map than I am.

Over-the-top is not necessarily a negative. There was a very long-winded discussion about over the top jump patterns in my maps quaver and Inferno, and ultimately both maps got ranked and received a lot of positive feedback.

Just because some maps of yours got ranked before does not make another one any more justified now, which is why this argument is fallacious. Ultimately these are all very different songs and maps.

This is a map that is high quality and vying for ranked. I have established clear intentions of reducing the spacing and making the jumps less overdone

If you believe it to be ready for ranked and disagree with my suggestions, then why do you linger? It's not like I'm someone to bargain with about these things. I have tried helping you, but it seems like we just end up disagreeing in the end. Your main argument seems to be that you want to make a challenging difficulty which is consistently high spacing, whilst mine is that this is bad execution. As such no mutual agreement seems to be able to be made. The only changes you've made in terms of making spacing lower is 00:01:793 (2) - 00:13:043 (6,7,8) - 00:20:543 (7,1) - , not to speak of what you increased in spacing despite of this.

Also why is the HP at 4? Even most of the Hard difficulties have higher HP than this. You do truly want the default experience of this map to be a challenge, right? This just seems to contradict what you said previously.


I don't mean to sound rude, but at this point I'm getting a bit tired of having to constantly return and respond to replies, whilst the map itself barely faces any changes from what it was originally when popped. You may argue that this is because I do not provide many suggestions or alternatives, but I'm intentionally not doing this because I believe the map to be fundamentally flawed. Fine tuning the map is not something that will solve the aforementioned problems, since they are all very general intentionally. Not all songs need an extra with full-screen jumps in kiai and half-screen jumps as groundwork, and in this case I feel it over the top and completely overspaced in comparison with the song. It's as simple as that, or would be if there weren't other problems like inconsistencies. Even just NCs like 00:16:351 (1,1) - in comparison to 00:23:410 (1,2) - are inconsistent. The easiest solution would probably be to simply remove this difficulty and then tend to the GDs, as you still have a Hard and Insane difficulty in the set, but I realize this may be a bit sudden and not something you would want, which is why I didn't mention this initially.

If I were to provide suggestions they would probably be of the same things but with lower spacing. As you said yourself, there's not only spacing to consider when working with emphasis. Until some serious changes are made based on this, and I'm sad to say, I really doubt we're going to reach a consensus. Overall it just seems like our perspectives conflict too much. You seem very set on creating a difficulty that brings a challenge to players, whilst I'm trying to argue that the song doesn't support for it in the way it is executed.

I'm trying to figure out what changes you want to see, and what is just cosmetic and unnecessary. I don't like changing things unless they impede the rankability of a map because I believe my current patterns are well thought out the way they are. This song doesn't have a lot of attachment to me though so I'm more willing to make changes than my other maps.

Then would you be fine with the use of these jumps only at the end of the map?

At the moment it seems like I am the deciding factor of, and some kind of exclusive tool for deciding, what is rankable in this set and what isn't, and this is not what I intended for. I'm not here to map the song for you, or be some kind of mold or requirement that the map must meet, I'm only here to express that I don't believe the mapset to be ready in the state that it is in, and explain why, as I have already done. Once you have made some serious changes that you are satisfied with, and unless you want some other nominator to bubble over my pop, call me back. You have a whole community here who are willing to give you their opinion, should you need it.

At this point the main problem should be sufficiently apparent. Return to my previous mods on the map for further detail and reconsider, should you feel it appropriate for your map. You are an experienced mapper and I would think you can respond to mods and resolve potential issues with the thought in mind that not everything in said mod may improve the map as you see it. If you find something you disagree with, do not change it. Here, have your original map back and only apply what you agree with. Do not force yourself to change things that would otherwise impede on my points. Again, this is your map and you are the mapper.


You should have all the guidance you need in order to make the effort in improving the quality of the mapset in this post, as well as the other two posts in this thread, but if you have any specific additional questions, you're still free to bring them to me through forum pm. For future reference, this is how the map looks like at the moment of posting this.

If you would like to discuss this further, don't hesitate to ask the community! Again, we're all here to help. Good luck!

d r a ma a

Pretty sure you can just get 2 nominators to override the pop instead of arguing with someone who doesn't want to accept that there's other ways to map

Ascendance wrote:

Pretty sure you can just get 2 nominators to override the pop instead of arguing with someone who doesn't want to accept that there's other ways to map

Alternative maps

Ascendance wrote:

Pretty sure you can just get 2 nominators to override the pop instead of arguing with someone who doesn't want to accept that there's other ways to map

I count 6 that he needs.

he'll probably need more than 6